Clarington Watchdog

In Defence of Freedom of Speech - and an APPEAL for Support

2010-08-19T00:40:00.006-04:00

First a little refresher for you. This is an issue that began in 2008, when Orono resident Jim Richards was banned from speaking at Clarington council meetings after saying the Durham regional chairman acted like a "bully". Mayor Abernethy said he could come back if he apologized; Mr. Richards refused.

You should also know that Mr. Jim Richards was given an important Provincial Citizenship Award in 2008, and Mayor Abernethy then gave him a Clarington Award a few weeks later. The very next week the Mayor first told Mr. Richards he couldn't use the word "bully" in describing the actions of Regional Chair Anderson toward a resident the previous week (which had brought the resident to tears), and would have to retract his statement, which he was not allowed to even finish. Mr. Richards refused to retract, and the Mayor made him sit down. He later told Mr. Richards to leave Council Chambers when Mr. Richards stated he would not be giving a written apology to Council for his statement, and was banned from making further delegations to Council until he made such an apology.

Mr. Richards went to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and in 2009 the CCLA indicated council's action might "infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". In March 2009, council voted to rescind the earlier decision to ban Mr. Richards. Matter closed? Not quite.

On April 26, 2010, Jim Richards' presentation supporting direct election of the Chair of Durham Region was cut short, after Mr. Richards suggested once again, in his opinion, that the present Regional Chair is a bully.

Clarington Council has refused to apologize, or to follow the advice of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seems some of them have a very short memory. I don't believe the Charter has changed in the interval between last year and this year.

So Jim Richards, who has twice been banned from speaking at Clarington council for referring to the Regional Chair as a "bully", is continuing with his lawsuit against the Municipality of Clarington, because he believes the municipality has violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But due to the civil liberties issues to be dealt with by the CCLA after the G20 in Toronto, will not be able to assist Jim in his endeavour for an apology until sometime next year. With the elections only a short time away, Jim would like to see this matter dealt with before the current council.

Below is a letter written by Jim seeking public support and assistance for his legal challenge. I plan on donating and I hope you will consider doing so as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FREEDOM of SPEECH
Jim Richards

For those of you following this issue; both, those supporting the Mayor, (Councillors Trim, Novak, Robinson and Hooper) and those supporting Jim Richards and Freedom of Speech, please allow me to set the record straight.

I commend Councillors Adrian Foster, and Willie Woo for remaining committed to citizens rights. That is not to say that both or either of them condone my use of the word "bully", but only that they support my right to use it.

Two years ago, Mayor Abernethy not only stopped me from finishing a delegation to Council because I used the word "bully", to describe in part, and in my opinion, the actions of our unelected Regional Chair. Roger Anderson, but he asked me to rescind my comment and I refused. In addition to being silenced at that particular meeting, the Mayor and associates then went on to ban me from speaking at future meetings.

This was in direct violation of our rights as provided for by the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I enlisted help from the Canadian Civil Liberties Assoc., (CCLA) and they pointed this out in a letter to the Mayor and Council.

Subsequently, I was invited back to speak and at that time, a number of councillors who understand that freedom of speech is a basic tenet of a free and democratic society offered their apologies. None was forthcoming from Mayor Abernethy however. I had already lost respect for him due to his handling (bungling) of the incinerator issue, but now, I had lost respect for him as a man, a leader and a person.

This past April, during a delegation regarding direct election of the Regional Chair, I again referred to Chair Anderson as acting like a bully, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, the mayor once again curtailed my delegation and asked me to take back the remark. I refused. Again, he would not let me complete my delegation at a duly called meeting of Council.

Can you believe this is Canada? Can you believe it's 2010? What are Canadian men and women fighting for in Afghanistan if not freedom?

I returned to Council in May and asked the Mayor for an apology. He smugly refused. The Mayor did however ask town solicitor Dennis Hefferon for a legal opinion on the matter. Mr. Hefferon informed the Mayor that the section of the Procedural By-law he was using to curtail my rights as a citizen was ambiguous, and that it would not stand up in a court of law. In spite of this, Abernethy still refused to apologize.

At a council meeting on July 12, 2010 Councillor Foster made a motion, seconded by Councillor Woo asking the Mayor for an apology on my behalf. Abernethy refused. At this meeting, the Mayor and Council were in receipt of yet a second letter from CCLA pointing out the error of their ways.

I will now launch a potentially costly lawsuit against Mayor Abernethy and the Municipality of Clarington for infringement on my rights, but I need financial assistance. "I'm setting up a 'legal defence fund' and would ask you to consider a donation (big or small) to teach not only Mayor Abernethy but all other political bullies that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated in a free and democratic society".

If you care to contribute, please contact me at the email address below. You can use the same address to simply offer best wishes, or tell me to go to hell! You can also contact the Mayor and Council and tell them what you think of their draconian behaviour (or offer support for the Mayor if you wish) by sending an email to the Municipal Clerk at pbarrie@clarington.net

If I win this lawsuit, I will be in a position to pay back your donations. If I lose, we all lose; not just the money, but our freedom of speech and expression in Clarington!

I have set up a bank account at C.I.B.C in Orono (Account #8254931, Transit #04742) and you can visit any CIBC branch to donate, or I will accept donations by mail at: J. Richards, P.O. Box 442, Orono, ON, L0B 1M0. Make all donations out to Jim Richards (you can put 'legal Defence Fund' in the memo line). I have enlisted a third party to oversee this account.

Email Jim: jmr.naturepix@rogers.com
or phone: 905-983-5605

***********************************************
Also see: "Clarington mayor refuses to apologize, freedom of speech debate escalates" (Metroland, May 5, 2010) and "Free speech exists in Clarington council chambers too" (Metroland Editorial, May 6, 2010)

Bully for incineration?

2010-08-09T11:32:00.003-04:00

Should we be bullied (pushed) into hosting something that is bad for our health, bad for our environment, bad for our pocketbooks?

This video appears to be quite relevant to many municipalities world-wide today. Residents are fighting newly proposed incinerators all over Europe, the U.S. and certainly in Canada, among other places. The incineration lobby is powerful and convincing to politicians who don't do their due diligence. Why listen to doctors and scientists when you can take the word of burner pushers?

Do we believe that the old technology (mass burn incineration) is without risk to human health, not to mention financial risk? Can't we use our heads and come up with something better? I've heard much better, saner, safer and less expensive proposals put forward only to be dismissed out of hand by politicians who have been sucked into the "let's burn it and it will disappear" mindset. It doesn't disappear.

So, will the new crop of politicians (we hope there will be some new ones after October) let the residents speak, and more importantly, will they listen?

It is not too late to stop this nightmarish mistake by the lake. Write to [UPDATE] NEW Minister of Environment Hon. John Wilkinson at minister.moe@ontario.ca or at his constituency office jwilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org and tell him your views on it. (The previous Environment Minister, John Gerretsen, was replaced in the latest cabinet shuffle). Tell Minister Wilkinson he must take into consideration all the research that shows considerable risk, and that the Precautionary Principle should prevail. Tell him that if he wants to be considered a "green" Environment Minister, he will not approve this travesty. Instead he will have Durham re-visit the waste management plan and come up with a green solution, not one that will likely pump another 135000+ tonnes of CO2 annually into our air shed along with other harmful chemicals, heavy metals, cancer-causing dioxins and contaminants.

This must be revisited by a new Council. Consider replacing those who supported the incinerator and refused to look at the entire picture. Elect representatives who care more about your health than their pocketbook. Otherwise we're locked into a 25-35 year nightmare (or longer).

Think about it. Should we be bullied (pushed) into hosting something that is bad for our health, bad for our environment, bad for our pocketbooks? Shouldn't we have a say in this?

Queen's Park Rally against Durham Incinerator

2010-05-11T10:02:00.001-04:00

Municipal Election 2010 - Watchdog or Lapdog?

2010-01-06T11:50:00.000-05:00

This should be an interesting year for Clarington residents, and in fact for everyone in Durham Region. It is an election year, so self-serving rhetoric will abound from many incumbents and from some challengers.

When considering your choices, take the time to get to know a little about the candidates. Incumbents have an advantage with built-in name recognition, but just recognizing a name is not a reason to vote for someone. Some of our worst representatives both locally and at Regional Council are incumbents. Certainly in Clarington that is the case in my humble opinion.

When deciding who you might want representing you at the region, keep this question in mind: Do you want a watchdog for Clarington residents or a lapdog for Regional interests and an unelected chair above all else? We need watchdogs, not lapdogs. We need people with the courage to stand up for their own municipality and residents and not people who will 'compromise' (sell out) on issues of great importance to our communities. We need politicians who don't say "I was elected to represent the Region of Durham" (Mayor Abernethy). I thought he was elected to represent the municipality of Clarington.

There are always wonderful EXCUSES made by politicians for the decisions they make. Some are valid, many are not.

Revisiting the incinerator decision

What is wrong with this picture? Lots. Do we need servicing for employment lands designated as the Science Park in Bowmanville and the Energy Park in Courtice? Yes, we do. Are we held hostage by Durham Region's unelected Chair and reduced to begging to get our fair share? Yes. Should we perhaps find another way to pay for servicing of these lands, other than being reduced to accepting buy-offs from the Region just to get an agreement to begin an EA to consider servicing? Is there a law that says we must depend on Regional tax money for our services rather than being inventive and thinking outside the box to find a better way where we can be the authors of our own destiny instead of waiting for crumbs from the Region? Clarington has not gotten our fair share without having to give up more than anyone should - being the garbage dump for the Region. Sewage plant and municipal waste incinerator, auto wreckers, nuclear plant and cement factory, new 407 link and on and on - all spewing unhealthy emissions and adding to our already poor air quality and health risks. And all right along the 401 - gateway to Clarington! Such a beautiful sight. Rationale from the consultants: this air shed is already so polluted, adding a little more won't make a difference. Well sorry, but it makes a difference to us. To the residents of Clarington!

Were our 3 Regional Councillors (Mayor Abernethy, Councillors Novak and Trim) right to completely disregard votes taken at Clarington Council (before the flip-flop of Local Ward 4 Councillor Gord Robinson) declaring us an unwilling host, and not supporting the building of an emission spewing incinerator in our community? Were they right to completely support every vote at the Region to promote the building of an incinerator, start to finish over the last few years? Were they right to completely disregard the overwhelming majority of residents who care more about their health and the health of their children and grandchildren than getting half-baked promises from an Region that we no longer have any faith in?

Are our Regional representatives right to sell out our future health for a 'business plan' that is totally dependent on Durham Region? Who has faith that the Region or Province will adequately monitor this garbage burner? Both their records are lacking historically and the vote of Regional Council to reduce monitoring from what was originally promised to residents because it would cost too much, appear to care more about their own financial health than the physical and financial health of their residents, especially those in Clarington and in Oshawa who will be most heavily affected by emissions. But remember that all surrounding communities, including those outside of Durham Region, will be affected by the increase in tiny particulate matter which can have a profound effect on health and by a substantial increase in dioxins and furans, known cancer causing emissions. These emissions won't be adequately monitored, and some won't be monitored at all. I suppose many of these politicians subscribe to the idea that "What we don't know won't hurt us".

Hype and Hyperbole

I hope those same politicians are given a pile of hurt in October. There has been too much dishonesty, too much hype and hyperbole.

Here is a question that should be asked of each one of those who voted on June 24 to approve the very faulty EA (more on that later) produced to support building of the now infamous Durham Incinerator:

"Your rationale or excuse for continuing to vote approval of the incinerator forward at each milestone was that you wanted to get ALL the information. You said that you were voting forward the incinerator at each step of the way without having complete reports or having satisfactory information at that point was so that you could get more information at the next step. If that were true, then WHY did you vote to approve an incomplete EA with incomplete reports which where completed and submitted to the Province more than a month after you voted to approve? Why have no questions been asked or protests lodged by Regional Councillors after seeing that this EA was incomplete and faulty. Why are you still supporting it?"

More questions might be asked as well, such as, "Why did you consider only the hired gun's (consultants) and proponents of incineration to have credible information but not that of local and regional doctors and doctors and scientists worldwide? Why did you not consider the credible articles in medical journals, peer reviewed and widely accepted that were presented to you by local residents? Why did you allow yourselves to be reeled in and see only what the proponents wanted you to see? Why didn't you give both sides equal consideration?"

We'll get into specific claims and comments made by our incumbents during this election year (both past and present statements). But I implore you to get involved this year. We have several incumbents in Clarington who should be replaced due to past performance on a number of issues; in my estimation 4 of our 7 Clarington Councillors need to 'feel the pain' of their callous disregard for the health of their citizens. Health and quality of life should be a #1 priority, and an incinerator is inconsistent with both objectives.

There are better alternatives. Incineration is the most expensive, least environmentally friendly solution to the waste problem. This fact is being shown across North America by Councils and Trustees choosing better solutions and refusing to capitulate to the incineration industry and their claims of safety. Sure incinerators are relatively more safe now than they were 20 years ago. But does that mean they are safe? NO. It means they've cleaned up their act somewhat, but the technology does not yet exist to make them "safe".

The horse-trading by a powerful, unelected Regional Chair must be curtailed, especially when it benefits another Region (York) and hurts physically and financially residents in our own region. Backroom deals between York and Durham have been ongoing for some time. Durham must be put first for a change. These deals so lauded by some of the lapdog politicians are not so great for Durham, if you take the time to investigate them and not just settle for the distortions and embellishments served up on a platter for and by Regional Council and Committees.

WAKE UP CLARINGTON! Get involved. Voice your concerns. Make your voice heard. Don't settle for less than we deserve. Don't settle for lapdogs instead of watch dogs for our municipality.

Watch for more information on all of this - 2010 election, incineration health risks, better solutions, Regional shortcomings, and of course the "Elect The Chair" campaign, renewed.

Who will speak for us? Redux

2009-09-24T11:23:00.003-04:00

I first published this in February, 2008. Not much has changed and ALL of it still holds true as it did 19 months ago. See a few updated comments in red below.

Where to begin? Although I've been away for some time, I've kept up with all the goings on over the incinerator. And in my travels I've had the opportunity to learn much more than I ever wanted to know about incineration, and the pro-incinerator lobby. They are powerful and vocal and are everywhere. They are masterful at showing the best side of incineration and hiding the deep, dark deadly secrets.

They will show you the clean, Darlington-looking control rooms and allow you to speak with those who depend on the industry for their livelihoods. They will point out a school or daycare or apartment building or clothesline just within spitting distance of the incinerator and tell you everyone is content and happy with it. And it makes you want to spit.

If you travel a little farther afield and speak to people not on the industry's "okay list", you'll find a lot of worry, a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lot of anger surrounding the incineration industry. Especially from those who were led to believe that it was safe with few emissions because of all the scrubber technology and monitoring. They found out differently AFTER the fact. They found out that livestock on farms were affected and now it's not safe to drink the milk or eat the meat that has 'bio-accumulated' toxins in them. It has now begun to hurt the farming industry and as that knowledge spreads, it will devastate it.

They found out that they are having higher rates of birth defects in infants in areas within a 20 - 90 km radius of these stacks. They are having more chronic lung disease problems such as asthma (sound familiar?) and certain types of cancers.

But in most cases, their governments are silent. They don't want to be sued and they want to keep up their denials. There are some in government who are trying to speak out and are muzzled. There are many in the general population who are not muzzled and are being heard world-wide, if you care to listen.

Our elected (and unelected) officials have chosen not to listen. They are content to listen only to the paid EFW lobbyists the Region hired to promote incineration. Yes, that's right, they were hired to get it through the EA process and get it approved. They were not hired to do objective testing or studies - and that is more than evident from the so-called studies already completed. Look at the air quality statistics brought forward at Regional Committees and Council, and at Clarington Council numerous times. Those numbers came from the appendices of the Region's very own hired consultant's studies so they cannot dispute them. But those numbers were hidden deep in those pages and never, not once, brought forward by the consultants in all their presentations to committee, council, or the public at the public information sessions, even when asked about them. When air quality numbers are hundreds and thousands of times worse in Clarington than in East Gwillimbury, but they are rated as equal or both "neutral" for advantage or disadvantage, you know SOMETHING isn't right.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Confidence in the EA process has been dwindling as it has become increasingly evident that results appear to be manipulated in such a way as to promote or ensure the desired outcome of the process. This is not wild speculation. It seems so abundantly obvious if anyone takes the time to actually read not only the executive summary of these studies, but also dig deep into the bowels of the consultant's analysis to extract the fact from the faeces.

That so many of our elected officials are taken in by this spin and haven't taken the time to flush out the truth for themselves is highly disturbing. These are the people who are entrusted with our health and well-being, yet they refuse to listen to the groundswell of doctors in Durham Region who are vehemently opposed to this incinerator. They refuse to read the medical journals or numerous studies that would support the contention that there are emissions that cannot be captured by present technology - emissions that are bioaccumulative and dangerous to humans, especially in the fetal stages, infants and toddlers, and those with chronic illness who are already compromised. Tiny nanoparticles that can penetrate all organs including the brain through the blood/brain barrier.

They are entrusted with keeping our environment safe and healthy, yet refuse to listen to experts or environmental groups and choose instead to believe the consultants who are paid to PROMOTE incineration, the lobby groups and the industry.

They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain.

They should be caring a lot more than they are - and should show some common sense. Mayor Abernethy continues say they MUST push this EA through (though he neglects to say it should be done properly instead of FAST). The way this EA is being conducted, speed is so much more important than accuracy, and speed is a good way to hide many of the facts that should be made public knowledge.

Take the ridiculous reasons given by most Regional Councillors for approving the Courtice 01 site as the preferred site for the incinerator to be built - so that they can get ALL the information needed to make an informed decision. Then they went ahead and made a MAJOR decision in the EA process steps WITHOUT having the necessary information to make that decision. Talk about loony and backward. They needed to have technology information before choosing the site. They completely ignored the information given to them by residents and doctors and experts regarding air quality, for example, using that fake excuse that they want to get more information. Why make such an important decision without having the information first? We know why - it is an excuse they can use to push the EA farther and farther down the road and enable it to skip over information that should be given tough scrutiny. Instead it will get short shrift.

Sept 2009: And it did. This Regional Council approved the EA studies at their June 24th meeting, the last meeting prior to their summer vacation. This was BEFORE all the studies were completed, BEFORE all the results had been reported, BEFORE the Peer Reviews were completed, BEFORE the final of the DRAFT EA was completed.

Which means that ALL those ridiculous excuses for pushing this EA ahead at every step were just that - ridiculous excuses. That they wanted to have "ALL the information" before giving approval? If that were really true, wouldn't they have waited for the final studies and peer reviews to be completed before approving it? There is no excuse or justification for their actions that will make this community believe them or trust them again.

The public is not being fooled, other than a few who have listened to their politicians and not questioned any of the information or done any research themselves. And those are the people who won't be changed anyway. They're probably still using that old DDT in their yards and have kept the asbestos in their walls and don't worry about it because they're not sick yet. They probably smoke too (no lung cancer yet) and think there will be hundreds of jobs to run this new facility. They certainly haven't done their homework there, either.

The incinerator lobby can be excused to some degree for their shameless promotion of EFW, WtE, incineration or whatever you want to call it. They get paid for it. But the fact that our politicians in whom we place our trust are shamelessly promoting it and not even asking questions is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.

That our Mayor Abernethy and Regional Councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak put the Region AHEAD of Clarington is disgraceful and inexcusable. Where they got the idea that their first allegiance is to the Region, above Clarington and its residents is not hard to figure out. They are being used by the Region to get what the Region wants. And they haven't even figured that out yet.

Add Local Clarington Councillor Gord Robinson to this bunch. He betrayed his constituents in Clarington, including his agricultural constituents by flip-flopping and voting to approve the Host Community Agreement - an agreement that did NOT contain the monitoring that had been promised to Clarington residents previously by the Region, but ended up being too expensive for them to include in the final EA. No agricultural monitoring for effects from the incinerator. He told other Councillors it was included when it wasn't. A request from the Agricultural Committee was not even considered by Clarington Council because Councillor Robinson decided to betray us all and receive it for information, not vote to endorse it. While I was not present at that meeting, it was talked about afterward by residents and the information can be found in Council minutes.

It is unbelievable that these three (Abernethy, Trim, Novak) voted AGAINST the motion by Brian Nicholson that said if a municipality was an unwilling host, the region would not force an incinerator on them. They would not even protect their own municipality - the Region as always comes first. None of the three can claim they are being protective of Clarington or NOT putting the Region first in all things incinerator.

This is why these three must NEVER be allowed to be re-elected in Clarington. (Add Councillor Robinson so there are now four) They have given up their right to speak for us since they have never spoken for us. They speak for the Region at all times. This is something none of us should forget, no matter how this incineration farce turns out. They have not stood up for Clarington. Only our four local councillors have done so. Hats off to Councillors Foster, Hooper, Woo and Robinson (REMOVE ROBINSON). They are the only ones looking our for our welfare, and it can't be easy with the pressure from the Region and from our Mayor. They deserve our gratitude and our support. And more than ever now.

Now comes the PR farce the Mayor is trying to foist upon the good citizens of Clarington. These people who will be speaking are not experts on incineration. They are promoters, lobbyists, but where are the experts? How can residents give their councillors questions to ask the presenters before they hear them speak? Our hands are tied and the Mayor knows it. That is why these people were invited by our Mayor are being promoted in this forum rather than at an open forum where residents can ask questions.

There is so much more to say on this subject and it will be said. The entire scenario as it is playing out simply disgusts me. All that I hold dear, namely fairness, openness, honesty, transparency, democracy... they are all missing from this entire process. The dirty little bag of tricks continues but is not fooling anybody. Instead it is strengthening those in opposition to this entire debacle. The word is rapidly spreading. They may have the votes at Regional Council to approve this incinerator. But WE have the votes at the ballot box, and we will not forget.

I reiterate: WE WILL NOT FORGET.

Watch now for all the green washing attempts by individual Councillors and Mayors who voted in favour of the incinerator without having all the facts first, without listening to the residents, without considering all the documented evidence against incineration and without regard for our health or that of our children. WITHOUT having any proof that is is SAFE. The best that could be said by our Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kyle, was that he couldn't find irrefutable proof that it ISN'T safe. But he also could not find proof that it IS safe.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Whatever happened to the Precautionary Principle?

2010 Election not that far away - Abernethy the first target

2009-08-04T14:07:00.016-04:00

People are already gearing up for the 2010 municipal elections, even though they are a little over a year away. But it is not too soon to begin planning to oust certain municipal politicians who very blatantly gave the one-finger salute to their residents during the last couple of years. Residents have every right to target those who refused to listen to overwhelming opposition to the incinerator, especially when so many tried to make their voices heard.

Silly me. I always thought that we elected our municipal council and mayor to represent us and to do what is best for the residents of Clarington. What happened? Do they not know that WE are their bosses? Have they become so big-headed that they don't need to listen to those who elected them? Do they honestly believe that they know better than 80% of the residents of Clarington? Do they really believe that the Region's propaganda was any more honest than the biased and misleading studies done by their paid consultants?

Those consultants were hired for one reason. They were hired to see the EA process through to a favourable conclusion (favourable to the already decided end result of the Region to make incineration the option of "choice"). Numerous times residents were told publicly that the Region had decided on this course of action in 2000, with their 20 year waste management plan. Of course that plan only mentioned that burning garbage should be looked into. It did not say that this was the course that should be taken.

Too many of our myopic councillors either can't read and comprehend or they intentionally twisted that plan to mean exactly what they wanted it to mean. The writing was on the wall (and in the direction given to the consultants) before the EA even began.

The writing is now on the wall for several councillors and a handful of Mayors of Durham municipalities. But none more so than Clarington, which harbours 4 who need to be replaced.

The Mayor of Clarington, with his sometimes incomprehensible mutterings needs to be soundly punished and relegated to the trash heap. He was not able to fool all his residents with such gems as his declaration in explaining his "No Waste by '38" motion which he made a point of making clear "didn't mention incineration or landfill". The reason for that? "Neither of these two options is acceptable to me, but you've got to do something with it," Abernethy stated.

You could have fooled us. The mayor was a huge supporter of incineration from the start, despite his attempts to convince residents that he was looking for the truth (not a very funny joke) and that he hadn't yet made up his mind. Early on he took a trip to Nova Scotia and made a home video of the Halifax Otter Lake landfill. All he was interested in was the seagulls (meaning there was garbage present) and that it didn't look pretty. He made that DVD available to people who made it available to even more residents for their viewing pleasure. Abernethy also promoted an industry made propaganda infomercial for SYSAV - yes, promoting incineration in Europe. He played it for audiences around Clarington, all the while promoting incineration. Yet he had the audacity to continue to tell people he hadn't yet made up his mind. How insulting to the residents of Clarington.

As recently as last month he said neither landfill NOR INCINERATION are acceptable. The way he has promoted incineration for the last 2 1/2 years it is apparent that he believes incineration is not only acceptable, but desirable. The facility will have floors so clean you could eat off them (his comments about the European incinerators) and even more important - no seagulls!

This mayor ran his 2006 campaign on having "an honest and open government". He also said, "The role of council is to manage the assets of the municipality and ensure that there is a democratic process." What exactly does "democratic process" mean to this man?

On his campaign video he also said, "There's a lot of important issues that have to be dealt with, and have to be dealt with uh, fairly, uh, dealt with uh in the best interest of all of the people of the municipality." Is that what he has done? NO.

"I think that what needs to be done is we need to have a look to see what will Clarington look like in 50 years from now." Well, for the next 30 - 35 years at least we will be dumping more pollution into an already dirty air shed where record numbers of children now have asthma, older adults have respiratory problems, and cancers are already on the rise. Now we will be adding to those problems and adding new ones. Does he care? Apparently not.

In 2006 Abernethy said, "Our municipal Council needs a made in Clarington agenda." Does that sound familiar? Like the "Made in Durham garbage solution" he is always promoting (which isn't made in Durham at all)? This incinerator being forced on Clarington residents is most certainly NOT a "made in Clarington agenda". Was this an outright lie, or was he so quickly and easily sucked in by Regional Chair Roger Anderson immediately after he was elected? Enquiring minds want to know! This Mayor betrayed Clarington and put the Region first and foremost, unlike the other mayors in the Region. He said on more than one occasion that he was "elected to represent the Region". Funny, I thought he was elected as Mayor of Clarington to represent Clarington.

He ranted against the "Mutton shell-game experience" - or was that "Mutton-Schell game" - (his words). "Higher taxes, higher salaries, higher mileage charges, and numerous international trips," Abernethy said. So what has changed since 2006? It has only gotten worse. Have we heard an apology to Mutton since then? No, only attacks on his campaign financing by Abernethy's former campaign team, and those charges are ongoing. Was Mutton faultless? Hell no. But was he worse than Abernethy? That is debatable at this point, but I'd say no. At least Mutton didn't give away the (Clarington) store to the Region while he was in office. Would he have, on the incinerator issue? Very possibly he would have supported the incinerator as he did quite a job in facilitating the political acceptance of the incinerator and approval of Covanta as the builder/operator. But we won't know because Abernethy beat him to the punch. At least Mutton surely would have gotten a better deal for Clarington. As it is, there is hardly anything in the Host Community Agreement that wasn't already in the works or owed to Clarington without it. That's another discussion altogether.

Speaking of Mutton, Abernethy said, "I've had enough of their experience. Have you?" I can tell you that I, along with the majority of Clarington residents (according to several recent polls), have had enough of the Abernethy experience. More than enough.

Abernethy in 2006 asked us to vote for change. This is not the change we wanted or anticipated. A Mayor who refuses to listen to the residents unless you are one of his favoured friends, or unless you are someone he considers "important to the community". Anyone who is a plain old resident, a plain old taxpayer isn't important to him and he has shown people that in spades, including not allowing street parties which could foster more community spirit. Including the elderly who have been the first to have services cut. Including those speaking out against the incinerator, who were basically given the Trudeau salute, in so many words. Including those asking for more time to speak or to be allowed more input. He shut people up, made them sit down if he didn't like what they had to say, and even went so far as to throw people out. One of the biggest complaints about former Mayor Mutton was that he was a bully. Abernethy has turned out to be as big a bully. But he hates that word because he threw out a resident for calling his best buddy Roger Anderson a bully. He'd better take a good look in the mirror.

I wonder what half-truths this Mayor will tell us during his 2010 campaign. Or will he give up and run away, knowing he hasn't a chance in hell of being re-elected?

Mary Novak and Charlie Trim deserve the same fate, although the word on the street is the Trim is retiring, allowing local ward 4 councilor Gord Robinson to attempt to move up to Charlie's regional seat. Fat chance, after the betrayal of his constituents and those of the entire municipality. Were it not for Robinson, who has now been given the label "traitor", at least we would have remained an unwilling host, which, in spite of statements to the contrary publicly by Anderson, everyone knew would be the nail in the coffin at the Regional Council vote. And it was. This man deserves to hit the unemployment line next year and there are already groups seriously working toward that end.

