ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS WITH NESTLE & CENTRE WELLINGTON

Centre Wellington Councillors all received an e-mail from Nestle on December 23/16 suggesting a face to face meeting regarding Nestle's offer to "partner" with Centre Wellington over the Middlebrook Well located outside of Elora. Two environmental groups namely Wellington Water Watchers and SaveOurWater.ca have expressed their concerns regarding any proposed closed door meetings between the township and Nestle as well as any attempt to circumvent the province's recent two year moratorium on new water-bottling operations.

Nestle of course are suggesting that their offer to meet with Council is simply an attempt to have open and transparent conversations with Centre Wellington regarding the Township's interest in the Middlebrook Well property.

Council as well as the two environmental groups are deeming the e-mail as inappropriate.

Somewhere in all this, albeit unstated publicly, is the Municipal Act which governs relations between sitting Councillors, the public and private companies. That said private companies routinely meet to discuss development proposals and essentially anything else they want with either individual councillors, Chief Administrative Officers or other so designated township Staff. A quorum of councillors raises issues however if the meeting is not a regular, public Council meeting.

While an attempt to bypass the province's two year moratorium is on the face of it highly controversial if not highly inappropriate, I'm not sure to date that that is what Nestle are suggesting. Also while I am highly skeptical of Nestle's intent in this matter that does not necessarily mean that under the rules transparent communications should not be pursued. Whether this is through senior Staff or otherwise I really can't see the harm in hearing exactly what Nestle are suggesting regarding their wish to "partner" with Centre Wellington.

The Waterloo Region Record article relating this story is titled "Email from Nestle called inappropriate by township councillor".

MEDIA MISADVENTURE REGARDING ELECTION ACT & MAYOR SHANTZ

I really think that the Woolwich Observer need to do a little more editing prior to publishing. They have an overall pretty good "2016 Year In Review" covering three or four pages in this week's Observer. That said I've found the February 2016 review of the Shantz case titled "Shantz case moves ahead" completely at odds with their own March 2016 review titled "Crown drops case against Shantz".

The February review states "Prosecutors opted to go ahead with a case against Woolwich Mayor Sandy Shantz related to election expenses filed after the 2014 municipal vote.". Then it further states "prosecutor Alexander Andres told the court there is sufficient cause to continue.". Wow as much as I wish that was 100% true and accurate I have to say that that absolutely was not my takeaway from the February 2016 court appearance. My takeaway was that the Crown were simply requesting an Adjournment while they continued looking at the evidence. In other words no decision had been made as yet.

The March review however went the other way to the extreme. It stated "Finding no grounds to proceed, the Crown has closed the file on Woolwich Mayor Sandy Shantz.". Really from one court appearance in February absolutely stating that prosecutors were proceeding with charges against Sandy Shantz to the very next month stating that there were no grounds to proceed; it is my opinion that the Observer got it wrong both times. In March 2016 prosecutor Fraser Kelly did not say that there were no grounds to proceed. He stated that a couple of the private charges laid by myself, accepted by a Justice of the Peace and then examined by two different prosecutors were laid incorrectly. Geez thanks J.P., and two prosecutors for giving me a non-timely heads up on that one. He also stated that the other correctly laid charges were (allegedly) not in the public interest to proceed. That again is not what the Observer story states.

Come on guys, you can do better.

WATERLOO REGION RECORD SAYS NUCLEAR WASTE NEEDS A HOME

O.K. I'll accept that basic premise. Today's Editorial by the Record is indeed titled "Nuclear Waste needs a home". My read of the Editorial however leads me to believe that the current plan to build a bunker in the bedrock 680 metres believe ground surface may be viable or even a good idea accept for one thing. This bunker is to be located only 1.2 kilometres from Lake Huron. At first blush this seems ridiculous. However as you read further you do realize that this current nuclear waste is right there at the Nuclear Power plant in Kincardine above ground. It has been "temporarily" stored for decades at that location. There would be major concerns with moving these wastes on public roads to a site considerably farther away. Hence they claim that the short move laterally, followed by a 680 metres move vertically downwards into the bedrock is the way to go.

