Politics-Provincial

Smackdown (June 8th, 2006)

Mulder

I can just hear the University of Ottawa scream “Oops!!” on this one.

H/T to Brent Colbert for this one.

Letter to Dalton McGuinty from legal counsel for Mike Harris

TORONTO, June 7 /CNW/ –

VIA FACSIMILE (416) 325-3745

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty
Premier
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1

Dear Sir:
Re: The Ipperwash Inquiry

We are counsel to the Honourable Michael D. Harris and represent him in The Ipperwash Inquiry.
In the legislature yesterday you were criticized by Progressive Conservative members regarding ongoing events in Caledonia, Ontario, where
direct action has been taken by some First Nations persons regarding certain land issues. In responding to that criticism you made the following statements:

“The party opposite would prefer that we direct a police action. Let’s be honest about where they’re coming from in this regard. That is their preference. We bring a different approach. It is thoughtful; it’s based on our recent understanding of some painful lessons in the history of this province.
(…)
“I prefer to be direct with Ontarians. Again, the Conservatives prefer that we direct the police and that we send them out on some kind of police action. We see things differently. They have not drawn the appropriate lessons from what happened some four years ago. We have.
(…)
“But I suggest to my friend opposite that he really should own up to the fact that the objection he has, in terms of the approach we have taken, is that we have refused to direct the Ontario Provincial Police.
(…)
“What the member opposite is asking us to do is to direct the Ontario Provincial Police in the conduct of a police action.”

The plain meaning of these statements is that Progressive Conservatives have in the past preferred and have chosen to address direct action by First Nations persons by directing police operations against them. Any reasonably informed Ontarian would also understand through your references to the past and “painful lessons in the history of this province” that your words referred to the police operations involving First Nations persons at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995 and their tragic outcome.

Your statements demonstrate complete ignorance of the evidence that has in fact been heard by The Ipperwash Inquiry. The allegation that Premier Harris directed the police operations at Ipperwash is unfounded.

Your statements also presume the outcome of matters in issue in The Ipperwash Inquiry’s ongoing proceedings. For a Premier of Ontario to make such statements is plainly prejudicial to the integrity of The Ipperwash Inquiry’s process. You should immediately withdraw your improper statements and apologize to Commissioner Sidney Linden.

Any allegation that Premier Harris directed the police operations at Ipperwash is also gravely defamatory of Mr. Harris personally. Our client will not tolerate the revival for your present political purposes of irresponsible and unfounded smear tactics deployed against our client in the past by members of your government.
If you make such statements again outside the legislature, either expressly or impliedly, legal proceedings will immediately be commenced against you personally.

Yours truly,

Peter A. Downard

cc. W.A. Derry Millar, Lead Commission Counsel, The Ipperwash Inquiry

Note: I altered spacing for visual purposes but not the content in the above letter.

Together We Can Move A Mountain … Carp Mountain To Be Specific

Mulder

On Saturday April 22nd at 9 am there will be a mass of people gathering at the new Stittsville flea market at Hazeldean Rd. and Carp Rd. for a march up to the landfill at Carp Rd. and the 417 in an effort to show that the expansion of the dump is not wanted by local residents.

This might be a nice way for you and your kids to celebrate Earth Day. (I probably sound like a lefty but no one should have to live in their own filth. Even animals are smart enough to get rid of their waste away from where they live.

I encourage all residents in West Ottawa to head on down and enjoy what will hopefully be a nice warm day (but not so warm that the dump starts breathing).

You can visit NoDump.ca for more information.

Nepean-Carleton Provincial By-Election

Mulder

The Nepean-Carleton MPP post left vacant by John Baird when he moved to the Federal scene will be contested on March 30th, 2006. The Progressive Conservatives have put up a strong candidate in Lisa Macleod, but she will get a good run from ex-police chief Brian Ford.

I had the opportunity to attend the debate in Stittsville last week and thought that Lisa and Brian both did very well in the debate, as did the Freedom party representative, Jurgen Vollrath, who seems to have a fairly conservative agenda. I also got my second opportunity to see John Turmel, whom is running in his 61st election. He is 0 for 60 so far. I give him credit. He knows how to work a room. He had everyone in stitches with his new math personal bond theories.

The NDP have tossed perennial candidate, Laurel Gibbons into the ring. (Way to get some usage out of those signs Laurel!!) Peter Tretter of the Green Party had his Green Party Policy handbook ready and towed his partys line properly.

For those of you in this riding, get out and vote. I have added the date to our calendar.

Why Now?