There are groups spread across Durham Region already making plans for the 2010 election. They are organizing and are determined. They are looking for strong, ethical and honest candidates who understand what democracy is and who will listen to their residents rather than their political bosses in issues affecting our very lives. There will be some massive campaigns not only in support of good candidates but also against those who need to be replaced.

Those who chose to ignore the will of the people will suffer the consequences in 2010. And they will deserve it. They think 2010 is far enough away that people will forget the insulting behaviour of these councillors and mayors, but the opposition to these people is building, not waning since the June Regional vote. We are not stupid. We will not forget. The damage done to our municipality which now has a very deserved reputation as being the dumping ground for Durham Region is irreparable. And Durham Region's reputation for being the dumping ground for York Region is also building. From Stop the Incinerator to Stop the Stink, we get all the crap from York while York Region gets all the benefits. Is that the sign of a good and effective Durham Regional council or leadership? We think not.

The "Elect the Chair" movement is alive and well, and has now been joined by the "Dump Durham's Democratically Deficient" Mayors and Councillors. The most targeted already of the Mayors is Abernethy, O'Connor, Pearce, Perkins, Shepherd and Ryan. Some (most) of these are very vulnerable. Pearce is probably the least vulnerable, even though Scugog could do so much better. The rest are not at all secure in their seats according to local sources. There are more Councillors already with a bull's eye on their backs. Stay tuned for more in coming days, weeks and months. Mayor Abernethy can be assured that we will "Vote for Change" in 2010.

Big Vote Today, Big Vote in November 2010

2009-06-24T00:12:00.006-04:00

Today Councillors in Durham Region will vote on their incinerator folly, and will anger and alienate even further the majority of their constituents.

Mr. Anderson, Regional Chair, stated last week that he could not believe people would work to put Regional Councillors out of office over one item. Well, think again Mr. Chair. This "one item" is the largest expenditure ever in the history of Durham Region. It locks us into a chemical spewing, ash producing, resource destroying incinerator that few people want and many are strongly opposed to, for 25 to 35 years. This "one item" is one which has brought out more people than any other issue since the landfill wars many years ago. This "one item" has made people realize that their Regional Councillors (most of them) could care less what their residents think, what their concerns are, what their better alternative ideas are. This "one item" has been bought and paid for with our health, our Gas Tax money that should be used to improve and increase our public transit, our roads, our quality of life. Instead this "one item" has been pushed through by this council without the benefit of all the information.

Throughout this process the excuse has been used by Councillors that they were simply voting to approve each step so that they could get ALL the information before making a final decision. Well, that excuse won't work anymore. So many large, complex studies and reports have come forward all at once that there is little time for anyone to read through them all, and we KNOW that most Councillors only bother to read the Executive Summary and nothing more, if that. We also know that ALL the studies are not completed and ALL the Peer Reviews are also not complete.

Yet these same Councillors are now voting before all the information is in, so that lame excuse that no one believed anyway, is now so much junk.

I want to tell you, Regional Council, we resent being treated like dunces. I would submit to you that it is not the residents who are unworthy of being listened to, or unworthy of respect. It is you, those who have lied to residents and who continue to do so. Those who refused to listen to the people who voted them into office.

We voted you in, and we can most certainly vote you out. This Watchdog Blog was active during the 2006 campaign, and will be even MORE active during the 2010 campaign. I won't let people forget, and I am not alone. There are many who have vowed to organize to help in each municipality to defeat those who have betrayed us right across this region. There will be qualified candidates running, with support (monetary and door to door legwork) from those who have been snubbed and dismissed by their regional representatives.

You may see more local councillors moving up to run for regional seats as well as new candidates moving in. There are a number of pro-incinerator (from the start) candidates who are already being targeted and things will only get tougher as next year draws closer.

In Clarington, the choices are obvious. Mayor Abernethy, should he choose to run again or run for any other seat whether at the local, provincial or federal level eventually, will run into a brick wall. His reputation has suffered greatly with his obviously unequal treatment of residents, his lack of understanding of the EA process and of his municipal duties (he thinks he represents the Region first, over and above Clarington, unlike the other Mayors in Durham Region). This man has lost all credibility and is known as one of the most "un-green" Mayors in this Region, and with so many ungreen mayors, that's reaching quite the pinnacle.

Mary Novak has done nothing to distinguish herself from Abernethy - they are voting together (as usual) on this incinerator, although using different excuses. No one has believed she was 'on the fence' or hadn't made her decision early-on as Abernethy did. Her continual denials only convinced people more that she would vote to approve this incinerator. Her acceptance of the Host Community Agreement that was basically blackmail and gives Clarington very little of anything shows her incompetence and her bias. She will never convince anyone she is doing what is best for the community, or that the incinerator has been proven "safe". It has not.

Charlie Trim has sold out his community and isn't worthy of his seat. The buzz is that he's not running again and has given his seat to Councillor Robinson next term. Well you can't do that. Charlie's supporters are not sheep and will vote as they please, and from those I've heard from, very few will even consider voting for Robinson after his total betrayal of the entire municipality as it was his vote that accepted the HCA and gave up the unwilling host status. He single-handedly, in one fell swoop, destroyed any future he may have had in Clarington politics. Or maybe he's been promised an appointment by Roger Anderson. Whatever the reason, no one has any respect for the man any longer. It was a total and blatant betrayal, and one that won't be forgotten. I hope he believes it was worth it.

I hope a lot of residents show up at today's meeting and aren't so discouraged that they give up. There is still much work to do, right through next year's election. I will take bets on how much larger a voter turnout there will be next year, and how many seats we can put new faces into. I do know of 4 seats in Clarington that MUST be cleaned out and re-filled. We won't forget.

Yes I may be a little premature, but I can't seen any of them changing their votes today. I've even heard that at least one municipality won't receive emails from their own constituents, and openly won't listen to them. Why Would We Wish to keep elected officials like that around?

To the good Councillors who have done the real research and have had a very open dialogue with residents, I commend you. To those of you who have listened only to one side of the story and who have betrayed your own residents, I say you deserve what you get next year, which will be a spot in the unemployment line.

And to Mr. Anderson, we will work diligently to make sure that the Durham Regional Chair is elected and accountable to the people.

Rally Against Incinerator - May 20th

2009-05-19T03:25:00.005-04:00

Stand Up & Say No To Incineration Before It's Too Late!

We have the power to avoid over 30 years of regret!

Host:	Concerned Citizen and Tax Payers from Durham Region
Type:	RALLY

Date:	Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Time:	5:30pm - 8:30pm
Location:	Durham Regional Head Quarters
Street:	605 Rossland Rd. East at Garden St.
City/Town:	Whitby, ON

Here is an opportunity for you to show that Durham residents want a real sustainable solution to waste management, not a heavily subsidized pollution factory that will make money for the private sector and burden us with additional taxes and health risks for the next 30 years.

The Site Liaison Committee is responsible for getting our message to the region. They have so far been stunningly ineffective and its time to show the Region how we feel.

We are blessed with the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, the Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Association to protect us from oppressive government at any level.

The incinerator threatens not only our health but the financial viability of this Region. We cannot afford to sit on our hands and be complacent any longer.

The time has come to stand up and say NO to this incinerator!

Facebook group:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=55173887613

******************************************

More information:

Rally in Opposition of the Proposed Durham/York P3 Incinerator May 20th

Many questions have been raised about the potential threat this project poses to the region. In addition to the concerns about health and economic effects, residents are now faced with the the possibility that Metro Toronto garbage could be heading there way as a result of this project.

Press Advisory:

Durham Region residents are planning a peaceful demonstration Wednesday May 20th, to express their opposition to the proposed Durham/York P3 (Public Private Partnership) Incinerator Project beginning at 530 pm outside the Durham Region Headquarters, 605 Rossland East in Whitby, Ontario.

According to documents released by the Region the controversial plan would see a mass burn incinerator built in the municipality of Clarington less than a kilometer from the shores of Lake Ontario. The incinerator would burn residential garbage from Durham Region as well as waste transported from York Region on a continuous basis, for no fewer than 25 years. Once the option is exercised to expand the capacity of the facility from 140,000 TPY (tons per year) to 400,000 TPY, waste from other municipalities would also be accepted.

The initial Environmental Assessment excluded outright the possibility of accepting garbage from Metro Toronto; however, an addendum to a motion at Clarington Council last week indicates that this might not be the case. The motion outlined a $10/ton tipping fee ‘royalty’ to go directly to the host Municipality, Clarington, for waste received specifically from Metro Toronto. This is notably higher than the tipping fee ‘royalty’ previously discussed of $2/ton

Recently the preferred vendor, American company Covanta Energy, announced that it had reached a deal with Miller Waste to transport the toxic fly ash produced by the incineration process, (equal to approximately 5% of the total mass of waste burned) to a toxic waste facility in New York State for the lifetime of the facility - 25-30 years. The toxic waste will either be stored in a toxic waste storage facility near Niagara Falls, processed for landfill in Lewiston or Incinerated at a site in New York State. The bulk ash remaining after incineration, between 20 - 30% of the original mass and 10% of the original volume, would then be transported to a landfill site that is yet to be determined.

"The project once called a 'Made in Durham Solution' is beginning to reach pretty far from Durham Region." said Whitby homeowner Chris White at the Region’s Public Information Session in Bowmanville last week. “With this deal we will have trucks transporting garbage to Durham from who knows where, as well as trucks transporting toxic waste to someone else’s back yard, day in and day out."

The rally is scheduled to take place prior to the Site Liaison Committee meeting at the Durham Region Head Quarters next Wednesday.

“The SLC was designed as a conduit between the people and the Regional Council on this matter." said Rebecca Harrison resident and one of the rally’s organizers. “I’m very disappointed in the way in which the various politicians and regional staff that sit on this vital committee have acted during the SLC meetings I have attended. I know I am not alone. Our hope is that this rally will refocus these committee members and gets our message to Regional Council.”

Come May 20th the concerned residents will be joined by several labour unions who are also opposed to the Durham York P3 Incineration project.

Dave Renaud, President of the CAW Durham Region Environment Council will be speaking at Wednesdays rally. “The organized Labour movement (Canadian Labour Congress, Durham Region Labour Council, CAW, CUPE) across Canada is opposed to the use of incineration of municipal waste due to our resounding belief that Extended Producer Responsibility will lead us down the path of sustainable green production, cancer free jobs which are the opposite of what Durham Regions EFW consultants and some of the Regional Councilors want for our communities.”

Mr. Renaud will be joined by CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan who held a press conference in regards to CUPE's oppostion to this P3 Incinerator earlier this month. “This is typical of P3 projects,” said Mr. Ryan “They underbid to get the project going then the taxpayer is on the hook for the cost overruns. This project smells like an environmental and fiscal disaster.”

Jim Freeman President of the Durham Region Labour Council, who is also addressing Wednesday’s rally, expressed his concerns with Covanta’s track record in his delegation to Regional Council last November prior to the company being selected as the preferred vendor by the Region. “As you know the Durham Region Labour Council does not support the construction of an Energy from Waste facility in our community but we have specific concerns about Covanta. According to the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), Covanta has a deplorable track record of anti-union , anti-worker activity in the United States.”

All three labour leaders have made delegations in opposition to this project over the course of the proceedings.

In a Region that has been hard hit by job loss this P3 project does not appear to be sitting well with area residents who are currently out of work. According to the Business Case provided to the public by the Region this project with an estimated capital cost of $236 million is estimated to create only 33 long term full time positions.

"Burning garbage kills people and jobs.” said Marissa Kata, an Oshawa home owner and mother who recently lost her job. “Other regions are seeing garbage as an opportunity; a resource that is desperately needed right now for the unemployed and the manufacturing sector. We need good ‘green’ jobs in this community and $236 million could go a long way to making that a reality if invested in more sustainable programs. ”

With the Region prepared to vote June 12th, on a recommendation to proceed with this project, these Durham residents are confident that as a result of their increased presence Regional politicians will hear their concerns and act accordingly.

“All we are asking them to do is the same thing Halton Region did when they were faced with the decision,” said Ms. Harrison, “apply the precautionary principle and vote against the health and economic risks posed to Durham residents by this incinerator.”

For more information on the rally and Durham York Incinerator including links to Regional Documents on the proceedings please visit:

www.cawdrec.com – CAW Durham Region Environment Council
www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org – Durham Environment Watch
www.zerowaste4zeroburning.ca – Zero Waste 4 Zero Burning
What: Stand Up to Incineration Rally

Where: Durham Region Headquarters,
605 Rossland Road East,
Whitby Ontario

When: Wednesday May 20th, 2009
5:30opm-830pm
(Site Liasion Committee Meeting begins inside at 7:00pm)

Why: To oppose the Durham/York P3 (Public Private Partnership) Incinerator proposal.
Media Contact
Rebecca Harrison
(905) 999-5479

Who Speaks for US?

2009-04-05T14:34:00.007-04:00

Who can we count on to speak for us? It appears, not our Clarington Mayor. He is apparently under the impression (and said so) that Durham Region comes first. Clarington must come second to the Region which is the upper tier. He says he was elected to represent the Region.

Well I have two words for our mayor. WAKE UP. Believe it or not, you were elected to work for Clarington, to work for us, the taxpayers. You were elected to represent Clarington in all things, including at the Region of Durham. To put Durham Region first, as you have admitted to doing, is to slap Clarington taxpayers in the face. Either you don't have a clue or you are intentionally ignoring the words and wishes of the majority of residents in favour of kissing up to the Region, for some unknown reason.

I will qualify that previous statement. You listen to your friends, your campaign team, those who agree with and support your views and your ambitions. That is evident at the meetings I have either attended or watched on Rogers television. You blatantly cut off speakers who disagree with your warped view of what your own job as mayor is or of your complete support for the incinerator Roger Anderson wants to put in our midst. You hold them to the exact 5 minutes (which was a ten minute allowance before you decided to shorten it to five) and even cut people off mid-sentence. When your 'friends' or someone you believe to be 'important' (unlike the majority of residents) is speaking, there are no interruptions, you overlook your own rules, you give them plenty of latitude. It is blatant and you do not seem to even care.

You appear to have no understanding of what an Environmental Assessment entails, or how it actually works. You appear to be only too willing to pass the buck to others - the Region and next to the Province, to decide for you and for us whether incineration is 'safe' or not.

The incinerator plan is an iceberg... and the consultants are only showing you the tip. You are satisfied with that, but residents have made it very evident that they are not. Somebody needs a reality check.

This goes for Regional Councillors Mary Novak and Charlie Trim too. Both have voted in EVERY vote at Clarington and at the Region to go along with Regional Chair Roger Anderson's wishes to 'push this forward'. No matter that there are so many unanswered questions. They plan to push it forward to the Province with still many of those questions unanswered and then hand over the responsibility to the Minister of Environment for him to make the decision as to whether it is safe for Clarington and Durham Region residents. That is unconscionable. But not surprising since none of these people have any guts.

There are others on Regional Council who must also bear the responsibility for their actions. Some simply are glad it is not in their backyard. These councillors accuse Clarington residents of NIMBYism, when in reality it is those politicians who are the NIMBYs.

Councillor Rick Johnson (Pickering) continually talks about the old landfill wars, and how many people came out to say they didn't want a landfill in their community, and that he would not allow that to happen again. Well, Mr. Johnson, since you are the prime mover behind this incinerator, why didn't you offer to host it in YOUR community since it is, according to you, so clean and safe? It is fine to push it off on Clarington residents, as long as your residents don't have to deal with it. How much more NIMBYish can you get?

Numerous Regional Councillors have been targeted by a new group called "Concerned Citizens of Durham Region" to be unseated in the 2010 election. These are Councillors who have continued to vote FOR and be supportive of this incinerator at every step of the way. The word is that this group (CCDR) will be fielding reputable and viable candidates for each of these seats in each municipality. They will be actively involved in campaigning against the incumbents and working for the opposing candidates.

CCDR will also be supporting and campaigning for those Regional Councillors who have shown that they are aware of the concerns of the people and are willing to listen and work for them, not for themselves.

Now this list (provided to Watchdog but not yet published) may change at any time, and may have already. We received this list from members of CCDR a few weeks ago. They will also be actively campaigning for an elected Chair, and against Mr. Anderson. He has shown his complete disdain for Clarington, Clarington Residents, and Clarington Councillors as well as for residents in the rest of the region. His ego and bullying tactics may be in his own best interests, but not in the best interests of residents of all 8 municipalities.

CCDR will also be looking at and giving support to local councillors who have been supportive of residents and who have had the guts to stand up to the region. There are several who appear to be poised to move up and run for regional seats in 2010 and many of them will have the support of not only their own residents but also from CCDR. That will be financial as well as active campaign and word of mouth support.

So be forewarned - the war has only just begun. If this is pushed through the door to the Province and not decided locally by our elected regional politicians as it appears they will do, residents will NOT forget what they have done. There will be no excuses good enough for not putting the health and welfare of their residents first. And they must remember that it is quite likely that this will all come to a head, or building will begin in 2010, which will be a constant reminder to residents what has been forced upon us. We will not forget nor will we let anyone else forget. This issue will not fade into the background. And certainly not before Elections 2010.

The Best of the Best Promise from Durham Region Joins the Other Crap in the Landfill

2009-03-27T22:30:00.008-04:00

Durham Region, back in 2007, promised the public that they would commit to the best of the best regarding emission control technology and monitoring of emissions to protect the health and safety of its citizens. It would all be open and transparent.

But when Chair Anderson found out it would cost another $270,000 or so to implement the monitoring residents had asked for (and been promised), he decided our health and welfare isn't worth it. As did ALL the Durham Councillors on Joint Waste Management Committee (all except one lone York Region Councillor), and as did the usual suspects at the Joint Works and Health and Social Services Committee meeting this week I've been told. These recommendations will go to Regional Council next Wednesday, and what do you think they will do? Of course the majority will again approve this travesty, with no thought to the wishes or the concerns of residents - concerns the Councillors themselves should have.

Now if you think that they're just trying to save the taxpayers money, think again.

They already approved extra spending on the "important" things, such as an additional $9 million on "architectural" features to make the incinerator look nice, $1.25 million for a "viewing deck", and another $512,000 for additional promotional features. Who will these benefit? Why, the industry of course. Promote the heck out of this pig and make the industry happy. The residents? Who cares if we're happy or not? The only time they care about that is at election time, but they seem to be forgetting that they will have to face the music next year. Not soon enough for those of us ready to campaign to defeat those who care more about the industry than they do about our health and safety.

Now ask yourselves why would they not want to do the necessary monitoring, such as ambient air quality monitoring and environmental monitoring? Could it be that they don't want us to know when our air is becoming more and more polluted, or when the accumulation of toxins in our vegetation and agricultural products becomes unacceptably high? Yes that can impact our local farmers when locals don't want to "buy local" because of the dioxins and furans, heavy metals and other pollutants that will be carried from the stack (yes, more than the one km they're saying would be the limit).

Why would they not even consider human biomonitoring?

Could it be that they don't want to be held liable for lawsuits that may very likely turn up against the Region (and even possibly against individuals) in another 10- 15 years? How about class action suits? Or maybe one or two of them have a conscience? They can't use the excuse the weren't warned. Residents and doctors have been warning them for the last couple of years, but they choose only to listen to their paid salesmen who are pushing this through the EA.

Another big promise that has gone the way of most others - "We won't build it if it's not safe". Another broken promise. Already they have changed that instead to, "we won't build it if it is determined that the level of risk is unacceptable". What does that mean? What is acceptable to consultants who live many miles from here may not be acceptable to residents who live within 50 km., or who have family who live in the vicinity. How will the determine whether it is safe if they only do stack testing and don't bother with testing the surrounding air, vegetation, animals or humans? This stuff bioaccumulates in vegetation, in humans, in the environment. It builds up over time.

They promised independent peer reviews but Dr. Kyle's choice to peer review the health studies is Dr. L. Smith, who has been working with and used by Jacques Whitford (consultants) for some time, and not the first time. Getting her to review work she's already reviewed, and accepting a peer review which seems more concerned with spelling and grammar, along with presentation (those nice boxes and pretty graphs) than with content does not inspire confidence. Dr. Smith's 4 page review of the "Final Report - Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-From-Waste Facilities" discusses very little about the flawed conclusions drawn, and even I could find more errors in the final document and conclusions than she did.

They need to hire a truly INDEPENDENT peer reviewer who the public could have faith in. Much credibility was lost by Dr. Smith in 2007 when she was asked at a public PIC in Bowmanville whether dioxins or other hazardous compounds produced from the burning of municipal waste are considered safe, and whether she could say it is SAFE to burn plastics in the waste stream and that doing so will NOT allow dioxins or other hazardous compounds to adhere to any microfine or nanoparticles emitted from the stacks and spread beyond the artificial 1 or 2 km boundary set by the consultants, and she declined to answer saying it was not her "area of expertise". She also changed the text in her original peer review in 2007 without any notation in the new version, and without any notice. It took residents to notice it. Now she's hired again to do more peer reviews on other topics for Dr. Kyle.

If it was not her "area of expertise", then why did she make the statements in her report and why would that be accepted as an expert peer review? She is being considered an expert by Dr. Kyle, Durham Region Council and Staff and Clarington Council, but won't answer questions that are significantly related to the building of an incinerator in our community and to the health and safety of our residents.

She has refused to say "it is safe". She will instead say "the risk is acceptable". Yet our politicians now appear willing to accept something less than a guarantee and statement that "it is safe". Gives you lots of confidence, no?

Now let me see, what other promises have been blatantly broken by our Councillors? There are plenty. Such as the promise when elected that Clarington Councillors would stand up for Clarington at Regional Council. So far that has not happened and we don't expect it will. From watching each regional meeting (they are all televised) it is very easy to see where their loyalties lie (Abernethy, Trim and Novak), and it is not with their "lower tier" little municipality. It is with the big, upper tier, all-important region.

They may be fine with that. But residents are not. And residents will remember this next year at election time. If any of them forget, they will be loudly reminded during the campaign. I fully expect that we will have at least 3 new faces at Clarington Council in 2011. The anger is growing and is becoming palpable.

What do YOU think?

Is Democracy Dying in Clarington?

2008-11-29T11:44:00.006-05:00

Last December our Clarington Council passed a new Procedural By-Law designed to limit participation by residents in council or committee meetings. Well, they say the reason was to enable a smoother "flow" to the meetings, but in reality, it appears to have been a not-so-subtle attempt to quell the rising tide of public voices speaking out against the EFW (which has been strongly supported by our 3 Regional representatives: Abernethy, Trim and Novak).

There have been voices speaking up about the unfairness and bullying tactics of our Regional Chair, Roger Anderson (and they were banned from speaking at Clarington Council in the future). We wonder if he has been bullying our 3 into submission or has simply convinced them that Clarington will reap untold benefits from the siting of an INCINERATOR in Clarington. Yes, just like the Water Pollution Control Plant built in Courtice, where Clarington will receive less than half ($183,000) of what was expected ($400,000) in tax income from that Regional project. Tax income from the EFW Incinerator has been estimated to be similar to the WPCP, but now even Regional Councillor Charlie Trim, Chair of Regional Works and strong supporter of the incinerator warns not to count any chickens (or money) before they're hatched.

No matter what the income from that proposed incinerator though, is it worth the risk of increased asthma in our children, increased cancers, untold health risks in our residents, or to contributing an increased toxic burden to our already overtaxed, overburdened airshed? Watchdog says an emphatic "NO!"

But will the voices of residents be heard? Residents have been told they can write a letter instead of making a public statement that would be heard by Council directly or on TV when meetings are televised. I've heard that when the clerk receives a letter to council stating concerns about the incinerator, it is summarized as a letter of 'concern' about the proposed EFW incinerator, and then published with a list of names of other residents who have written of their objections to this proposal. They don't deserve separate mention like the other correspondence to council? It appears not.

Not only did the new Procedural By-Law which came into effect in January 2008 limit citizens to 5 minutes (from the previous 10 minute limit) for a delegation to Council, but it also specifies that no clapping is allowed, unless the Mayor asks for it for something he approves. And you cannot use the words "bully" or "sheep" or "cronies" or goodness knows what else the Mayor may decide is offensive to his weak sensibilities.

The new By-Law also limited residents to speaking only at the Monday morning General Purpose and Administration Committee meetings, having to miss work or get a sitter and take time out of a busy day to get to Town Hall to speak (signing up the previous week first, of course). If they bring up a topic of concern to them at the GP&A meeting, then they are not allowed to speak to it at the evening Council meeting the following week. If they want to speak only at the evening Council meeting, then they can only do so if their topic is already listed on the Council Agenda. They cannot bring a concern to Council if it is not on the Agenda. Hmmmm. Nothing like doing all in their power to limit the voice of the public.

Now they have decided to put further limits on the public by limiting Presentations (different from delegations) to a maximum of 10 minutes (down from unlimited). This will only apply to the public, as staff or consultants or upper levels of government are excluded from this limit. It appears that the Mayor invited a citizen to make a presentation on waste matters to Council at a meeting a couple of weeks ago. The Mayor specified that this presentation would take approximately 1 hour, and the rest of Council voted to approve the presentation. AFTER Mr. Doug Anderson's timely and appropriate presentation, our intrepid Council decided to introduce this new amendment to their already citizen-limiting By-Law so that they could limit the public from speaking for more than 10 minutes, and that is ONLY if they are approved to give a presentation rather than a delegation (5 minutes).

Silly me. I thought part of Council's job description is to listen to the concerns of their residents. But it appears that only applies if we agree with them on the big issues. Otherwise they don't want to hear us. They can come up with all the excuses in the world, but what they are doing is intentionally shutting down the democratic process and limiting our free speech.

Clarington, leading the way toward the death of democracy. Shouldn't that replace the present signs we see upon entering this municipality? Sadly, yet another sign of the times.

How do you feel about the methodical annihilation of democratic processes designed to encourage the public to have a voice in decisions affecting our community?

Signs of the Times #7

2008-11-02T10:03:00.003-05:00

On Tuesday, November 4, there will be a Joint Waste Management Group meeting in Newmarket. Why Newmarket? Well, because Durham Region is still partnered with York Region on the Incinerator Environmental Assessment. York pays half for the assessment, for now. And the joint group it appears, would still really prefer to have fewer rather than more Durham and especially Clarington residents present for these meetings. Residents are not allowed to ask questions, although they are allowed to make delegations. Residents really have no say in anything that is going on, because Regional Council(s) and Regional Chair Anderson are not obligated to listen, much less take heed of what residents have been saying for a long time. That is evident when Councillors rudely get up and walk out of the room or doodle in their notebooks when a resident speaks as a delegation. They don't even bother to hide their disinterest these days. They simply want to rush through the entire process.

On Tuesday in Newmarket, a presentation on the status of the "Review of Environmental Surveillance Practices" will be made, with a report entitled, "Study Protocol for the Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-From-Waste Facilities". They'll also give an update presentation on the Status of the Environmental Biomonitoring and Sampling Program. And another on the Status of Site Specific Studies on or around the Site. (This from the agenda available on the Durham Region website)

Most residents don't have much confidence in these studies as they appear to be designed to get the result the consultants and Region want - results which will enable them to carry forward with their incinerator project. They've been asked to increase the study area, add human baseline studies and many other suggestions. They've even been asked to hold Public Information Centres to inform the public and allow the public to ask questions directly and give input, but those requests have been denied or ignored. It has been over a year since there have been any public information sessions held. Imagine that. And we are getting near the end of the so-called "studies". All of them so far, of course are POSITIVE for the EFW facility.

As for health studies, an "independent" peer reviewer has been hired by Dr. Kyle, Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health, to provide an 'independent review of the monitoring program'. That independent peer reviewer is Dr. Lesbia Smith, who was part of the Consultant's peer review team last year when they did their generic health study. And of course everything was hunky-dory. Dr. Smith has been known to have a friendly view of EFW in the past so why would that change now?

How about holding public information centres now? How about listening to the public for a change? Does the public have confidence in these studies? No. Did anyone read Ontario's Environmental Commissioner's report last week? The section entitled "Environmental Assessment: a vision lost" shows the deficiencies in the process, including the lack of a credible consultation process, lack of access by the public to key documents, weak monitoring, compliance and enforcement of EA conditions and much more.

If you can attend the Joint Waste Management Group meeting on Tuesday, please do. Tuesday, November 4, 2008, from 1 - 3 p.m. at York Region Administrative Centre, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket (in the Seminar Room). It is open to the public, although certainly not well advertised.

