Media Release from the Council of Canadians

With the first of seventeen criminal charges against Site 41 protesters in court yesterday for a pre-trial hearing, the Council of Canadians is requesting that the Crown drop all charges.
“We believe that it is not in the public interest for these prosecutions
to continue, and request that the charges be withdrawn by the Crown,” Council of Canadians national chairperson Maude Barlow says in the letter sent to Ontario’s Attorney General, Minister Chris Bentley, today.
Further underscoring the need to drop all charges related to Site 41
protests is the fact that Simcoe County has since voted to suspend Site 41 construction due to concerns raised by the protesters and to withdraw the lawsuit which had been initiated against them.
“Serious questions have been raised about the lawfulness of the Site 41 construction, which had not been properly approved by the municipal council. The municipal council has since recognized the validity of the protesters’ concerns,” notes the letter. “The persons charged are generally law-abiding and well-respected members of their communities, and most are charged with mischief, a relatively minor offence.”
“The fact that only the aboriginal protesters were charged with the more serious offence of ‘intimidation’ raises serious concerns of its own,” reads the letter. “We believe that continuing the prosecutions in these circumstances would be unfair to the individuals charged and would consume scarce prosecutorial and judicial resources that could better be used elsewhere.”
“The Council of Canadians is respectfully asking that the Crown also
consider the extenuating circumstances which led to these law abiding and deeply respected people being arrested. If real justice is to be served, these unjust charges need to be dropped,” adds Barlow. “Water is fundamental to all life and access to safe drinking water must be enshrined at all levels of government. Unfortunately, the failure to recognize water as a human right in Canada leaves communities with little recourse when their drinking water is threatened.”

Read Council of Canadian letter to the Crown HERE.

This 10-minute documentary by David Chu was posted on YouTube September 17, 2009.

Around 70 people attended a presentation last night at Wyevale United Church by Jeff Monague, former chief of Beausoleil First Nation, on the language, history annd culture of the Anishinaabeg people in Simcoe County.
The presentation was an eye-opener for many. It was shocking to hear that Beausoleil and six other First Nations have still to be paid for 300 square kilometres of land centred around Coldwater that were signed away in the 1923 Williams Treaty.
At that time it was illegal for any lawyer to represent “Indians.”
A claim was filed in 1985 and a suit was launched in 1992. In 1994 the federal government validated the claim and talks began. They continue, along with other negotiations for compensation.
“We’re still sitting at the table,” Monague said, telling the audience that in all such talks, the federal government has unlimited resources to drag negotiations on and wear down cash-strapped First Nations.
“Your government is spending millions and millions of dollars to see if they can outlast the Indians.”
Meanwhile, mainstream Ontarions enjoy the benefits of treaties like the Williams Treaty, while First Nations residents struggle with suicide, a youth with limited prospects and 85 per cent unemployment.
Monague had to pause briefly to compose himself as he spoke of the young people on the reserve at Christian Island. “I fear for them,” he said.
Those at the meeting agreed that a new group should build on the friendship and respect between native and non-native communities that has grown out of the SDS41 battle, so as to provide mutual support in the future.
Anyone interested in helping move this partnership forward should email info@dumpsite41.ca.