Mulder

I understand that 150 years ago unions did their part by equalizing the playing field and giving workers an advantage of numbers over the establishment or owners.  But in this day and age it always seems strikers hold people hostage in order to get their way.

The OPSEU strike of Ontario educators is a classic example of this.  The strike was started just before the school year ends for 150,000 college students.  This timing brings the issue to light but it doesn’t make any friends among the students or the tax payers out there.  The risk of losing the school year by students has repurcussions beyond just a repeat or extension into the summer.

  1. Students often are on 8 month sublet leases.  This puts many in the awkward position of having to extend their leases or find other accommodations.
  2. The reduction in student summer length limits the amount of time they can make money to help pay for their education.  This can dramatically affect a person on a limited income
  3. The loss of a school year for 150,000 is a bit economic bust too as it, in essence, took the student out of the tax paying pool of citizens for a whole year.
  4. How many of those 150,000 won’t even go back to complete their degrees if they can’t afford to repay for an extra year?  (I am not sure that they would lose the money, I have not seen any confirmation of what the financial hit would be or who would pay should a year need to be redone)

Why the teachers would not choose to strike a couple of weeks before the school year started is beyond me.  It would help save the students the risk of losing a year.  It would give them time to prepare for accommodations as needed when the school year starts (if it starts late) and it gives many of them the opportunity to extend their existing summer job to help pay for things when the year does eventually start.

Instead they try to stiff the taxpayer while OfficiallyScrewing 150,000 students.

I have never been pro union, but in this case the timing of the strike is what really gets my goat.

Ontario Teachers, Do The Math

Mulder

In relation to the OPSEU teacher’s strike, I heard a college professeur call Lowell Green today.  He mentioned some numbers that relate to his story.  Let me restate these (along with my assumptions)

  1. He has 18 hours of teaching time a week
  2. He has at least 1 hour of prep work for every 1 hour of teaching time (let’s assume 1.25)
  3. He has 32 weeks of teaching a year (i.e. 20 weeks of no classes)
  4. He makes $70,000 a year
  5. He does some prep work over the summer. (let’s assume 1 day a week, because after all it is summer)
  6. Let’s assume a veteran equivalent to 10 years in other industries and give our teacher 4 weeks of full paid vacation annually.  This would be complete down time with no prep work, no teaching, no marking, etc.

Now for Math 101 – Adding and multiplying
40.5 (x32 weeks)=1296 (the hours of teaching and prep for teaching)

8 (x16 weeks)=128 (the hours of work in off teaching weeks)

Total hours?  (1296+128)=1424

Now for Math 102 – Dividing and Crying
$70,000 / 1424 = $49.16 per hour worked  (note minimum wage in Ontario is currently $7.75/hr and moving to $8.00/hr on January 1st, 2007)
1424 / 48 weeks = 29.67 hours per week (not on vacation)

Now for Strike Assessment 101 – There is never any subtracting

And that, my friends, is Officially Screwed

OfficiallyScrewed Events Calendar Goes Live

Mulder

Do you have an event coming up that other conservative minded people might want to know about? OfficiallyScrewed.com is proud to announce your political event online. Elections, By-Elections, Fundraising dinners, Burmashaves, etc. Just Email Me with the following:

  1. Your name
  2. Your organization name (please ensure accuracy as it will be public)
  3. Your event name
  4. Your event date
  5. Your event time
  6. Your event URL or affiliated website
  7. Your organization contact information (for confirmation)

Please feel free to share this link with friends so they can promote their events too.

West End Ottawa Citizens About To Get Dumped On

Mulder

What do you call a west end Ottawa resident who may be at the whim of a deal City Council inked back in 2001?

You call them Officially Screwed.

In an Ottawa Sun article, Derek Puddicombe reports on an agreement that was entered into by our Council around the time of amalgamation which called for them to expedite valid landfill expansion claims. What does this mean? It means if Waste Management shows it’s expansion will be handled as per environmental guidelines, there probably isn’t much that all the yelling and screaming by local citizens will accomplish.

Carp Mountain will likely have no problem expanding and reaching higher than the 20 storeys it currently climbs.

In a related article, Torontonians may have a louder voice than West Ottawa when the Michigan border closes to Toronto trash leaving the province very few options other than to approve the landfill expansion.

Today I heard a statistic on Lowell Green’s show that said if a high efficiency incinerator was put to work on the landfills current pile of trash, and the heat used to generate electricity, it could power the city of Ottawa for 5 to 7 years. With expectations that another 300 Million tons a year will be coming our way, I see this as being more and more logical. The going rate for power would mean the city of Ottawa could sell the electricity, use the proceeds to pay the costs of the incinerator and the added cost per ton to dispose of it, and eliminate the mountain in less than a decade.