If you want to get the flavour of how little discussion takes place and how few questions are asked by members of the JWMG or Councillors, and how accepting they are of all the information they are given by consultants hired to guide this project through the EA process and get Provincial approvals, then attend this meeting and Durham Regional Works and Council meetings. Most motions to "move forward" are approved automatically.

Do they pull study results out of their butts? It evidently appears so to public scrutineers. Residents talk to each other. Why won't the Region talk to residents? And why won't they listen? Much of this EA process appears to be a charade and not worth the paper it is written on. You be the judge. Just one more sign of the times.

Signs of the Times #6

2008-09-18T07:36:00.007-04:00

If the Region of Durham incineration project in Clarington is approved, and we all know how biased and incomplete the so-called "studies" have been, someday in the future we can be sure that the present Regional Chair and Regional Councillors will be held responsible for the increase in cancers and respiratory problems as well as many other consequences, beyond what the rates are today. We already have some of the worst air quality in the Province. They don't mind making it worse.

They may not be held accountable or legally responsible in the courts (although that will remain to be seen), but certainly at the very least in the court of public opinion they will be. And mark my words, people won't forget and won't forget WHO was responsible for it. There are plenty of residents who will remind them.

There is an incredible amount of documentation from various authoritative and credible sources such as medical and scientific journals so that there is no excuse for them to still be sitting on the fence saying, "We want to be sure it is safe". Why is it that everyone else knows that the Precautionary Principle should be applied here, but the majority of the politicians are ignoring that fact.

Any credible level of government would always employ the precautionary principle, but for some reason, our governments seem more than willing to ignore it and plow ahead, even at the peril of its own residents. Repeated requests by residents to consider other (better) alternatives have gone unheeded.

Are they blind (can't see the documentation showing the high risk with MSW incinerators)? Or deaf (they can't or won't hear the pleas of their own residents, their own constituents)? Or are they just plain dumb? That remains to be seen.

Signs of the Times #5

2008-09-11T20:54:00.003-04:00

Dioxins, furans, and other toxins accumulate on our lands and waters. They enter the food chain and when animals eat contaminated plants and sediments, they get concentrated in their fat and pass it on in dairy and meat products. What are the implications for our locally produced food and our farm community? In Europe, meat, dairy and eggs must be regularly tested for dioxin and dioxin-like PCBs. We have no such regulations in Ontario. There are no plans by Durham Region consultants to do any baseline testing of local livestock. Why is it important in Europe, where they have a lot of incinerators and where much of the pro-incinerator information comes from (industry related), but it's not deemed to be important here in Durham Region.

Durham Region and Clarington in particular is a heavily agricultural area. They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain. But the Durham Region Agricultural Advisory Committee along with Regional Council are ignoring the studies and facts that point to these high risks. Why?

Building this incinerator could easily cause residents to no longer "buy local". For some it won't matter much, but for others, especially those with children, it should matter and will matter. I'm sure local activists will make a big stink about contamination of livestock and produce and people will begin to think twice. As well they should.

My apology for stealing this photo, but I couldn't resist. It is another sign of the times.

Signs of the Times #4

2008-09-09T08:00:00.004-04:00

We have Durham Region along with our Clarington Mayor and Regional Councillors to thank for this. They have pushed and pushed to "move along" the studies being done for the EA, without even taking the time to read or comprehend the results of prior studies, or question the validity of some of the extremely questionable results. The most important thing in their minds is to get this finished as quickly as possible. Speed, not accuracy. Push it though fast enough and maybe the people won't notice.

They choose to believe their paid consultants. These consultants, conducting the studies, were hired to promote the incinerator and to get it approved by the province. Unbiased? Not a chance. They do what their employers ask them to do - it's the nature of the business. And the Pr0vince? Are we to trust them to protect our health when they have already stated their support of incineration in Ontario?

Some people stand to make a lot of money on this deal. The residents are not among them. And we will suffer the consequences such as increased traffic, increased air pollution, locally grown food contamination (especially livestock), increased asthma rates (already the 2nd highest in Ontario), increased birth defects and increased cancers. All so that someone can say, "Look at us! We're taking care of our garbage!" A "Made in Durham Solution".

Except for the toxins which will spread beyond Durham Region's borders. Except for the highly toxic fly ash which will be trucked to Sarnia or elsewhere to be landfilled in a hazardous waste site. Except for the bottom ash, which they're not talking about. No one will say where that will go. Maybe they'll stick it in the Brock landfill so they can keep it in Durham? They need those votes to pass this sucker of a project so they're not going to say they'll keep that stuff in Durham or give it to the residents of the west end of the Region. Not until it's a completely done deal (and it's getting close).

There are far too many questions that have not been answered. Questions that have been asked by residents but not answered. Questions that were supposed to be answered at each milestone step of this project but were not answered. Plenty of questions but few answers. Plenty of justifications though.

Signs of the Times #3

2008-09-04T10:38:00.004-04:00

No explanation is necessary. Our intrepid Regional Council is looking more and more foolish as other municipalities and regions around the world are rejecting incineration for more modern, more inventive solutions. The Region's refrain that the Province won't do enough doesn't hold water (but holds lots of smoke and mirrors). Our Region is not officially lobbying the Province for EPR or other helpful solutions. They would rather complain that the only way to get rid of our "garbage" is to burn it.

They can't seem to realize that most of it is not "garbage", but resources, and they prefer to burn our resources, contribute more to greenhouse gasses and our local air pollution, and risk our health and the future health of our children in so many insidious ways. They appear to have no imagination and are not willing to consider healthier, less costly, more viable alternatives.

Does that make them look foolish? We think it does.

Signs of the Times #2

2008-08-31T12:16:00.003-04:00

The future of our children (bio accumulation of toxins from incineration) as well as our community is at risk, courtesy of Chair Anderson, Mayor Abernethy, and the majority of Durham Regional Council.

Fallout (emissions) from the proposed incinerator will affect not only Clarington and Oshawa, but also the rest of the Region and beyond. Why do you think they build the stack to high? It is to disperse the emissions farther from the subject site itself. Those ultra fine particles are carried by the wind. This means they are diluting the pollution by spreading it farther and wider. Since it bio accumulates in our bodies (and in the bodies of livestock that we consume, among other things) - that means we don't get rid of it. It continues to build in our bodies until in some people it will cause disease such as cancers, lung disease and more.

Residents have been pleading with the Region to go back to looking at Alternatives - but they refuse to do so. The decision to go to incineration was made years ago, before the EA even began. Therefore the search for alternatives was pretty much given lip service and nothing else. Very sad for the people of Durham Region and especially for Oshawa and Clarington.

R.I.P Clarington. You are becoming known as the garbage dump of Durham Region. Darlington Nuclear, Sewage Treatment Plant, Incinerator, St. Marys Cement "experiment" with burning plastics in their kilns. What will they dump on us next? How much more can this airshed tolerate? Does anybody care?

Signs of the Times - Series

2008-08-30T01:24:00.004-04:00

The first in a series

Clarington's shame

2008-05-28T21:07:00.000-04:00

I am so glad last night's Clarington Council meeting was televised, as it was an interesting show. I'm not sure which of the television genres you could call it though.

Drama? Not really as dramas are normally scripted and fictional. While Council's actions may at times appear scripted and their self-serving justification for actions fictional, it is real life and affects residents both directly and indirectly.

Comedy? Not really funny because it is Clarington's residents who are suffering.

Educational TV? Yes, from the point of view that delegations bring factual, relevant and interesting information forward, even if it is ignored or not understood by Council. The Mayor and Regional Reps comments? Useless excuses that don't contain one bit of real logic.

Suspense? Not a chance, since we know how our 3 Regionals will vote on everything concerning incineration. They continue to insult us with their claims they haven't yet made up their minds, but continue to help Durham Region to bull-doze it through to completion. They ignore the valid medical and scientific journal articles brought forward by residents and only choose to 'believe' the ridiculous, incomplete and incorrect pseudo-reports generated by the Region and the Region's consultants.

This council has lost all credibility with the majority of residents. They are not standing up for us and now they are bargaining not only with their "unwilling host" bargaining chip (which should never have been intended for that use) but they are bargaining with our very health and our lives. That is unforgivable.

While the Mayor and Novak and Trim all spoke and voted AGAINST becoming an unwilling host, they are now using it as a bargaining chip to get more money and more goodies from the Region with a promise to re-visit the unwilling host position if the Region gives them the goodies they want. So while they never supported it, they are now using it to blackmail the Region. Optics are horrible.

And the rest of our Council has caved in and agreed to bargain away our lives for goodies too. All except Councillor Foster. We have one person standing up for us all these days. He is the only one worthy of our respect and we'll give it to him. We will also remember this at election time.

Our other 7 actually voted in their closed-door, secret meeting on Tuesday night to SUPPORT the Region's excruciatingly flawed Business Case. Did they even bother to READ it? How could anyone accept such a flawed, obviously biased excuse for a Business Case without being totally embarrassed?

And our Mayor happily trucked out that resolution of support at Regional Council tonight when they were to vote on the Business Case. I've never seen anything more disgusting in my life.

And the soap opera continues... (more to come)

EFW Business Case Rubbish

2008-05-21T10:33:00.004-04:00

"Statistics are like a bikini; what is revealed is interesting; but what is concealed is crucial." ~A.R. Feinstein

All the pro-incinerator politicians, including Chair Anderson, busily made known to everyone for the last year or more that incineration would be considerably more expensive than landfill or any other options, but they would bulldoze it ahead because it was their first choice, in spite of all the negative publicity, concerns from the public, medical and other studies showing the increased risk of cancers and environmental damage, etc.

Suddenly, lo and behold, the "Business Case" is revealed and attempts to convince us that incineration is cheaper than landfill.

This business case makes incredibly WRONG assumptions, such as assuming that:

"Site for EFW has been approved indicating level of local support for project." Oh really? Did no one at the Region (or our Clarington Regional Reps) tell them that Clarington is officially an unwilling host? Or that there have been demonstrations by the public, petitions signed and many letters to the editor with serious concerns related to this project?

"Transparency with respect to the study and disclosure of potential impacts on local natural environment and ecology." Transparency? I think not. Where is the public information centre meeting (PIC) regarding emissions criteria? That approval has been given by Region's Committees and Joint Waste Management Group (Durham/York) without prior PIC for the public. How about this Business Case, which will most likely be rubber stamped like every single one of the other so-called "studies" brought to Council for approval? What about all the information hidden deep within 1000 page appendices and NOT brought to the attention of Council except by members of the public, who are dismissed out of hand because they are not hired, paid "consultants" or registered lobbyists for EFW?

There is so much more - Greenhouse gas emissions assumptions. Income from as yet unrealized power purchase agreement assumptions. Cost assumptions related to Technology/Vendor (not yet chosen), bids not yet received as RFP (Request for Proposals) has not yet gone out to short-list vendors. Bottom ash haul and disposal assumptions (we don't even have a recipient for the ash yet!). Community Host Agreement not yet finalized - more cost assumptions.

There are so many more assumptions included within this business case, but why would anyone be surprised. All along, the road taken by the consultants and pro-incinerator Regional Reps has been to push through every study prematurely, without having important information available to them PRIOR to making these decisions.

This Regional Council (the majority of them) has approved every single "milestone" that has been brought forward WITHOUT being fully informed, whether because of hidden information (we can't expect every Councillor to slog through the hundreds/thousands of pages of tables and information hidden within the appendices - they simply don't have the time and the consultants have conveniently only presented the most positive of the results to them) or because of all the contrary information conveniently left out of the studies and presentations. So they are guilty of making uninformed decisions and they don't even seem to care. Or they are truly being hood-winked and haven't figured it out yet. Either scenario is terribly disturbing.

"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." ~William W. Watt

There have been a few (very few) Councillors who have actually asked probing questions, and who have not been afraid to ask that this process slow down. As it is, we've been told that this project now likely won't be completed until the end of 2012. So why not take the time to make sure it is done correctly, not just quickly. Fast has been the operative word, not accuracy.

It appears there are so many problems with this Deloitte and Touche Business Case that it would take many hours and many pages to even outline them all. Don't we see far too many cost/revenue assumptions being made, and far too many assumptions on health and environmental 'safety'? Remember that Deloitte and Touche did the "positive" business case for Clarington's Total Hockey, which closed recently as a huge bust. Clarington residents paid dearly for that mistake, paid twice the appraised value in the beginning and are still paying for it as there are even more costs associated with dismantling it today. A business plan by Deloitte and Touche projected attendance figures of 20,000 to 25,000 a year. At the end of the first year, in spite of great efforts by Community Services to attract as many people as possible, only 3,532 people had visited the Total Hockey facility in Bowmanville. Warnings from residents of Clarington prior to the approval for Total Hockey went unheard or unheeded, just like warning from residents about this incinerator project are being ignored by those who believe they "know better" (our egotistical politicians).

Deloitte and Touche can't be blamed completely for the erroneous assumptions contained within the EFW Business Case, since the "evaluation framework was developed in consultation with the Region..." and we know that the region is completely biased toward EFW, as are their registered EFW lobbyist consultants, and will always put the very best case scenario forward, leaving out the huge risks or concerns of residents and experts alike.

How can anyone be comfortable with all the assumptions found in this document? Please read this Report and Business Case and see for yourself. It is highly disturbing and even more disturbing is the knowledge that once again, Regional Committees and Council will rubber stamp it, as will our 3 Regional Councillors (Mayor Abernethy, Mary Novak and Charlie Trim). Once again concerns about the validity of this document from residents will be dismissed/ignored. Once again Regional Council will give Clarington a slap in the face as most are just glad it's not in their backyard. Sad that they don't realize it will affect all 8 municipalities, not only Clarington. Those nanoparticles travel easily much farther than the "point of impingement" used in the region's studies. Taxes will increase, despite the glowing endorsement of the business case. It won't be the first time.

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. This Business Case reeks, but we seem to have a lot of sniff-challenged politicians in our region. This entire project is speeding its way to completion, and residents are powerless to stop it or to even slow it down. This Regional Council is hell-bent on bulldozing it through, despite their claims to the contrary. Look at their voting history do date. Push, push, push. Don't be bothered with the facts that have been left out of each and every study. Instead be convinced by the assumptions made by the pro-incinerator industry and claim your conscience is clear. When taxes and health impacts come home to roost, we will remember.

And you WILL be accountable, whether you like it or not; whether you are still in office or not (and we hope not).

On the Endangered list: Democracy, Ethics and Common Sense

2008-04-26T11:17:00.012-04:00

The reasons Clarington has no representation at Regional Council regarding the incinerator (EFW) issue are becoming more and more clear. Clarington's Mayor not only thinks he knows what is better for his residents than they do, but he also feels the rules need not apply to him. He believes he can make up or change the rules whenever it suits him.

Clarington Mayor Jim Abernethy has shown his disdain for the rules multiple times recently, and doesn't seem to understand that they apply to him, not just to others.

The first serious infraction occurred a few months ago when residents questioned the Mayor on why he did not represent his Council (Clarington) resolutions at Regional Council, which according to the new procedural by-law passed by Council in December 2007 is not a 'choice', but a requirement for the mayor. Local Councillors then took up the cause, which was a good thing since the Mayor ignored residents as he has been doing for many months. He came up with a convoluted excuse, citing the Municipal Act, but was incorrect in his interpretation of it, showing his lack of understanding of rules and regulations when they pertain to him. He still does not represent his residents at local or regional council, and that is a sore spot with many. As a matter of fact, it is growing daily into a huge wound.

The mayor seems to have no comprehension of what "conflict of interest" means, as more than once he has declared a conflict and then spoken to the very issue he had declared a conflict on.

It is a shame that the Clarington Green Living Community Advisory Committee has become a joke, rather than the valuable committee it could have and should have become. All credibility has been lost with the Mayor first of all lobbying for the position of Chair even before the first meeting was held, in direct contravention of the Community Advisory Committee Protocol. Did he not know what the rules were (he should have), or did he just not care? Did the majority of committee members not care about following the rules set out by the municipality? If that is the case, why should we have any confidence in their judgement on anything else? Are they 'above the rules' along with their Mayor? How does that behaviour reflect on the other Community Advisory Committees? Why was this Green Living Committee, the pet committee of the mayor, given a budget of $16,500.00 without some of the committee members even knowing about it, or voting on how it was to be spent - all in one shot for a package of 45 or 50 commercials on one TV station? How much more could have been done with that kind of money? Or it could have been shared with some of the other important and non-politicized Clarington community committees. Oh yeah, that's right. Those are non-politicized, not run by politicians and staff and that is the difference. (I am not speaking of the Conservation Authority Boards or Veridian or other non "community advisory committees")

Does the mayor realize that a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) has the mandate to ADVISE Council on specific matters? How can a community group advise Council when the committee is headed and agenda driven by the mayor and councillors and their staff? It defeats the entire purpose. Yet there are some who ask why that rule is there in the first place, and now STAFF is recommending that the rules be changed so that the Mayor CAN sit as Chair and will no longer be breaking rules. Can he change the Municipal Act too, or will he simply continue to break those rules? We know the answer to that one.

How about this Council muzzling the public, or attempting to? Their new procedural by-law limits delegations to 5 minutes instead of the typical 10 they used to have. It appears to give the Mayor carte blanche to muzzle any delegation that disagrees with him, or when he doesn't like what is being said. A case in point is Mr. Jim Richards, who was given an important Provincial Citizenship Award recently, and Mayor Abernethy gave him a Clarington Award a few weeks later. The next week the Mayor first told Mr. Richards he couldn't use the word "bully" in describing the actions of Regional Chair Anderson toward a resident the previous week which had brought the resident to tears (a tactic not at all unusual for Mr. Anderson to use), and would have to retract his statement, which he was not allowed to even finish. Mr. Richards refused to retract, and the Mayor made him sit down. He later told Mr. Richards to leave Council Chambers when Mr. Richards stated he would not be giving a written apology to Council for his statement.

The Mayor on that same night reprimanded 2 other delegations for their comments, none of which were abusive in any way. Another delegation has been told he cannot speak at Council again (like Mr. Richards) until he gives an apology in writing to Council, and this man had even retracted his statements when asked to do so.

It appears our Mayor is terribly thin-skinned. He uses the excuse of keeping 'decorum' in Council Chambers, but there was no loss of decorum. All 3 delegations were quite polite and there was no sign of the 'radicals' the mayor has lamented about in the past. My question is, if the Mayor can call residents who disagree with him "radicals", why can't delegations call Mr. Anderson a bully, or his followers "sheep", or his close friends "cronies"? Why can't a delegation liken our Mayor to King Henry the Eighth if he can call them "radicals"? Yes Mr. Mayor, a very thin skin indeed, along with a double standard. Will councillors sit still and allow this travesty to continue? Do they not realize that when you are a public politician, people are allowed to criticize your actions? There was nothing inappropriate, unreasonable or undignified or untrue in the statements made by residents during their delegations. On the contrary, they expressed their opinions; opinions, I might add, which are becoming ever so much more popular with the citizens of Durham Region. Councillors must realize they have a duty to the public to protect their interests and must challenge any violations of procedure and of fairness to the residents of their municipality.

It appears to be the Mayor who is behaving inappropriately and in an undignified manner, although he seems unable to see it as do some on Council. The tide has turned, sir, and it would behoove you all to heed the signs.

On another note, see the new local BLOG: One Environmentalist's Right to Write

Stay tuned.

Who will speak for us?

2008-02-09T14:01:00.000-05:00

Where to begin? Although I've been away for some time, I've kept up with all the goings on over the incinerator. And in my travels I've had the opportunity to learn much more than I ever wanted to know about incineration, and the pro-incinerator lobby. They are powerful and vocal and are everywhere. They are masterful at showing the best side of incineration and hiding the deep, dark deadly secrets.

They will show you the clean, Darlington-looking control rooms and allow you to speak with those who depend on the industry for their livelihoods. They will point out a school or daycare or apartment building or clothesline just within spitting distance of the incinerator and tell you everyone is content and happy with it. And it makes you want to spit.

If you travel a little farther afield and speak to people not on the industry's "okay list", you'll find a lot of worry, a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lot of anger surrounding the incineration industry. Especially from those who were led to believe that it was safe with few emissions because of all the scrubber technology and monitoring. They found out differently AFTER the fact. They found out that livestock on farms were affected and now it's not safe to drink the milk or eat the meat that has 'bio-accumulated' toxins in them. It has now begun to hurt the farming industry and as that knowledge spreads, it will devastate it.

They found out that they are having higher rates of birth defects in infants in areas within a 20 - 90 km radius of these stacks. They are having more chronic lung disease problems such as asthma (sound familiar?) and certain types of cancers.

But in most cases, their governments are silent. They don't want to be sued and they want to keep up their denials. There are some in government who are trying to speak out and are muzzled. There are many in the general population who are not muzzled and are being heard world-wide, if you care to listen.

Our elected (and unelected) officials have chosen not to listen. They are content to listen only to the paid EFW lobbyists the Region hired to promote incineration. Yes, that's right, they were hired to get it through the EA process and get it approved. They were not hired to do objective testing or studies - and that is more than evident from the so-called studies already completed. Look at the air quality statistics brought forward at Regional Committees and Council, and at Clarington Council numerous times. Those numbers came from the appendices of the Region's very own hired consultant's studies so they cannot dispute them. But those numbers were hidden deep in those pages and never, not once, brought forward by the consultants in all their presentations to committee, council, or the public at the public information sessions, even when asked about them. When air quality numbers are hundreds and thousands of times worse in Clarington than in East Gwillimbury, but they are rated as equal or both "neutral" for advantage or disadvantage, you know SOMETHING isn't right.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Confidence in the EA process has been dwindling as it has become increasingly evident that results appear to be manipulated in such a way as to promote or ensure the desired outcome of the process. This is not wild speculation. It seems so abundantly obvious if anyone takes the time to actually read not only the executive summary of these studies, but also dig deep into the bowels of the consultant's analysis to extract the fact from the faeces.

That so many of our elected officials are taken in by this spin and haven't taken the time to flush out the truth for themselves is highly disturbing. These are the people who are entrusted with our health and well-being, yet they refuse to listen to the groundswell of doctors in Durham Region who are vehemently opposed to this incinerator. They refuse to read the medical journals or numerous studies that would support the contention that there are emissions that cannot be captured by present technology - emissions that are bioaccumulative and dangerous to humans, especially in the fetal stages, infants and toddlers, and those with chronic illness who are already compromised. Tiny nanoparticles that can penetrate all organs including the brain through the blood/brain barrier.

They are entrusted with keeping our environment safe and healthy, yet refuse to listen to experts or environmental groups and choose instead to believe the consultants who are paid to PROMOTE incineration, the lobby groups and the industry.

They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain.

They should be caring a lot more than they are - and should show some common sense. Mayor Abernethy continues say they MUST push this EA through (though he neglects to say it should be done properly instead of FAST). The way this EA is being conducted, speed is so much more important than accuracy, and speed is a good way to hide many of the facts that should be made public knowledge.

Take the ridiculous reasons given by most Regional Councillors for approving the Courtice 01 site as the preferred site for the incinerator to be built - so that they can get ALL the information needed to make an informed decision. Then they went ahead and made a MAJOR decision in the EA process steps WITHOUT having the necessary information to make that decision. Talk about loony and backward. They needed to have technology information before choosing the site. They completely ignored the information given to them by residents and doctors and experts regarding air quality, for example, using that fake excuse that they want to get more information. Why make such an important decision without having the information first? We know why - it is an excuse they can use to push the EA farther and farther down the road and enable it to skip over information that should be given tough scrutiny. Instead it will get short shrift.

The public is not being fooled, other than a few who have listened to their politicians and not questioned any of the information or done any research themselves. And those are the people who won't be changed anyway. They're probably still using that old DDT in their yards and have kept the asbestos in their walls and don't worry about it because they're not sick yet. They probably smoke too (no lung cancer yet) and think there will be hundreds of jobs to run this new facility. They certainly haven't done their homework there, either.

The incinerator lobby can be excused to some degree for their shameless promotion of EFW, WtE, incineration or whatever you want to call it. They get paid for it. But the fact that our politicians in whom we place our trust are shamelessly promoting it and not even asking questions is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.

That our Mayor Abernethy and Regional Councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak put the Region AHEAD of Clarington is disgraceful and inexcusable. Where they got the idea that their first allegiance is to the Region, above Clarington and its residents is not hard to figure out. They are being used by the Region to get what the Region wants. And they haven't even figured that out yet.

It is unbelievable that these three voted AGAINST the motion by Brian Nicholson that said if a municipality was an unwilling host, the region would not force an incinerator on them. They would not even protect their own municipality - the Region as always comes first. None of the three can claim they are being protective of Clarington or NOT putting the Region first in all things incinerator.

This is why these three must NEVER be allowed to be re-elected in Clarington. They have given up their right to speak for us since they have never spoken for us. They speak for the Region at all times. This is something none of us should forget, no matter how this incineration farce turns out. They have not stood up for Clarington. Only our four local councillors have done so. Hats off to Councillors Foster, Hooper, Woo and Robinson. They are the only ones looking our for our welfare, and it can't be easy with the pressure from the Region and from our Mayor. They deserve our gratitude and our support.

Now comes the PR farce the Mayor is trying to foist upon the good citizens of Clarington. These people who will be speaking are not experts on incineration. They are promoters, lobbyists, but where are the experts? How can residents give their councillors questions to ask the presenters before they hear them speak? Our hands are tied and the Mayor knows it. That is why these people were invited by our Mayor are being promoted in this forum rather than at an open forum where residents can ask questions.

There is so much more to say on this subject and it will be said. The entire scenario as it is playing out simply disgusts me. All that I hold dear, namely fairness, openness, honesty, transparency... they are all missing from this entire process. The dirty little bag of tricks continues but is not fooling anybody. Instead it is strengthening those in opposition to this entire debacle. The word is rapidly spreading. They may have the votes at Regional Council to approve this incinerator. But WE have the votes at the ballot box, and we will not forget.

Please Mary, come to our rescue!

2008-01-21T01:16:00.000-05:00

Today is a guest blog by Kristin R - a concerned resident of Clarington. She asks some good questions and makes some good points. What do you think? --CW

I was speaking with 2 people today that reside in Courtice. Both expressed their disgust with the proposed incinerator, and said they were going to shoot off some emails to Mary Novak, the Regional Councillor for our Ward. They were both surprised that Mary had not done something about this incinerator project before now.

Hmmm, why hasn’t Mary done anything about it? Last week she voted that she approved accepting the consultant recommendation of Clarington as the preferred site (thank goodness our local councillors voted differently).

We still do not know: the technology, vendor, business plan, where the bottom ash and highly toxic fly ash will go, among other things. The Clarington peer reviewers and staff have demonstrated that the Environmental Assessment done by the consultants is severely flawed. Yet, Mary voted to continue ahead with the ‘process’ in spite of of everything. Even more confusing to me is that Mary sits on Clarington’s Green Community Advisory Committee – I wonder how this incinerator fits into this committee’s mandate?

I am new to the whole local/regional political scene, so I may be way off base. But Mary’s decisions just don’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Nor do they seem to make sense to others in her ward. Mary is obviously a smart woman; she has been involved in politics for many years now and has seen many issues come and go. Please Mary, come to our rescue!

Incineration/Waste Management Forum on January 10

2008-01-01T21:59:00.000-05:00

Click on the flyer for a larger view.

This looks like an informative, interesting, and badly needed forum. There has been so much misinformation pushed out at everyone from the consultants and from the Region that it's hard to know what's what. Much of the information is contradictory and some doesn't even pass the most rudimentary sniff test.

Residents have been out there bringing forward documented articles from experts (scientists, doctors, experts in waste management) and the politicians have been turning a deaf ear because they prefer to believe the spin that supports their fondest dream - that of their very own incinerator in Clarington, to burn all that garbage and get it out of sight, out of mind.

Never mind that it does nothing to get people to change bad habits, to work harder to conserve, reduce, reuse, recycle. This is the easy way out - let's just burn it. It is the most expensive way out, and the most risk to health way out, and the most unsustainable way out, but it's the quickest and will make the most money for 'somebody'. Not for residents! But who cares, when the Region is all-powerful and can make the decision without listening to the real experts, or to the residents.

I very much hope that the politicians will attend this forum so they can actually hear more than what they've been listening to so far. If they care a hoot they will attend. They are all being invited and I will make sure to post the names of those who care enough to attend. I will also be sure to post, very prominently, the names of those who don't bother to attend the forum. I am hoping those names will also be listed in the local newspapers (all of Durham and York Regions) and will be listed by the organizers of the forum.

While it is important for our elected (and unelected, Regional Chair Anderson) politicians to make the effort to educate themselves, without excuses, and to show residents they care enough to do so, it is also very important that residents of both regions are aware of which politicians care enough to open their minds a little, and those who don't give a damn and are just content to push forward with their destructive dream of building this incinerator.

