Energy-From-Waste MEETING - MAY 9

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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!!!

Budget choices

The Sunday, March 4 edition of Clarington This Week headline: "Clarington residents may see 8.89 percent tax hike".

As the municipality grows so quickly, so grows the need for funding of all those new arenas, ice pads, recreational facilities that were approved over the last two council terms. Also the great residential growth without corresponding industrial/commercial growth over all those years has resulted in a horrible 91/9% tax split. 91% of tax revenue comes from homeowners and only 9% from businesses. So the addition of $100,000 to an economic development reserve fund seems to be a necessity. Besides attracting more industrial and commercial development, which will have the added benefit of adding badly needed jobs to the mix, we must also stop mollycoddling the development industry with low development charges, or waiving them altogether when it's not necessary. When approving all those subdivisions, the town must charge development fees that will support and sustain infrastructure needed for the increased population. Increasing DC's won't scare the residential developers away. They have the land and they want to build, more and more and more. Or perhaps a discount could be given for green development. Not just in name, but actual green development that will benefit us all in the long run. But growth just for the sake of growth has to be curbed or made to pay for itself.

One concern I do have with this budget is the $86,000 reduction to the municipal advertising budget. This means that the municipality will only advertise the information and notices it is required to by law (such as public meetings, for example). Now don't get me wrong - I was no fan of the "Mayor's Corner" which seemed to be of no real benefit to the municipality. I'm glad Mayor Abernethy has not continued that silly little goody. However, by not keeping that space for local group community event announcements, those groups will have to increase their grant requests from the municipality to cover those costs. OR they won't be able to advertise at all and the entire municipality loses out in that case. Take, for example, the Clarington Museum Board's ads when they have new exhibits or programs open to the public. Must they increase their advertising budget now, or will we simply miss out on all these opportunities? Or the community happenings at the Clarington Older Adult Association? Or Big Brothers/Sisters, Lakeridge Health, etc? Advertising once a week in the Orono Weekly Times and Canadian Statesman, and possibly a bit more in Clarington This Week isn't something I would have cut back on. Maybe a little (Mayor's corner is gladly gone and not missed), but not sticking to a maximum of 1/2 page for each ad. There may be more some weeks than others, and why not use whatever space is needed each week? Some weeks may need only 3/4 of a page, or 1/2 page. Others may need a full page due to events or the number of required ads. I just wonder about the wisdom of making this such a structured by-law rather than simply cutting a specific amount and going with the flow. A little more flexibility might have been a better move.

Grants will be done tomorrow morning at the GP&A meeting. That will be an interesting exercise. Some groups seem to just increase their grant requests because last year maybe they didn't get as much as they asked for. So if they increase the amount requested and get the same percentage of that amount, they will get what they originally wanted. While most of the requests seem reasonable, a few always seem a bit outrageous, and I hope they have to justify those amounts to Council. Many of these groups should look to doing more of their own fundraising instead of depending on Council for funding.

This Council has to deal with increased costs to the municipality but have to try to be fair to the taxpayer too. There are certain areas where the money will do more good than others. Lakeridge Health Bowmanville is one area. They are raising a lot of money on their own for badly needed hospital upgrades and improvements. But they have now asked Council for a substantial amount of financial help - Hospital requests $2 million from Municipality (over the next 4 years) - and I for one would be willing to pay a few more dollars a year to have those hospital improvements instead of more staffing for "Total Hockey" or giving ever-larger grants to local groups who could do a little fund-raising on their own.

I may sound harsh, but remember that this council has to make some difficult decisions. I'm sure they would love to give each and every group the full amount of their grant request, but that is not possible. And remember that on top of our 8.89% tax hike from the municipality, we will also have the big regional portion added on to our tax bill. And user fees. We have education taxes. Then we have of course provincial taxes and federal taxes. It all comes from the same taxpayer, and that is us.

Blogger criticisms addressed

The editorial in the February 28 edition of the Orono Weekly Times had some comments and criticisms of this Clarington Watchdog blog which I felt should be responded to. We all have a right to our opinions and this editorial is no different.... I'm not complaining as I don't have a problem with that. In the case of this blog though, there were specific reasons for not revealing my name or those of my contributors, and that was threats from the municipality regarding the criticisms levelled at previous council and mainly the previous mayor. But that doesn't make my opinions or statements of fact any less valuable than those of an editorial writer in any newspaper. So there you have it. As for the rest, I'll respond below. Before responding, however, I must reveal that the Orono Weekly Times is a favourite of mine, and I look forward to my weekly fix which includes the articles, letters to the editor, and yes, the editorials. It's not what I would call a "politically correct" newspaper, but that is one of its greatest charms!