By Morgan Ian Adams Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin
Councillors have decided not to back a bid by Tiny Township to shut down Site 41.
On Monday, councillors debated a resolution from the municipality that would have been one of four in north Simcoe to send their trash to the controversial landfill; county councillors voted last month to put a one-year moratorium on work at the site.
Councillor Sonny Foley, in response to a resolution on council’s agenda from Tiny, put the motion on the table with the help of Mayor Chris Carrier; he had attempted to get other councillors to second the motion, but finding no takers made the comment that some councillors who professed to support ’sustainability’ evidently did not.
Tiny’s motion called on all municipalities in Simcoe County to support closing the site, and requesting the province revoke the site’s certificate of approval.
The resolution also asks the county to undertake — in consultation with municipalities — a county-wide waste management master plan with an aim to reduce waste throughout the county.
However, his motion didn’t get much support, and was defeated.
“The motion is a little premature,” noted Councillor Tim McNabb. “The county needs to discuss what its long-term plan is for waste management.
“Until they do that, eliminating any potential landfill sites does not make sense.”
He added the county has invested millions in the study, approvals, and finally, developing the site, “and to go in and just close it down… we would be back into the same arguments.”
County council is expected to discuss the matter at its Sept. 22 meeting.
Councillor Ian Chadwick also spoke against the motion, also taking umbrage with Foley’s comment that councillors who didn’t support the motion didn’t support the principles of sustainability.
“I have not seen all the studies from the county, nor any of the documentation from those opposed,” said Chadwick, adding closing Site 41 could put a renewed emphasis on opening Site 42 in Clearview Township — which is located near the end of the runway of the Collingwood Regional Airport, and is also on the fringe of the Alliston Aquifer, one of the main arguments for stopping Site 41.

There is a curious omission in today’s ‘Springwater Township Link’, printed in this week’s Springwater News and sent electronically to whoever has asked for it. The meeting schedule includes five board or committee meetings, but not next Monday’s township council meeting.
The agenda of the meeting is posted on the municipal website (click here and click on Published Agendas, Regular Council, 2009, September 21.)
Supporters should urge Springwater councillors to support the Tiny Township resolution, passed August 31, that calls for:
-Site 41 to be confirmed abandoned and closed;
-The County of Simcoe to request the Province of Ontario, the Ministry of the Environment to revoke the Certificate of Approval for Site 41;
-Site 41 to be decommissioned by the County of Simcoe;
-The County of Simcoe as per its mandate to undertake in consultation with the municipalities a County-wide Waste Management Master Plan with an aim to further reduce general waste throughout the County.
Other councils have received this resolution and voted to endorse it.
TAXPAYER ALERT: The agenda also shows that Springwater council will be going into closed session to discuss “the security of the property of the municipality or local board.” If Simcoe County Council is anything to go by, this is code for an outrageously large public relations expenditure.