I hope to see a lot of residents at this forum, and a lot of politicians - local, regional, provincial and even federal. This affects us all. How much do you care? Enough to take a few hours out of one evening to listen to experts and to ask questions? I certainly hope so.

Clarington (and Durham) Meetings - Behind Closed Doors

2007-11-09T02:53:00.000-05:00

A report was brought forward in the November 5th agenda entitled, "Meeting Investigator - Closed Meetings" which can be found on the Municipal website (CLD-036-07). This was obviously in response to Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin's comments during a panel discussion a couple of weeks ago on openness and transparency in government, where Marin said citizens should be furious with the business their local government does while squirrelled away from the prying eyes of the public.

Our local press has picked up on this story - read Metroland's "Residents will soon be able to investigate secret meetings" from November 8.

Starting in the new year, the Municipal Act allows any individual to request an investigation be undertaken to determine whether a municipality or local board or committee of either, is complying with the rules on what is allowed to take place during a closed or in camera meeting.
...The new rules mean either an investigator can be appointed, or, failing that, a review can be done by Ontario's Ombudsman's office.

At this point, though, Clarington councillors aren't sure of the best way to implement the new rules. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is offering a service, which would be billed hourly, based on $1,250 a day plus expenses. Or the Ombudsman's office can do the review -- but it's not yet known what, if any, cost will be associated with that.

Councillors say they want to ensure the Municipality isn't out of pocket to comply with the rules.

Perhaps they had better be more careful about how often they go "in camera" for discussions, which seems to be quite frequently according to agenda items listing "confidential matters". That may save money, but finding a way to limit people questioning these secret meetings or scaring them out of asking by saying they will be responsible for costs is limiting the intent of the Act, isn't it?

As with his other scathing reports, Marin is exactly right. Closed meetings are permitted under the Municipal Act, but only in select circumstances.

A property purchase or sale is permitted to go in camera, an understandable exemption to protect the integrity of the transaction. But many municipalities have stretched this to mean any matter dealing with property, and that includes renovation costs to buildings already owned by the government.

Legal advice is allowed behind closed doors, as is any discussion about an identifiable individual. The caveat is the debate is allowed in secret, but the vote must be public. It's amazing the way municipal governments get around this, voting on obscurely worded motions that give no idea about the issue being discussed.

That fact has been lost on local government. Just because the Municipal Act permits a council to retreat in camera, it doesn't mean council has to retreat in camera.

Maybe because Marin made these comments during a panel discussion and didn't put them down in a formal report, municipalities will sidestep the firestorm that met other Marin investigations. But they shouldn't.

Every municipal council in Ontario should pay close heed to what Marin is saying. And if the ombudsman gets it within his authority to formally investigate the in camera practices of municipalities, we'd suggest he take his investigation a step further, and look at the boards and agencies of municipal governments that are all-too-comfortable shutting the public out of their deliberations. Board chairs should be cognizant of what the rules are regarding public attendance at any local committees and boards and should not shut out or shut down residents when they ask to speak or even ask just to sit in on meetings. That is happening far too often.

How will Clarington Council deal with this? Time will tell. There will be a staff report within the next few weeks. Accountability and transparency are of utmost importance, and there is too little of that these days at all levels of government. Too many in-camera sessions, too many cryptically worded motions voted on afterward.

We hope they will come up with a fair solution that won't cost taxpayers an arm and a leg for unjustified queries from the public, but also will not stop justified questioning of the public meetings or the lack of information on what the meeting was about afterward, with the exception of names or particulars which should be kept private. It will be nice to see this policed for a change as it appears that the Act regarding closed meetings has been misused.

Of course this does not limit or hold accountable those politicians who do their dealings (lobbying) behind closed doors - the back-room deals and promises which are not made during Council meetings, but before meetings to garner required votes to pass a particular upcoming motion. I am speaking more of Regional Council in this vein. I so wish THOSE private meetings could be policed and made public! It most certainly would open the eyes of the public who don't realize this is common practice in some circles. More often than not we are left out in the cold when decisions are made before being brought to the public for so-called "consultation", and the Region only goes through the motions - such as with the Incineration EA for example. Now that one is a sham if I ever saw one, which is sad for the residents of Clarington and the entire Region.

This is why 'watchdogs' are needed. That includes the press, Andre Marin, the public and yours truly.

The Mayor is puzzled?

2007-10-28T10:09:00.000-04:00

So, our Mayor is puzzled, astonished, surprised over Ajax's decision not to support the Region's plan to push an incinerator on Clarington/Durham Region without clear answers to the many outstanding questions that should have been answered before getting to this point in the process. http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/Durham/article/88270

We might use other terminology for the Mayor's confusion and position on this incinerator. How about baffled, befuddled, bewildered, dazed, discombobulated, disconcerted, disorganized, distracted, flummoxed, flustered, fouled up, glassy-eyed, gonzo, misled, mixed up, muddled, nonplussed, perplexed, perturbed, punch-drunk, punchy, screwy, shook up, slaphappy, spaced out, stumped, taken aback, thrown, unglued, unscrewed, unzipped... How about just plain wrong.

What is perplexing to me and to many others is how our elected regional representatives could so easily believe everything they are told by those who have a vested interested in having this incinerator built, without question, yet will not consider information and objections brought forward by:

residents who have done their homework and presented documented reports, studies, concerns

16 Clarington doctors who have signed a petition declaring their health concerns as well as their opposition to this incinerator

43 Durham Region doctors who have done the same

Peer Reviewers hired by the municipality of Clarington, at great expense to us, who have outlined shortcomings and problems with the EA studies to date on this project

How can they have such tunnel vision? How can they be so blind? How can they be so obtuse?

How can the Mayor continue to say that he has not made up his mind on whether Clarington should support this incinerator or not, all the while promoting it to everyone and every group he comes in contact with? All the while showing promotional videos from proponents, but never, not even once truthfully considering "the other side" of the story? Does he think residents of Clarington are as blind or as undiscerning or myopic as he is? This man is not a leader. He is a follower (of Mr. Anderson and cronies).

I will level this charge today at our two other regional representatives - Charlie Trim and Mary Novak. Both have also continued to say that they haven't made up their minds yet and are waiting for all the information to be in. Well, they have shown their true colours recently and there is no doubt where they stand either. Both are fully in support of this project, even without having all the answers. Even with having hardly any clear-cut answers at all.

There is no technology chosen to date, although Mr. Anderson has repeatedly said it will NOT be plasma arc or the newest tech since it is too expensive. Money before health and safety - is anyone surprised at that? Mass Burn is what is being seriously considered.

You may say, "how do you know?". Ask yourself, how did we know the preferred site would be not only in Clarington, but specifically in Courtice? How could we have known that more than a year ago? How did we know that no other alternatives would be seriously studied or looked at well before they made public that "thermal technology" would be the preferred option? How have we known before the "studies" have even been done, what each step would be?

We knew because it has all been pre-planned, pre-ordained. And Clarington has been the target all along, one reason being our uber-weak political representation. While the local councillors are still not willing to declare us an unwilling host, even though they by now have seen the shortcomings of the studies, the process, the beat-around-the-bush "spin" put on this whole project, the regional councillors have determinedly, unequivocally, and unmistakably supported the Region's "vision" to burn our garbage from the start.

Oh to be blessed with honest, intelligent, open-minded representation such as Ajax has. We can only hope for better choices in 2010, and will actively work toward that goal. That includes the "Elect the Chair" campaign. While we know our Mayor and 2 regional councillors will never support that, we can hope our local councillors come to their senses and push for election of the regional chair, as residents have repeatedly asked them to do.

A question to our Mayor and regional councillors - why is it that you promote the "new" incineration technology, which STILL cannot remove the harmful ultrafine and nanoparticulate from the stack emissions, but continue to talk about the "old" landfill technology, and will not admit that there is new technology in stabilized landfill that collects leachate, prevents it from contaminating our groundwater, can collect the methane gas produced and with technology can safely burn it for energy, and does not pollute the atmosphere the way incineration will? Even the Region's consultants admitted in their brief "alternatives to" study that the greatest impact on the airshed would be from incineration, not from landfill (not even from old-style landfill, which is the only type they "studied").

With all the lip service paid to global warming and climate change, our environmentally non-friendly Region of Durham (proven during the greenbelt debacle) wants to contribute even more through stack emissions to the problem.

And the claims that forest fires contribute more to greenhouse gases than incinerators is disingenuous at best. Naturally occurring forest fires are not remotely related to intentional burning of waste. There are better alternatives but those have not even been considered by this Council or the Region's Consultants. One more chink in the EA armour.

Our elected (and non-elected) representatives should err on the side of caution when it comes to our health. Also when it comes to the financial commitment. Use the Precautionary Principle, which is normally used first and foremost in the scientific community. It has been totally disregarded by not only the Region but by the consultants who are promoting the vision of the Region. Yes, there is a huge and ever widening credibility gap. Especially when questions are asked at the public information sessions and no clear answer is ever given - just a bunch of spin and non-answers. I have not spoken with ONE person who asked a question at a PIC who was satisfied with the answer they received. NOT because it was not the answer they wanted, as suggested by Mr. Cliff Curtis who is Commissioner of Waste... er, Works, but because they didn't get any answer at all. Just spin.

It is depressing to see what is happening to Clarington. It is more than depressing to see people putting their houses on the market already, so convinced are they that this will be pushed through in spite of what the final true answers are. It is a sad state of affairs for Clarington, for the Region of Durham, and for the GTA overall. It is depressing that seeing facilities that look "clean" in Europe seem to be the deciding factor, nevermind all the invisible emissions coming from the stacks; nevermind that their waste stream is different than ours; nevermind that we will not have the best available technology - we will have the most affordable technology. Nevermind that European standards are much higher than Ontario standards for emission control. Nevermind that Ontario has only guidelines, not requirements for emissions, and that while there may be a financial cost for exceeding limits placed upon incinerator facilities, many consider it simply a 'cost of doing business'.

Those who support this project should spend a little time doing some real homework. That includes our elected (and non-elected) representatives. It is more than obvious that our Mayor does not understand the EA process or how it works (or is supposed to work) at all. It is a process for ASKING questions of the proponents, and making sure those answers are received. He seems to object to all the questions being asked by residents and peer reviewers, since our Council is not asking the questions that need to be asked.

Also see Metroland articles and editorials:
Ajax council raises good questions on incinerator
Is Ajax standing up for Clarington’s interests?
Take a stand, Clarington, says incineration opponent
Energy from waste draws new faces

Durham Environment Watch - good source of information for incineration issues and media articles
Watchdog Incinerator Posts - previous posts regarding this incendiary issue

Public Info Sessions timed to discourage attendance

2007-09-28T13:02:00.000-04:00

Clarington has been chosen as the preferred host municipality for a massive incinerator to burn mixed municipal waste. Courtice is the specific town where it will be located.

One Public Information Session was scheduled to be held in Bowmanville to ask for input on the preferred site (they have to ask, because of EA requirements, but they don't have to listen). Due to delegations to Clarington Council on Monday night and the Joint Waste Management Group on Tuesday (in Regional Council Chambers) complaining that there should be more than one Information Session in Clarington (there should be at least 3, according to most who noticed the shortcoming) and there should be sessions held in the host town - Courtice. The other complaint was the timing of the session - a drop in session from 2 pm until 9 pm on Wednesday (Oct 3) and a formal presentation from 9 pm until 11 pm. What a time on a weeknight! And where is the time for questions/comments from residents?

The Q&A session after the formal presentation has, at all the former Public Information Sessions held by Genivar/Jacques Whitford, been the most informative part of the presentation. These consultants are known by now to gloss over any of the negative impacts and promote anything positive they can find to say about this incinerator project. It is during the Q&A sessions that more information comes out. Asking a consultant one on one is quite different than listening to comments from other residents, and probing questions that are NOT being asked by the politicians.

Residents were assured at the JWMG meeting on Tuesday this week that the formal presentation on Oct. 3 would be moved to 8 pm from 9 pm (after all the delegations asked that it be moved to 7 pm like all the other presentations have been, and like the York Region presentation will be). It was reported in the Wednesday, Sept. 26 Canadian Statesman that the time would be 8 pm. In today's Clarington This Week, the reported time is 9 pm again. See how the previous information sessions were handled.

Are they confused themselves, or are they just trying to confuse us? They obviously don't want a good turnout as the advertising for this Public Session has been pitiful, and short notice, late hour, etc. Here is one more complaint about the PROCESS.

They have now added a second session, to be held in Courtice at Faith United Church on Nash Road on Tuesday, October 9 - at 8 pm. Still they couldn't be convinced to hold this one at 7 pm either. This looks to be intentional, not to give Clarington what it asks for. But then again, why start now?

More and more we are losing confidence in this bunch. That includes the Mayor and Regional Councillors from Clarington as well as the Regional Project Team and Consultants. Read the comments from people on my previous post. Yes, this Process is a failure. Why would we have any confidence in the conclusions they come to at the end of this flawed process?

By treating Clarington Council and Staff and residents so shabbily and thoughtlessly, they show how little our opinions count. Roger Anderson was correct when he said Clarington's views wouldn't matter in the Region's actions or decisions. He was not just talking about "the process". Will the tacky treatment of Clarington continue? It seems so. It seems to be escalating. Mr. Anderson has great difficulty in disguising his contempt for Clarington. I would submit that he no longer even bothers.

Do YOU have confidence in this process, as it has been handled to date? I look forward to your comments. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, although I won't change my mind until or unless things change BIG TIME. I don't think the political will is there to make the changes needed. Why does it seem that our Mayor and 2 Regional Councillors (Trim and Novak) are so afraid to stand up for Clarington and demand fair treatment? Why don't they appear to care about the voters/taxpayers of this municipality? Why are they willing to risk our health and well-being? I'd love to hear from any of them, but they also appear to be afraid to answer direct questions honestly.

Courtice is announced as preferred site for Incinerator

2007-09-21T16:50:00.001-04:00

IS ANYONE SURPRISED???

How many times have we said over the last year or so that the preferred site would be in Courtice. How many people have said it was pre-determined and that Durham Region hired the consultants to steer the site selection toward the Courtice site right from the beginning (as well as steering away from any of the alternative technologies)?

Do we all have crystal balls, or was this plan just poorly disguised from the start? Then again, why bother to put much effort into disguising the intent when it makes no difference what Clarington voters, Clarington staff, or a few of the local councillors have to say. The Region has admitted time and time again that it doesn't matter. Last week's attempts at explaining away Chairman Anderson's comments at Clarington Council were puny and didn't hold water to anyone who has heard Mr. Anderson comment on the same subject countless times at committee meetings. He was not only talking about the EA process itself. Ask him point blank if it will matter to the Region if Clarington declares itself a willing host or not, in the end, when the Region decides they are going to put their beloved incinerator in our midst. The answer is no. He has admitted it many times over the last year.

Well, now the joke is on our Mayor and Regional Councillors in Clarington, as well as any others gullible enough to think this is an objective EA process. There are so many holes in it that there will be appeals upon appeals and the Province should start to listen, since those pushing this project through at both Regional and local levels of government had their minds made up years ago, in spite of their insistence that they are waiting for all the "facts". If Mayor Abernethy was remaining objective, why would he promote incineration to the Clarington Board of Trade by playing them a video from an EFW proponent? Why would he vote down any attempts at getting more information from the Region or vote against the Region having to pay whatever it takes for Clarington to do its due diligence? Why would Mary Novak and Charlie Trim do the same? Why would Abernethy be so happy about Courtice being chosen as the preferred site for this incinerator? If he thinks he will benefit from it, or that Clarington will, he is sadly mistaken, and his refusal to remain the least bit neutral will haunt him in the next election, if he even has any plans of running again.

So, residents of Clarington, are we at all surprised by any of this? The only things I am surprised about are the lackadaisical attempts at convincing us this EA process as it is presently being run is "transparent". We asked for fairness, transparency, honesty. Our politicians promised us these things. What do we get instead?

Talk about managing garbage! The "poo pumper" is certainly hard at work these days.

Clarington has no say on incinerator, says Anderson

2007-09-12T20:25:00.000-04:00

Clarington has no say on incinerator, says regional chairman

Wed Sep 12, 2007
By Jennifer Stone (Metroland)

CLARINGTON -- Saying the municipality would not be a willing host to an incinerator proposed by the Regions of Durham and York would have "absolutely no effect whatsoever" on the process, Regional Chairman Roger Anderson told Clarington councillors Monday.
The chairman was one of a number of delegations speaking on the matter during the council meeting.
"It would be nice if we could have a willing host, but it is not essential," said Mr. Anderson. In fact, he said, that East Gwillimbury, the only other municipality with a potential site for the proposed incinerator besides Clarington, has said it won't be a willing host is neither here nor there. The site there remains under consideration, with a decision expected later this month on preferred site.
"It would be pretty easy to sit in front of all these folks ... and say, okay, I'm not going to be a willing host," he said, referring to the audience in council chambers, several of whom were on hand to voice their opposition to the proposed Energy From Waste plant. "Easy to say it now, but I don't know what you're going to say in 2011 (after the Michigan border closes to Ontario trash) because you're not going to have an answer."
There is nothing to the suggestion made by Clarington Councillor Adrian Foster that the Municipality is "Durham's ultimate waste solution," said the chairman. "We deem energy from waste as the ultimate waste solution," he said. But, there are alternatives to incinerating garbage which should be explored, some delegates told Council. Many touted a move toward zero waste, with some form of stabilized landfill until waste can be eliminated.
It's not like incineration will eliminate the need for landfill, said Kerry Meydam. "With the incinerator ... you still have that residual ash, and you still need landfill," she said. It is estimated about 30 per cent of what is sent into the incinerator would remain as bottom ash.
Zero waste, which would entail extending producer responsibility for their spent product. isn't terribly realistic, said others.
"Germany put in one of the most extensive producer responsibility systems ... but after the system was implemented, what they found was that they had huge and growing stockpiles of materials that could not be recycled," said David Climenhage. "I don't think that necessarily a zero-waste solution is something that can happen without many years and many new technologies in place to achieve it."
But, there is a need to look for other solutions, said others, some of whom were clearly disheartened by Mr. Anderson's comments.
"I'm not sure it really makes a difference whether I'm here or not," said Kristin Robinson. "It certainly seems like Mr. Anderson has made it clear my side won't be heard at all.
"I believe we can do better than burning our waste. I believe it is just a band-aid solution."

So, what do our readers think of this? Do you like being brushed off by those who presume to know what is best for all of us (like Anderson, Abernethy and our regional councillors who don't care what we have to say about it)? It is appalling that they will listen to their pro-incinerator/lobbyist/consultants but will not listen to doctors, scientists or residents (or those who are both), and won't bother to read medical journals or opinions of waste experts or even pretend to have any common sense at all?

What do you think about this? We do have the opinion of one Regional Councillor from a press release passed on to me from a group of residents earlier today. He hits the nail right on the head!

Clarington Residents Owed Apology over Remarks
“Regional Chair Anderson must respect taxpayers” says Councillor.
Oshawa—Oshawa Regional Councillor Brian Nicholson is urging Durham Regional Chair Roger Anderson to apologize to Clarington taxpayers for his disrespectful comments at Clarington Municipal Council on Monday, September 10, 2007.
Anderson is reported to have told Clarington Council that “saying the municipality would not be a willing host to an incinerator proposed by the Regions of Durham and York would have "absolutely no effect whatsoever" on the process”.
“I find that comment to be inaccurate, offensive and not helpful to the public consultation process”, says Councillor Nicholson, “We are currently in an Environmental Assessment process, we are holding public meetings in Clarington, and the taxpayers of both the Region and the Municipality are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars doing peer reviews. Why are we spending all this money if the input from Clarington Council and its residents will have “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the process?”
Nicholson continues, “As a member of the Regional Works Committee, I consider the opinions of the Clarington Council and the taxpayers of Clarington to be vital information in my decision making process. What is it about public comment and public participation that scares the Regional Chair? Is it possible that questions are being asked that he would prefer not be asked?”
Regional Council was asked in 2004, 2005 and 2006 to adopt a policy to add a pre-condition requiring any incineration site to be constructed must be located in a municipality that was a “willing host”. Council, led by Chair Anderson, ruled that any decision on “the requirement to be a willing host” was premature until the site selection process was completed and a host site announced.
“If it is premature to require a willing host prior to site selection, why is not premature to not require a willing host prior to site selection. Once again, we are seeing the rules change by fiat from the Chair rather than by Regional Council.”, claimed Councillor Nicholson. “If Chair Anderson wishes to have Regional Council take a position that states they will place an incinerator in a local municipality whether that municipality is a willing host or not, let him bring that forward to Council. In my opinion, he would have a rude shock if he did.”
This spring, Mayor Jim Abernethy of Clarington apologized to the Regional Chair on behalf of Clarington Council when the Chair was not allowed to speak to Clarington Council. It was said then that not allowing the Chair to speak and offer his views was an insult to the elected office of Regional Chair.
“ If not allowing the Regional Chair speak is an insult, then so is a statement by the Regional Chair that states that the opinions of the Clarington Council and its residents will have “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the process.”, claims Councillor Nicholson. “If one was wrong, then so is the other. Chair Anderson owes the Clarington Council, and more importantly, the residents of Clarington, Durham residents all, an apology for his comments.”
“The public consultation process must be above reproach, but it is becoming clear from comments such as those made by the Regional Chair, that the process is nothing more than a public relations exercise to limit the political fallout from a decision already made.”, Nicholson concludes.
For further information,

Regional Councillor Brian Nicholson
905-436-5603
bnicholson@oshawa.ca

Comments, anyone? I say Bravo to Councillor Nicholson and to the residents who continue to try to be heard. Pooh Pooh on Chairman Anderson for not even bothering to care.

Incineration Pros and Cons on Rogers Cable TV

2007-09-06T16:53:00.000-04:00

Some interesting TV from Rogers Cable... Incineration Pros and Cons. WATCH TONIGHT!

The "Con" side was given last night by two excellent local Clarington activists, Dr. Deb Jefferson and Wendy Bracken on the "Talk Local" show with host Amie Bolahood. I learned more in that one hour than I did in attending all of Durham Region's public information sessions last year and this year. I've stolen the information on times and repeats from the new D.E.W. website, which is also chock full of information on the subject.

Tonight at 9 pm on Rogers Cable we will see Mayor Abernethy and Cliff Curtis speaking for the "Pro" side, with host Tom Calow. Even though Mayor Abernethy continues to try to tell people he has not yet made up his mind, nor has Durham Region, does anyone still believe him? Watch tonight and I predict you will see him determinedly defend the decision to ignore any and ALL other alternatives to incineration and support incineration, which he will call "Energy From Waste". He and Mr. Curtis will tell you how clean and wonderful the European plants were that they saw on their expensive trip to Europe ($192,000 of Durham Region taxpayer's money). They will tell you how they saw a daycare built right near an incineration plant, saw people hanging out their laundry in the shadow of a large incinerator, and how nobody protests or minds those invisible emissions from the stacks.

They will not, however, tell you that Europe's regulations are much more stringent than ours in Ontario, or that theirs is a much different waste stream than what will be fueling our hungry "made in Durham" incinerator, with much lower toxicity. They won't tell you that the EU is now reconsidering the use of incinerators and making the regulations even tougher, or that they are looking at other solutions. They won't tell you about the very real risk of nano-particles because they don't understand what they are or how they affect human health. It is a quite new science, and the Durham Region consultants didn't bother to include any of the primary papers or research on this very important aspect of incineration. They will give you half-truths and spin it just as the consultants have spun it to them, to make it all more palatable.

But it seems that there is a growing number of people in Clarington and Durham becoming more aware of the con side, which was not even touched on by the Region's consultants who were hired to promote incineration to the public, just as the European Magical Mystery Tour was designed from day one to promote incineration, not to show both sides of the issue.

The Mayor owes an apology to all those delegations over the past several months who have taken the time to research and to speak about alternatives - all those delegations he chose to ignore as they spoke of alternative solutions including increased waste diversion, stabilized landfill for the small amount of residual waste after separating organics out for composting and biologically and mechanically treating what is left, extended producer responsibility, and more.

An exact quote from the Mayor made on Tuesday evening...
"We have been hearing what they're saying; they've been saying basically the same message over and over again; 'say no, say no, say no, say no', but what they have not done is they have not given us an alternative."

So why wasn't he listening to all those delegations? We submit it is because he made up his mind long ago and is pushing hard for incineration, just like our influential and tunnel-visioned Regional Chair, Roger Anderson. Much of Regional Council has been convinced that this is a safe, clean, wonderful project that will be oh-so-good for Durham Region, if not for Clarington.

Why are they so afraid of the whole truth, instead of hand-picked "facts" that they are exhibiting in their consummately one-sided promotion of incineration.

They also talk about "state of the art" or newest technology, but we know it will be what is most affordable, not state of the art. Chairman Anderson told us that months ago at one of his committee meetings where a large number of residents were present. He said that "Plasma Arc", for example, is too new, too experimental, too expensive so it would not be one of the technologies even considered. Yeah, right.

Even the newest "scrubbers" will not remove nano-particles from the emissions stack before they are released into our already compromised airshed. They cannot remove all the toxins and then even those that are removed... what to do with that pesky leftover ash? Guess what... it will have to go to a LANDFILL.

Watch tonight and ask questions. Please watch the repeats of the Talk Local show (see times below) for a much more intelligent and in-depth discussion of what we're really looking at if we have this incinerator built here. A much more complete and honest discussion without the political spin that we've sadly, now come to expect.

From the DEW website NOTICE BOARD:

NEW Thursday, September 6/07 at 9 p.m. - watch Mayor Jim Abernethy and Cliff Curtis tonight at 9 pm - Rogers Cable TV. Program is "Talk Politics". It's a call-in show so people can call in to comment and ask questions.

NEW Thursday September 6/07 - If you missed Dr. Deb Jefferson and Wendy Bracken (Clarington residents) featured on the "Talk Local" (Rogers Cable) show on Wednesday evening at 9 pm, please take the time to watch a repeat episode at any of the following times:
Thursday - 12:30 AM, 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM
Friday - 10:00 AM, 8:00 PM
Sunday - 10:00 PM
Monday - 2:00 AM, 5:00 AM
Tuesday - 8:00 AM

Monday, September 10, 2007 - Incineration Peer Review Reports 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Municipal Administrative Centre40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON - Council meeting (open to public)Decision on Clarington Peer Review Report on Incineration EA processIf you wish to appear as a delegation to speak on this item or your feelings on siting a large incinerator in Clarington to burn Durham Region's garbage (along with some of York Region's) as well as bringing in garbage possibly from Peterborough, Port Hope and other areas outside Durham Region, contact the Clarington Clerk's Dept. (905-623-3379) on or before 4 p.m. on Friday, September 7th. A preferred site will be chosen near the end of this month so it is important to be heard.

New Website for Incinerator information

2007-08-21T15:20:00.000-04:00

There is a new website with lots of information regarding "Incineration" or that term our politicians so love to use, "Energy From Waste".

The website is called DURHAM ENVIRONMENT WATCH or D.E.W. Looks interesting with credible information. It appears that Durham residents are getting fed up with the treatment they receive as well as the lack of understanding or care for the environment from Durham Region politicians (remember the recent greenbelt fiasco?). Once again that same bunch seem to be a 'retrograde council' or 'bastard child of the 905' (Toronto newspaper terms describing Durham Region) where it concerns environmental issues.

We hope those politicians will take a little bit of time to read some of the material on the site instead of following the infomercials put out by the regional consultants and European incinerator owner/operators.

Something I found very interesting, especially since those holier than thou politicians who took the Magical Mystery Tour to Europe are so fond of telling us all how wonderful the European countries are in their waste diversion efforts - getting all the way to 88 or 90% diversion. They fail, however to say that this rate is AFTER they burn most of their municipal waste. They have an even more pitiful diversion rate than Clarington (42% according to Durham Region). Europe-wide their rate is only 33% (before incineration). Does incineration cause lower diversion rates? We've been saying all along that it does. It's the wrong direction to take, and now the European Union seems to agree!

INCINERATION UNDER SCRUTINY IN EUROPE - In February 2007, the European Union redrafted its waste protocol to make diversion a priority. A crucial point for the Members of Parliament was to reduce the amount of landfill and incineration, both of which cause pollution. Members rejected the idea that incineration be regarded as recovery. This should have major ramifications for the incineration industry as Europe-wide, only 33% of waste is diverted by recycling or composting.

Do we really want to go where Europe has been? Why not take a cue from them as they have learned something from having all those incinerators. Those incinerators are polluting just as landfill does, and they must reduce BOTH landfill AND incineration.

Read the articles. You may become enlightened.