Excerpts from "Blogging" - Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - Orono Weekly Times Editorial

"There is a local blog called claringtonwatchdog@blogspot.com, that calls itself a watchdog on Clarington council. To date, it has been relatively refined. That blog worked hard during the past election in calling for change. The blog was most critical of our past council."

Actually, that should be http://claringtonwatchdog.blogspot.com/

"More recently, that blog has been expressing faint praise, and strong criticism, of our new mayor. The blog claims that Abernethy is missing meetings, failed to support the "elect the Regional Chair" campaign, and is not working hard enough."

Those "claims" are all true. Did the editorial writer read Clarington This Week's February 16th editorial, "Mayor has to take job more seriously"? As for not supporting the "elect the Regional Chair" campaign, that is also fact. Is he working hard enough? That remains to be seen. I believe he is, but must get is priorities in order. Those missed meetings were important, and to my knowledge no good reason was given for missing any of them.

"We can understand impatience. There are huge problems for Clarington, many of which can only be resolved by the Region, or the Province. However, we think that blaming all that on the mayor, could become counter-productive."

We're not blaming everything on the Mayor. That most certainly would be counter-productive. We are, however, blaming him for missed meetings and for changing his position on election of the Regional Chair, and without input from Clarington residents.

"Anyone who took the time to learn about Mayor Abernethy during the election, concluded that he is honest, fair, methodical an understated."

And we agree with that. It is part of the reason we supported Mayor Abernethy during the election campaign. We (writers of this blog) also voted for Mayor Abernethy.

"That is exactly what he is showing now. If voters wanted a superman, who would dynamically revise council, and immediately solve all problems; they should have voted for such a person. Unfortunately for Clarington, no super hero ran in the election."

Again, agreed. He is not expected to immediately solve all problems. He is expected to set priorities and realize the importance of the meetings that were missed. He was expected to carry through on his campaign promise to support direct election of Regional Chair.

"It appears that the mayor is being slowed down further by council. This could be due to the fact he promised openness, and consultation. He seems to be delivering on that promise, but it is time consuming. To our mind, that is a huge improvement over what we had in the previous council."

Agreed, once again.

"Blogs, at their best, encourage debate, and so far, "the watchdog" has achieved that. The downside of a blog site is that uninformed people can put forth any claim, and one person can write dozens of blogs, using different names."

We are glad to encourage debate, and that is a large part of the purpose of this blog. But I hope the editorial writer is not calling watchdog "uninformed", as I can document my claims, and then provide my opinion on what is happening in Clarington (and the Region). I can also assure you that this is the only blog we write, and do not use "different names".

"We ask the bloggers to now remember the other possible candidates for Mayor, and think about the terrible consequences that might have befallen us had we elected someone other than Abernethy. He is showing us a fair, open and intelligent approach. We should support him as he faces huge challenges. Criticism is, of course, easier than constructive action, but we should leave the criticisms to closer to the next election. Now, we need to work together to get things done in this frustratingly complex area of civic politics."

Oh, we do remember the other possible candidates, and that is why we supported Mr. Abernethy for Mayor. We agree he is showing us a fair, open approach, except for refusing to delay voting on the motion put forward by Councillor Foster that "vehemently opposes" direct election of the Regional Chair, in order that members of the public might have their say. We don't feel the approach to that issue was either fair or open. We also don't believe we should allow the mayor or council to have a free ride for the next nearly 4 years and only bring up objections or concerns or criticisms at that time. What kind of "constructive action" would you have us take? Yes, we do need to work together, but we must be allowed to work together by having council listen to residents not only on issues they will agree with the majority on, but also on issues they know they may be taking an unpopular position on. That would be constructive action and fair and open. We, as taxpayers of Clarington, have little control over what this new council decides they will listen to or not. The mayor as leader will have to try to convince those on council who don't seem to care what residents think (unless residents support their position). This is not an easy task, and the job of mayor is not an easy job. But it is the job Mr. Abernethy asked us to elect him to, and we did just that.

