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.

Government Daycare Advocates Are Hiding Something…

Mulder

I have been a bit busy to read around but with the ongoing hype around a recent report on what mothers in Canada want, I always find Sara over at ChoiceForChildcare a good source. She has a great post outlining the public funding that was received by various lobby groups that promote public daycare.

It’s quite interesting to see how much we pay these groups to hit us up for our money.

Here’s a few

  • Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
    Ottawa Ont — $204,526
  • Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care
    Toronto Ont — $110,000
  • International Child Care Canada Inc
    Mississauga Ont — $286,458
  • Alberta Centre for Child, Family & Community Research
    Alberta– $100,000
  • BC Aboriginal Child Care Society
    West Vancouver BC — $820,132

This is just a few from a list which totals almost $4.7M dollars. How’s that for buying access to your wallet?

The Quebec daycare system with 30 odd thousand on the waiting list that is so highly touted by the Liberals and NDP isn’t what we want. Is it? A month or so ago there was the story about the child left outside in the cold, asleep for hours. Then just the other day we have two more workers fired for leaving a child in the facility after they closed for the day and locked up. How would you like to be THAT mother showing up to pick up the child and finding the lights off and building closed.

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.

"Foot In Mouth" Disease Plagues NDP

Mulder

Sometimes in an attempt to appear self-righteous, the glaring “foot in mouth” disease makes an appearance. It is times like this when one needs to bring up the past to emphasize the values of those making the self-righteous statements.

Stephen Taylor has a couple of great posts here and here which knock the wind out of the NDP and those who would defend Bernard Shapiro’s decision to investigate the PM on the floor crossing of David Emerson.

Below are a couple of choice excerpts:

Consider that the NDP (again the 3rd party) didn’t ask for an investigation into the floor-crossing of Belinda Stronach into government (the NDP needed their budget amendment passed, didn’t they — how ethical) UPDATE: They now have… but it’s still long after the ‘NDP budget’ was passed. Perhaps the Ethics Commissioner should look into this delay in the NDP asking for a Stronach investigation?

Consider that the NDP Vancouver-Kingsway opponent Ian Waddell supported the notion of floor crossing when he was a member of the BC Provincial legislature.

Consider that the NDP tried to get Sheila Copps to defect from the Liberal party to join the NDP.

Consider that the NDP tried to get Charles Caccia to defect from the Liberal party to join the NDP.

Both Copps and Caccia were facing losses of their Liberal nominations during Paul Martin’s polarizing power grab and the NDP offered both secured nominations with the NDP.

Consider that former NDP leader Ed Broadbent says that the Ethics Commissioner does not enjoy the confidence of Parliament.

Consider that current NDP leader Jack Layton is pushing for Shapiro to investigate.

In fact, consider that the NDP tabled a non-confidence motion in Shapiro at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That was then, the NDP has confidence in him now that he’s investigating Emerson and the Conservatives.

and

Now, let’s deconstruct Jack Layton’s partisan silliness about what is supposed to be a non-partisan officer of Parliament. Jack should be working towards matching Broadbent’s legacy.

“I don’t want to impugn his honesty but the way [Shapiro] has handled the office, it leaves open the clear question of his impartiality because of what he has decided to do or what he has decided not to do” — Ed Broadbent, Edmonton Journal, May 11, 2005 

 

Is Jack “shocked” at Broadbent’s criticism? 

“He should seriously think about [resigning] … Mr. Shapiro has not performed well. This is a serious political position he’s in, and it’s a complex position. But he … demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what ministerial accountability means.” — Ed Broadbent, Globe and Mail, June 3rd 2005 

 

Ed thinks Shapiro should have resigned long ago… 

“I think it’s totally, utterly, completely unacceptable and Mr. Shapiro should resign … On decision after decision, he’s made simply the wrong decision” — Ed Broadbent, Ottawa Citizen, June 18th 2005 

Sun Harper's Art Of Passing Motions

Mulder

The hot topic of the day happens to be the NDP requesting an ethics investigation into the floor crossing of Belinda Stronach.  Although it was a year ago, I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

On this topic, I would like to point out a few things.

1)  PM Harper appointed a non elected member into the Senate
2)  PM Harper asked David Emerson, a Liberal, to join the Cabinet
3)  PM Harper has told the ethics commissioner, Bernard Shapiro to stuff his investigation on the basis that Cabinet appointees are strictly the prerogative of the Prime Minister.  I agree that if Shapiro succeeds in making Harper look bad in the floor crossing, it would be a serious overstepping of the position of the ethics commissioner.

Everyone and their brother has said that these are things the Accountability Act was supposed to stop.  Well DUH!!  Do we have an Accountability Act in place yet?  No.  Do we have elected Senators in place yet?  No.  So until it is passed, why would a PM not do whatever his prerogative allows?

Should the Act not get passed, then all of these things will STILL be allowed without question.  i.e. PM Harper is not sparing the rod to spoil the child.  He is clearly making a statement of somekind to the opposition.  If I had to guess it would be something to the effect of “Pass the Accountability Act or I will continue to use every power the Liberals beat us over the head with, which is completely within my right.”

I like it.  Firm, yet fair.  Both legal, yet giving indication that change is needed.  But, ultimately, these decisions to put a Quebec Banker in charge of Public Works which should make Quebecers feel better, to put representation in Vancouver with the key to the softwood lumber dispute, and to show an unqualified, biased ethics commissioner the door, are all good for Canada.  They may not be perceived well in the public, but they should be respected for being good decisions for Canada.

In either case, I think Stephen Harper has clearly indicated that whether or not the Accountability Act is passed, he will use whatever power his office holds to ensure Canada is served well.  No matter what the cost.

What more could we ask for in a leader?

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: Jacques.Larouche@ottawa.ca

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

Rothstein To Be Sworn In Friday March 9th, 2006

Mulder

Justice Marshal Rothstein will be sworn in tomorrow.

I don’t have much to add. I just thought some might like to know.

The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, announced today that The Honourable Marshall Rothstein will be sworn in as a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday, March 9, 2006 at a private ceremony. The official welcome ceremony for Justice Rothstein will take place at 10:00 a.m., on Monday, April 10, 2006, in the Main Courtroom of the Supreme Court of Canada. On this occasion, it is expected that there will be remarks by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, and representatives of the Government of Canada, the Government of Manitoba, the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of Manitoba. Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, on March 1, 2006.