Integrity is not a conditional word

2007-08-02T22:34:00.000-04:00

July 30, Bowmanville, ON

Protest against Council's refusal to LISTEN.
"Say NO to INCINERATION"

Much has happened recently regarding the Durham Region "Incineration Issue". A peer review report from Clarington Staff and presentations by peer reviewers were scheduled to be heard on Monday, July 30, 2007 at Clarington Town Hall. A special GPA and Council meeting had been scheduled for that day, with the peer review report being promised to residents on the Thursday prior to that date. Of course that never happened. The presentations and report were pulled from the agenda, despite claims by the Mayor that they were never on the agenda.

Residents of Durham Region put together a protest on short notice, showing they do not accept the treatment they have been receiving from Clarington OR from the Durham politicians. And the discontent seems to be growing and spreading far beyond just Clarington's borders.

At the meeting in Council chambers, more excuses as to why the report was pulled by the CAO - he didn't receive it by Tuesday at 4:30 pm so could not sign it on Wednesday. He did receive it on Wednesday morning, and of course could not have taken one more day to read and sign it and still allow it to be available to the public by Thursday, or Friday, or even Monday. Or even this week.

The deadline for the commenting period for the Municipality and the public was to be on July 31. This peer review report was important information for residents (and municipality) to assist in knowledge when commenting on Generic Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment Report by the Region's hired guns... er... consultants. At the meeting on July 30 delegations were told very publicly that the commenting period for both the municipality and the public had been extended. Apparently another bit of untruth or misinformation as a letter to some of the delegations and interested parties on Thursday, August 2, stated that, "The commenting period deadline of July 31,2007 has not been extended for the Municipality of Clarington or the Public." Just one more slap in the face to residents of Clarington and of Durham Region. Conflicting information continues to come from the Region, from Clarington, from the EA Project Manager. Do any of them have any idea what is going on? - And yet another version by Cliff Curtis from the Region saying that the EA Project Manager was wrong and the commenting period has been prolonged. They just can't seem to get their stories straight... And what good does the commenting period being prolonged do if we can't even read the report that we've paid for and are entitled to?

Everyone already believes that the decision has been made (was made long ago, just like the decision to go with EFW and ignore all other -better- alternatives), and that the preferred site has already been chosen and that mass burn incineration is the technology planned to be used. There is no trust in our region or municipality as far as honesty or integrity at this point. Their claims that incineration is risk-free, that it is a good thing, the best thing, that it will not impact our recycling program, that it will make all that garbage (resources) disappear without consequence and will give us extra electricity ALL RING HOLLOW.

The peer review and due diligence reports are being paid for by us - the residents of Durham Region. At least the first $250,000 worth. The next $250,000 worth will be covered either by Durham Region (us again) or by Clarington alone (still us). But what is the point of paying all this money for these independent due diligence and peer review studies that were supposed to be completely independent of Durham Region, and for Clarington's benefit - if Durham gets to adjust or re-work or influence in any way what is contained in those reports? What is the point of paying for these studies if we (the public) are not even allowed to see them until they've been vetted by the Region?

The entire process has now been tainted. Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn't blow in the wind or change with the weather. Except in Durham and Clarington. One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised. Except in Durham Region and Clarington.

To Regional and Clarington Councils - Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity. Allow the residents of Clarington access to the reports they have asked for, fought for and paid for.

Show some integrity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Durham Waste Coalition:
For information on incineration send a blank email to: DurhamWasteFAQ@Hotmail.com

To register to receive updates and information send a blank email to: DurhamWasteReg@Hotmail.com , and pass this information to friends and family.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

European Magical Mystery Tour

2007-07-07T21:01:00.000-04:00

Incinerators are an unsustainable and obsolete method for dealing with waste. As global opposition to incineration continues to grow, innovative philosophies and practices for sustainable management of discards are being developed and adopted around the world.1 Except in Durham Region, where the soupe du jour is INCINERATION.

So sad that on a day when the world is celebrating "Live Earth" on 7 continents, our Durham politicians and staff are in Europe trying to find justification for their blind commitment to burning our garbage and sending it into the air instead of into the ground. I wonder if they have caught any of the Live Earth concert promos or messages regarding global warming and greenhouse gasses. It's big in Europe...

Again, the image of "retrograde council" comes to mind. Whether dealing with greenbelt or greenhouse gasses, it's an apt description of the majority (so far) of our Regional representatives, and especially our 3 Clarington reps. They pretend to care but then go ahead and promote incineration, finding all the excuses they can to tell residents that it is safe, clean, and there are no other options. It is good to know that they could find consultants to promote their cause, and that they are unburdened by accuracy or integrity when spewing the magic bullet solution to the rest of us.

Our Durham Pols keep telling us we must have a "Made in Durham" solution, and not send our garbage outside of our borders. Hmmmm. How do they plan on containing it when they send it into the air (emissions)?

“The latest scheme masquerading as a rational and responsible alternative to landfills is a nationwide — and worldwide — move to drastically increase the use of incineration...The principal consequence of incineration is thus the transporting of the community’s garbage — in gaseous form, through the air — to neighboring communities, across state lines, and indeed, to the atmosphere of the entire globe, where it will linger for many years to come. In effect, we have discovered yet another group of powerless people upon whom we can dump the consequences of our own waste: those who live in the future and cannot hold us accountable. It is still basically a Yard-a-Pult approach. [‘The Yard-a-Pult, invented for a “commercial” on the U.S. television comedy show Saturday Night Live, invites disposal of waste by catapulting it over the back fence into the yards of nearby neighbors.’]”
— then U.S. Senator Al Gore, 1992

The Durham Regional Council promised that they would not employ any technology that would cause any harm to residents. Yet they seem to feel it is unreasonable for us to hold them accountable for their actions. WE DO hold them accountable. For this unnecessary trip (not the first "incinerator tour" for some of them, with us paying the freight yet again). For continuing to spend dollars on a solution we don't want and that WILL cause harm to all of us, but more so to our children and their children. They could easily have gotten much more information on incineration from medical journals and scientific texts available on-line. What will they see in Europe? Emissions are invisible to the naked eye. I guess out of sight, out of mind.

"A meeting was scheduled with the director of the German Waste Association and they toured an EFW facility in Zurich, Germany." I hope they found it alright, since I always thought Zurich was in Switzerland. They must have been late for that meeting - could be still looking...

Our Regional Rocket Scientists "...poked around neighbouring homes and talked to some residents. Mr. Anderson said people had clothes out on the line next door to the incinerator, a reflection of the low level of concern over the facility. "

Oh gosh, that makes me feel so much better! And from a Metroland News article:

In Copenhagen, there was a townhouse complex within 200 metres of the EFW facility. They met with a man who had lived there for 30 years and another who had just moved in.
"We asked about depreciation of property values and if there was odour," Mr. Anderson said. "They didn't have any concerns about it. It is just the accepted way of dealing with waste here."

Oh my. The science is staggering. Incineration MUST be safe. And not only does the EFW project continue to roll on toward Clarington, but since York has backed out of the deal, Durham Region is soliciting other municipalities outside of Durham for their garbage, since we need enough to fill this oversized garbage burner. We won't send our garbage outside of Durham Region (except by air emissions), but we will welcome garbage from Peterborough, Northumberland, York, etc.

And why is Clarington being targeted? Well, because we have become known as a "politically weak community". There are many good reasons to stop this insanity it in its tracks. The main one is "emissions".

Builders and engineers of incinerators often respond to questions about pollution by asserting that “air emissions are under control” in the newest generation of “state of the art” waste burners. Underlying their claims are three unsupportable assumptions. First is the assumption that there are acceptable emissions levels for all the pollutants released by incinerators; second, that incinerator air emissions are now being accurately measured; and third, that emissions, even as currently measured, are within the limits currently defined as “acceptable.”
(1Waste Incineration, A Dying Technology; also see GAIA - Global Anti- Incinerator Alliance AND Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives)

Look at the Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment that has just been done for this incinerator project. Full of "assumptions". All it is is assumptions. Are you willing to risk your health and your family's health on unproven and unprovable assumptions? I'm not.

CHALLENGE to Clarington Councillors/Mayor who took the trip: Since we are paying for the "incineratourists", I would think that taxpayers are entitled to have these our Councillors (not staff - COUNCILLORS/Mayor) produce a "compte-rendu" of their findings, not something filled with typical platitudes but something substantial. If they say that they cannot, then how do they have the intellectual capabilities to assess what they saw?

It's hard to see the truth through all the smoke

2007-06-28T13:19:00.000-04:00

Another great column by John Barber at the Globe and Mail. If only our Regional Councillors could see it so clearly...

The Globe and Mail
Sat 23 Jun 2007
JOHN BARBER

There's nothing like a good, clean hit to enliven either a hockey game or a public debate, and Peterborough consultant Clarissa Morawski landed a beauty this spring when she looked at the emissions data for the necklace of large garbage incinerators our suburban neighbours plan to build around Toronto.

The data, supplied by the vendors of incinerators and published as an appendix to the environmental assessment of the plant that Hamilton and Niagara Region hope to build, showed an entirely different picture from the rosy propaganda the vendors and their agents had spun about their wondrous technology.

Unlike the old incinerators that were once considered safe - until they weren't - the new ones are said to be advanced "energy-to-waste" facilities that turn household waste into clean energy. But the data submitted by the vendors themselves showed that this new technology was one of the dirtiest imaginable ways to produce power - far worse even than coal-fired power plants in terms of heavy-metal and greenhouse-gas emissions.

"I was absolutely shocked that incineration is still under consideration, given the pollution profile alone," Ms. Morawski said at the time. So were a lot of people when she published her findings in Solid Waste Magazine. In the time since then, concerns about the huge costs and potential hazards of incineration have led Halton Region to cancel plans to build a facility, while Niagara and York are slipping free of the partnerships they once entered to do the same.

But Hamilton and Durham still appear determined to go it alone with their big burners, doubling down on what their counterparts considered a losing bet. They do have one new advantage: The inconvenient facts that helped deter the others no longer exist.

Within weeks of Ms. Morawski's critique, the "comparative emission study" she relied on disappeared from the website documenting the Hamilton-Niagara environmental assessment. Within months of the date one of the facilities is scheduled to be built - thanks to the McGuinty government's recent decision to fast- track incinerator projects - there is no agreed-upon data about what will come out of their stacks.

The reason, according to the consultant who advised that the data be "taken down," is that they were incorrect. "We've found more recent information that corrects it," said David Merriman of Genivar Inc., the firm advising both the Hamilton and the Durham teams on their projects. The Niagara document, which was posted for more than a year, was only a draft, according to Mr. Merriman.

"We found, having posted it, there were some incorrect things," he said. "We removed it and we're now working on a corrected version that we will be presenting in September."

Mr. Merriman wouldn't say when he discovered the data was incorrect, but acknowledged the review was inspired in part by incinerator vendors "who told us the emissions coming out of the new technologies are lower than they have been historically."

So they get to supply new numbers, based on their fondest hopes for the very latest technology, to update the image of facilities that were once considered state-of-the-art, low-emission power plants - until they weren't, sometime last week, at which point they reverted to being dirty old mass-burn incinerators.

Technology advances - and so does the tricky business of calculating greenhouse-gas emissions, which represent another image problem for the nasty old incinerators that were so clean and modern last week. Thus the consultants also plan to introduce new, radically downgraded estimates about their carbon-dioxide emissions to replace the ugly numbers that disappeared.

The change is necessary not because there is new technology that reduces carbon emissions from garbage burners, according to Mr. Merriman, but because there is new thinking about how to count them. The actual emissions will stay the same, but the numbers reported in September will likely be halved.

Incinerator vendors have long supported such an approach, which is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to calculate national carbon inventories - and assumes, among many other things, that all the paper and wood burned as garbage will come from renewable sources. But applying such factors to emissions from actual burners with real smokestacks is highly controversial.

"It's totally inappropriate that anyone would apply IPCC guidelines when measuring emissions from thermal stations," Ms. Morawski said. "We just want to know what comes out of the stack."

But we no longer do - and likely never will, if the new arithmetic prevails and reported carbon emissions fall dramatically this September. In the meantime, numbers swirl headily behind the scenes.

What a spectacle. It's enough to make you realize why the McGuinty government exempted garbage incinerators from the Environmental Assessment Act. Learning the truth about them is such a confusing business.

jbarber@globeandmail.com

Clarington Report Card

2007-06-21T08:04:00.001-04:00

"Single issue proving divisive for Clarington Council"

The Metroland Report Card evaluation has been published for our Clarington Council, and while it hits pretty close to the heart of the matter, we might have judged some things slightly differently.

" This year’s grade: C "
" Last year’s grade: B+"

" Clarington council has gone from one extreme to another since its last report card came out one year ago."

"In 2006 we were looking at a slate of seasoned councillors led by a multiple-term mayor who ran the municipality very smoothly but with an iron fist. They had a plan and acted as a cohesive group."

Not sure they were actually so much a cohesive group as a group ruled by a mayor who truly ruled with an iron fist. There was little or no debate about anything. What the mayor said was what was done, period. It appeared that he ruled with TOO MUCH of an iron fist, and that is also not good for the municipality nor for staff or council or residents. Residents were also ruled by an iron fist, many times with intimidation and rudeness. That is not really a good scenario for anyone.

"But the election last year changed the makeup of council and brought new views to the table. Not only do we have three new councillors but also a new mayor in Jim Abernethy."

"While this new crew provides fresh perspective at council meetings they also bring with them a big learning curve. We expected a few hiccups but also for the mayor and each new councillor to do everything they could to learn the job and represent constituents in a fair and reasonable way. So far they’ve done just that."

We agree that the new councillors have done their best to represent their constituents in a fair and reasonable way, but cannot quite say the same for the Mayor with his flip-flops from campaign promises and his unreasonable "landfill or incineration" stance. There are other choices and he won't consider looking at any of them. He also won't accept that incineration does not eliminate landfill, it just puts different materials (ash) into the landfills, including toxic ash that must be shipped to a special facility as it is hazardous waste. We feel the Mayor has not yet realized that he should be representing the PEOPLE, not just the region.

"However, the hiccups that have occurred have been hard to ignore."

"Mayor Abernethy’s absence at the first session of the GTA Mayors and Chairs was unbelievable. Here was a first-time mayor who had zero council experience before being elected. His absence was noticed throughout Durham Region."

It was certainly noticed by residents as well. A very bad start.

"But give the mayor his due, he has settled into the job in recent months and has gained focus. His timing couldn’t have been better because one of the biggest issues ever to hit the municipality has reared its ugly head -- the proposed EFW facility or incinerator as many residents put it."

He certainly has gained focus, but the focus seems to be on incineration and on doing the region's bidding, to the exclusion of most everything else. He appears to have become closed-minded on anything connected to the region, in favour of the region and not of Clarington. While the Statesman gave the Mayor a B-, we would give him a C at best, for now.

"This is one of the issues that requires strong leadership from the mayor because it’s clearly dividing councillors into two camps -- regional versus local."

Strong leadership yes. Tunnel vision, no.

"How else can you explain local councillors Gord Robinson, Willie Woo, Ron Hooper and Adrian Foster’s refusal to allow Regional Chairman Roger Anderson to speak at a recent council meeting regarding EFW?"

The local councillors are listening to the people. The regional councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) are not. They are gung-ho on the region, the region's vision, the region's everything, and are forgetting about what is best for Clarington. The region is NOT always right (remember the greenbelt?).

"They claim it was meant to send a message to Regional council but the message was lost in translation."

We don't think anything was lost in translation. The regional councillors are treating the local councillors like they aren't important, like they shouldn't have any say in things that occur at the regional level, that the regional councillors are above the local councillors in importance, knowledge, and everything that matters. They don't even bother to let the locals know what is going on at the region, and they make motions and resolutions in the name of Clarington without even having them first approved at Clarington Council level. That is just plain WRONG. And we all know that there was no new information for council forthcoming from Chairman Anderson beyond what was already known (the short-list of sites). He was there for one reason only - to send a "message" to the local councillors that they would be allowed $200,000.00 for any peer review studies and no blank cheque. That they would do what the region told them to do and nothing more. That they are at the mercy of Regional Council.

We feel that the local councillors had every right to bully the bullier right back. It was not an easy thing for them to do as very few ever stand up to our unelected regional chair. We must give them credit for doing so, and for trying their best to get the money needed for Clarington to have an independent peer review done of the region's consultant's work, which is badly needed. The region still wants to tell Clarington which studies they can do and which are important or not important to Clarington. We believe Clarington (and Clarington Staff) are in a much better position to decide what is best for Clarington than Durham Region is. We would give all four Local Councillors a B to B+. They need more information to do their jobs, and they are trying their best to get it, with no help from the Mayor or 2 Regional Councillors. We would certainly not deduct any marks for their "message" that was sent not only to Chairman Anderson, but also to their colleagues, Abernethy, Trim and Novak.

"This is an issue council must be united on and stifling debate indicates this is a fractured group. It’s imperative that Mayor Abernethy and Regional councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak try to find some common ground with their colleagues before this debate scars council for good."

The local Councillors didn't stifle any debate. There is plenty of debate on this issue. Chairman Anderson was not present for "debate". He was there to send his "strong message" as he stated at an earlier Regional Committee meeting. We've been told by reliable sources he made his intentions very clear at that meeting. It is the Regional Works Chair (Trim) and Mayor Abernethy who seem to want to stifle the debate, reducing it to the false choice of "landfill or incineration" again and again.

It is imperative that the Mayor and two regional councillors start treating their colleagues at Clarington Council as equals, making sure they have all the information from the region that affects Clarington. It is imperative that they become a bit humble, and realize they are ALL paid by the residents of Clarington, and that includes Chair Anderson. They work for us and they should listen to us. They need to be reminded every now and then it seems. They do not seem to realize how this all looks to residents who see them leaving out the residents as well as the Local Councillors at every turn. We would give Novak a C for a grade so far this term, with Trim receiving a C- for his short fuse and kowtowing to Regional interests over Clarington interests.

"For his part Regional Chairman Roger Anderson has attempted to be as helpful as he can when it comes to EFW."

We disagree with this statement. Regional Chairman Roger Anderson has attempted to drive the process to conform with his personal "vision" and preferences. He refuses to listen to the concerns of residents and continues to try to denigrate them when they have the audacity to speak up as delegations to voice their concerns. This unelected Chair drives Regional Council, not the other way around. One more excellent reason to reconsider direct election of the chair by the residents of Durham. He doesn't feel he needs to be accountable to us as we don't have the opportunity to vote for him. He doesn't care what we think, only those at the regional level who can continue to appoint him to the top job in the region.

"There have been numerous public meetings on the issue and he’s been an active participant in most, if not all of the discussions on this technology."

Oh yes, a far too active participant in his efforts to stifle any opposition to his "vision", while trying to appear that he is listening to residents. The EA process demands the public information sessions that are being held. It is not at the request of the Chairman. He has no choice in the matter. He attends some (not all) of the meetings as they are an opportunity to put his spin on the subject.

"In turn, regional councillors have been supportive of the chairman in the knowledge that you have to show respect to receive it in return."

Respect? That's not respect...

We hope things change in the coming months and years. The split is a problem for Clarington but we lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Regional Councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) with their behaviour toward both the Local Councillors, Staff (not supporting their request for necessary independent studies that were larger in scope than the region wanted) and residents (asking them banal questions in an attempt to discredit their viewpoints).

To her credit, Novak has not declared her undying support for incineration for Clarington, but her actions at Regional Council do show that she is supportive of the Regional Chair's "vision", or so it appears. Again, she does not want to listen to residents and makes it clear when she walks out of meetings when locals are presenting as delegations, as does Mayor Abernethy. We have come to expect such rude behaviour from some of the Regional Councillors such as Councillor Johnson for example, but not from our own Clarington representatives.

Something has got to change, but the blame cannot be laid at the feet of our Local Councillors who seem to be at least trying to do their best for our municipality with poor treatment and lack of information from our 3 regional representatives.

We look forward to an awakening by those three and an effort to work together for the benefit of Clarington rather than only the region in the future. Is it conceivable that over the summer recess they may come back with a renewed vision for Clarington and an ability to work with, rather than 'above' our Local Representatives?

Whoosh! Grand incinerator plans go up in smoke

2007-06-14T14:02:00.000-04:00

JOHN BARBER - Globe & Mail
June 14, 2007

Last week, all the regional governments surrounding Toronto were quietly, almost imperceptibly backing away from their grand schemes to "demonstrate leadership" by burning their garbage in allegedly high-tech incinerators. Today they're running, their tiptoe retreat becoming a heel-flashing rout.

First to bolt was York Region, which formally abandoned a long-established partnership with its neighbour, Durham, to build and operate a $250-million mass-burn incinerator on an equal basis.

Instead of paying for half the facility and agreeing to use half its capacity, York has proposed instead to contribute 12 per cent of the cost of building a Durham-owned burner -- and to reduce its obligation to stoke the thing accordingly. Meaning it will never be built.

Yesterday, Halton Region outpaced York when its planning committee, led by new regional chair Gary Carr, voted unanimously and definitively to cancel its once-grandiose plan to build a large incinerator to burn garbage from across Greater Toronto. Halton saw red flags everywhere and responded promptly with a white one.

Today, officials on the other side of the lake are meeting to formalize the divorce of another two regional partners -- Hamilton and Niagara -- who until recently have been happily planning to build a burner together.

Niagara was actually the first of all the regions to recognize the folly of incineration and to change course. Its desertion means that Hamilton, like Durham, is now on its own with a project that just became hundreds of millions of dollars more expensive and far riskier than it first appeared.

The risk factor alone is unmanageable. If nobody can guarantee a supply of burnable garbage - or agree to pay penalties when there's not enough of it to keep the fires lit - nobody will build an incinerator. The United States is crowded with jurisdictions that signed "put-or-pay" contracts to encourage the construction of unnecessary incinerators - and paid handsomely when there wasn't enough garbage to put.

The fear of not being able to "turn off the tap" at a garbage-hungry burner is one reason why Niagara has changed direction, according to regional waste management director Barry Friesen.

"The public has been sold that this is a silver bullet to solve the waste problem," Mr. Friesen said. But it's nothing close to that, he added, emphasizing that incinerators worldwide act as barriers to future waste diversion.

While not formally abandoning Hamilton, Niagara has decided to let someone else take the first shot.

Halton cancelled its plans for the same reasons, according to Mr. Carr, with local public-health authorities intervening effectively. The region has enough landfill capacity to last decades, he said, and it made little sense to commit for decades to a hazardous technology that is said to be rapidly evolving.

"This is a new administration, a new chair and a new council with a whole different attitude to it," Mr. Carr said. Yesterday, they proved it dramatically - demonstrating leadership by deciding unanimously not to build an incinerator.

In truth - and as always in such affairs - it is Toronto that led the fight and deserves most plaudits for the sudden, surprise victory.

As long as Toronto had no place to put its garbage, its refusal to incinerate was considered backward by the suburban smart set who thought they knew a thing or three about modern technology and "acceptable" levels of air pollution. But that smugness evaporated when Toronto acquired its own profitable landfill - and so did the market for potentially burnable Toronto garbage.

It may take a few more months for the last stragglers to depart the late field of battle, but the result is unquestionable. Abandoning their hidebound ideas and irrational prejudices, local politicians throughout Greater Toronto are leading the way on a better path.

jbarber@globeandmail.com

EA: Critique of the Waste Disposal Project

2007-06-13T13:38:00.000-04:00

Guest Blog by Paul-André Larose, Ph.D., Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. Submission to Durham Joint Works/Finances & Administration Committee on Tuesday 2007/06/12
- - -
EA: Critique of Reports 2007-J-24 and 2007-J-25 (Waste Disposal Project)

I - Introduction

Members of the Durham Joint Works/F&A Committee and members of the Audience, my name is Paul-André Larose. I reside in Oshawa.

You should know by now that I have a Ph.D. in Physics and that, as a scientist and resident of the Durham Region, I am extremely concerned by the proposal to build an incinerator in the area.

At this point, I should state that I am well aware that some of you take a dim view of people like myself who want to assist BEFORE the shovel gets in the ground. Personally, I would welcome the opportunity of someone trying to assist me on an issue, rather than to reject or ignore it.

For the purpose of this meeting, I will intentionally skip all the known scientific facts that I have previously attempted to articulate about incineration and instead, venture into the world of economic wizardry, i.e. focus on some economic considerations.

Once again, we will see that the NEWS IS NOT GOOD on the incineration economic reality.

II – On Report 2007-J-24

This report stresses that the emphasis will remain on the residential aspect.

Province-wide, the report points out that the waste generation amounts to 14 MTY (million tons/year).

Of this there is 4.6 MTY diverted (presumably recycled) leaving 9.4 MTY requiring disposal.

Of this, some 6.2 MTY are ICI and 3.2 MTY are residential in origin.

This corresponds to 1.1 tonne/year of waste/garbage being generated by each and every resident of this province.

I ask the Works Committee members: do you not feel that it would be better to address the preposterous amount of waste rather than to try to get rid of it through incineration?

Let us put things in perspective and look at what this means at the individual or household level. This corresponds in total (i.e. including recyclable and ICI materials) to 40#/person/week or 160#/week for a family of 4 (or 320# where garbage is picked up every two weeks).

Thus, the two reflections that come to mind are:

1. This level of consumption (and the waste disposal problem that it thus creates) is nothing but OBSCENE.
2. There is twice as much of an issue in the ICI area as in the residential one.

Not only is the ICI waste stream twice as large as that of residential, but much of it is not processed by the Region and its disposal is simply contracted out. There is a need to process this waste in a socially responsible way and thus reduce the overall consumption rate.

Many commercial operators and merchants deplore the lack of recycling capabilities. In fact, I know of a case where ICI recyclables are brought to a residence so as to be put in the “blue box”.

These observations lead to two consequences:

1. the need to address waste disposal issues would be lessened (and thus be much less critical) if we were to address, not only residential, but also ICI generated wastes. There is such a thing as the Pareto principle stating that we should first address 20% of the factors accounting for 80% of the observable. For this reason, the importance of ICI should not be overlooked.
2. the remaining life for the landfill areas would be extended if we adopted a system approach to waste, instead of simply trying to make the result of our wasteful consumption go away through landfill or incineration.

The province-wide landfill capacity available is shown to be between 126 to 141 million tonnes. Is this not true that this should remove the urgency assigned to year 2010?

Is it not true that we have some time to properly address the issue and need not join into the incineration stampede?

In other words, do you not think that there is ample room to address the issue at the source, rather than to build an INCINERATOR to get rid of this blatant display of wastage?

III – On Report 2007-J-25

This report makes a rather disturbing statement: it asserts that “York could not make a commitment at the present time sufficient to retain a 50% ownership level in the project”.

Is this is a mild way to say that Durham Region, after having looked long and hard to find a partner in this venture and thus reduce its financial exposure, is now being asked to foot most of the bill, practically as if it were alone in this venture?

Is there not a little of tokenism in the small ownership that York contemplates?

Would such a small ownership on the part of York not transfer the economic burden entirely to the Durham residents?

Is it not accurate to say that while York would limit its exposure to about $17 – 22 Millions, Durham would possibly be on the hook for $130 – 175 Millions, whereas it was previously limited to $125 Millions in the case of the 50-50 arrangement?

In addition to the capital cost, would it not be exact to say that the processing of a lower tonnage would increase the operating cost, as previous studies have demonstrated, and thus make incineration still more expensive?

Thus, is it not true to say that Durham would end up with the financial risk, the health problems and part of the York garbage and ashes?

Is it not true also to say that this is NOT a very smart move on the part of Durham Region on the basis of economics, in addition to all the other previously outlined arguments which militate against that big “landfill in the sky” resulting from incineration?

Given this financial reality, would it not seem highly improper for this Region to send a delegation to Europe to “study incinerators”?

How many taxpayers’ contributions will it take to pay for a trip of questionable value?

IV – Recommendations

Truly, the economics of the proposed incinerator do not make any more sense than the scientific ones.

For this series of reasons, I hereby request the Durham Joint Committee to put the incinerator concept to rest and start dealing with the garbage issue in a way that addresses the source of the problem, rather than its manifestations.

This is somewhat akin to drug use and misuse; one can use drugs to kill the pain, i.e. the manifestations, without really resolving the reason for such pain or one can instead address the root cause of the malaise, i.e. the source.
- - -

Executive Summary

The financial implications of the project are such that incineration should be viewed as a flawed project both from the financial point of view as from other previously discussed aspects such as Public and Environmental Health.
= = =

Health Implications of the Proposed Waste Disposal Facility

2007-06-12T23:30:00.000-04:00

Guest Blog by Paul-André Larose, Ph.D., Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. Submission to Clarington GPA Committee on Friday 2007/06/08

Health Implications of the Proposed Waste Disposal Facility

(… or, “it is difficult to keep the Ship of State afloat if the importance of hull integrity is not being appreciated!”)