This article from the Bradford Topic has some misstatements in this article, for instance, that the hydrogeological data (the calibrated computer model used by Jagger Hims) being sought by Stephen Ogden and the CMC has previously been made available to the county, the MOE and the CMC. But it provides an insight into the thinking of the BWG county councillors.
North Simcoe dump site creates stir in town
by Michael Owen
Recent flyers about Dump Site 41 and its relationship to Bradford West Gwillimbury’s water supply have whipped residents into a stir, but the drama might soon be over – at least for the time being. Simcoe County council voted 22 to 10 in favour of a one-year moratorium on activity at the north Simcoe landfill known as Site 41, to provide time to come up with an action plan. The plan is intended to address the various concerns over the site, including potential water pollution, lack of access to documentation and what some people allege is illegal construction.The moratorium also gives council members time to consider Adjala-Tosorontio Deputy Mayor Doug Little’s notice of motion to indefinitely halt all activity at Site 41, to come forward at this Tuesday’s meeting.
“Site 41 is on agricultural land and as we look at the bigger picture, we’re losing more and more agricultural land every year,” Jamie Reaume, executive director of the Holland Marsh Growers’ Association, said. “Farming and dumps don’t seem to go well together.”
Both Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor Doug White and Deputy Mayor Dennis Roughley voted against the one-year moratorium, but in favour of a three-month moratorium, in which time they felt an equal amount could be accomplished. “This has gone on a long time and I’m adamant, whether the site is built or not, it’s up to this council to decide,” Mr. White said. He expressed concern the one-year moratorium will make the site an election issue, preventing progress and prolonging the costs to taxpayers.
“Being a part of the county, where members refuse to make decisions, costs our taxpayers a lot,” Mr. White said, explaining, by virtue of population, Bradford pays 10 per cent of the $17.6 million Site 41 has cost the county so far.
Potentially less costly is the option to shut down the site and move to a plan B, but there’s a catch. “There is no plan. That’s the problem,” Mr. Roughley said.
Located in the county’s northern region, Tiny Township, Site 41 was selected as a potential landfill in 1986 and has been a controversial issue for almost as long. It became a more widely-known issue among Bradford West Gwillimbury residents recently after concerns began to surface over the potential pollution of the Alliston Aquifer, over which the site sits and what such pollution could mean for the town’s water supply and farmlands.
Following the cell construction at Site 41 last spring and the complaints raised by residents close to it over well water quality, the Global Environmental Action Group, a group comprised of scientists, farmers, health professionals and educators based near Lake Simcoe, created and distributed a flyer addressing the issue. The flyer claims 80 per cent of Bradford West Gwillimbury’s well water is supplied by the aquifer, but Edward O’Donnell, water supervisor for the town, said that number is too high, although he was unable provide an exact figure.
“I wanted to find out where water sources were, because you don’t put garbage on top of the purest water in the world,” Katharine Parsons, executive director of the Global Environmental Action Group said. The aquifer, a remnant from the last ice age, is used by the Ministry of the Environment and other groups as a measure of water purity. The flyer contains a map created from town and ministry documents showing the wells containing 80 per cent of the town’s well-water supply are over the aquifer, but town officials were unable to confirm if they are actually connected to it in any way.
Even if they are connected, the water supply might be a non-issue if the site is engineered properly, preventing any leachate from getting into the water table. “This is the most studied landfill in the history of the province. If this landfill isn’t good enough, then none of them are,” Mr. White said. He added Site 41 is only the most recent of 40 other landfills, many of which are already on top of the aquifer, without any adverse effects to date.
The uncertainty over pollution potential is due in part to the lack of documentation showing the hydrogeological data pertaining to the site. Although previously made available to the county, the Ministry of the Environment and the North Simcoe Landfill Community Monitoring Committee, said data is currently in consulting firm Jagger Hims’ possession and it refuses to release it to the public or even again to the county, despite being ordered to by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. Jagger Hims claims the information is proprietary. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario ordered the county to pursue obtaining the documents through legal means, but the county responded by requesting a judicial review to avoid a costly legal battle over documents it feels it has no right to.
“We’re trying to make a decision that is responsible and cost effective,” Mr. Roughley said. He added the data was made available to the public, the Northern Simcoe Landfill Community Monitoring Committee and the Ministry of the Environment in 2005, when he was county warden. On Oct. 20, 2006, the Ministry of the Environment issued final approval for Site 41, stating the county’s submission exceeded ministry standards, but doubt and cynicism still abound among protesters, who want to see the data for themselves.
Further confusing matters is the way construction at the site was initiated in June 2008. The Council of Canadians, led by Maude Barlow, filed for an injunction to halt construction at the site in late July. The Council of Canadians claims improper procedures by the county and the lack of required bylaws being passed meant any construction at the site was technically illegal. Fueled by comments from activists such as Ms Barlow, protesters blocked construction at the site numerous times since it began, leading to multiple detentions and arrests.
Undaunted, about 200 protesters showed up to the county council meeting Aug. 25 to voice their concerns, extending council’s meeting time to eight hours.
“It was like a circus. Never in my 24 years in politics have I seen it that bad,” Mr. Roughley said. Actions such as these might be why protesters have been labelled by some as not-in-my-back-yarders. “They’re not NIMBYs. No one wants a landfill, or to live near power lines, or a highway or an airport,” Mr. White said. “No one wants to be near these kinds of infrastructure, but they have to be built somewhere.” The fate of Site 41 remains to be seen and, with it, Bradford West Gwillimbury’s waste management, an issue compounded by the closure of the town’s own landfill 10 to 15 years early. Mr. Roughley raised the point people are always going to produce waste. However, Mr. White is quick to point out that although a long way off from zero waste, Bradford’s diversion rate over the past year has jumped from 30 to 52 per cent, meaning more than half the town’s waste goes somewhere other than a landfill.
“Our residents have done a great job, which fills me with optimism,” Mr. White said.
County Warden Tony Guergis said there is no definite plan in place should Site 41 be closed indefinitely and added no other viable proposals have been presented to the county, but a waste management subcommittee is already investigating multiple alternatives.

