9 Jun 2007

Durham/York Residual Waste Study - PUBLIC NOTICE

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.

3 Jun 2007

Waste Diversion and Stabilized Landfill - a choice

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:
  1. only pre-treated wastes are allowed to be landfilled after July 2001; and
  2. 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.

31 May 2007

Incinerator Chronicles - Dissing the Chair?

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.

30 May 2007

Incinerator Chronicles - Comic Relief?

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.

29 May 2007

Oshawa Motion says Ban the Burn


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,


  1. 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.


  2. 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.


  3. 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.


  4. 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.


  5. 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.


20 May 2007

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


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?

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.

17 May 2007

Public Notice on Incineration Report

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.

12 May 2007

Let's clear the air

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.

10 May 2007

The OTHER side of the story

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."

5 May 2007

THREE BLIND MICE

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?

28 Apr 2007

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/

24 Apr 2007

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...)

10 Apr 2007

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.

6 Apr 2007

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/

4 Apr 2007

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.


30 Mar 2007

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.