I - Introduction

Members of the Clarington GPA Committee and members of the Audience, my name is Paul-André Larose. I reside in Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. The Clerk should note that I will forward a digital version of this presentation.

I have a Ph.D. in Physics. As a scientist and resident of the Durham Region, I am extremely concerned by the proposal to build an incinerator in the area.

First however, I want to stress that I do not deny that we have to do something with our waste; like death and taxes, this is a reality that cannot be ignored. And addressing this cannot be without some consequences.

A solution must be identified on the basis of the optimization of certain variables, while not adversely impacting certain others, known as “fixed constraints”.

In particular, it is essential not to attempt to address the waste disposal issue in a way that will create new problems elsewhere, particularly in the public health area.

II – Concerns

Why am I concerned about the implications of what is currently being contemplated?

I am concerned because we appear to be “putting the cart before the horse”, namely we evaluate and debate potential locations without having prior examined the health implications of the proposed technology.

I am concerned because, with incineration, there will be unavoidable (and well-known) negative health and environmental consequences.

I am concerned because this goes against the sustainability of our agriculture, our environment and our health. Indeed, we are stewards of this world and we should always remember this Kenyan proverb:
“Take care of this Earth; your parents did not give it to you; your children lent it to you.”

I am concerned because there is now ample evidence on chemical burdening, increasing cancer rates and decreasing human fertility rates; this is not a speculative issue.

I am concerned because, as a resident of this country, I am ashamed of the inaction of our federal government in the critical matter of environmental protection; I want Durham Region to take an enlightened action, not compound the problem.

All of these are issues that should truly alarm all of us.

Moreover, I should state that, as a resident of the Region, I am concerned that I will UNWILLINGLY be contributing to the problem of what I suspect, if rationality prevails, will be an UNWILLING host.

III - Implications

“So what’s the fuss?”, one may ask. This technology will introduce two formidable enemies into the biosphere:
dioxins and furans, whose toxic concentrations are measured in pico-grammes, i.e. in billionth of a billionth of a gram (10**-12 g) or a billionth of a microgram;
nano-particulates, i.e. particles whose linear dimensions are of the order of the nanometre (10**-9 metre), that can readily migrate through membranes such as lung partitions and thus find their way into the blood stream and accumulate in organs (recall that visible light is in the 400 to 700 nm).

This is part of what we know as scientific FACTS.

For these substances, there are NO Safe Minimum Exposure levels and doses. Nano-particulates are known to migrate through partitions such as pulmonary walls and end up within the human organs. In dealing with such substances, we cannot adopt a “Solution by Dilution” approach.

It should be pointed out that incineration will not only have negative consequences on public health, but also on health care costs; this will no doubt be of interest to those interested in monetary matters.

IV – By-products

Incineration will NOT eliminate the need for landfill. In fact, it may exacerbate it, as the landfill requirements not fall into the hazardous by-products category.

Typically an incinerator leaves some 30% weight in terms of pit ashes and fly ashes; these must be disposed of in a secure landfill site. For a 250kt/year incinerator, this means 75kt/year ashes, or about 200 tons/day (calendar day).

With incineration, some 70% of the incinerated matter also go up the stack. For a 250kt/year incinerator, this corresponds to 175kt/year being sent in the atmosphere, or about 480 tons/day (calendar day).

This is also part of what we know as FACTS. Do I need to tell you where all of this is going to end up?

V – The Precautionary Principle

There are also FACTS whose long-term consequences are still speculative, i.e. we suspect them and they are yet not clear.

The literature is replete with instances of contamination on individuals who did not come in contact (or so they thought) with offending chemicals, i.e.
chemical burden on the human body (Federal Parliamentarians – Jan. 2006);
genetic damage and human fertility (W.H.O. conference speaker – Fall of 1999).

Even in the case of persons who did come in contact with a substance, compliance with the “accepted norm” is not a guarantee that the operation is safe, as such norms reflect the knowledge of the day.

For example, there is the tragic case of New Brunswick workers exposed decades ago to toxins and who are now suffering the consequences. Their exposure levels were, at the time, well within the “accepted norms”. There are numerous other instances with unexpected side effects, e.g. thalidomide, VIOX, radiation doses, lead piping, etc…

The fact that the exposure was, at one time, within legal limits now provides little solace to those whose health was irretrievably affected. In critical issues, a technology should NOT be accepted simply because it meets certain “standards” then in force.

In such instances, would it not be eminently reasonable not to jeopardize the single planet and the single life that we have by adopting a precautionary approach in the matter?

VI – Recommendations

For this and many other reasons, I hereby request the Clarington Council to clearly recognize the health aspects perils associated with the selection of any waste treatment technology.

It should adopt a position that Public Health and Environmental Concerns are primary issues that cannot, under any circumstances or any pretense, be compromised or sacrificed.

It should mandate its representatives to Regional Council to articulate this position.

It should acknowledge that good stewardship is good environmentalism which itself is good economics.
- - -

Executive Summary

Any waste disposal technology that has a negative impact on Public and Environmental Health should not be considered as suitable for waste management purposes.
= = =

The evidence is in: Halton's incinerator folly is toast

2007-06-10T18:26:00.000-04:00

JOHN BARBER - Globe & Mail
June 6, 2007

Once again, on behalf of all Torontonians, allow me to extend sincere gratitude to the suburban municipalities now flirting seriously with incineration and similar "thermal treatments" of household wastes. Every step forward they take reconfirms the folly of their path.

But the department headed by Bob Nosal, medical officer of health for Halton Region, deserves special credit for offering the most important public service so far: a scarlet-red flag warning the easily deceived that building any such device, despite prevailing happy talk about "acceptable" levels of pollution, will hurt people - or, to use the phrase preferred by Halton bureaucrats, "be associated with some increase in adverse health impacts."

Until now, the folly of incineration has emerged in the form of inconvenient truths popping out of the environmental assessments of impending new incinerators in Durham and Niagara - hard evidence about emissions, costs and alternatives to replace the easy assurances heard earlier on the sales floor.

Dr. Nosal's intervention is the first rebellion to emerge from within the ranks of the promoters.

It takes the benign form of a peer review of "Step 4a" of the region's plan to build an incinerator, in which it purported to identify and describe the prospective facility's "potential health and environmental effects." Written by medical scientist David Pengelly, recent recipient of a City of Toronto Green award for his work on air quality, the review gently but thoroughly demolishes official assurances that modern incinerators are benign.

"I'm a scientist," Dr. Pengelly said in an interview. "I'm not convinced by assertions, I'm convinced by evidence." The Halton report, he added, offered no evidence to support the contention that modern incinerators, despite being cleaner than their predecessors, are in fact safe. They emit the same dangerous pollutants as earlier incinerators, albeit less of them. But how much is that? Step 4a doesn't say.

"I'm prepared to accept that things are better than they were," he said. "My problem was that there wasn't very specific scientific evidence brought out to show how much better they are."

Dr. Nosal, the official who commissioned the review, is already advocating strict abatement of existing pollution in Halton's already "taxed" airshed - a position unlikely to herald approval of new sources of dangerous pollution. He and his crew deserve "a great deal of credit for taking an active role in making sure that these health issues are addressed right from the very beginning," Dr. Pengelly said. "I can tell you that's not happening in other municipalities."

Leaving aside its welcome exposé of incineration's health hazards, the Halton report includes more than enough latent ammunition to destroy any hope a burner might soon be built there. The idea is absurd on its face: Halton's existing landfill is big enough to last until 2030, long before which it could easily be expanded to take garbage until the last person alive today is gone.

Mercifully, the bureaucrats have abandoned their nutty idea that Halton should "take a leadership role" by building a giant incinerator to compete with facilities throughout the province. Unlike some of their colleagues elsewhere, they acknowledge that recent developments - especially the sudden appearance of 50 million tonnes of new landfill capacity in Southern Ontario - have destroyed the viability of such schemes. Faced with the disappointing fact that Halton has no need for an incinerator, they are reduced to recommending a teeny tiny one.

This ongoing retreat is a fascinating event for which suburban taxpayers - and everybody who breathes - should be grateful.

Stripped of its rationale, its hazards exposed, the current push to incinerate is revealed as a kind of infrastructure adventurism, led by a tunnel-visioned cadre of engineers and consultants, that can be brought to a halt with no negative consequences.

Durham/York Residual Waste Study - PUBLIC NOTICE

2007-06-09T08:19:00.000-04:00

Energy-from-waste project update and
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Study:
Public Information Sessions
The Regions of Durham and York are participating in a joint study to find a better way to manage the residual waste (garbage) remaining after maximizing recycling and composting programs. Since 2004, the two municipalities have been addressing the social, environmental and financial impacts of resolving this issue by way of an “Individual” Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Provincial EA Act. A Joint Waste Management Group comprised of residents, local politicians and Regional staff oversees the project and the general public is involved through the public information session process.
A short-list of sites has been identified and consideration of the final site is underway using a series of evaluation criteria developed through the EA public consultation process. Four sites in Clarington have been identified as potential sites.
An important component of the EA study is to investigate the potential impact to human and ecological health from an energy-from-waste (EFW) facility. The Regions initiated a health and ecological risk assessment study in 2006 and the results will be presented at the public information sessions as shown below.
On June 18, the Region of Durham will be hosting a drop-in style information session on the EFW project. Sessions on June 20, 27 and 28 will update residents on the EFW project as well as results of the health and environmental risk study. Additional information sessions are also planned in York Region. Visit the study website for information on all public information sessions.
An informal drop-in information session
will be held from 2 to 7 p.m.
Monday, June 18
Faith United Church
1778 Nash Road
Courtice

All other information sessions will be held from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Formal presentations begin at 7:00 p.m. at the locations shown below

Wednesday, June 20
Clarington Beech Centre
26 Beech Avenue
Bowmanville

Wednesday, June 27
Faith United Church
1778 Nash Road
Courtice

Thursday, June 28
Newcastle Hall
20 King Street West
Newcastle
To review the EA study documentation, please:
· Visit your local municipal office or library.
· Visit the study web site at http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/.
· Call 1-866-398-4423.

*********************************

It's good that we should finally get "results of the health and environmental risk study". Many people will be judging the thoroughness and quality of that information, especially due to the fact that so many don't seem to have much confidence in the objectivity or completeness of information presented to residents OR to municipal politicians to date.

The Regions of Durham and York are participating in a joint study to find a better way to manage the residual waste (garbage) remaining after maximizing recycling and composting programs.

We don't feel that continued effort or maximizing effort toward reducing the waste stream is a priority for Durham Region. What is our present diversion rate? The numbers vary, depending on who you ask and when you ask the question, but we have been told by the Region that it is as high as 55% or as low as 44%. At any rate, they seem to be saying that we won't ever get much beyond where we are now. Well, that is certainly true if they don't concentrate heavily on it - on educating the public, on making more services available (such as removal of batteries, electronic equipment and other hazardous household waste from the garbage stream). They will need to 'feed' the incinerator, and are even discussing shipping IN waste from neighbouring regions such as Peterborough, Northumberland, etc. Is this a "made in Durham" solution? On a "put or pay" system, if either of the municipalities does not provide enough garbage to keep the incinerator burning efficiently, they must pay (in taxpayer's dollars).

Toronto's goal for 2010 is 70% waste diversion. Other cities have an even more aggressive target. The city of Markham is already at a 70% diversion rate after only a little over 2 years of aggressive education and public participation, and are aiming for 75% by next year. They have plans to continuously increase diversion and to get to as close to 100% diversion as they can by 2010. Check out Halifax, Seattle, and other communities in California, New Zealand, and now India to see the growing trend toward the "zero-waste approach".

Yes there is garbage. Yes we need to get rid of it. But we also need to concentrate on producing less of it and smarter ways of dealing with what is left that can't be reduced, reused, recycled or re-invented.

If we continue down the path toward incineration, it is another "out of sight, out of mind" scenario. Landfill will still be needed for the ash produced by incinerating the garbage. And the amount of toxins being released into our already polluted air will increase significantly. Greenhouse gasses and climate change should be a concern, and even more of a concern is the health of residents not only close to the incinerator, but also those farther away since those airborne pollutants, the toxins and chemicals, are spread far and wide.

It is imperative that our politicians take a step back, stop forcing this project through in an accelerated time frame, and go back to seriously consider Alternatives To their present choice of "thermal technology". The time to do that is NOW.

We hope to see a lot of residents at these upcoming Public Information Sessions, especially from Clarington but also from all over Durham Region and from York Region too. We hope residents will ask a LOT of questions and not be satisfied with partial answers, round-about answers, innuendo rather than cold, hard facts.

Stay tuned.

Waste Diversion and Stabilized Landfill - a choice

2007-06-03T18:46:00.000-04:00

Niagara Region and the City of Hamilton partnered to undertake the WastePlan EA Study to develop long-term disposal capacity for municipal waste remaining after diversion serving the needs of both municipalities. Eight distinct disposal options were considered and evaluated in the study. The options can be organized into three general categories as follows:

1. Mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) and landfilling of stabilized residuals (with an option to include biogas recovery).

2. Thermal treatment (with options including recovery of materials from the ash/char, alternative fuel, and biogas recovery).

3. Conventional landfill (including an option of landfill gas recovery and utilization).

This partnership was begun in Fall, 2003.

In December of 2005 a report was prepared for Niagara/Hamilton Joint Group entitled ‘Draft Report on the Evaluation of “Alternatives To” and Selection of a Preferred Disposal System’ which recommended thermal technology with recovery of energy and recyclables as the preferred option. MBT and stabilized landfill was identified as the next preferred alternative, and was the preferred landfill-based option. (Why do they characterize MBT and stabilized as a landfill-based option without the zero waste component included? Where is Zero Waste as an option?)

Sound familiar? The same "Alternatives To" were suggested to Durham Region, with the same recommendation of preferred option - thermal technology with recovery of energy (EFW), which Durham Region accepted without further investigation. Who were the consultants who made this recommendation to Niagara Region and the City of Hamilton? MacViro and Jacques Whitford. Same consultants that Durham Region hired. Tell me Durham Region didn't know ahead of time what the recommendation would be. If they didn't, why not? Did they pay for all these recommendations, full price, since the "Alternatives To" report had already been done for Hamilton/Niagara and who knows how many others previously? Gosh, some of the charts look SO familiar.

Following release of the December 2005 report a number of comments were received from the public and other stakeholder groups regarding the study and its recommendations. (Gosh, they didn't comment BEFORE the report was received - which has been a criticism by one resident and several Regional Councillors, including our own Mr. Trim, that residents were not making delegations to Council BEFORE getting the sparse information from the information sessions hosted by the Region).

While some of these supported the recommended option, other comments from some non-governmental organizations as well as the public opposed the preferred option. (Opposition from both groups is higher in Clarington - and was also in East Gwillimbury - due to further information gleaned in part from further investigation done by the Niagara/Hamilton Waste Plan Joint Working Group - something NOT done yet by Durham Region).

In particular, questions were raised about the evaluation of the stabilized landfill options. These comments led the WastePlan Joint Working Group to request additional information on stabilized landfill technology, and in particular a comparison of stabilized landfill technology relative to conventional technology landfill. So a Study of Stabilized Landfill was prepared by Gartner Lee and Golder Associates, independent consultants, not MacViro. It was completed in March, 2007, and since that time, Niagara has decided it will NOT agree to incineration, and instead has chosen increased waste diversion with stabilized landfill as the best course of action to take.

The Gartner Lee Stabilized Landfill Report was also provided to MacViro but apparently didn't change their pro-incineration recommendations to Durham Region.

A few facts: MBT treatment and stabilized landfill technology is practiced much more extensively in Europe than North America. A key reason for this difference is the requirements of the European Union’s Landfill Directive 1999/31/CE, which states:

only pre-treated wastes are allowed to be landfilled after July 2001; and
the amount of biologically degradable MSW to be landfilled must be reduced in a phased approach to 75% by July 2006, to 50% by July 2009, and to 35% by July 2016 of the total amount of biologically degradable MSW produced in 1995.

Definition of Stabilized Landfill: A stabilized landfill accepts waste materials which have been pre-processed, or stabilized, mainly to reduce the readily biodegradable organic fraction of the waste prior to landfilling so that the potential for landfill gas generation is diminished and leachate strength is reduced. Stabilization of the waste stream occurs through a group of processes typically known as mechanical and biological treatment (MBT), which can include removal of recyclables, shredding, removal of refuse derived fuel (RDF), aerobic or anaerobic composting, and desiccation. Waste delivered to an MBT facility has typically already undergone some form of source separation.

From the Stabilized Landfill Summary Report:

The development of MBT and stabilized landfill sites in EU were driven by the need to comply with the EU directive 1999/31/CE which required a progressive ban on the disposal of biologically degradable organics in landfills. Italy and Germany have introduced different national regulations to comply with the EU directive with a key difference being the extent of stabilization required prior to landfill. The advent of MBT plants is also on the horizon in the United Kingdom with several facilities just getting into operation or well into the permitting phase. In all the cases indicated above, significant efforts are in place to implement 3R programs to reduce the volumes of material needing to be processed, efforts which in many cases lead to source separation programs, all to varying degrees.
A fraction of the MBT processed material is processed in incinerators prior to final disposal since the process can generate RDF material with a relatively high calorific value.
In certain jurisdictions, MBT and stabilized landfill sites are seen as preferable to the alternative of incinerators (conventional landfills are no longer an option in EU countries except in the UK which is using an allowance for an additional 4 years to comply). The main drivers for this preference are (Faviano, 2005):
a) lower cost;
b) greater flexibility (e.g., don’t have to meet a minimum through-put and calorific value of the waste for cost effectiveness and efficient operation); and
c) proven examples of successful facilities.

So, are we behind the times, going with old technology that is non-sustainable, rather than thinking ahead to the future, and changing the way we look at garbage in the first place?

One other thing - let us look at the time-frame for these Niagara/Hamilton studies.

Fall 2003 - Partnership between Niagara and Hamilton
January to August 2004 - Development of Draft EA Terms of Reference
August 2004 to February 2005 - Ministerial review of Terms of Reference and approval of document on Feb 7/05
February 2005 - Early 2007 - EA Study of the Niagara-Hamilton WastePlan is undertaken resulting in the selection of a preferred approach, technology and sites. Preferred approach - Waste Diversion and Stabilized Landfill.

Now contrast that with the greatly accelerated time line for Durham Region. Because the Province has approved an additional bank of landfill (some of which could/should be made into stabilized landfill sites as approvals are basically the same from the Province), there is no longer the 2010 emergency time frame as the Region and it's consultants keep insisting there is. Why not take a little longer to do it RIGHT instead of doing it FAST.

And all this ties in with the Region trying to limit the independent studies that Clarington wants to do (at least staff and our local councillors do). More on that next time.

We must once again thank Councillors Foster, Hooper, Robinson and Woo for going the extra mile to ensure Clarington is able to do its due diligence and get INDEPENDENT peer review and necessary studies done for the benefit of our municipality and residents, not for the benefit of Durham Region.

Incinerator Chronicles - Dissing the Chair?

2007-05-31T22:18:00.000-04:00

At the May 27 meeting of Clarington Council, some interesting events took place. There were 12 delegations on the agenda to speak in opposition to the Energy-From-Waste (Incineration) being promoted by Durham Region and one delegation in favour. The most likely on the preferred site will be within the municipality of Clarington, since the town council of the only other potential site outside of Clarington, East Gwillimbury in York Region, voted last week to make East Gwillimbury an "unwilling host".

Clarington Council decided we need an independent peer review, as well as possibly additional studies to help them to decide whether Clarington should be a willing host or not. So they asked Planning Department Staff to come up with a report, outlining what studies may be needed.

On May 23, Durham Region Finance and Admin Committee came up with a resolution that would limit the Clarington review and studies to a cap of $200,000. If that was not sufficient, Clarington could come back and ask Regional Council for more money. However, there is a time line attached to the site selection, which is in September. Regional Council has only one more meeting (3 weeks from now) before they break for summer - until September. It appears they don't want Clarington to do their "due diligence" and complete their review before the September site selection. Originally, Durham and York Regions approved a motion that said, "...that such adequate funding shall include the costs of all necessary studies and legal advice incurred by the potential host community to investigate and complete its due diligence in arriving at its decisions whether or not it will become a host community for the EFW facility."

Also at that Finance and Admin Committee meeting, which our Mayor Abernethy sits on and Charlie Trim was present for I was told, Regional Chairman Anderson made it a point to say that "a message needs to be sent" to Clarington before the May 28 Council meeting. The intent was made very clear - the Region wants control over which studies can be reviewed independently by Clarington. That's ridiculous. How could they possible call it an "independent review" if Durham is directing which of their consultant's studies can be reviewed? The Region wants this incinerator project to go through, one way or another. So Mr. Anderson showed up at Clarington Council on Monday night, and asked that he be allowed to address Council. Sending a copy of the motion to Clarington Council wasn't enough. He wanted to drive home his message in person.

This is when the fireworks began. All 4 local Councillors (Foster, Hooper, Robinson, Woo) voted "no". The three Regional Councillors (Abernethy, Trim, Novak) voted yes. The Regional Chair was denied his request to speak! Apparently that has never happened to him before, and he beat a hasty retreat from Council chambers after that vote, with at first a stunned, then an angry look on his face. His right-hand man in this endeavour, Cliff Curtis, accompanied him.

Later on, all 3 of our regional reps spoke about this - Charlie Trim being the most livid. He lashed out at the local councillors and everyone else. He was absolutely inconsolable. Mary Novak said she had wanted Mr. Anderson to be able to speak so he could give more information to Council and the residents, but what information was he there to give? He was there to pressure the local councillors, who had outvoted the 3 regional councillors the week before regarding approval of the peer review report, into changing their votes to agree with their regional counterparts. He even said he was there to make it clear to Clarington Council that the Region was not giving them a blank cheque. Council and Staff already knew that. There was no further information for him to give.

Mayor Abernethy's reaction and comments were particularly disappointing, but not surprising, as he and Councillor Trim are such strong supporters of "everything Anderson". Mayor Abernethy stated his position very early on, before all the reports were in (and they still are not in) that he is in favour of incineration and totally against landfill. He doesn't seem able to grasp the fact that incineration produces toxic ash that must be landfilled - about 1/3 of the total mass of garbage going in to the incinerator comes out as ash. The other 2/3 goes out of sight, out of mind, into the air to contribute not only to greenhouse gasses (I guess he doesn't care a bit for global warming), but also toxic emissions that affect human health as well as ecological health of surrounding areas. Where does he propose that toxic ash go? Do we keep it within Clarington or Durham Region borders so we can fulfill their grand claim of taking responsibility for our own garbage and a "Made in Durham solution"? They just don't get it, do they? They will need landfill for their incinerator and they will contribute even more to our smog days, global warming, and health problems. Do they even care that the emissions from burning garbage are worse than those from burning coal for energy? They care apparently about the ground but not the air we breathe. And they want to put in an unsustainable technology rather than putting all that money and energy into reducing waste, recycling, reusing, etc. Increasing waste diversion will reduce the need for landfill and is so much cleaner, safer, and LESS EXPENSIVE too! Also much more socially acceptable.

While it was certainly out of the ordinary for the Regional Chair to not be allowed to speak at a local municipal meeting, I can't fault our local councillors for doing it. They felt they had to send a message, then they succeeded in doing so. They were sending a message to the Region that Clarington needs to do it's own due diligence. After all, right now the only "studies" we have are the ones provided at those one-sided Public Information Sessions hosted by Durham Region. They also succeeded in sending a message to our Mayor and two regional councillors. Our local councillors play as important a role as do our regional reps, maybe even more so. They don't have a conflict of interest when it comes to standing up for Clarington as our regional councillors seem to have.

Remember that Durham Region decided a year ago that thermal treatment (incineration) would be their preferred method of dealing with municipal waste. How they came to this conclusion is beyond most of us, since they didn't have enough information to make that decision. Even now, the consultants hired by the region to push this project through to completion give us answers such as, "We can't answer that question", or "We don't have that information yet" when asked specific questions regarding health, emissions, etc. If the consultants don't have the information, neither does Council, so how did they make their decision a year ago? Crystal ball?

People ask, how biased are the reports being promoted by the Region's consultants? All you need to do is to attend one of their information sessions and hear them tell us that everything is good. There are no drawbacks to incineration, they say. The particular technology they will be using will be very clean and only emits water vapour from the stack they say, showing a picture of a little puff of white smoke. Problem there - the specific technology to be approved has not been decided yet. They give round-about answers to questions and don't answer anything that might be negative. It's no wonder that our gullible Regional Councillors have been taken in by it all - they hear only positive results regarding incineration. And they also hear how terrible landfill is. They haven't a clue about stabilized landfill, how it can be used in conjunction with enhanced waste diversion for a better solution to the garbage problem than incineration. The part to concentrate on is WASTE DIVERSION, not landfill. Certainly not incineration.

Our Regional Councillors keep touting the wonders of European Incineration - and those who have already been there are going over again, with a few additions, on our dollar of course. This trip should be restricted to those who have not gone previously, but that's another story. But why do none of them know anything about stabilized landfill when MBT treatment and stabilized landfill technology is practiced much more extensively in Europe than North America. A key reason for this difference is the requirements of the European Union’s Landfill Directive 1999/31/CE, which states: "only pre-treated wastes are allowed to be landfilled after July 2001; and • the amount of biologically degradable MSW to be landfilled must be reduced in a phased approach to 75% by July 2006, to 50% by July 2009, and to 35% by July 2016 of the total amount of biologically degradable MSW produced in 1995."

They sure didn't get much of an education on previous trips, if they learned nothing about stabilized landfill, and since most of them seem to believe that incineration is the answer to landfill and none will be necessary once we get that shiny new incinerator! How naive.

If the Region wants us to host that monster, they should pay for our "due diligence" so the best decisions can be made by our Council for our residents. But the last thing the region wants is for us to get the real truth from independent studies. Our local councillors did the right thing. And if our staff needs to run over the $200, 000. cap, then our local council should declare Clarington NOT a willing host. They could do it right now and not have to go to the expense, but these studies will help us if we have to go to court to fight this even after being declared unwilling.

Remember that Mr. Anderson has made it VERY clear a number of times when asked, that even if we are not a willing host, it will be up to Durham Region, and not Clarington, whether we are forced to host the incinerator. The bully strikes again. One more reason the Regional Chair needs to be elected by the people instead of re-appointed time after time after time by his buddies on Regional Council. He needs to be accountable to US, not just to his friends. He has quite the hold over most (although luckily not all) of those on Regional Council. There are a few who go their own way, and they are to be commended. But most, sadly, don't. They may not realize it, but they look like lap-dog automatons to those of us who watch those meetings on TV.

So thank you to Councillors Foster, Hooper, Robinson and Woo. We appreciate that you are looking out for our best interests, and that you have had the guts to stand up to fierce pressure from not only the Region, but also from our own 3 regional representatives (Abernethy, Trim and Novak). If you can stand up to them, it shows that the Mayor's ridiculous accusation that you are intimidated by delegations is another of his newly off-the-wall ideas. We see it as you listening to residents, not being intimidated by them. You have shown strength and caring and a loyalty to Clarington that the other 3 could learn from. We thank you and will continue to support your efforts.

Incinerator Chronicles - Comic Relief?

2007-05-30T15:17:00.000-04:00

We know there has been growing opposition to the proposed garbage incinerator, euphemistically called "Energy From Waste". There is at least one vocal supporter of the incinerator who has been providing some comic relief to all the serious concerns of the majority of residents. She states that all questions have been answered satisfactorily by the Region's hired guns (consultants) at all the Public Information Sessions. She must have been at different sessions than those most of us attended in Clarington, since so many direct questions were answered with, "Sorry, we don't have that information yet". Or, "Sorry, we haven't done those studies yet". I suppose to someone who blindly can't wait for the incinerator to be built, those non-answers are satisfactory. Most logical, rationally thinking persons require something more than "We don't know" to have it even qualify as an answer.

This resident's antipathetic complaints about those who did not attend the very earliest so-called information centers that most people never even were aware of were totally offensive. She seems so filled with herself that she never bothered to think that the Region, and Clarington in particular, has had such rapid growth in the last few years that many of the people here today were not living here when those first sessions began. Others had very valid reasons for not being able to attend - health reasons. Young children, work schedules, lack of GOOD advertising.

Her superior attitude as well as her comments such as - Who cares about the children and grandchildren, what about US? - hit a sour note with everyone. That was in response to people who worry about the future generations and what we will be putting into the air with this monster incinerator. And if she wants to complain about those who only recently found out about this incinerator project, where has she been, since she only started speaking at Council last week, and has never spoken at Regional Council before. Where has she been? What is her excuse? We find her complaints about other residents offensive, as well as her lack of caring for the health and well-being of others, and her lack of understanding of the most simple of facts - that this incinerator will be adding to our air pollution on a large scale. Well, there are selfish, self-centred people everywhere I guess.