Anne Ritchie-Nahuis, Danny Beaton, Michael Schmidt and Andrea Barbuto appeared in Midland court this morning. Each is facing a charge of mischief relating to the Dump Site 41 protest. Ritchie-Nahuis, Beaton and Schmidt were remanded to Oct. 8, which now becomes the date when all 17 people facing DS41 charges are in court. Barbuto was seeking clarification on her status – we will update this post when we get the information.

The following news release was issued by the SDS41 group
ELMVALE — Simcoe County Councillors went behind closed doors August 25 to discuss a reported $250,000 expenditure for the hiring of Fleishman-Hillard.International Communications, one of the largest public relations firms in the world.
“This is wrong,” says Anne Ritchie-Nahuis, an Elmvale dairy farmer who has been fighting Dump Site 41 for six years.
“The Municipal Act is clear, it restricts councils to only a few items they can discuss behind closed doors, and public relations is not one of them.”
Simcoe County Clerk Glen Knox has confirmed that the matter was voted on after an in-camera session in the evening of August 25.
No one reading the minutes of that council meeting would suspect that council had made such a decision or that it involves such a large sum.
The recommendation was contained in County Officer’s CO 09-032 confidential report “regarding security of the property of the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.” This report is unlikely to be made public, according to the County Clerk’s office.
If the county’s legal advisers proffered advice on public relations, that is not subject to solicitor-client privilege, Ritchie-Nahuis said, and councillors should have insisted that any non-legal aspect of the County Officer’s report be dealt with in public.
The minutes are full of confidential items with no real clue as to their meaning, Ritchie-Nahuis noted.
“It makes me feel that this PR item is just the tip of the iceberg. What else are they not telling us? We are worried about the eventual sale of Site 41 to a landfill corporation. It could already be sold, for all we know.”
Quite apart from the way in which this item was inappropriately dealt with behind closed doors, Ritchie-Nahuis believes this is a scandalous waste of taxpayers’ dollars.
“This is a lot of money and we don’t even know what services have been contracted for. It’s half the $500,000 that was quoted for mothballing Dump Site 41, a figure we suspect is inflated.”
Councillors and staff have decried the effectiveness of members of the Stop Dump Site 41 movement in getting their message out, and cited the dump controversy as a reason for getting more effective PR than is provided by the County’s four-person communications department.
Ritchie-Nahuis said the SDS41 message is effective because it’s the truth, and it reflects new and changing attitudes towards the environment which are not in tune with the County’s antiquated landfill focus.
She called on County Council to honour democratic principles and select new leadership to help clean up their reputation and lead in a more responsible fiscal and environmental direction.
“I urge taxpayers to contact their County Councillors to let them know how they feel,” she added. “Hopefully the councillors will reconsider the implications of following through with such an ill-advised idea.”

Anne Ritchie-Nahuis will appear tomorrow, Thursday, at 9 a.m. in Midland court (incorrect information on the location was posted earlier) with regard to the charge of mischief that was laid during this summer’s protest. We believe there will be others, including dairy farmer Michael Schmidt, and that nothing will be determined – this is just an apearance. Most of the 17 people who face SDS41-related criminal charges are to appear October 8. The courthouse is at 605 Yonge St., Midland.

