Email us at

info(at)londoncouncilofcanadians(dot)ca

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Maryanne MacDonald's Letter to City Council re Bottled Water


February 22, 2011
Dear Mayor Fontana and Members of London City Council:
The purpose of this letter is to bring light to some of the many issues with bottled water. The ones I wish to highlight are with the water itself, the plastic and the health issues.
I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen and on behalf of Waste Free World (WFW), a London based grassroots organization. WFW works in collaboration with local citizens and organizations to raise awareness and find a solution around our need to eliminate unnecessary waste on a finite planet.
In nature, plants are made up of the basic building blocks of all life, carbon dioxide and water and through help from the sun these plants become miniature power houses producing energy and oxygen for animals and humans. When the plants and animals die and decompose the elements are returned to the environment for reuse. If we constantly bombard and interrupt this process with toxins and the introduction of such compounds as plastics, not part of the natural cycle, eventually our ecosystem will cease to be able to provide for our needs.
We are choking the planet with plastic – plastic cannot be broken down in any great quantity by the decomposers that currently exist in nature. Therefore it accumulates – even when the bonds that hold the plastic together break apart we are still left with toxic bits of plastic dust. This then enters our food chain and water systems as birds, plants and animals mistake it for nourishment.
Polluted air comes from the burning of fossil fuels caused in part by the production and transportation of heavy bottles of water and the collection and transportation of those bottles to a recycling facility.
Dr. Peter Gleick, an expert on water policy and president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California9] said: “Overall, the average energy cost to make the plastic, fill the bottle, transport it to market and then deal with the waste would be "like filling up a quarter of every bottle with oil." This I think you will agree is a gross misuse of a non renewable resource.
Switching from the bottle to the tap helps to reduce the use of oil - and helps to alleviate the trash burden created by the 25% or more of bottles that do not make it to recycling facilities. While we each struggle to cut down on our consumption of fossil fuels, bottled water increases it.
In the manufacture of a 1 litre plastic bottle it requires anywhere from 3 to 5 litres of water. We are throwing away water to sell water.
Safe drinking water is readily available at the turn of a tap without the above listed impacts to our environment. There are many towns that suffer because we have bottled water. There are aquifers that are depleted, water tables lowered, roads damaged and air quality compromised by the extraction and production of bottled water. Yes a few jobs are provided in the area of the water removal, but that is short term gain for long term damage to the environment and the lifestyle of an entire community.
Water is the basis of all life and needs to be seen as a basic human right. To commodify it and put the power in the hands of multinational corporations is putting the right to life in their hands as well.
In Victoria Park over the past few summers efforts have been made to reduce waste. Surveys indicated Londoners were overwhelmingly in favour of reusables and were grateful to have the option of filling their water bottles from the water fountains and the bottle filling station. When we use reusables instead of disposables the impact on our resources and landfills is significant.
David Suzuki is quoted as saying: “Canadians who want to do something about the environment should start by drinking tap water.”
Dan Huggins, Water Quality Manager for the City stated, at a local Water Forum, that in a survey 81% of Londoners did not know where their tap water came from. If citizens don’t know this, they probably don’t know the level of quality control that goes into ensuring that a safe reliable supply reaches their tap – but they sure know about the supposedly “superior” quality of the water in plastic bottles – yet the bottled water companies are not mandated to tell us where that water comes from nor do they have the same rigid testing requirements as municipal water.
Since the 2008 decision made by Council, there has been further research findings. One of the most disturbing was made in 2009 by researchers, Martin Wagner and Jorg Oehlmanm, at Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany who have identified estrogens in bottled water that they claim have leached from the plastic packaging. "We must have identified just the tip of the iceberg in that plastic packaging may be a major source of -- man-made substance that has a hormone-like effect -- . Our findings provide an insight into the potential exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals -- low-dose exposure to chemicals that interact with hormone receptors that may interfere with reproduction, development and other hormonally mediated processes -- due to unexpected sources of contamination."