The Record's Editorial also says that concerns that the waste could leak into and contaminate Lake Huron are "remote". Hmm, exactly how remote? Are they suggesting that an earthquake for example is essentially a one in a million possibility? Is it less or more possible than that? What about fractures in the bedrock?

O.K. so the transportation of this stuff is dangerous. How about a comprimise? If the bedrock is so solid and so extensive in this area then why not simply move a few miles further away from the lake? If a 2 or 3 hundred mile trip elsewhere is bad news than how about a very short five mile trip further away from Lake Huron, with everything else the same? Also explain in layman's terms one how radioactivity migrates in the subsurface (bedrock & overburden) and secondly explain for the public whether or not radioactivity introduced into a large lake migrates. Does it migrate or does it stay in one place? Once introduced into Lake Huron will it spread and do irreparable damage? These are the questions that the public need honest answers to before even one ounce gets put within 1.2 kilometres of Lake Huron.

HEALTH RISKS NEXT TO BUSY ROADS DEMANDS ELMIRA BY-PASS

Today's Waterloo Region Record carries an interesting article titled "Living close to high-traffic roadway raises dementia risk, study shows". The study was co-authored by Dr. Ray Copes, chief of environmental and occupational health at Public Health Ontario, and was published in the British medical journal Lancet. There is apparently a direct increase in one's risk of dementia based upon how close one is living to busy roads and highways. Obviously the numbers of at risk individuals is much higher in larger cities with their corresponding higher vehicle counts. That said this is of small consolation to those living in smaller towns who are however within 50 metres of a busy roadway or highway.

Here in Elmira the problem would apply if we are living close to Church St. and or Arthur St. which runs north-south through Elmira. This study certainly validates the concerns of residents who expressed worries regarding greater truck traffic along Arthur St. on their way to Woolwich Bio-En in the north end of town. Truck traffic of course brings accompanying noise issues as well as primarily diesel fumes which have been implicated in other negative health effects.

I've said it before and will say it again. Science is decades behind conclusive proof of the extent of human health damage caused by numerous environmental factors. Our health systems are decades behind in acknowledging risk factors when many contaminants causing various cancers do not show up as diseases until many years of exposure have occurred.

It would seem obvious that even regular commuting on busy highways is unhealthy albeit the exposure would still be less than for those living beside said highways. Time for diversions of major traffic as much as possible away from residential homes. Time for the Elmira By-Pass here in Elmira, Ontario to be built.

PESTICIDES ARE POISONS

A very small article in yesterday's Waterloo Region Record mentioned that four children died in Amarillo, Texas from a pesticide sprayed underneath their home. Further on-line checking found that the pesticide is probably aluminum phosphide. The brand name is Weevil-cide and it is used to get rid of moths, insects, mice and other small rodents. Apparently the home owner crawled under his home and applied it on his own and then when he received odour complaints from the residents he went back under with a garden hose to either wash it off the underside of the house or to otherwise dilute it.

This resulted in a chemical reaction causing phosphine gas which I believe was also used intentionally during World War One. Phosphine gas is highly toxic and killed four children in the home overnight as the fumes entered the house and six to ten other residents are in hospital, some in critical condition.

While the obvious moral of the story is to let trained individuals do spraying either in or around your home, that perhaps isn't an option in low income homes. The second moral is the more general one that all pesticides need to be handled with extreme care as they are all intended to be poisons. Apparently pesticides that can kill moths and mice can also kill human beings in some circumstances.

Finally even the suggestion to have either trained individuals or experts be in charge of pesticide applications isn't always good enough. Just ask the forestry and hydro workers dosed with Agent Orange in Ontario in the 70s and 80s. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Hydro and even the Ontario Ministry of Transportation all caused havoc and mayhem, death and disease with their indiscriminate, amateurish protocols for spraying trees and underbrush along hydro corridors and highways. The human cost was enormous and continues to this day.

Pesticides/herbicides are poisons for humans as well as wildlife and weeds/underbrush!

POSSIBLY TRULY CLEVER MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION?