But that would be too logical.

Ottawa City Council Prepare Carp Mountain Motion

Mulder

The City Of Ottawa is putting up a front regarding the Carp Mountain expansion plans that Waste Management has proposed.

I received the following email from Mayor Bob Chiarelli’s office. This came unsolicited as I had already received a reply to my original email, but I assume they are sending this out to everyone who complained about the dump expansion in an effort to look good before the pending municipal elections.

As you may or may not be aware, the City has said this is a Provincial matter, and the Province has said that it is a municipal matter. Talk about getting officially screwed twice on one subject!! I am making the assumption that this motion is supposed to be a token effort by our politicians to let everyone know they don’t want the dump. But it really just tells Waste Management to look at all options regarding the disposal of waste.

In case you were not aware, Waste Management can look all it wants but the bottom line is that they own the land, and can pretty much do what they want with it. If the City of Ottawa wanted to put some teeth into this, they would have made a motion simple. Something like “The City of Ottawa hereby agrees to take legal recourse should Waste Management expand the Carp Rd. landfill.” Period. Nothing more. Why they would sue, who they will include in the suit, what the basis of the suit is should be determined after a few dozen lawyers get together. Not after our City Council meets. If Waste Management knows they will have a lawsuit on their hands, albeit one they may win, they would still think twice about the expansion.The uproar over this site expansion is just starting. 1100 people packed a gym when the info session was held March 1st. To be honest, I think the residents should just email WM and tell they they will boycott using the Carp facility if they expand it. This may make WM turn to the alternatives like Plasma Gasification.

Ok, enough ranting. On to the email and motion the City has plans to put forward later this month.

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the proposed expansion of the Carp Landfill by Waste Management.

Mayor Chiarelli has called a special City Council meeting for late March for a discussion and a vote on the attached motion dealing with the Carp landfill.

The motion speaks to the concerns raised by our communities and also about the environmental challenges and solutions the City of Ottawa and its residents face in reducing, recycling and reusing our waste. This motion was drafted by Councillors Stavinga, El Chantiry, Feltmate, the Mayor, and the City’s Legal department.

While final approval for any expansion rests with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the City of Ottawa is an important stakeholder and will be involved at every stage of the proposal.

Mayor Chiarelli applauds your efforts in expressing concerns about an issue which is extremely important to all residents in our city.

Thank you,

Jacques Larouche
Assistant to Policy Unit
Adjoint à l’unité des politiques
Mayor’s Office/Cabinet du Maire
City of Ottawa/Ville d’Ottawa

(613) 580-2496
email/courriel: [email protected]

City Council and Standing Committee

Motion

Conseil et comités permanents

Motion

Moved by/ Motion de

Councillor Stavinga

Seconded by/ Appuyée par

Councillor El-Chantiry

RE: Carp Road Landfill

WHEREAS in mid-January, Waste Management of Canada Corp. (WM) announced its proposal to expand its Ottawa waste management facility (WMF), currently located near the intersection of Carp Road and Highway 417 to meet growing recycling, composting and landfill capacity needs;

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, through its Integrated Waste Management Master Plan, is taking steps to achieve a 60% waste diversion target; to monitor, test, evaluate and implement alternative technologies and other environmental initiatives for waste management; and to continue to reserve landfill disposal capacity within Ottawa for locally-generated solid waste;

AND WHEREAS WM has access to provincial legislation to apply for an expansion under the Environmental Assessment Act;

AND WHEREAS the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) establishes the framework for the preparation and review of an Environmental Assessment (EA);

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, Federal and Provincial agencies and local residents are key stakeholders in the development of the draft ToR for the Environmental Assessment for the proposed expansion of the WMF;

AND WHEREAS the draft ToR appears to indicate that WM will conduct a full EA, but the ToR is so finely focused on the existing site and lands in the immediate vicinity that WM is actually proposing to conduct a very limited, or “scoped”, EA and is therefore not in keeping with the spirit of the EA Act nor is it in accordance with the expectations of the Ministry of the Environment as outlined in its “Guide To Preparing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments, Draft” and “Guideline on Consultation in the Environmental Assessment Process, Draft”;

AND WHEREAS the draft ToR proposed by WM provides an Environmental Assessment framework that is limited in scope, unclear, imprecise and deficient in adhering to EA planning principles, and does not examine many important issues;

AND WHEREAS in the description of the undertaking, it is clear that WM intends to accept non-hazardous waste “generated in the Province of Ontario” and expand the current service area to include the Outauoais region of Quebec;

AND WHEREAS WM has made a public commitment to not accepting waste from Toronto at the WMF at Carp Road;