The study adds to growing concerns about products that span the plastic spectrum, says Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York. "I used to say: '4, 5, 1, and 2. All the rest are bad for you,'" she says, referring to the recycling codes on plastic products. "Now, I'm not saying that anymore. We don't know about 4, 5, 1, or 2. This raises questions about all plastic bottles."
One endocrine disruptor is pthalate: Pthalates are mainly used as plasticizers (substances added to plastics to increase their flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity) and have been found in bottled water. They are of potential health concern because they are known as endocrine disruptors of animals, and some research has implicated them in the rise of birth defects of the male reproductive system.[33][102][103] Endocrine disruptors interfere with natural hormones in the body responsible for the maintenance of normal cell metabolism, reproduction, development, and/or behavior."[1]
These findings, I believe, indicate a huge health issue that points to the need to eliminate bottled water. For years bisphenol A was allowed as a component of plastic baby bottles until the anecdotal evidence from mothers forced researchers and governments to look more closely at the possible health effects. Bisphenol A is now banned in baby bottles after years of allowing it. Are you willing to take the risk that the plastic in bottled water is safe, when in fact evidence is mounting to prove otherwise?
In a report released in March 2005, the UN stated that Canada is second to Finland for the world’s highest water quality but warned Canadians not to let the abundant supply of clean water lull them into complacency.
At the May 26th 2008 meeting of the Canadian Federation of Students a motion to oppose bottled water was unanimously passed. Since that time many campuses have eliminated the sale of bottled water and others are in the process. The public is demanding change. Our youth are demanding change.
In June 2008, 250 mayors in the US made a proposal to support a ban on bottled water. Leaders are waking up to the issues with bottled water.
London has a mandate from the provincial government to maximize waste diversion. WFW’s view is to eliminate at source. One logical and easy step is with bottled water not just because there is a need to slash disposable trash but because there is a safe, reliable, inexpensive alternative at the turn of a tap.
In the London Free Press on August 11, 2008, Scott MacKay president of Probe Research responded to Nestle’s claim that without bottled water consumers will turn to less healthful bottled drinks. Scott stated that the survey results shouldn’t be used as evidence consumers who can’t buy bottled water will buy other bottled beverages instead. “I don’t think we have data to support that. It’s an inference at best”, he said. If it is inference it is therefore not fact but only something that the Nestle spin doctors put out there in hopes that no one will challenge the information. To assume that there will be an increase in obesity and diabetes if people do not have the choice of bottled water is misleading. Bottled water has been a choice for at least 20 years and in that time obesity and diabetes has had a steady increase. In light of this, it doesn’t appear that bottled water is the solution to these health issues.
If water fountains are a concern as some see them as unsanitary the solution is not bottled water but an improved infrastructure to keep them clean. Also, there needs to be a strategy to provide the correct type of fountain with a goose neck attachment so people can easily refill their personal water bottle without concern. What we need to concentrate on is making the tap water safe, the fountains safe, and citizens knowledgeable about the true value of tap water in our society and why the infrastructure that supports it needs to be funded not only for today but for the future.
Bottled water is a convenience not a necessity. Our own health and the health of the environment is a necessity not a convenience. In summary, the quality of bottled water is a concern, the plastic is a concern and the resulting health consequences are concerns.
I am hopeful you will show leadership to the public and do what is right for all Londoners by maintaining the previous Council decision to eliminate the sale of bottled water in city owned facilities and by strengthening your resolve to continue to make our municipal water accessible and the safest it can be.
Respectfully submitted
Maryanne MacDonald