Simcoe County councillors discussed a $250,000 public relations expenditure in camera at their last council meeting. This is a clear violation of Ontario’s Municipal Act.
Next week’s Simcoe County Council meeting will be voting on whether to approve a report from the Performance Management Committee, moved by Severn Mayor Phil Sled and seconded by Tiny Mayor Peggy Breckenridge. The report is an “update” and it’s clear that the County has proceeded at break-neck speed to implement this particular item.
The committee report states:” In accordance with County Council’s approval of expenditures for a public relations plan, the Corporate Communications Department has initiated work with the public relations firm, Fleishman Hillard.”
Under the heading ‘Financial Analysis,’ the report (dated Sept. 3 and approved by CAO Mark Aitken) states: “There are no financial implications to this item.”
That seems somewhat of an understatement. According to reporter Laurie Watt in the Midland Mirror, “In private session Aug. 25, county councillors approved spending $250,000 to retain outside help for the county’s four-member communications department.”
On August 25? That’s a surprise. That’s the day of the moratorium vote, when hundreds of citizens turned out for the council meeting.
SDS41 communications director Kate Harries called County Clerk Glen Knox for clarification. He stated that County Council went back into closed session on that Tuesday evening and this was one of the items that was dealt with.
Harries pointed out that under the Municipal Act, councils are supposed to meet in public unless they are dealing with a restricted list of subjects like litigation, property acquisition, personnel, etc. Public relations is not on that list.
Knox agreed, and listed the restricted subjects under the Municipal Act (Section 239).
The Municipal Act was followed because councillors came out of closed session to vote in public, Knox said, and the resolution would be found in the minutes posted Tuesday on the County’s website.
Harries pointed out that the legislation doesn’t just prohibit in-camera voting on all but the restricted list of subjects, it also prohibits in-camera discussion. How could councillors have voted on the PR item without having discussed it first? Knox did not reply.
After further inquiries, we have ascertained that the recommendation to authorize the hiring of Fleishman-Hillard is the County Officer’s CO 09-032 confidential report (not made public).
The resolution “that the recommendations contained in Confidential County Officer’s Item CO 09-032, regarding security of the property of the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, be approved” was moved by Adjala-Tosorontio Deputy Mayor Doug Litte, seconded by Innisfil Mayor Brian Jackson, and carried – during the 5-minute open session between 7:40 and 7:45 p.m.
The minutes (of the open and the confidential meetings) show that the item was discussed both at the daytime and the evening in-camera sessions.
This won’t wash. Let’s say the lawyer advised council to retain a PR firm; that is not legal advice, and it’s not subject to solicitor-client privilege, and we really expect our councillors to know where to draw the line, and insist that any non-legal aspect of the report be dealt with in public.
Further details from the performance management commitee’s report: The hiring of Fleishman-Hillard “will see the commencement of a campaign to elevate the public perception of the County. The County of Simcoe, as a regional service provider, delivers significant services upon which many people depend. It is important to ensure that the County manage its reputation and effectively reinforce to residents that our services are effective, cost-efficient and valued.”
Fleishman-Hillard International Communications, based in St. Louis, Missouri, is one of the world’s largest public relations agencies, with a global network of offices as well as offices in 22 cities in the United States. It is a part of Omnicom Group Inc.
The committee report continues: “The public relations firm has already been working with staff and initiated planning and research meetings as well as their critical analysis of the County’s current needs and situation. Their efforts are initially established with the Corporate Communications Department and senior staff but will be establishing suitable methods to interact with County Councillors as well. Once the critical analysis is completed and our communications plan is reviewed and refined, further and regular updates will be provided to County Council.”
(The four-person Corporate Communications department, under the leadership of Allan Greenwood, recently perpetrated a racist slur on Anishinabe protestors in a release which has now, thankfully, been removed from the County’s website – although, to date, the apology requested by Anishinabe Kweag protest leader Vicki Monague has not been forthcoming.)
“This firm’s expertise in highly charged media and political environments is well established. They will provide rapid response and execution to meet our needs for public perception through media and other stakeholder channels.”
Simcoe County Council agenda for Sept. 22: Agenda
Aug. 25 meeting (scroll to end for resolutions passed after the 7:26-7:45 p.m. in camera meeting): Minutes
Aug. 25 in camera meeting: Confidential minutes
More information on Fleishman-Hillard: Monte Solberg
City of LA suit for padded bills: LA Times
Corporate culture: prwatch