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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would they not even consider human biomonitoring?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do YOU think?

Is Democracy Dying in Clarington?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signs of the Times #7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signs of the Times #6

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

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

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

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

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

Signs of the Times #5

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

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

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

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

Signs of the Times #4

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

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

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

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

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

Signs of the Times #3

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

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

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

Signs of the Times #2

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

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

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

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

Signs of the Times - Series

The first in a series

Clarington's shame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EFW Business Case Rubbish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Endangered list: Democracy, Ethics and Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.

Who will speak for us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Mary, come to our rescue!

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

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

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

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

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

Incineration/Waste Management Forum on January 10

Click on the flyer for a larger view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarington (and Durham) Meetings - Behind Closed Doors

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

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

Starting in the new year, the Municipal Act allows any individual to request an investigation be undertaken to determine whether a municipality or local board or committee of either, is complying with the rules on what is allowed to take place during a closed or in camera meeting.

...The new rules mean either an investigator can be appointed, or, failing that, a review can be done by Ontario's Ombudsman's office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mayor is puzzled?

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

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

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

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


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


• 43 Durham Region doctors who have done the same


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Info Sessions timed to discourage attendance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtice is announced as preferred site for Incinerator

IS ANYONE SURPRISED???

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

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

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

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

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

Clarington has no say on incinerator, says Anderson

Clarington has no say on incinerator, says regional chairman

Wed Sep 12, 2007
By Jennifer Stone (Metroland)

CLARINGTON -- Saying the municipality would not be a willing host to an incinerator proposed by the Regions of Durham and York would have "absolutely no effect whatsoever" on the process, Regional Chairman Roger Anderson told Clarington councillors Monday.

The chairman was one of a number of delegations speaking on the matter during the council meeting.

"It would be nice if we could have a willing host, but it is not essential," said Mr. Anderson. In fact, he said, that East Gwillimbury, the only other municipality with a potential site for the proposed incinerator besides Clarington, has said it won't be a willing host is neither here nor there. The site there remains under consideration, with a decision expected later this month on preferred site.

"It would be pretty easy to sit in front of all these folks ... and say, okay, I'm not going to be a willing host," he said, referring to the audience in council chambers, several of whom were on hand to voice their opposition to the proposed Energy From Waste plant. "Easy to say it now, but I don't know what you're going to say in 2011 (after the Michigan border closes to Ontario trash) because you're not going to have an answer."

There is nothing to the suggestion made by Clarington Councillor Adrian Foster that the Municipality is "Durham's ultimate waste solution," said the chairman. "We deem energy from waste as the ultimate waste solution," he said. But, there are alternatives to incinerating garbage which should be explored, some delegates told Council. Many touted a move toward zero waste, with some form of stabilized landfill until waste can be eliminated.

It's not like incineration will eliminate the need for landfill, said Kerry Meydam. "With the incinerator ... you still have that residual ash, and you still need landfill," she said. It is estimated about 30 per cent of what is sent into the incinerator would remain as bottom ash.

Zero waste, which would entail extending producer responsibility for their spent product. isn't terribly realistic, said others.

"Germany put in one of the most extensive producer responsibility systems ... but after the system was implemented, what they found was that they had huge and growing stockpiles of materials that could not be recycled," said David Climenhage. "I don't think that necessarily a zero-waste solution is something that can happen without many years and many new technologies in place to achieve it."

But, there is a need to look for other solutions, said others, some of whom were clearly disheartened by Mr. Anderson's comments.

"I'm not sure it really makes a difference whether I'm here or not," said Kristin Robinson. "It certainly seems like Mr. Anderson has made it clear my side won't be heard at all.

"I believe we can do better than burning our waste. I believe it is just a band-aid solution."

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

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

Clarington Residents Owed Apology over Remarks
“Regional Chair Anderson must respect taxpayers” says Councillor.

Oshawa—Oshawa Regional Councillor Brian Nicholson is urging Durham Regional Chair Roger Anderson to apologize to Clarington taxpayers for his disrespectful comments at Clarington Municipal Council on Monday, September 10, 2007.

Anderson is reported to have told Clarington Council that “saying the municipality would not be a willing host to an incinerator proposed by the Regions of Durham and York would have "absolutely no effect whatsoever" on the process”.

“I find that comment to be inaccurate, offensive and not helpful to the public consultation process”, says Councillor Nicholson, “We are currently in an Environmental Assessment process, we are holding public meetings in Clarington, and the taxpayers of both the Region and the Municipality are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars doing peer reviews. Why are we spending all this money if the input from Clarington Council and its residents will have “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the process?”

Nicholson continues, “As a member of the Regional Works Committee, I consider the opinions of the Clarington Council and the taxpayers of Clarington to be vital information in my decision making process. What is it about public comment and public participation that scares the Regional Chair? Is it possible that questions are being asked that he would prefer not be asked?”

Regional Council was asked in 2004, 2005 and 2006 to adopt a policy to add a pre-condition requiring any incineration site to be constructed must be located in a municipality that was a “willing host”. Council, led by Chair Anderson, ruled that any decision on “the requirement to be a willing host” was premature until the site selection process was completed and a host site announced.

“If it is premature to require a willing host prior to site selection, why is not premature to not require a willing host prior to site selection. Once again, we are seeing the rules change by fiat from the Chair rather than by Regional Council.”, claimed Councillor Nicholson. “If Chair Anderson wishes to have Regional Council take a position that states they will place an incinerator in a local municipality whether that municipality is a willing host or not, let him bring that forward to Council. In my opinion, he would have a rude shock if he did.”

This spring, Mayor Jim Abernethy of Clarington apologized to the Regional Chair on behalf of Clarington Council when the Chair was not allowed to speak to Clarington Council. It was said then that not allowing the Chair to speak and offer his views was an insult to the elected office of Regional Chair.

“ If not allowing the Regional Chair speak is an insult, then so is a statement by the Regional Chair that states that the opinions of the Clarington Council and its residents will have “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the process.”, claims Councillor Nicholson. “If one was wrong, then so is the other. Chair Anderson owes the Clarington Council, and more importantly, the residents of Clarington, Durham residents all, an apology for his comments.”

“The public consultation process must be above reproach, but it is becoming clear from comments such as those made by the Regional Chair, that the process is nothing more than a public relations exercise to limit the political fallout from a decision already made.”, Nicholson concludes.

For further information,

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

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