Don McLeod's Letter to City Council re Bottled Water


Thursday February 24, 2011

Dear Mayor Joe Fontana and London City Councilors:

We have an opportunity for London to show continued leadership on an extremely important environmental issue: Please “Say No to Bottled Water”.

In 2008 City Council voted overwhelmingly to ban the sale of bottled water in City facilities and parks. Through long and detailed discussions London Citizens, Councilors and City staff worked hard to accomplish the leadership decision to ban the sale of bottled water in City Facilities and City Parks such as Victoria Park.

As a concerned citizen of London and the London Chapter Representative for the Council of Canadians we urge you to uphold the process that resulted in the City of London showing leadership by banning the sale of bottled water.

The London Chapter of the Council of Canadians has 1200 registered members in London, Ontario and another 500 London Citizens on our affiliate mailing list.

The following are key supporting reasons to maintain and enforce no bottled water to be sold in City facilities and parks:

• The ban on the sale of bottled water is in place and should be enforced.
• Hundreds of hours by London Citizens, City Councilors and City Staff resulted in the ban on the sale of bottled water in 2008.
• Nestle drains 3.6 million litres per day from the Guelph aquifer resulting in a reversal of ground water into Mill Creek.
• Our environment is negatively affected by the use of fossil fuel consumed in the manufacture of plastic water bottles and subsequently for the transportation of water bottles to distant markets.
• Tap water is readily available to every London Citizen.
• Reusable water bottles help provide an environmental solution for porting water for people’s use.
• Our land fills have a tremendous burden on them – banning the sale of plastic water bottles helps to reduce waste sent to our landfills which reduces the cost of our City of London waste management $$$!
• Municipal tap water is safe as it is tested continuously.
• Water is a human right – by not commercializing the sale of water we are maintaining peoples right to water regardless of their ability to pay.
• Ontario Municipal Water Association supports the ban.
• Federation of Canadian Municipalities supports the ban
• Association of Ontario Municipalities supports the ban on the sale of bottled water.

Let’s work together with our fellow Ontario and Canadian Municipalities!

Our organization will work closely with the City of London to promote water issues that are environmentally responsible.

Thank you for your support of the current ban on the sale of bottled water.

Yours sincerely,

Don McLeod
London Chapter
Council of Canadians

Friday, February 25, 2011

Canadians for Emergency Action on Climate Change

http://www.climatesoscanada.org/

"Government’s key role is to serve as the trustee of the commonwealth and the common health for this and future generations. Yet …
Canada now stands out as one of the leading major industrialized countries opposed to targets for deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and one of the biggest blockers of climate change negotiations.

Canadians for Action on Climate Change is a non-profit organization of activists, academia, physicians and citizens focused on climate change mitigation, a true cost economy and relocalization. Our organization seeks to provide news, reports and analysis to inform, educate and develop environmental policies for all levels of government in Canada and Internationally. We are committed to being part of a global movement against the capitalist destruction of our shared environment. Our current economy is unsustainable and an unethical catalyst to ever increasing global warming. This model assumes endless growth and limitless potential wealth, that completely disregards the fact that the earth’s life support capacity is finite. We respect the integrity, resilience, and beauty of the common wealth of all life as the foundation for a new sustainable economic model for our finite planet that will benefit generations to come.

We are a member of the Climate Justice Now network.

Climate Justice Now! is a network of organizations and movements from across the globe committed to the fight for social, ecological and gender justice."

You can contact us at
canadiansforactiononclimatechange@bell.net

From Cory Morningstar

Thursday, February 24, 2011

ACTION ALERT! Show City Councillors we DON'T want bottled water!


Monday, February 28 · 5:00pm - 6:00pm, City Hall, Council Chambers (3rd Floor)
300 Dufferin

Come on down to city hall and show that you support the ban currently in place on the sale of bottled water in municipal buildings

A bunch of people went down Feb 15th to let a subcommittee know that we did not want the bottled water ban rescinded. It was fun to be there and hear the debate on the issue, none of it even really covered any of the underlying issues...

WATER is a basic HUMAN RIGHT!
...RECYCLING should not be used as a replacement for REDUCING..

Bring your refillable water bottles, signs, etc and come meet some people!

Sophs, let your frosh know about this event, it's a good chance to see what actually goes on in the City of London's council meetings!