Mayor Abernethy has our support in general, but we will criticize when we feel criticism is warranted. If we only gave praise and never any complaints, how would he or council ever know when we are displeased, or when we feel something could be improved upon, or when we have ideas they may be interested in but are not listening?

We do appreciate comments from media and from residents who want to give their own comments in response to our blog entries. We also welcome constructive criticism. There are guidelines for comments in the sidebar. And although we do prefer people to sign their names, it is not mandatory. We want to make it easy for people to comment. We do, however, reserve the right to not publish comments that are defamatory or personal in nature. We want comments on the issues that affect us where we live. Clarington.

Ombudsman needed for Clarington?

Seeing the lack of accountability, lack of respect, and lack of desire on the part of most of our Council to hear what the public has to say, to hear any ideas on direct election of the chair other than those put forth by politicians (at the regional level) who have their own reasons for wanting to retain control over who becomes Chair - perhaps it is time for Clarington to appoint an ombudsman for the people. Or even an integrity commissioner since there is no one to police them other than that same public who is not consulted on major issues such as election of the Chair, nor respected for their opinions, since those opinions and ideas are clearly not wanted by this council.

Isn't it possible that some members of the public might have valid and even compelling reasons for wanting direct election of the chair? Why were we all good enough and smart enough to elect our municipal politicians, but apparently not smart enough to be heard on electing the top position in the region?

The new Municipal Act, Bill 130, gives more powers to both upper and lower tier municipalities. To promote accountability and transparency, municipal councils now have the power to establish codes of conduct for members of council and members of certain local boards. They can appoint an integrity commissioner, an ombudsman, an auditor general and a lobbyist registrar. Since this council voted on Monday night to ratify their "vehement" objection to Regional Council's decision to support direct election of the chair, and so far have refused to hold a public meeting on this issue but went right ahead and made the decision without any public consultation at all, then we could reasonably assert that an ombudsman is sorely needed. How else to get them to listen?

Since this is an issue that will not just go away since they have voted on it, and is a major issue confronting the entire region, we may have to begin serious pressure and lobbying to have that ombudsman or integrity commissioner appointed (or both, preferably). I would venture to guess this will not be a popular issue with this council, but are we not deserving of having a government official to hear and investigate complaints by private citizens against our municipal politicians when there is apparently no other way to be heard?

Yes, we have heard arguments for the status quo.

1. Only three of eight municipalities which included the referendum question on the Nov. 13 ballot -- represent well over half the total population in Durham. Yet, no more than a quarter of those worthy citizens bothered to vote for the officials who will guide their communities for the next four years. Why would the voting turnout be any greater to choose just one person as chairman, especially when the candidates are just as likely to come from far-flung communities such as Brock, Uxbridge or Scugog?

A. Why does voting turnout have to be any greater? What counts are the actual votes cast. Those who want to have a say in who runs our municipalities or our region do make the effort to vote. Those who don't care, don't have a say if they don't vote. What is the problem here?

2. Regional council can now say, after asking just 25 per cent of people in three of eight municipalities, that the "majority" of Durham residents want to elect their chairman. If this is really about catering to the will of the people, then let them hire a consultant to conduct a proper region-wide poll that will be accurate within a few percentage points.

A. Why did the other municipalities in Durham Region refuse to put the question on the ballot when it wouldn't have cost much to add the one question to the November Election ballots? Did those councils not care what the people thought about this issue, or were they afraid to hear it, knowing it would not jive with the position they wanted to take (and have taken)? So sure go ahead and conduct a region-wide poll, but make the question CLEAR (remember the Clarity Act?). A simple straightforward question. No push polls.

3. If the regional chairperson position is direct-elected, north Durham municipalities may be at a disadvantage because "all our votes together (from the north) doesn't compare to one municipality down there." The chance of having a northern candidate elected in a public vote, would be much less because they don't have the exposure, despite the fact that north Durham combined with Clarington represent the largest geographical area in the region. They do not represent the largest population centres.