Keep in mind the dictionary definition of corruption. It doesn't have to be brown paper bags full of money changing hands as in the Karl Heinz Screiber / Brian Mulroney style. "Riddled with errors" is also a definition of corruption. I would add that deceit, deception and manipulation of the public for self-serving purposes are examples of political corruption.

A concerned Cambridge citizen has been corresponding with the Municipal Clerk of Cambridge Ontario regarding a very recent Rogers Cable TV broadcast of a public meeting of Cambridge Council.

Before I go any further let me add a clarification here. My plans for this Blog were 100% to be regarding environmental issues. I have strayed somewhat regarding local political issues up here in Woolwich Township as it has become clear to me that everything environmental eventually boils down to the relevant political situation. Whether corruption within the provincial Ministry of the Environment or one form or another of corruption at the local, municipal level; this is what determines environmental outcomes, not the science or the facts of the situation. For example apparently mandatory Records of Site Condition (environmental) aren't so mandatory in Cambridge as Cambridge Council seem to exempt them at will for some property sales.

The concerned Cambridge citizen has sent several very clear and cogent e-mails to the Cambridge Clerk advising him of serious discreancies between a December 13/16 public Cambridge Council meeting and the later Rogers Cable TV broadcast of same. This later broadcast appears to have removed/edited a number of Delegations to Council as well as certain exchanges between Council members and or the Chairman. This concerned citizen has also approached Rogers Cable TV with a request for clarification as to the reasons for the alleged disappearance of specific matters that he personally saw and heard at the December 13/16 Council meeting.

From the responses received by this citizen to date I would agree that he is being stonewalled. Three fairly straightforward questions were specifically asked of the Municipal Clerk on two separate occasions and again it appears as if the Clerk is stickhandling around them.

Most of us can not or will not spare the time to attend regular Council meetings in person. I would like to think that a significant number of us however avail ourselves of the opportunity from the comfort of our own homes to watch televised Council meetings on Rogers Cable TV. If as is being stated by this citizen, editing, shortening or actually any revisions are somehow being made to these televised Council meetings then it is absolutely incumbent upon both Rogers Cable and the municipal Council involved to state this clearly and publicly not just once but every single time it occurs. This is a serious matter regarding both political transparency and political accountability. Even more important if there is any tacit or explicit "arrangement" between Rogers Cable TV and our local Councils to edit particular portions at the request of the municipality this must be exposed and stopped.

Citizens including myself have a difficult enough time in trusting any politicians. Any breech of the integrity and completeness of these televised municipal/regional Council meetings in Waterloo Region must be clarified with specifics each and every time. In other words there must be a reasonable rationale for so doing and the criteria for and personnel making these decisions must also be made public.

HAS THE TIME COME TO TELL THE ONTARIO M.O.E. TO GET OUT OF ELMIRA?

The title above is actually a rhetorical question. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment needed to be told that a very long time ago. As long as municipalities and citizens give the M.O.E. the respect they don't deserve, they will continue as big polluters best friends. The reality is that most of the time the M.O.E. are simply running interference for Chemtura Canada. The Ontario M.O.E. by not denouncing Chemtura on a regular basis are in fact legitimizing them. Chemtura and their consultants routinely pretend that they are following the Ministry's orders when in fact it's all about private negotiations between them.

At the moment it is RAC, TAG and CPAC opposing Chemtura and the Ministry of the Environment. CPAC are informed local citizens, TAG are citizen appointees by Woolwich Township and RAC includes the Region of Waterloo, Grand River Conservation Authority, two Woolwich Councillors as co-Chairs and the TAG Chair plus two members. It is clearly Chemtura and the M.O.E. opposing the will of both the citizens and the will of all the local political groups.

Therefore it's time to stop negotiating and discussing. Give the Ontario M.O.E. an ultimatum. Do what is right, do what you are told by local citizens and government, do what the law demands or fuck off we don't need you. Kick them off RAC and advise them they are not welcome in Woolwich Township. End the charade that they represent the citizens of either Ontario or Woolwich Township. Make it clear publicly that you regard them as inherently corrupt and will no longer deal with them. Period and end of story.