New Health Findings since the original decision in 2008:

Since the original decision in 2008 there have been findings in the scientific research that show bottled water is contaminated with estrogenic compounds that leach from the plastic into the water. Now that is a real health issue. One of the researchers from the Goethe University of Frankfurt, Germany is quoted:

"We must have identified just the tip of the iceberg in that plastic packaging may be a major source of xenohormone -- man-made substance that has a hormone-like effect -- the researchers said in a statement. "Our findings provide an insight into the potential exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals -- low-dose exposure to chemicals that interact with hormone receptors that may interfere with reproduction, development and other hormonally mediated processes -- due to unexpected sources of contamination."

The study adds to growing concerns about products that span the plastic spectrum, says Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York. "I used to say: '4, 5, 1, and 2. All the rest are bad for you,'" she says, referring to the recycling codes on plastic products. "Now, I'm not saying that anymore. We don't know about 4, 5, 1, or 2. This raises questions about all plastic bottles."
One endocrine disruptor is pthalates:

Pthalates are mainly used as plasticizers (substances added to plastics to increase their flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity) and have been found in bottled water. They are of potential health concern because they are known as endocrine disruptors of animals, and some research has implicated them in the rise of birth defects of the male reproductive system.[33][102][103] Endocrine disruptors interfere with natural hormones in the body that are responsible for the maintenance of normal cell metabolism, reproduction, development, and/or behavior."[1]

These findings indicate a huge health issue that points to the need to eliminate bottled water.

Bottled water is a convenience not a necessity. Our own health and the health of the environment is a necessity not a convenience.

1. voice your concerns in writing to the Mayor and all Councillors. If they don't hear from you they will assume that Nestle's request is reasonable and there are few objections. I believe it is better to send a letter in your own words however in case you don't have a lot of extra time to create a letter here is an online form that you can attach your information to and it will be automatically sent to the entire council. http://www.insidethebottle.org/stop-nestles-bottled-water-push-london
2. voice your concerns in the media - send a letter to the editor of the London Free Press and the Londoner
3. join me in the gallery at the February 28th Council meeting to see your elected representatives in action and to listen to the discussion and the decision. Your presence will be a visual indicator of your concern and of your support for keeping the original decision. Council meeting begins at 5:00 pm

From Maryanne MacDonald



Wednesday, February 16, 2011

ACTION ALERT! Participate in radio poll!

Please get the word out. AM980 is running a poll TODAY on whether the City should lift the ban on sales of bottled water at city facilities. http://www.am980.ca/
about half way down the right side of the page.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

London Bottled Water Ban Under Threat


From: maryanne.macd@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:51:48 -0500
Subject: Bottled Water on City Hall Community and Neighbourhoods Committee agenda for Tuesday February 15th
To: wastefreeworld@gmail.com


Nestle has written a letter that is included on the agenda of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee Meeting on Tuesday February 15th. Please read it and write to your councillor to let them know your feelings on this. We have been through all of the rationale for this and the previous City Council voted in favour of banning the sale of bottled water in city owned facilities where there was access to safe, clean, municipal water. They didn't ban the bringing in of your own purchased bottled water. It is a question of City Council showing leadership. As pointed out in the letter from Nestle this not about quantity....yet they insist on pursuing it because they know it is about optics and the trend that London has set.

It was as a result of what was done in London that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities recommended that other municipalities take the same action. Thus far this has occurred in over 80 municipalities and numerous universities and colleges across Canada because it is the right thing to do. These cities and educational institutions recognize that water should be a basic human right not a commodity sold to the highest bidder. London has made a difference.