AND WHEREAS City Council is seriously concerned about the proposed expansion of service areas to Quebec and other parts of Ontario;

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa and affected residents must have effective and meaningful input during all phases of the Environmental Assessment process;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa request that WM conduct the broadest Environmental Assessment to ensure the examination of all major issues including but not limited to an examination of other lands/facilities owned by WM in Ontario and Quebec, lands/facilities owned by the City of Ottawa, alternatives including emerging technologies such as waste diversion, incineration, energy from waste, stabilized landfilling, and plasma gasification;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the community, social, economic and environmental issues including but not limited to the listing in Schedule “A” be also incorporated in the review;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that effective and meaningful consultation (as further defined in Schedule “B”) on all aspects of the draft ToR and the EA be included as part of that process;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WM be requested to redraft the proposed draft ToR so that all of the above concerns are included and that an independent peer review of both the draft Terms of Reference and the full Environmental Assessment be included as part of the workplan; and that the revised draft ToR and the draft EA be brought forward to Planning and Environment Committee and City Council for review prior to being submitted to the Ministry of the Environment;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in an effort to reinforce the need for each municipality in Ontario to work towards a home-grown solution for their own waste management issues, both WM and Ontario’s Minister of the Environment confirm in writing that the Carp Road Landfill will not be permitted to receive waste from an expanded service area, including Toronto, the GTA and the Province of Quebec, and that should any additional landfill capacity be approved anywhere in Ottawa, that the City retain 90% reserved capacity for Ottawa waste;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the staff report that is being prepared on the issue include a detailed explanation of the City’s plan and timelines to meet Ottawa’s 60% waste diversion target.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WM be asked to agree to a facilitated Environmental Assessment process involving a broad representation of interested parties, including citizens, community associations, environmental and public health organizations, the City, local conservation authorities and WM.


SCHEDULE A

PRELIMINARY LIST OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

FOR THE DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE

Issues include but are not limited to:

§ Social, economic and cultural impact assessment

§ Visual impact assessment

§ Groundwater/surface water impact assessment, including existing contamination issues

§ Impact on the development of the Ottawa/Carp Airport

§ Environmental health concerns, including odour, dust, noise, litter, migration of waste off site

§ Environmental and ecological impact assessment

§ Public health concerns

§ Height of the landfill

§ Leachate management

§ Traffic

§ Bird and pest control

§ Independent reporting/tracking of customer base, yearly tonnage and annual intake by source and origin, and waste mix

§ Alternative technologies/sites

§ Description of the geographic area


SCHEDULE B – PRINCIPLES OF MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION

Meaningful consultation should, at a minimum, involve representatives of affected constituent groups and the wider community in meaningful dialogue with the proponent throughout the EA decision-making process.

The consultation process for the entire EA should adhere to the following guiding principles:

· identifying before undertaking the consultation the group(s) and/or individuals to be consulted;

· build understanding (not just provision of information);

· provide timely and adequate information for the purpose of the consultation;

· seek best-balanced decisions for the undertaking, taking into account positive and negative impacts;

· actively seek views and engage in dialogue with a variety of interested, affected groups and/or individuals and key sources of information;

· respect opinions and input;

· communicate clearly to all contributors the results, including the decision reached, the action taken, and the rationale for the decision;

· include a means of assessing the effectiveness of the consultation, and to provide for follow-up;

· recognize that constituent groups may have their own constraints (e.g., neighbours may be at a disadvantage because they lack independent advice on the EA process and the scientific

· details of the EA impact assessment studies); and

· include consultative dialogue consisting of mutual listening and sharing of information and views by the consulting body and the group(s) or individual(s) being consulted (e.g. workshops on specific topics for specific themes or interest areas)

For this process, meaningful consultation should include but not be limited to the following:

· Establishing a stakeholder liaison committee consisting of representatives from the local community and the City of Ottawa to liaise with the proponent and its consultants and have dialogue with government reviewers, at all stages in the EA.

· Conducting consultations on the work plans for the specific impact assessment studies – early in the EA, before those studies commence.

· Establishing milestones for tabling a draft of the EA for public comment

· Establishing the means for a meaningful dialogue with the public, including many or all of the following:

Ø newsletters/newspaper supplements that would serve to provide interested stakeholders with more detail than they would receive in a standard EA newspaper notice, but less detail than in an EA report component

Ø identifying and reaching out to interested citizen organizations to provide presentations or EA updates

Ø central public information centre where people can arrange to visit the proponent’s operations to learn more about the EA, read reports, drop off comments, etc.