That same selfish resident also wants them to put a brandnew landfill right in Clarington, to bury the toxic ash from the incinerator. Even the extremely toxic fly ash, that right now is planned to be shipped to a special hazardous waste site in Sarnia because it is so toxic it can't be put into a regular landfill. But she has said she wants all the ash and unburnables to stay right in Clarington, right near the new incinerator. Let's make our world a bit more toxic, as well as Lake Ontario, our groundwater, our air... Let's keep that ash here in Clarington, but let's spew toxins (about 70% of the mass of the original garbage) into the air to be spread far outside of Clarington, far outside of Durham Region. Sure, a real "Made in Durham" solution. How responsible is that? Seems most of our regional councillors feel the same way. Bravo to our Local Councillors for wanting all the answers, and for giving our Clarington Staff the means to get those answers for them so that they can make an INFORMED, rational decision, unlike that confused pro-incinerator lady and unlike our Regional Council. That makes sense to us.

Oshawa Motion says Ban the Burn

2007-05-29T14:28:00.000-04:00

Oshawa Regional Councillor Nicholson has placed the following motion on the agenda for the next Oshawa Council Meeting, Monday, June 11 at 6:30 pm, and the public is welcome to attend.

Let's hope that our Clarington Council takes a close look at this motion and will take similar actions. The public is behind this by a huge majority. We are all becoming much more informed - more so than many of the politicians who are pushing this project on us. Many have not bothered to do any research into incineration, as they have their one-sided consultants giving them all the information they need - to keep pushing for it. According to Regional Consultants so far, there is really no down side to hosting an incinerator. It's all light and roses; all good. Only harmless water vapour emissions from the stack. Ash that will disappear and barely need to take up any space in landfills. No traffic problems, no infrastructure problems, not toxin problems. Health concerns? Heck no! It's as safe as other government sanctioned things like asbestos - oh, wait. I forgot, they changed their minds on that one. It's as safe as Thalidomide. Oh wait, they changed their minds on that one too. It's as safe as... well, you get the picture. Those dioxins and furans which have no safe levels at all, will be at a level that the government will tell us is safe. And we all trust the government (all levels), right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MOTION

Whereas the Township of East Gwillimbury has unanimously opposed the location of an incinerator within its boundaries and has indicated that it is not a willing host community for an incinerator, and

Whereas the Region of Durham has consistently refused to support resolutions that would require any municipality in Durham to be a willing host community before being considered for an incineration site, and

Whereas sites in Clarington will cause a real and demonstrated health hazard to the residents of Oshawa, with prevailing winds depositing dioxin, furans, nanoparticles and other noxious and poisonous materials over large portions of Oshawa.

Be it resolved,

That the Council of the City of Oshawa indicated to the Region of Durham and to the Region of York that it is not a willing recipient of the wastes and poisons discharged into the air from a proposed incinerator potentially located in the municipality of Clarington.

That the Council of the City of Oshawa urges our neighbouring municipality of Clarington to join with East Gwillimbury to indicated its opposition to an incinerator being located in Clarington and that they pass a resolution indicating that they are not a willing host municipality for any potential incineration site.

That the Council of the City of Oshawa urge the Region of Durham and the Region of York to respect the wishes of the local Councils by committing to a protocol that would not allow any incinerator to be located in any community that is not a declared willing host community by a resolution of its local council after public consultation.

The Council of the City of Oshawa strongly urges all local Councils in the Region of Durham and the Region of York to support the actions taken in East Gwillimbury and to take similar actions to those included in this resolution.

That a copy of this resolution be sent to all regional and local councils and council members in the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York and to all MP’s and MPP’s in ridings located within those regions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We commend Councillor Nicholson and hope Oshawa Council will send their very strong voices to the Region for the benefit of Clarington, Oshawa and all Durham Region residents.

There is a better way than Thermal Treatment or Energy From Waste (INCINERATION). There are safer, less expensive, and much CLEANER ways to deal with trash. No one technology is absolutely perfect (yet), but experts are working on it. And to date, they have come up with a better way. Lets hope they will take the time to examine it.

So, that's what the UN is for ...

2007-05-20T23:10:00.000-04:00

Who knew? Apparently the United Nations was set up to deal with Climate Change. I didn't realize that global warming was such a big concern 60 years ago. I was taught that the United Nations was founded in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, in the hope that it would intervene in conflicts between nations and thereby avoid war. Perhaps our education system isn't quite what we thought it was, and we'd better straighten those history teachers out!

"I really do believe that climate change is a worldwide situation, problem, and I really believe this is why the UN was set up," said our Councillor Trim, one of our Regional Councillors from Clarington as well as Chair of Regional Works Committee.

In terms of climate change, "the leadership and programs should come right from the top," he said. "We on the local basis can do our small parts, but we need that overall top-driven initiative... in order to make it worthwhile, in order to make the great change that is required."

This from our Councillor who last week argued against establishment of a Clarington Green Community Strategy committee, and who appears to be in support of plunking down an incinerator to burn garbage right here in Clarington.

Is it any wonder why residents may worry about the ability of some of our Clarington Councillors to grasp the fundamentals surrounding complex issues such as the drawbacks and risks of incineration, the intricacies of a zero waste program, how best to deal with the reduction of residual waste? Will our Councillors be able to discern fact from fiction when it comes to what they are being fed by proponents of "energy-from-waste" (EFW) - which is just a fancy term for incineration? Will they understand the far-reaching and dangerous health risks posed by the emissions of dioxins, furans, and other harmful chemicals? You know, those oh-so-clean emissions we've been told about by the consultants - those white puffs of water vapour. Yeah, right.

Are they really listening or have they made up their minds? We wonder even more when we hear things of this sort...

Incineration - accepted around the world?

2007-05-20T15:43:00.000-04:00

Incineration is not so accepted in Europe and around the world as we've been led to believe. There are protests against it in England, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, and so many other places. It's not so clean as we have been told, either. We want truthful answers from Durham Region, not the same old pap that passes for "information".

To watch any of the videos below, choose which video from the film strip at the right (scroll down to see entire list) and then click on the "play button" in the large screen to watch.

European Trip:
Will Durham Councillors travelling to Europe for 8 days starting on July 3 this year get to see/hear any of the anti-incinerator experts while there? Did they on their previous trip? I doubt it. The trip is being arranged by Ramboll Denmark Consultants, a company based in Europe that specializes in EFW facilities. Ramboll is a sub-consultant to Genivar Consultants (MacViro), and will be responsible for arranging the study tour to Europe.

That's right - have it all planned and tightly scripted by Subconsultants of MacViro - who are proponents of the incinerator hired by Durham Region, and who have been giving us all the one-sided information about how wonderful incineration is, how clean it is, how it is the best and only real solution for waste management for York/Durham.

Are you feeling more comfortable about the decision-making process now? We didn't think so.

Public Notice on Incineration Report

2007-05-17T08:33:00.000-04:00

DURHAM/YORK RESIDUAL WASTE STUDY [Incineration]

The Regions of Durham and York are jointly undertaking an Environmental Assessment Study to determine how to manage the residual solid waste remaining after blue box and green box waste diversion efforts [they have already made the determination - they want to build an incinerator]. The study has identified a number of potential sites in Clarington, as well as one in York Region, for the construction and operation of a facility to thermally treat [incinerate] the residual waste and to recover both energy and materials [recovery is not a priority - burning garbage is the priority].

The General Purpose and Administration Committee of Clarington Council will be considering a Staff Report with respect to the proposed studies and peer reviews the Municipality of Clarington would carry out on the Durham/York Residual Waste Study on:

DATE: TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007
TIME: 7 P.M.
PLACE: Council Chambers, Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario

A copy of this Staff Report may be obtained by contacting the Municipality of Clarington Planning Services Department at (905) 623-3379.

Should you wish to appear as a delegation in respect to this item, arrangements should be made through the Municipality of Clarington Clerk’s Department ON OR BEFORE TWELVE NOON ON FRIDAY, May 18, 2007 to have your name appear on the agenda. Please note that we cannot confirm the precise time at which the delegation portion of the agenda will be heard. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting commences.

********************************

Don't hesitate to sign up and speak to our Council about this very important incineration issue. Let our local politicians know how you feel about it. They have been told by the project consultants that there is very little public opposition to it - one of the things we have found to be untrue in their reports to Durham Region Councillors. Speak up at this meeting or regular Council meeting on May 28. Write a letter to Council (Local and Regional). Talk to neighbors. Do some investigating on the issue. Register your health concerns, traffic concerns, financial concerns. Remember that our politicians work for us - we are their employers. We're the bosses, not them. Remind them of that fact too.

You don't need to be confrontational - some of the politicians are on our side, but too few. Most just "go with the flow" and believe whatever the proponent consultants tell them, with no independent investigation on their own.

A few residents seem to think that the government would not allow an incinerator if it was not safe for our health. Need we remind you of asbestos? Thalidomide? Leaded Paint? PCBs? Pesticides? etc. If you want more examples, just ask.

Incineration is not a "clean" way of getting rid of garbage nor is it safe for our health or environment, as we are being told. Emissions of dioxins and furans (google them) are dangerous to all of us, but especially children.

Let's clear the air

2007-05-12T20:33:00.000-04:00

Did our Regional Council really investigate anything other than landfill vs incineration? How much did they really learn, other than what they were fed by proponents of incineration? Why didn't most of them bother to attend the May 9 Public Forum on Incineration hosted by the CAW in Oshawa, giving "The Other Side of the Story"?

We were given some "facts" in the Durham Works newsletter we all received in our mailboxes this week. One of the most disturbing statements made, however, other than the spin put on the emissions information, was this one:

"This exiting project has met with an overwhelming approval from most Durham residents..."

Whaaaaat? Where did they get that statistic from? Any of the polls I've seen including the Rogers TV poll, in newspapers or anywhere else have been overwhelmingly against this incineration project, and especially among Clarington residents.

We also heard the consultants tell Regional Councillors and the York/Durham Joint Waste Committee (most of whom never bothered to attend any of the Public information sessions - at least the ones held in Durham) - that there was little opposition to the incinerator project. That was pure fantasy. I'm not sure what's in their water, but it's more than a bit of chlorine!

People are quite upset that the Region decided on incineration... oh, excuse me... "Thermal Waste Treatment", or "Energy From Waste" - both euphemisms for burning garbage in an incinerator - that they decided on this with little input from the public. They say they held consultation sessions with the residents of Durham Region, but that was after they had already made the decision to go with incineration. They've done this all bassackwards from the start. Even now they are choosing a "host community" before they choose which technology they will employ. They are choosing a host community before even doing emissions investigations for this type of incinerator (because they don't know which type they will choose yet). They have chosen a populated area for the incinerator without considering the contributions to smog and the cancer-causing dioxin and furan emissions, among other things. They didn't even LOOK for a better alternative.

How about some REAL facts?

Incineration:

Very expensive. Money leaves the community once the facility is built. It takes 25 years to pay for the investment, by which time it must be refurbished or decommissioned and a new one built.

Needs a constant supply of waste. That's right - we'll need to produce enough garbage to fill the hungry beast to keep it running, 24/7.

The toxic ash produced from burning toxic plastics and other materials requires a "permanent" landfill, similar to that required for storing spent nuclear waste.

After 25 years of operation you are no closer to sustainability than you were when you started.

Doesn't sound like a very good solution to me. So what do we do with our garbage (discarded materials)?:

Avoidables (throwaway plastic objects)

Reusables (furniture, appliances - give to Goodwill and other charities, for example)

Toxics (paint, oil, batteries, etc).

Compostables (food scraps, some papers)

Recyclables (paper, glass, metals)

Residuals - what's left that has to be disposed of because of "bad industrial design)

Rather than a honking big incinerator, what we need instead is a souped up recycling program along with a Residual Screening and Research Facility plus Landfill for stabilized organics plus non-recyclables. These are:

Much safer and cheaper, and the money stays in the community.

Flexible - does not need a constant waste stream.

Landfill use decreases with better industrial design

Moving towards sustainability.

"When you build an incinerator you are advertising to the world that you were not clever enough - either politically or technically - to recover your discarded resources."

So, there we have it - a better alternative. Was this even considered? If so, why not choose the "better way"? If not, why not?

Next time we'll talk about some of the extremely harmful emissions. Remember that those incinerators in Europe are burning different materials than ours will be burning. They don't burn the same harmful plastics or other materials so they have a cleaner burn. Even so, they still have harmful emissions. This stuff is not nearly as clean as we are being told.

The important thing is that to effect change - Experts may sharpen the point, but you need the hammer of public opinion to drive the nail home. Let's get active and vocal on this. It is OUR health. Our taxes. Our garbage. Let's use the better solution, like Markham is doing. But we have to make our views known to our local politicians.

Contact your Clarington Council including the Mayor.
Contact Durham Regional Councillors.
Contact your Durham MPPs.
Let them know how you feel.

The OTHER side of the story

2007-05-10T13:27:00.000-04:00

After attending last night's CAW public infomation session on the "Energy to Waste" (INCINERATION) issue, I left the building with an array of feelings.

First, there was the renewed observation that we were only being given a sanitized version of the facts surrounding energy-from-waste, thermal waste treatment, incineration or whatever you want to call it. It's all the same thing - burning garbage. Burning toxic materials. Emitting cancer causing dioxins, furans, toxic metals - nano-particulates that are so tiny they not only get into your lungs, they cross the membranes into your blood and travel through your body. They also get into our food - dairy products, meat, chicken, fish, fruits, vegetables. No, these are not "zero emission" facilities. They contribute to smog, asthma; the list goes on and on.

We also learned that these trips to Europe are designed for one thing - to pull the wool over the eyes of those being told that this is the same technology and we would have the same "clean" emissions they have over there. Hogwash! What our politicians are not told is that they are not burning the same materials we will be burning here. Their emissions are not the same as those here. And the emissions in the European countries - although cleaner than ours will be - are still dangerous. But going to view the European incinerators yet again and thinking that they can compare apples to oranges is a waste of time and money. North American incinerators would be more worthwhile to view, if they must be viewed.

How about the Brampton facility? It's not nearly so "clean" as we've been led to believe by the consultants. Are all our regional councillors (and chair) willing to go through that facility without masks? Or with the plain paper masks given to the workers? Are they willing to spend a few hours there, in the midst of the toxic dust? It should be a requirement prior to deciding on "thermal treatment" of our waste. A few hours on a *typical* day at the incineration plant. If they are all so convinced it is totally safe, then why not? Not only our regional councillors, but the little excursion should also include Premier McGuinty, who says there are "no emissions" from incinerators and they are so safe that we don't even need a full EA. They can/should now be fast-tracked. Oh yes, and the consultants, who are the same ones used for all the municipalities who have contemplated or are contemplating incineration. They should also be made to spend the day in the Brampton plant sans protection.

I was disgusted by the fact that our own Mayor made the foolish decision to attend a regular monthly meeting of the Museum Board rather than attend this one-time opportunity to hear "the other side of the story" from experts who gave fascinating, factual presentations that I guarantee you, NO ONE slept through! This just shows how important our Mayor considers this issue. His mind is made up and he won't open it to valid information that turns much of the myth we've been fed on it's ear. I've been told he was not only invited to this public forum, but contacted by numerous people who practically begged him to attend. Someone in a comment said they were so angry they could spit. I couldn't agree more. This Mayor obviously has a serious problem with "priorities". This is not the first time he has shown his lack of judgement, and it won't be his last. This is sad for Clarington.

At least Councillors Novak and Trim were present, as they are the other 2/3 of Clarington's representation at the Region. I hope they will give serious thought to what they heard and received as much of an education as the rest of us did last night. I also hope they will take the opportunity to investigate how Markham has gotten to a 70% diversion rate in 2 years - that's a city of 300,000 people! And they are aiming for 75% diversion by next year, and zero waste (or darn close to it) by 2020. Now those are sustainable goals we should all be aspiring to. Did you hear that, Durham Region???? Thank you to Councillors Novak and Trim for taking the time to attend, as well as local Councillor Hooper.

Of the 30% waste left in garbage in Markham now, they found that 27% are items which could be donated, 31% is organics (composting will take care of that), 19% is recyclable paper (shredded paper, etc), and that leaves 17% (of the 30%) as "residual waste". That leaves very little to be disposed of, and those rates can be brought down even more with other such as EPR incentives which I'll get into in future posts.

Suffice it to say that there ARE other alternatives. Durham Region came to a hasty conclusion that Thermal Treatment was the only way to go - the most desirable option in ridding ourselves of waste. They are dead wrong. But have they spent too much and gone too far to back off and consider other options as they have repeatedly been asked by residents to do?

What has happened to "democracy" when we are forced to go in a direction most people don't want to go? Why would they make a decision on a technology and not even consider the other options? Options that would not only be safer and healthier for all of us, but also would be less expensive, would create a lot more jobs, and enable us to be leaders in an industry who's time has come.

I've only touched the surface today, but will continue with much more information in the days to come. We can only hope that our politicians will open their eyes and smell the garbage.

Thank you to CAW Durham Region Environmental Council for arranging this public forum, and especially to Paul Connett, PhD, John Jackson, board member of Waste Diversion Ontario, and Erin Shapiro, Markham Ward Councillor for an outstanding evening of information and education. More on these excellent presentations in future posts.

Anyone who has the opportunity to hear these speakers at any time in the future MUST make the effort to attend and learn. You will not be disappointed.

Thank you also to the Clarington councillors and the 8 Regional Councillors who attended. At least a few of you care enough to continue your education on incineration and other options available to us. It is appreciated by Durham residents. We do notice who is and who is not there. And we won't forget.

Albert Einstein:
"A clever person solves a problem. A genius avoids it."

THREE BLIND MICE

2007-05-05T13:36:00.000-04:00

Guest Blogger, Jim Richards, Orono

Maybe our Regional representatives (Trim, Novak and Abernethy) feel there is no need to really hear the other side of the issue; the side that will talk about devastating, negative human health effects, about traffic gridlock, about the long-term cost burden and the horrible legacy these 'representatives' will leave in their wake because they've already made up their collective minds.

In an article (May 1) in the Metroland press, writer Erin Hatfield quoted the Regional Works Commissioner (Cliff Curtis) as saying "We have some new members on Works Committee and we've also got some new politicians and senior staff from the host community......". This was in reference to our Councillors planning another 4 country trip to Europe to look at incinerators there at our great expense; guess the trip last year was not enough!

As I understand the process and what we've been told by the proponents (Durham Region), the "host" community will not be identified until next autumn. In that case, how can we send a delegation from the "host" community on a grandiose trip in July?? How does the Works Commissioner know who to send...does he have a crystal ball, or have these politicians and senior staff already chosen the host community (Clarington), and now we're just going through the motions? This is the fine art of window-dressing at its best.

In response to a question from the floor at one of the so-called public information sessions recently, when asked for an example of a well-run facility, Reg. Chairman Anderson suggested an incinerator in Peel County, west of Toronto was a good site. Instead of going on another tax-funded junket to Europe, why don't they spend a day in Peel?

Energy-From-Waste MEETING - MAY 9

2007-04-28T23:53:00.000-04:00

Canadian Auto Workers Durham Regional Environment Council

Energy from Waste

A public forum to discuss the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of an
Energy from Waste Facility proposed for Durham Region.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007
CAW Local 222 Hall
1425 Phillip Murray Ave.
Oshawa, ON

Canadian Auto Workers Durham Regional Environment Council (CAW D.R.E.C.) will host a public discussion for the residents of Durham Region regarding the proposed Energy from Waste Facility. The community will gain information from speakers both “for” and “against” the facility. We are offering the public the opportunity to ask questions and stay informed. Information will include; health concerns, economic impact, employment, alternatives to fund proven sustainable waste alternatives and other concerns.

“Our council proudly represents more than 33,000 CAW members. They, together with all citizens of Durham Region, are entitled to a broader set of facts on Energy from Waste,” says Dave Renaud, President, CAW D.R.E.C. “We need to fully understand the negative or positive ramifications that the Energy from Waste facility will bring to our community in the long and short term.”

These concerns and others will be explored at the Pro & Con Debate.

Doors will open at 6:00 p.m. An expo representing interested and relevant organizations will be on hand.

Discussion will begin at 7:00 p.m. with confirmed “con” speakers:

Dr. Paul Connett, Cambridge University graduate, with a Ph.D. in chemistry and over 22 years of waste management research.
John Jackson, Program Director for Great Lakes United, an international citizen’s coalition dedicated to protecting and restoring the Great Lakes and over 25 years of experience working on waste issues.
Erin Shapero, Councillor, Ward 2 Markham, who continues to be a tireless advocate for environmental causes and the interests of her constituents.

A question and answer session will follow.

Representatives of the Regional Municipality of Durham have declined an invitation to participate in the forum due to the fact that they do not engage in panel discussions on any current projects. Representatives of Ontario’s Premier, Dalton McGuinty’s, Operations Office have not presently returned any of our calls or e-mails requesting their attendance. We are presently working to confirm a list of “pro” speakers.

For further information contact:
Dave Renaud
President, CAW D.R.E.C.
Tel: 905.404.1279
mailto:Keepitgreen@cawdrec.com
http://www.cawdrec.com/

Incineration of honesty, clarity, accountability?

2007-04-24T07:46:00.000-04:00

We have been assured throughout this public information process (as late as last week) that a full Environmental Assessment (EA) would be done for this incineration project. Not an "Environmental Screening", but a full EA. The proposed environmental screening is a self-assessment process.

Today, at the Durham/York Joint Waste Management Group (JWMG) meeting at Durham Regional Headquarters at 1 pm, there will be a "Presentation of the Consultant's Recommendation Regarding Whether to Switch from the Full Environmental Assessment to the Environmental Screening Process".

Under the new rules, if a project was previously subject to an individual environmental assessment, and the proponent had submitted its EA or a terms of reference (the work plan for the EA), the proponent can switch to the environmental screening process instead of completing the review as an individual EA, but only within 60 days of the regulation coming into force. (The new regulation came into force on March 23, 2007).

So, what will be the recommendation of the consultants? To save time and money by switching to the ES instead of a full EA, despite assurances that this was not the case and would not happen? Will they choose the correct route and go with a full EA?

What on earth is this Provincial government thinking, especially in an election year? Do they really believe that loosening EA requirements actually is "Improving the Environmental Process"? Thermal facilities with 'energy from waste' component will now be exempted from the full EA and allowed to choose the 'screening' process instead. This type of facility is considered by the Province to "have predictable environmental effects that can be readily mitigated". Oh, really? All the while the consultants are telling us that they have not yet done the health studies, and medical journals tell us that there are no safe levels of dioxins or furans, which are both by-products of the combustion process of garbage and end up as part of the emissions from those lovely smoke stacks which rise up from the EFW (Energy From Waste) incinerators. Sorry, but those white puffs of smoke are not "just water vapour" as we have been told. We are assured that this incinerator, if built in Clarington, will emit only 'safe levels' of these chemicals (according to Provincial standards). Do you have confidence in Provincial Standards when the experts tell us there are no safe levels of certain toxins?

We will find out later today what the consultants recommendation will be, and what course our Regional representatives on the JWMG will decide to take. This JWMG meeting is open to the public so we hope some residents will attend. We will follow up on this for our readers.

JWMG Group meeting - Tuesday, April 24 - Regional Headquarters in Whitby, 1 pm - 3 pm. 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, Meeting Room: LL-C

See today's JWMG meeting agenda.

UPDATE (April 24/07):
According to sources, a full Environmental Assessment will be done rather than an Environmental Screening. Kudos to the York/Durham Joint Committee and to the Consultants.
(more to come...)

Burning Questions

2007-04-10T19:43:00.000-04:00

Our Clarington Council heard the "Energy from Waste" presentation last week in a closed meeting labelled as an "educational" training session, and this week we (the public) will be treated to an Energy from Waste presentation on Thursday evening and/or Saturday morning by the Durham/York Residual Waste Study Team.

We have a few problems with how this is all taking place. All the "public information sessions" so far as well as those planned for the future, so far as we know, are being held by the proponents of incineration. We want to hear the other side, not just from the proponents, the project management team. How about hearing the cons as well as the pros? And yes, there are many negatives to incineration.

Incinerators are the largest single source of dioxin, a substance so toxic that it has no known threshold where it is no longer considered toxic.
The fly ash from the incinerators is highly toxic and needs to be put in a secure landfill. Toxins can also leech into the water table and soil from these new "landfills" created to handle the residue after the burning process.
Climate change is an big issue today, and incinerators emit substantial amounts of fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, even with the new "scrubber" technology.
What about the increased traffic, degradation of infrastructure due to increased truck traffic on the roads, concentrated within a small area just off Hwy 401 in Clarington?
Increased truck traffic must also be addressed in relation to safety and children's soccer fields in the case of the Courtice location.
Halifax and Edmonton are examples of communities using alternative approaches to manage waste that do not include incineration and that are achieving high diversion rates. We should be looking to better alternatives instead of jumping to incinerators, with their inherent problems.
What happens if Clarington is not a "willing host"? Will we be forced to host the incinerator in one of the populated areas that have made the short list?

Reduce, Reuse and Recycle is still a much better solution than incineration, if it were taken more seriously. We must question the health implications and the potential for contamination of land, air and water, as well as livestock and food. We must also remember that waste disposal and health care costs go hand-in-hand.

We need to be progressive and put the responsibility back onto the manufacturer and the packaging they produce. We should make the manufacturers of packaging responsible for reducing their packaging and for collecting and recycling the remainder. Adding more pollution to the air and land by building an incinerator, especially so close to a populated area, makes no sense at all.

The next step is to attend one of the two scheduled public information sessions to be held in Clarington (both in Bowmanville). Then it will be time to ask more questions and to seek more information on the true benefits vs hazards of a waste incinerator. Hopefully we will find out which technology will be used, the costs to us as Clarington residents, and who will be responsible for the added costs re infrastructure. And the most important issues of safety and health concerns must be adequately addressed.

Public "Information" Sessions:

Thursday, April 12
Clarington Beech Centre, 26 Beech Street, Bowmanville, 7 - 9 pm

Saturday, April 14
Municipal Office, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, 9:30 - 11:30 am

For more information, including resident's comments, see:
http://claringtonwatchdog.blogspot.com/search/label/Incinerator

Lets hope we will be pleasantly surprised.

Elect The Chair effort not over

2007-04-06T07:50:00.000-04:00

Good news for proponents of Bill 172, an Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to Provide for the Direct Election of the Durham Regional Council chairman. It has now passed second reading, much to the delight of all those who want to see the practice of horse-trading and promises made within the confines of regional council who alone have the power to choose who sits in the highest (unelected) position within regional government.

Bill to elect Durham Region chairman passes second reading
Apr 5, 2007
By Erin Hatfield ehatfield@durhamregion.com

TORONTO -- A bill that would mean the direct election of Durham's Regional chairman passed second reading at Queen's Park today.

"The way many of the Liberals were speaking I thought they were going to whip it," said Oshawa MPP Jerry Ouellette minutes after the vote. "But, I went over, talked to the minister (of municipal affairs and housing) and he said they had free reign to vote how they wanted."
Bill 172, an Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to Provide for the Direct Election of the Durham Regional Council chairman, was introduced by Mr. Ouellette in December 2006.
During the debate at Queen's Park Thursday morning, Mr. Ouellette said he tried to dispel concerns that a large municipality would control a direct election.
"In Waterloo the chair is a person from one of the small townships," he said. He also addressed concerns about the potential cost of running for the Region's top spot.
"I gave figures from last term which indicated that the most money spent was half of what we can spend as an MPP," he said.

Those who rose to support Mr. Ouellette's bill included Joyce Savoline, MPP for Burlington. Ms. Savoline previously served as the Halton Region chairwoman, the first time the top spot at an Ontario regional government was directly elected.

"When she spoke she tried to dispel a lot of the concerns," Mr. Ouellette said. "A lot of it is concern over party politics and she dispelled that."

Mr. Ouellette introduced the bill at Queen's Park on Dec. 12 after the results of a referendum question on the election ballots in Ajax, Pickering and Oshawa overwhelmingly supported direct election. At present, Durham Regional councillors choose the chairman.

On Feb. 14 Regional council voted 15 to 13 to endorse Bill 172 and Mr. Ouellette said that endorsement likely made a difference in the vote at Queen's Park.

"I just think this is a good way of moving forward in democracy," he said.

The bill has been referred to the general government committee, which gives municipalities an opportunity to voice concerns.