Go to the following link to see the resolution that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities adopted.

http://www.insidethebottle.org/files/FCM%20-%20Bottled%20Water%20Resolution.pdf


The bottled water item is slated to be on the agenda at 4:15 with Nestle presenting as a delegation. Anyone can attend these meetings and it would be showing the new C&N Committee that there is interest in the community about this topic if you were able to attend. You won't be allowed to speak.

http://council.london.ca/meetings/CNC%20Agendas/2011-02-15%20Agenda/Community%20and%20Neighnourhoods%20Committee%20Agenda.pdf

http://council.london.ca/meetings/CNC%20Agendas/2011-02-15%20Agenda/Item%2016.pdf

To learn more about water issues go to http://www.canadians.org/water/index.html
or to http://www.insidethebottle.org/

Please forward this e-mail to your own list of contacts.

Maryanne

Alone we are one drop....together we are a mighty river that can carve a new course to the future.

Welcome to the blog site of the London Chapter!

This blog site, formerly the blog site of the Victoria Chapter of the Council of Canadians, is now the blog site of the London Chapter. Previous blogs from the Victoria Chapter have been left in place as a courtesy.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Moving post

No, I'm not going to make you cry, but we have a new fledgling website which is ready to grow a bit, please check back to http://www.victoriacouncilofcanadians.ca.

Thanks, and peace.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Join us for a people's assembly for climate justice



  • Tired of the political system failing you repeatedly on climate change?
  • Done with Canada’s intransigence on climate change?
  • Upset with having your voice ignored while the voices of polluters destroying our planet get magnified?
  • Had it with yet another round of Climate Talks, this time in Cancun, lots of talk, hot air and no action?
  • Do you reduce, reuse, recycle, ride the bus, ride your bike, do you consider yourself part of the solution? Where do you think you can contribute next?

  • Are you eager to talk to like minded people about grassroots ground up action on climate change?

    An event co-organized by the Council of Canadians, Victoria Chapter, KAIROS, (and more)
    December 8th, Evening, 6:30 PM


    Join us for a world café style set of citizen discussions on climate change. Connect with your fellow citizens, get engaged in grassroots discussions, and talk about how to create change despite government, media and societal barriers. For more information, stay tuned to this blog, or use any of the following options! Hope to see you there.

    info@victoriacouncilofcanadians.ca http://victoriacouncilofcanadians.blogspot.com http://www.twitter.com/cocvic http://www.canadians.org/assemblies

    Tuesday, August 10, 2010

    Picnic for Public Education


    Picnic for Public Education



    Come and join us in support of a dialogue toward excellence in education

    Thursday, August 12 - 12:30 - 2:30 pm Legislature Lawn, Victoria BC Coast Salish Territory

    Welcome guest speaker Tulani Ackerman as she completes her cycling trip from Prince Rupert to Victoria in effort to encourage all people in BC to become involved in our public education dialogue.

    Sponsored by StEps for Students
    and co-sponsored by VPEC (Victoria Public Education Coalition)

    Bring your own picnic.

    Sunday, July 25, 2010

    Water Watch Coalition CALL TO ACTION



    YOUR ACTION WILL HELP

    The Provincial Government has said it will fund one-third of the cost of the CRD's sewage treatment system. They have given every indication that they will want more than one-third of the say in how the project is procured and governed.


    1) The Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee is meeting this Wednesday, July 28th, in the Board Room at 625 Fisgard Street, 6th Floor, at 10:30 a.m. You could learn a lot about these issues at this meeting which you are free to attend. We urge you to promote the "Committee" model of governance as described in the report below:
    http://www.crd.bc.ca/reports/corearealiquidwastem_/2010_/07july28_/2010july14agendaitem/2010July14AgendaItem06EWW10-55ProjectGovernanceModelCAWTP.pdf
    The issues of governance and procurement are not necessarily separate. Please write to your Municipal representative on CALWMC (some addresses are listed below) stating your preference for the Committee model of governance and the Public model of procurement.