Ø workshops with neighbours to enable them to meaningfully provide detailed input against each of the milestones, or on EA impact assessment work plans.

Ø plan to resolving issues with stakeholders

Ø process identified for tracking – and sharing – issues and proponent responses to those issues so that all interested parties can participate in tracking how the proponent is addressing issues as the EA progresses

Ø provisions (or funding) for independent advice to be made available to stakeholders to help them understand the EA process

Ø provisions (or funding) for independent peer reviews of the EA criteria, impact assessment study work plans, or EA impact assessment reports

Ø reports to committees of Council and City Council

Ø provisions for reports/presentations/workshops for local environmental and community organizations that might normally be very interested in a EA of this nature (e.g. Ottawa Sierra Club, community associations)

Ø provisions for those immediately impacted by mitigation measures, impact management measures or possible compensation program(s) to be involved in consultation on the details of same

Waste Management Gets A Whiff Of Carp Mountain Disgust

Mulder

Last night over 1100 residents took part in an information session on the planned Carp Rd. Landfill expansion plan. And I get the impression 1100 residents are against the expansion. As I noted here, and here, and here, I am also against the proposed expansion. CTV covered the meeting and I caught most of it.

Carp Mountain Video (file is approximately 2Megabytes so it may take time to popup)

POI: This landfill is a less than 5 miles from the heart of Canada’s high tech community, rises 20 storeys and is 1km x 1km (approx.)

Carp Mountain Revisited – A Councillor And A Mayor Reply

Mulder

In followups to my posts here and here, I have received additional responses.

First from Peggy Feltmate, the councillor for my own Ward in Kanata.

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to expand the Carp Road Landfill. Like you I am concerned about what this will mean for Kanata and other nearby communities.While it is the provincial government that have the power to stop or approve the landfill expansion, I do feel that the City needs to be speaking out about potential problems.

In response to a request from my council colleague Janet Stavinga, Waste Management agreed to extend the deadline for comments on the terms of reference for the Environmental Assessment from March 20 to May 12. This will provide more time to highlight the problems with the proposed expansion of the Carp Landfill.

City staff have also agreed to bring forward a report providing information on the impact of the proposals for the Carp Landfill. The report will provide an opportunity for city council to take a position. The report is scheduled to come before Planning and Environment Committee on April 25.

I will be supporting a strong response from the city and I will be encouraging my council colleagues to do the same.

Because the final decision on whether the Carp Road Landfill will be expanded will be made by the provincial government, people need to be letting the provincial government know how they feel. If the provincial government feels that people in Ottawa don’t care or that they can escape blame for the decision, then the province is more likely to allow the landfill to expand.

It is worth contacting both our Member of Provincial Parliament and the premier. Norm Sterling can be reached at 1-888-253-1171, 1-800-267-1020 or [email protected]. Dalton McGuinty can be reached at [email protected].

There is also a community open house on the proposals for the Carp Landfill next week in Stittsville. It is a change to get information and voice your concerns. Details are:

Community Open House:
Waste Management proposes expansion of Carp Rd. landfill
Wednesday, March 1
6 – 9 pm
Presentation at 7 pm, followed by Q & A session
École élémentaire catholique Jean-Paul II (gymnasium)
5473 Abbott St, Stittsville

Sincerely,

Peggy

I have to commend Peggy for her response. It was both thorough, informative, and tells me a lot about her view on this subject. I have a slight issue with her wording “I will be supporting a strong response from the city and I will be encouraging my council colleagues to do the same.” This expression does not make it clear to me that Peggy is against the expansion. I would normally assume with all the surrounding information that she is against it, but I emailed her for clarification anyway.

The second response I received today was from Mayor Bob, himself.

Thank you for your email concerning the landfill site in Carp.

The Carp landfill is privately owned and operated by Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

Waste Management Corporation is preparing an environmental assessment on providing additional disposal capacity at the Carp landfill site. The City of Ottawa does not approve the terms and conditions set out in the environmental assessment. This responsibility lies solely with the Provincial Ministry of the Environment, which determines when and how members of the public like yourself can voice your thoughts and concerns about WM’s plans to expand the capacity of the landfill site.

Thank you again for your email.

Jacques D. Larouche
Assistant to Policy Unit
Adjoint à l’unité des politiques
Mayor’s Office/Cabinet du Maire
City of Ottawa/Ville d’Ottawa.

I realize this response is from his Assistent to Policy Unit, but compared to Peggy’s, this response says nothing except the City does not approve the terms and conditions set out in the environmental assessment Waste Management is providing. Thanks for the slough off Mayor Bob. You must be conceding the election in October with chintzy responses like this.