Of course our municipal government in Clarington has already sent a strongly worded letter to the Province declaring their "vehement" opposition to this bill. And they did this without bothering or even wanting to hear from residents on the issue. After repeated attempts at requesting a public meeting be held on the issue so the local residents can have their say, they are still being either flatly turned down or ignored. Remember that Clarington was one of the local municipalities within Durham Region who's residents were denied a chance to have their voices heard in a referendum. In the only 3 municipalities in Durham Region that did put it on the ballot, the public overwhelmingly supported direct election of the regional chair position. Overwhelmingly being approx. 85% of the public. That is pretty overwhelming. In spite of this, our council pushed forward their own agenda in saying that they opposed it, and have continued to deny residents of Clarington the opportunity to have their say.

But why should we be surprised at that? They made a big show of wanting resident's input on the Hospital funding issue, then totally ignored it. We believe they only made that "show" because of all the noise about their denying any input on direct election of the chair. We now wonder how much input residents of Clarington will have on the incinerator issue. If past performance is any indicator, we'll have about zero input. Or at least zero that will be actually considered by this we-know-better-than-you council.

At least we still have a chance at having Bill 172 pass and become law. Everyone should take the time to write, phone, or email their MPP as well as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and let them know how you feel about direct election of our regional chair. To contact the Minister:
Hon. John Gerretsen, Phone: 416-585-7000 Fax: 416-585-6470 Address: Hon. John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing
MINISTER'S OFFICE, 17th Flr
777 Bay St, Toronto ON M5G 2E5

or use their feedback page on the MMAH website at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_11051_1.html

The few reasons given by our Councillors for so "vehemently" opposing this bill were lacking in fact. I hope those who have objections to their objection will write in with comments. For example, the $250,000 amount given as what would be needed for a campaign for regional chair is incorrect, and is an amount pulled out of the air. Did our council bother to check with those few elected regional chairs in Ontario? No, they obviously did not. Maybe it's time they did.

For more on the "Elect The Chair" topic see previous blog items, both discussion and comments.

Contact information for Clarington Council

2007-04-06T07:32:00.000-04:00

Don't hesitate to contact Clarington Councillors or Mayor regarding issues that concern you. That is part of their job.

Mayor JIM ABERNETHY
mayor@clarington.net

Regional Councillor MARY NOVAK (Wards 1 & 2)
mnovak@clarington.net (H) 905-436-2583

Regional Councillor CHARLIE TRIM (Wards 3 & 4)
ctrim@clarington.net (H) 905-786-2403

Local Councillor ADRIAN FOSTER (Ward 1)
afoster@clarington.net (H) 905-404-8613

Councillor RON HOOPER (Ward 2)
rhooper@clarington.net (H) 905-623-3097

Councillor WILLIE WOO (Ward 3)
wwoo@clarington.net (H) 905-987-3388

Councillor GORD ROBINSON (Ward 4)
grobinson@clarington.net (H) 905-786-2970

Clerk's Department: clerks@clarington.net
905-623-7651

The Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance StreetBowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Telephone: 905-623-3379 (All Departments unless otherwise noted)
Toll Free: 800-563-1195

Contact information for MPPs & MPs for Durham Region

2007-04-06T07:06:00.000-04:00

To contact any Durham Region MPPs regarding the "Elect the Chair" issue or to show your support for Bill 172 or other issues, contact information is below. Keep this information to use to contact your local MPP (for Clarington it is John O'Toole) regarding incineration, tranportation, or any other issues in the future.

***John O'Toole, Durham Riding, Progressive Conservative
Rm 207, North Wing, Legislative Building, Toronto ON M7A 1A8
Tel : 416-325-6745 Fax : 416-325-6255
Local office:
75 King St E, Bowmanville ON L1C 1N4
Tel : 905-697-1501 Fax : 905-697-1506 Toll Free : 1-800-661-2433
john_otooleco@ontla.ola.org

Jerry Ouellette, Oshawa Riding, Progressive Conservative
(author of Bill 172)
Rm 428, Main Legislative Building, Toronto ON M7A 1A8
Tel : 416-325-2147 Fax : 416-325-2169
Local office:
170 Athol St E, Oshawa ON L1H 1K1
Tel : 905-723-2411 Fax : 905-723-1054
jerry_ouelletteco@ontla.ola.org

Christine Elliott, Whitby-Ajax Riding, Progressive Conservative
Rm 430, Main Legislative Buidling, Toronto ON M7A 1A8
Tel : 416-325-1331 Fax : 416-325-1423
Local office:
101 - 114 Dundas St E, Whitby ON L1N 2H7
Tel : 905-430-1141 Fax : 905-430-1840
christine.elliott@pc.ola.org

Wayne Arthurs, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge Riding, Liberal
Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance
Ministry of Finance
7 Queen's Park Cres, 7th Flr, Frost Bldg SouthToronto ON M7A 1Y7
Tel : 416-325-3581 Fax : 416-325-3453
warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Local office:
213 - 1550 Kingston Rd, Pickering ON L1V 1C3
Tel : 905-420-0829Fax : 905-420-5351
warthurs.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

**********************************

Durham Region MPs - our Federal representatives:

***Bev Oda, Durham Riding, Conservative (Clarington)
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women
Ottawa Address:
121 East Block , Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Phone: 613-992-2792
Fax: 613-992-2794
Email: mailto:OdaB@parl.gc.ca
Local Office:
Box 9, 68 King Street E., Unit 2, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3K8
Phone: 905-697-1699
Fax: 905-697-1678
Website: www.bevoda.ca/

Colin Carrie, Oshawa Riding, Conservative
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Ottawa Address:
House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 996-4756
Fax: (613) 992-1357
EMail: Carrie.C@parl.gc.ca
Local Office:
57 Simcoe Street South Unit 2B (Main Office), Oshawa, ON L1H 4G4
Telephone: (905) 440-4868
Fax: (905) 440-4872
Web Site: www.colincarriemp.ca/

Jim Flaherty, Whitby - Oshawa Riding, Conservative
Minister of Finance
Ottawa Address:
607 Confederation Building, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Phone: 613-992-6344
Fax: 613-992-8320
Email: mailto:flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca
Local Office:
204-701 Rossland Road East, Whitby, ON L1N 8Y9
Phone: 905-665-8182
Fax: 905-665-8124
Website: www.jimflaherty.com/

Mark Holland, Ajax-Pickering Riding, Liberal
Ottawa Address:
House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 995-8042
Fax: (613) 996-1289
EMail: Holland.M@parl.gc.ca
Local Office:
92 Church Street South, Suite 106, Ajax, ON L1S 6B4
Telephone: (905) 426-6808
Fax: (905) 426-9564
Web Site: www.markholland.ca/

Hospital funding request denied... sad but no surprise

2007-04-04T11:52:00.000-04:00

Even though Clarington Council had the results of a telephone poll which told them that 74% of residents were in favour of the funding, along with multiple delegations requesting they approve the donation, our Council came up with what they feel are good excuses for NOT doing so. This decision was predicted here a few times, including in our March 16 blog.

We feel the biggest reason was that they didn't want to push our already altitudinous tax rate into double digits. But the small amount that would have been tacked on to property owners' bill would have been pretty inconsequential for most of us. On the "average" property tax bill, about $16 per year would have been added. That's less than a Timmies coffee and donut per month. Not per day, nor per week. But per MONTH. Yes there are people with multiple properties who would have to pay more, but if they hold multilple properties, they can probably afford to forego a couple of Timmies per month. Those with million dollar properties who would have to pay considerably more on their tax bill could also probably afford it.

What we cannot afford is to ignore our local hospital. This was a chance for our municipal government to get behind our local hospital. Yes, it is Provincial responsibility to fund hospitals in this province. But they are not doing it, and if we wait for them to give us that funding or raise the levels of money granted to Lakeridge Health to the average per capita across Ontario, we will have a long wait. That is the consensus of most residents in Durham Region, including Clarington. So do we cut off our nose to spite our face? Sure we can write to the Province, phone them, email them, but will Health Minister Smitherman listen to us? Should we expect him to listen to us any more than our local council does? Maybe now they can understand how it feels to be ignored. That is how many Clarington residents feel about this council on a variety of issues. They just don't listen to us. They may pretend to listen, but in the end, they are a brick wall.

I'm sure the Memorial Hospital Foundation will find a way to come up with the needed money. It may take longer, but they will do it. They have tremendous support throughout our community, even if Council is not part of that support. Contributing to improvements in our local hospital such as expanding the busy ER, increasing same-day surgery capacity, expanding mammography-related services and create a much needed Intensive Care Unit would have been a investment by our council, not a signal to the Province that they should give up provincial funding of our hospitals, especially since it is not by choice that they do so. They have no choice in the matter. That they underfund is another matter completely.

For more information see Metroland's article, "Municipality says 'No' to hospital's $2-million request". And don't hesitate to comment here on this blog or to let your local councillors know your feelings on it. As well, be sure to make a contribution to this worthy cause if you can. We should show our council what social conscience is all about.

Incineration - don't we deserve the same information?

2007-03-30T17:17:00.000-04:00

If our Council wants to convince us that incineration is good for Clarington, that we should host the incinerator, and that incineration is perfectly safe, then why not allow us to have the same information on it that they will have? But oh no. They will have a special meeting, closed to the public, to be educated with respect to "energy to waste" (incineration). If they're really interested in being open and accountable, why hide any of the information from the residents who must also make some decisions, since this council tells us that they are oh so interested in our opinions and input. That is why there are two public meetings scheduled to be held in Bowmanville on April 12 and April 14. But the April 5 meeting where there will be MORE information given, will be closed to the public.

Here is the agenda for the CLOSED meeting:

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
Date: THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007
Time: 2:00 P.M.
Location: COURTICE COMPLEX,
2950 COURTICE ROAD NORTH, COURTICE, ONTARIO

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 239 (3.1) OF THE MUNICIPAL
ACT, THIS MEETING WILL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATING THE
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ENERGY FROM WASTE.

PRAYERS
ROLL CALL
DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY
INTEREST
PRESENTATIONS

**Dave Merriman, MacViro/Jacques Whitford – Energy from Waste Technology

**Jim McKay, MacViro/Jacques Whitford – Environmental Assessment Process

**Representative from MacViro/Jacques Whitford –
Ecological and Human Risk Assessment Process

**Jim McKay, MacViro/Jacques Whitford – Next Steps

**Bunny Lockett, Works Department, Regional Municipality of Durham – Public Consultation Process and Public Information Sessions

BY-LAW TO APPROVE ALL ACTIONS OF COUNCIL

ADJOURNMENT

There is a notice in today's Clarington This Week - Public Notice - stating that a "Short-List" of sites has been Identified. It also states, "Durham and York Regions seek your input on the "Short-List" of Sites recommended for a new Thermal Treatment Facility to manage the garbage that remains after recycling and composting."

Okay, so why do they want our input when they won't give us all the information they are getting? Is it a case once again of asking but not really wanting our input? Of having an excuse not to listen to us, as on the hospital funding issue, where they asked the question but didn't get the answer they were looking for so delayed the decision once again? Or not listening to residents who continue to ask for a public meeting on the regional chair issue? Will this be just one more example of that type of treatment by this council?

With the passage of Bill 130, that meeting is allowed to be closed to the public if it is being held for the purpose of education or training the council members and no member discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board or committee.

So if it can't be discussed in any way that advances the decision-making of the council, why not allow the public to also attend and be educated, before giving their "input" to Council? They had better not discus the incinerator or the choices of sites at this meeting as it might advance their decision-making process, or the business of being a willing host. Is this a way to be "open and accountable"? I think not.

We must be sure to attend one of the information sessions that WILL be open to the public. Don't expect to see many of the council members attending those, if any.

Public "Information" Sessions:

Tuesday, April 10 - Roman Palace Banquet Hall, 1096 Ringwell Road, Newmarket, 7 - 9 pm

Thursday, April 12 - Clarington Beech Centre, 26 Beech Street, Bowmanville, 7 - 9 pm

Saturday, April 14 - Municipal Office, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, 9:30 - 11:30 am

Maybe someone on Council will explain to us the rationale behind having all the information given at a closed meeting, and having most likely a cut-down version of information given to residents at the "public meetings", while asking for our so-called "input" at those two meetings? And why hold both in Bowmanville and none in Courtice, where the incinerator will most likely end up? Oh yes, that's right. The Courtice meeting is only for Council, not for residents.

Is it just me, or does this council seem to be getting more and more distant and unaccountable to Clarington taxpayers? Transparency? Not even close.

Incineration - good choice or bad for Clarington?

2007-03-27T09:59:00.000-04:00

There are pros and cons regarding incineration, and we only seem to have been provided with the pros, to date. It is time to consider some of the cons as well.

Health concerns must be at the top of the list, especially if the incinerator is to be placed in our community. 4 of the 5 sites on the short list are within Clarington (one is in York Region). None in the rest of Durham Region - all Clarington, and all 4 are located between Hwy 401 and the lake. 2 are near Courtice Road and 2 near Bennett Road.

Here is an excerpt from "Ontario's Waste Management Challenge - Is Incineration an Option?" - a new report just released by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP). You can download the full report here.

In 2005, the British Society for Ecological Medicine released its report on the "Health Effects of Waste Incinerators". This report drew a number of conclusions suggesting that even incinerators employing more modern technologies may have adverse health effects, including the following:
• Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancer and also birth defects around municipal waste incinerators: the results are consistent with the associations being causal. A number of smaller epidemiological studies support this
interpretation and suggest that the range of illnesses produced by incinerators may be much wider.

• Incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates, of toxic metals and of more than 200 organic chemicals, including known carcinogens, mutagens, and hormone disrupters. Emissions also contain other unidentified compounds whose potential for harm is as yet unknown, as was once the case with dioxins. Since the nature of waste is continually changing, so is the chemical nature of the incinerator emissions and therefore the potential for adverse health effects. A March 2006 report by the BC Lung Association found that even relatively low levels of fine particles (2.5 microns and smaller) have the potential to affect human health.

• Present safety measures are designed to avoid acute toxic effects in the immediate neighbourhood, but ignore the fact that many of the pollutants bioaccumulate, can enter the food chain and can cause chronic illnesses over time and over a much wider geographical area. No official attempts have been made to assess the effects of emissions on long-term health.

• Incinerators produce bottom and fly ash that represent 30-50% by volume of the original waste (if compacted), requiring transportation to landfill sites. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers the toxic load, notably that of
dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to the fly ash. This fly ash is light, readily windborne and mostly of low particle size. It represents a considerable and poorly understood health hazard.
These studies offer many contradictions and leave a number of uncertainties about the health effects of these technologies. Prior to introducing more incinerators in Ontario we would need to be sure that technologies have improved and don’t offer undue risks to human and environmental health. The MOE should again review the health implications of these technologies to update its 1999 assessment.

No one wants another landfill as we all know the problems with that. And we know something must be done with all the garbage before the 2010 closing of the Michigan border to our garbage. But is incineration the answer? It well may be, but there are also disadvantages that must be seriously considered, especially when planning to plunk an incinerator so close to populated areas. Why plan to locate it so close to residents? They would prefer to locate it closer to where most of the waste is produced, and also close to major highways so that cost of transporting it will be reduced. Is that cost a valid trade-off for possible health concerns of residents? We must also look at traffic congestion and wear and tear on roads with all the heavy truck traffic this will generate. What about future development in the area?

Jobs? There will be very few jobs produced by this incinerator since it is mostly an automated process. It is projected that fewer than 40 or 50 jobs will be required to run the incinerator. Could the space be better used to improve our industrial/commercial tax base by having more commercial/industrial development on these lands by companies requiring more workers?

While more and more people and businesses in Durham Region are working hard to reduce, reuse and recycle, will the introduction of an incinerator reduce the priority placed on municipal waste diversion? Any negative impact on this priority would be a huge step backward as recycling leads to lower energy consumption and environmental burdens than waste disposal.

The short list of sites seems to put costs and convenience above other concerns such as health, traffic, infrastructure degradation and other problems we could see with an incinerator placed locally. It is something our regional councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) must consider seriously, but we are afraid that even if they decide to push to have the preferred site be the one in York Region, Anderson, Regional Chair, will be pushing to have it located in Durham Region, as will many of the regional councillors from the other lakeshore municipalities since they will have the convenience, lower costs, but not the problems inherent with siting an incinerator within their own municipalities. We have only 3 votes. Our local municipal council is not really consulted on this. It is the Region, once again, that makes the decision, and will most likely convince our 3 representatives that it's a good thing for Clarington residents anyway.

Will they listen to residents on this issue? Why change their spots now? They can make a big show of public consultation (which is required, not by choice of our council), but as usual they will do what they decide in spite of public input.

Please contact your mayor and council with your views on this important issue. A public meeting is set for April 12 at the Beech Centre in Bowmanville, 7 - 9 pm. Another meeting is scheduled for Saturday morning, April 14 at Town Hall in Bowmanville from 9:30 - 11:30 am. Please try to attend.

Clarington will be incinerator dumping ground - wanna bet?

2007-03-25T15:14:00.000-04:00

A couple of stories this week have pegged Clarington as the likely place for the proposed waste-to-energy incinerator. The Toronto Star article "Waste not, want not, for new power" (March 24) states that 4 of the 5 sites on the "short list" for the incinerator are in Clarington. Big surprise. You should also read the Metroland story, "Clarington takes four spots in energy-from-waste site short list" (March 23).

It is no secret that York Region would prefer to have this incinerator in Durham Region. Durham Regional Council would prefer to have it out of the way in Clarington, and funny thing, that's where the sites on the short list are located. Two in Courtice, and two in Bowmanville. We'll take bets on where it eventually ends up. Odds are it will be Courtice, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which the fact that our Council will be easily convinced by Durham Region that the plant should be located within Clarington, to begin with, and the fact that the water pollution control plant is located there and there is room, plus it is a bit closer to the other municipalities to the west for them to dump their garbage there. Still, the Bennett Road area in south Bowmanville is an attractive site for the incinerator too.

We're not worried about it though, since Chairman Anderson has declared that, "the smoke that comes out of the top is as clean as possible". So, as clean as possible? What does that mean? Sure it's cleaner than the old incinerators, but then again, we have no idea yet which technology will be used. Will it be the very latest and best, most efficient? Or will it be the most financially attractive type? Chair Anderson also says it will be "attractive and an addition to any area". Then why push it out to Clarington, when we're sure Pickering/Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa are all clamouring to host it themselves. Lucky Clarington.

From the Toronto Star, "I'm surprised that Clarington has been isolated as the only location in Durham," Clarington Mayor Jim Abernethy said yesterday. (March 23)

Why would he be surprised? No one else who lives in Clarington is.

Though he is on the record as favouring incineration, he said there will need to be "extensive public consultations" in the next while. "We have to really understand what is involved with being a host community," he said. "No one really wants this in their backyard."

Public consultations? Like those that have taken place regarding the funding request for Bowmanville Hospital? Public consultations like those refused by Council on the issue of direct election of Durham Region Chair? They will make up their own minds, regardless of what the public has to say about it - we already know that.

A public meeting is set for April 12 at the Beech Centre in Bowmanville. Why not at Garnet Rickard and Courtice Community Centre where previous public information centres were held? Why have one in Bowmanville (two sites on the short list) but not one in Courtice where there are also 2 sites on the short list? And will anybody really listen anyway?

Regional councillor Charlie Trim, who also backs incineration, expressed similar surprise. "I just thought there would be three sites in each region," said Trim. "We haven't seen the detail. The detail is what is important."

No, what is important is the rhetoric put forth by our powerful Regional Chair, and those regional councillors who want the incinerator, but not in their backyard. They will fairly easily convince our 3 regional representatives (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) that hosting it will be oh so beneficial for Clarington. They will be convinced of how desirable it will be to build it in our municipality, whether at Courtice Road or Bennett Road. Our regional councillors will fall for it hook, line and sinker. Just like they fell for the arguments made by the region to keep the status quo on election of the chair.

And who will host the ash (waste from the incinerator)? Clarington again, or will one of the other municipalities step up and take on that responsibility? I know, silly question.

The report detailing the sites is supposed to be released to the public Monday morning (March 26) at www.durhamyorkwaste.ca. It's not there yet, but there are other bits of information available at that site.

So, are we confident that what is best for Clarington will be done? No, we are not. Not when we have a council that is not accountable to the public (so far) and has shown itself, in its very short time in office to date, to be unwilling to seriously listen to both pros and cons of any issue. They will listen to those who say what our Council wants to hear. They will find a way to ignore what they don't want to hear. They are a huge disappointment so far (the majority of council, save just a couple). They are being manipulated by our region and don't even realize it. By the time they wake up and listen to the residents of Clarington, we hope it will not be too late.

All we are asking is that this council wake up and take notice of what its residents have to say for a change. By all means, get all the information, all the facts. But do not be swayed by those with an agenda that may benefit themselves but not be best for Clarington. Do we want this incinerator in Clarington? Do we even have enough information to make an informed decision? We hope that this time our councillors will do some real fact finding instead of being convinced by those who do not have the best interests of Clarington at heart. We remain hopeful, but not confident at this point.

Fiscally Responsible? I don't think so.

2007-03-16T18:45:00.000-04:00

So, apparently our Council did not direct Municipal CAO Franklin Wu to seek public opinion on whether to support a $2-million request from the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation, but it was done nonetheless, whether by council direction or not. The money would be used as part of a much needed $10-million proposed renovation. (See Metroland editorial: Survey may not hold the answer, March 16). At a cost of $4000, there was a phone poll of 400 residents of Clarington. That works out to $10 per person questioned. Pretty expensive poll, especially when it is ignored by Council.

The formal request for money was made weeks ago by Dr. Benjamin Fuller, Medical Director, Lakeridge Health Corporation and Department Chief of Emergency Medicine at Memorial Hospital on February 26. Now Council says there was not enough time for a public meeting, they could have held one on March 5, couldn't they? Or simply asked for those interested to email the clerk's department, write in, or phone in their opinion - yes or no. Or they could have also had a web poll on the municipal website, advertised in the local newspapers. Would that have cost an extra $4000.00? And now that Council has decided to delay their decision another two weeks, they still are not providing a public meeting on the issue. They seem to have some irrational fear of public meetings!

Why is it so important for them to have input from the public on this issue when they refuse to listen to the public on the governance issue of election of the regional chair? When they refuse even to entertain a public meeting on the issue? Is it because this is a direct money issue, and since our taxes are going up so much this year, they want to be able to say they asked the public on this one issue? Believe it or not, election of regional chair is also a money issue, but that's another matter. What hat are they wearing when they decide not to listen to the public? That of a democratic, responsible council? Or a dunce cap? You decide. Or are we the dunces for trusting and electing them?

It really doesn't matter, however, since they didn't listen to the people once again - the poll resulted in 74% being in favour of funding for the hospital. That's a pretty wide margin, yet our indecisive, vacillating, less than stellar council has decided they still can't make a decision. The numerous delegations were also extremely supportive of this initiative. It is obvious they (Council) do not want to give funding for our local hospital, and were hoping the poll would support their preference. It did not, so they need another two weeks to try to come up with a good enough reason not to do so (one that might be accepted by the public who use that hospital).

This new council is making increasingly questionable decisions. And they are loathe to give substantial reasons for the unaccountable, feckless direction they are taking. Pretending to listen to residents on some issues, and totally ignoring them on other issues. They are arbitrary, erratic, capricious and undemocratic. And getting progressively worse. This is an alarming progression since they have only just begun - only 4 months into a 4 year term. How much damage will this bunch inflict on Clarington over the next 4 years?

Democratic Deficit? I would say yes. An apt description of what is happening in our municipality.

BIG mistake - No public meeting allowed

2007-03-07T13:44:00.000-05:00

At the Monday morning (March 5) GP&A meeting of Clarington Councillors, 3 delegations requested that a public meeting be held so that Clarington residents might have the opportunity to give their input on direct election of the Durham Region Chair - an opportunity they were denied at election time when previous council refused to include the question on the ballot. Residents of Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering had a referendum question included on the election ballot last fall.

On February 14th, our 3 representatives on Regional Council (Novak, Trim and Abernethy) all voted against endorsing Bill 172 (for direct election of regional chair), even though that motion to endorse did pass, so they lost their bid on that day.

So on February 19, at the GP&A meeting of council, a motion was made by Councillor Foster to "vehemently oppose" Bill 172, and all our councillors except Woo and Hooper agreed. The motion passed. It was also asked that this declaration be sent forthwith to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, rather than even waiting another week for ratification at Council. That passed too, so it was sent right away. The following week, on February 26, Council ratified that original vote, again with only Woo and Hooper wanting to let the public have their say before taking an official Clarington position on it.

On March 5th, at the next GP& A meeting (General Purpose and Administration), 3 delegations stood up to request that a public meeting be held so that Clarington residents could have their opinions heard by council. Once again Council voted to disregard any public input, and again deny the residents of Clarington the opportunity to even speak to the issue. This time though, after listening to the 3 delegations, Councillor Robinson made a motion to hold a public meeting to hear public input on the issue. He said that he may not change his mind, but that at least the public deserves a chance to have their say on direct election of regional chair. The vote resulted in a tie - Robinson, Woo, Hooper in favour of allowing the public meeting, and not surprisingly, Foster, Novak and Trim voting against. It was up to the Mayor to break the tie, and he made a huge mistake. He voted to not allow any public input on the matter. In speaking with someone present at this debacle, I was told the Mayor started to give his reasons for his vote and Councillor Foster shut him down, as he had done with Councillor Woo earlier. There was no more discussion on the issue. Who is running the show, anyway?

There WILL be more discussion on this issue though, as those wanting a public meeting will not give up. It was surprising and extremely disappointing that this council doesn't care to hear any public input on such a major governance issue. These 3 delegations were not asking that they rescind their original motion. They were only asking for a belated opportunity for the public to give their input. Only after hearing all sides to this issue, and hearing from the public (who this council was elected to serve), should council make a decision of this magnitude. Indeed, only after public input can council make an informed decision. But is all it's wisdom, this council and mayor decided they don't need public input for they know better than we do. They are all-knowing and are impatient with these less intelligent beings who elected them, who want to be heard. Of course, since they were elected, some of these people suddenly have become omnipotent beings, above us all.

Thank you to Councillor Robinson for at least believing now that the public should be allowed to be heard. Thank you to Councillors Woo and Hooper for trying to do the right thing, and for listening to the people and believing the public has a right to be heard.

Shame on the disgraceful behaviour of Foster (for leading the charge), Novak, Trim and Abernethy for the indifference they are showing to the opinions or requests of residents and even contempt for our input on a governance issue, where we have every right to speak.

They should consider that we, the voting public, are good enough to give them our votes and to choose a council and mayor, but it seems we couldn't be trusted to choose the person who heads the region? Should we begin to lobby to change the Municipal Act so that we elect a council, and then those 6 people choose a mayor for us - someone unelected at all? Do they really think that would be better than an open election for top spot in the municipality? Perhaps this bunch would think so, as then they could put in one of their old friends, or someone booted out by voters in the last election. The range of possibilities would be endless. This is what happens at the regional level. 28 elected councillors choose the head of the region. What is so different?

The public should be allowed to choose regional chair, and there are many more reasons for a direct, open election of the chair. This includes the nomination process for one, which absolutely favours the incumbent, or at the very least a present member of regional council. Remember that the chair is chosen at the first meeting of regional council after an election, where those 28 who were just elected/re-elected will do the choosing. That doesn't give much time at all for "outsiders" to get nominated (must be by a regional councillor) or to lobby those special 28 for election. How fair is that?

Yes, we do have a democratic deficit in Clarington. And it is increasing. Shame on this Mayor for giving up the chance to make things right by allowing a public meeting. Shame on Foster, Novak and Trim for not wanting to listen to the public who elected them.

Whether you agree with direct election of the chair or not, we should all be very concerned about the lack of interest shown by this council for public input on a huge issue that affects us all. Not just lack of interest, but absolute denial of the democratic process. What are they so afraid of? That someone may make a lot of sense and make them look mentally deficient for taking such a stand against democratic procedure? Sorry to inform them, but that has already happened. And it is only escalating. They can try to cover it by saying they want input on this or that, but we have already seen their behaviour when they have a political issue that benefits them (or they think it does) and do not want anyone to spoil their little party.

Benefit of the doubt for a rookie mayor and partial rookie council? I don't think so. It is the rookie councillors (Woo and Hooper) who have shown the most sense throughout. And Robinson at least trying to give residents a chance to have a say has been a little bit redeemed. But the rest are digging themselves deeper and deeper and deeper...

So, in the end, No public meeting for Clarington residents, thanks to Abernethy, Foster, Novak and Trim.

If you want to have your say, sign up to speak to Council as a delegation, write a letter, and/or comment here on this blog. Some of them surely know about this blog and may take the time to read some of your opinions here too. Or they may not bother. Best to give a deputation at Council or GP&A so they at least have to sit there, whether they listen or not. With a couple of them, that is debatable. We are asking only for a publicized public meeting for the public. Is that such a difficult thing for them to grant? Apparently so!!!