    2) You now have opportunity to greet the new Minister of Community and Rural Development through whose Ministry provincial funding will be channeled. Please refer to the attached brochure to see how you can get in touch with Minister Ben Stewart to let him know your feelings on this.

    denise.blackwell@shaw.ca
    council@saanich.ca
    jbrownof@telus.net
    vicderman@shaw.ca
    barb.desjardins@esquimalt.ca
    mayor@victoria.ca
    ghill@viewroyal.ca
    plucas@victoria.ca
    mayor@colwood.ca
    gyoung@victoria.ca

    Greater Victoria Water Watch Coalition


    Friday, July 23, 2010

    Lantern Ceremony

    Friday, August 6th 7:30 pm
    Hiroshima-Nagasaki remembered:

    The annual lantern ceremony, marking the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Japan
    Craigflower Park / Kosapsom
    at Admiral’s Road and Gorge Road West, Saanich

    Lantern making starts at 7:30 pm, with words and songs of peace at 8:00 pm, followed by floating the lanterns in the Gorge.

    All welcome.
    Free – (Bring a blanket &/or chair to sit on.)

    Sponsored by the Victoria Raging Grannies, Victoria Peace Coalition, Physicians for Global Survival, Victoria Nikkei Cultural Society. Council of Canadians Victoria chapter

    Call Rosa 250-665-7788

    Monday, June 14, 2010

    Issues of the Council of Canadians

    The document with this title, a link to which is given in the right hand column of this blog, will eventually need to be revised as the Council of Canadians changes direction with changing times. For now, it needs to be mentioned that two issues currently of great importance in the work of the Council of Canadians, particularly in Western Canada, are the tar sands and run-of-the-river projects. The tar sands development in Alberta and Saskatchewan is one of the worst man-made environmental disasters in history. It ties in with almost every active issue of the CoC. Run of the river hydro projects, prominent in BC, tie in mainly with trade, energy and water.

    Thursday, June 3, 2010

    Climate Change & G8/G20: Not Business as Usual


    Monday, June 14, 2010
    7:00pm - 9:30pm. Displays open at 6:30.
    St. John the Divine Anglican Church, 1611 Quadra St. Victoria BC

    Speakers: Francois Pihaatae (Pacific Conference of Churches),
    Tria Donaldson (youth representative to Copenhagen climate meetings),
    Harjap Grewal (Council of Canadians), local Indigenous leadership

    "By now, you may have read about ‘Climate Justice: Take Action for People and the Planet,’ a new development in the energy campaign. Myself, along with Maude Barlow and other Council political staff, were present at the UN Copenhagen climate negotiations last December and just last month at the climate conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia. These high-level climate talks have been key to advancing our climate justice work, including: building the international campaign against the tar sands, call the Canadian government accountable for failing to take meaningful action on climate change and ensuring energy security for Canadians, and contributing to real solutions to the climate crisis grounded in the principles of social justice and ecological sustainability.

    We are continuing to work with our chapters in Canada on these issues, including with this important and timely tour. The event is free and open to all – so bring along a friend and feel free to forward this invitation broadly!"

    If you can’t attend, take this opportunity to send the Harper government a message that climate action is needed by using our joint action alert with the Indigenous Environmental Network, Harper’s emission reduction is off target!, at: http://canadians.org/action/2010/emission-target-Jan-09.html
    Contact: Susan Draper, graceful@shaw.ca, 250-370-0121
    Sponsored by the Council of Canadians, KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives) and the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition (CYCC) on a cross-Canada tour for climate justice: Climate Change and the G8/G20: Not Business as Usual.

    Next Monthly Board Meeting

    Board Meeting: Wed. July 7, 2010, 7-9 pm Commons Room, 1246 Fairfield Rd.
    ***NOTE UNUSUAL LOCATION***
    All members of the Council of Canadians are welcome, as long as they are invited or approved ahead of time as attendees by the board. If you are not a board member, and you wish to attend, and/or if you have items you would like to have added to the agenda, please contact us at least a week in advance of the meeting.