A. What makes them think the entire population of Oshawa, for example, would vote for someone from Oshawa? Is the voting public (notice I said VOTING public) incapable of looking at contenders with a view to electing the best for the region, rather than being automatons and voting for the person who lives closest to them? We really don't get much credit, do we? And what makes them think that the decision made at the regional level by council as is done now is not a purely political exercise, with potential candidates lobbying the 28 who will make that decision, rather than taking their platform, ideas, concerns, qualifications for the job - to the public they will eventually be elected to serve?

4. The cost of running a campaign region-wide would be prohibitive, and will lead to large donations being needed and accepted by special interest groups.

A. What do they think happens right now, for municipal elections? For Provincial and for Federal elections as well. Yes there is "party" support for candidates now, although kept low-key. But look at who are the campaign workers for many of the candidates, and who donates money to them. There were a few "developer-free" campaigns in this election and most did quite well. A smart campaign is worth more than a big campaign. With the media exposure each candidate would have in the local publications as well as internet access, and candidate debates (local and televised), a successful, smart campaign could be run. It would not be for everyone as there would be a lot of foot-work to do, but give the voting public some credit. Presently, lobbying of 28 people is all it takes, and don't kid yourself that there are no promises made...

So why not make it less political and let the people decide. We were good enough to elect the present representatives, but not good enough to elect a regional chair?

I am sure that others could give many more compelling reasons than I have given here. But why not give them the opportunity to do so? Why not hold a public meeting on this issue if you really care what we have to say. Why just take the ideas of a few people at the region and not even bother to listen to others ideas that may be just as valuable, just as compelling, just as valid? We deserve to at least have these questions answered in a public forum. I'm hearing a lot of anger out there over this issue and our council's motion and vote. It's not going to just go away.

Maybe it is time to make that push for a municipal ombudsman. Think about it.

Double-dipping sullies councillors

Note that in Clarington, Councillors Foster and Novak, both from Ward 1, will be splitting the appointment to the Veridian Board with Councillor Foster taking the first two years (until the end of 2008) and Councillor Novak taking the next two years (until end of 2010). Share the wealth.

February 27, 2007 - Toronto Star Editorial

Municipal politicians across the 905 region surrounding the City of Toronto are engaged in a form of double-dipping that has been allowed to go on for far too long. In addition to their regular pay for serving on council, some 905 politicians pocket thousands of extra dollars for being on the board of electrical utilities owned or controlled by their municipality.

Mayors and councillors are cashing in, from Mississauga to Vaughan to Clarington and other communities in between. In fairness to ratepayers, these politicians should instead follow the standard set by Toronto and end this money-grab. In Canada's largest city, the three councillors who sit on Toronto Hydro's board are paid nothing for this position.

By contrast, in neighbouring Mississauga, such service is lavishly rewarded. Under existing rules, local politicians fortunate enough to be at Enersource, a company created in 2000 after Hydro Mississauga was incorporated, can expect an extra $33,000 to $44,000 on top of their city hall paycheque. Mississauga councillors get a base salary of $71,800 a year. The mayor automatically has a place on this board. And joining Hazel McCallion on the panel is Councillor Nando Iannicca.

Two more of their colleagues are set to sign on after council recently voted to double the number of politicians on the 10-member panel. But Enersource is not some outside firm that should have to pay for a local politician's expertise. It is 90 per cent owned by the City of Mississauga.

Newly elected Mississauga Councillor Carolyn Parrish has questioned the utility board payments, describing them as "a little bit out of whack." With McCallion's support, city council has agreed to review the practice.

It would be disappointing if that review were to confirm the status quo. Simply put, elected politicians, already well paid to serve in office, do not deserve a bonus for doing the city's business on a municipal utility board. Yet the practice is widespread, as revealed by the Star last weekend.

Councillors sitting on utility boards in Vaughan, Markham, Ajax, Pickering and Clarington get varying levels of remuneration even though the municipalities either own, or are the controlling shareholders, of these electrical corporations. Because of that ownership, councillors are in the questionable position of deciding how much they should be paying themselves to be on the board. And some are not shy about cashing in.

Politicians comprise eight out of 10 board members heading Powerstream, a joint utility serving Vaughan and Markham. Each receives $14,000 a year, plus $650 for every board meeting they attend. Six of Vaughan's nine councillors are fortunate enough to sit on that panel.