    Monday, May 10, 2010

    Salmon Protest & March of May 8, 2010


    The migration event to Victoria was grassroots awesome. Thousands walked. And walking --they talked in ever changing kaleidoscopic migrating citizen knots pooling in back-eddies to surge across intersections 400 a time --unmarshalled.

    Schools of bright painted cardboard salmon on sticks jumping and twirling over the throng seething --dancing with salmon, the drumbeat, the music enjoining onlookers to feel the wild salmon imperative -our migration. Pied-pipered we follow not a street, not a direction but a calling, a need, a compelling attraction towards vitality, towards renewal.

    Through the canyon of downtown buildings, we feel a quickening intensify. The salmon inside me feels --destination, attracting, animating, joyfully moving me us blurring and like magnetized marionettes pulled towards not place, but purpose and exhilaration.

    Gathering in number, cascading, almost mindful bits of reminiscence, a place resolves itself to become a purpose and then to breathe-in, inspiration to become motivation to see and then to shout we are here --arrived to feed and nurture this place, so that it will remember us too as we remember it.

    We have a sense of useful selfless joy being in and with our noble kind. I, we are not supplicants at the legislature. We are mobile thoughtful food sharing its values and inspiration with all who eat of us. Are we not wild salmon migrating now? Are we not returning to our waters our land and our fellow beings with sustenance?

    More than four thousand* of us became the wisdom and voice, of wild salmon yesterday. If you hear this voice then you are too.


    Upstream,

    Michael Major
    -----------------------------------
    *Security at the Legislature estimated more than 5000.

    Tuesday, May 4, 2010

    Historical Background for the AGM on May 17, 2010


    As we head toward our panel discussion on “the poverty industry” at our AGM on May 17, we would do well to recall that the Council of Canadians was founded 25 years ago to counter the free trade, deep integration policies of the Reagan and Mulroney administrations.

    The crushing poverty and homelessness that we have today are the direct result of the rise of globalization and its underlying economic philosophy of "neoliberal" “trickle down” wealth. The idea is that by the rich accumulating huge fortunes from exploitation of those who are now referred to as the “working poor”, smaller amounts of this money will eventually infuse all of society with a healthy glow. This fundamentally flawed foundation of “neo-conservatism”, which has been parodied as “tinkle down economics”, simply results in an acceleration of what has always been true in capitalist economies: the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.


    This situation has now become so entrenched that even more progressive governments such as the Obama administration in the U.S. cannot escape its grasp, even though Obama campaigned on the promise of a “renegotiation” of NAFTA.


    The Council of Canadians will not rest until the wrongs of free trade and its resulting increase in poverty have been righted.

    Robert Cory

    Thursday, April 29, 2010

    Next Monthly Board Meeting

    Board Meeting: Tues. June 1, 2010, 7-9 pm Commons Room, 1246 Fairfield Rd.
    ***NOTE UNUSUAL LOCATION***
    All members of the Council of Canadians are welcome, as long as they are invited or approved ahead of time as attendees by the board. If you are not a board member, and you wish to attend, and/or if you have items you would like to have added to the agenda, please contact us at least a week in advance of the meeting.

    Call for New Board Members

    If you would like to become more active in the Council of Canadians in the Victoria area, we have openings on the Board of Directors. Let us know if you would like to put your name forward for possible nomination to the Board. The new board will be elected at the AGM on May 17. Contact us at:
    info(at)victoriacouncilofcanadians(dot)ca

    Wednesday, April 28, 2010

    Annual General Meeting/Potluck/Panel Discussion

    Victoria Chapter, Council of Canadians

    Annual General Meeting

    Monday, May 17, 2010

    BCGEU Bldg., 2994 Douglas St.