Veridian Corp., providing electricity to Ajax, Pickering, Clarington and Belleville, has 10 politicians on its 14-member board and pays each $9,800. Ajax Mayor Steve Parish sits on that board and has urged that fewer politicians be appointed, making more space available for people from the community. But some politicians on the board object to that.

If anything, Parish doesn't go far enough. This double-dipping must end.

Municipalities should either adopt the sensible approach used in Oshawa, where no politicians at all serve on the local electrical board. Or they should use Toronto as a model, where politicians do sit on the utility's governing panel, but are not paid to do so.

Mutton acquitted due to "reasonable doubt"

Feb 26, 2007 - Ex-mayor Mutton acquitted of assault charges - Metroland

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what occurred during a "rage fueled by excessive alcohol consumption" amounted to assault against Mr. Mutton's wife Jennifer and 10-year-old daughter Katie, said Justice J.J. Keaney in delivering his verdict.

More on acquittal:
Feb 27, 2007 - Ex-mayor doesn't rule out return to politics - Metroland

Asked how much impact the charges had in his loss, he was unequivocal.
"They were the total impact of the election loss," he said.

Feb 27, 2007 - Black cloud lifts on Mutton - Toronto Sun
Feb 27, 2007 - Ex-mayor not guilty of hitting wife, child - Toronto Star

Visit "The Mutton Trial" for a full recap of articles written on the trial.

Chairman should be elected at large

Last Monday, Clarington's General Purpose and Administration Committee voted 5-2 on a motion stating the Municipality will let the Province know it "vehemently" opposes direct election of the chairman. Though the motion will go to council Feb. 26 for final blessing, it was granted forthwith approval, meaning staff has been directed to prepare and send the letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs right away.

Why on earth would they send the letter to the Ministry "forthwith", without even ratifying the vote at Council this Monday night (Feb. 26)? What was the big rush? Was someone afraid that public pressure might convince some on council to change their minds prior to the ratification vote? Was it that important to them to get this out in the mail before the public could have a say on it?

Apparently residents in other municipalities who also were not consulted by their know-better Councils feel the same as many Clarington residents feel. Here is another view to "Elect the regional chairperson" from a Port Perry resident.

One of the reasons given by the politicians who want to keep the power of appointing the Chair to themselves is that that direct election would create a 'City of Durham'. Just why would that be any more so than it is right now? The Chair of Durham Region is a political appointment. It is a political position, whether councils like to admit it or not. It is the MOST political position in the region, to anyone who has witnessed the actions of Chairman Anderson at committee meetings as well as at council can easily attest to.

It seems that the smaller muncipalities have been convinced by those who want to keep the status quo, that they would be better off not having the people elect the Chair. Excuse me, the majority of councillors from the smaller municipalities, that is. Not the public. The public is tired of having elected politicians decide that they know better than the will of the people, that they are somehow smarter, better than the rest of us. That attitude resulted in a large turnover in Clarington's elected politicians (more than half are new on council including the Mayor). Perhaps it is time for our elected politicians to actually listen to the people of Clarington (and the other municipalities).

The Chair is not accountable to the people presently, and he should be. He not only carries out "the wishes of regional council", but he directs council, puts forth motions on committees, and speaks (very strongly) for or against recommendations to council. Contrary to what has been communicated to the taxpayers of Durham Region, this Chair advises and instructs council committees on his own preferences, rather than council directing him.

The Region spends approximately 50% of our tax dollars. Shouldn't the taxpayers have some say in who the Chair of the Region is? Shouldn't the Chair be accountable to the taxpayers, rather than to the 28 Regional Councillors? Did either of our Clarington regional councillors raise regional issues in their campaigns for election? How many other regional councillors did so in their own municipalities? How many are looking out for the best interests of the taxpayers of Durham Region overall, rather than for their own agendas? Didn't our new Mayor make direct election of Regional Chair a part of his campaign platform? Why has he now recanted that position? His published reasons are not at all convincing to any of us.

"Clarington Council is taking a position without putting the question to the people of Clarington, without holding a public meeting where the merits of various systems could be assessed, at which the public could make their views known to Council". Is that a good way to treat their electors? Is that a smart way to run our municipality? Are we to be denied our democratic right once again to make a decision that affects all of us? It seems so, unless our Council delays the vote on this issue tonight and lets residents have their say... and actually listens to us. Their actions at the Monday night council meeting will tell the tale.