    5:45 p.m. Potluck Supper
    7:15 p.m. Panel Discussion
    8:30-9:30 p.m. AGM

    Free admission; open to the public; new members welcome

    Panel discussion:
    Jody Paterson, Moderator
    Exposing the Poverty Industry
    Are social services helpful? Solutions will be discussed.
    Panelists:
    Kym Hines, former frontline worker
    Carol Romanow, differently abled frontline worker
    Lise Wrigley, former frontline worker, active member, Committee to End Homelessness in Victoria

    info(at)victoriacouncilofcanadians(dot)ca

    Friday, April 23, 2010

    Board Member, Roberta Cory: Vic West Art Quest

    Roberta Cory is resigning from the Board of Directors of the Victoria Chapter after 4 years as the Membership Chair. She founded the Vic West Art Quest in 2007 and will now be spending more time working on her art. Her invitation to this year's Art Quest is provided below:

    Vic West artists are excited about their upcoming third annual artist’s studio tour, which is timed to coincide with the Vic West Fest! This year we have 17 artists participating.

    Vic West Art Quest

    Saturday, May 8 and Sunday, May 9, 2010
    1:00 to 5:00 p.m. each day

    Reception

    Friday, May 7, 2010
    7:00 to 9:00 p.m.

    Spiral Café and Hemp & Co.
    418/422 Craigflower Rd.

    We have two group shows this year. Hemp & Co. is currently showing our work for the months of April and May, and the Spiral Café will show our work for the month of May.

    All artist’s studios will have extra maps of the Quest for those who have not picked one up at one of many locations throughout Victoria. For additional information go to our website at http://vicwestartquest.com/

    Roberta Cory
    Vic West Art Quest


    Roberta Cory
    "Oak Bay Beach Hotel #6"
    39"h 23"w 4"d
    2010

    Greater Victoria Water Watch Coalition meeting


    GVWWC GENERAL MEETING

    Thursday, May 6, 2010

    7:30 to 9:30 pm
    James Bay New Horizons
    234 Menzies Street

    Guest Speaker:
    CRD Board Member, Philippe Lucas

    GET THE LATEST SCOOP !
    Find out what you can do to ensure that CRD sewage treatment is managed & operated on a not-for-profit basis & that sewage treatment is delivered as a PUBLIC SERVICE !

    (Coffee, tea, and cookies available.)

    Your core committee has been extremely busy on the privatization issue of late and, thanks to general membership support and community concern expressed in 4,081 petition signatures, has brought this issue to the forefront and won significant political gains on procurement of the proposed CRD sewage treatment facility.

    We need help. There are many water-related issues that need addressing, and fresh faces on the core committee would be an excellent means of dealing with them. We invite your participation in this meeting, your questions for Councillor Lucas, and your extended involvement in GVWWC programming and pursuits.

    Tuesday, April 20, 2010

    29th Annual Earth Walk


    Saturday, April 24, 2010
    Peace, Earth & Justice
    Meet at the Legislature at 12 noon.

    Begin walking to Centennial Square at 12:30 pm, arriving at about 1:15 pm for a concert, speeches and environmental fair.
    Speakers include Vicky Husband and Ross Crockford.
    The mc will be Colleen Eccleston.
    Music by Oliver Swain and Friends and the Ecclestons.
    Lots of organizations will have information tables.
    Information: SteveFilipovic@hotmail.com
    www.EarthWalkVictoria.ca

    Sunday, April 18, 2010

    MEGA-YACHT PROTEST


    RT @Denise Savoie: Victoria paddlers and residents came out in force today to protest mega-yacht marina proposal - http://denisesavoie.ndp.ca/node/1163

    There were something on the order of 200 protesters on land and 100 boats on the water! Very effective protest against corporate (developer) arrogance and disdain for democracy, destruction of a spectacularly beautiful harbour by the installation of a parking lot for the rich and their huge yachts blocking the view enjoyed by residents and tourists alike, the loss of recreational freedom of kayakers and other boaters to use the harbour, the loss of safety engendered by a far too congested harbour, and the environmental pollution of an already stressed waterway, to say nothing of the unconscionable use of fossil fuels to power gigantic toys for ridiculously wealthy overgrown boys! And all subsidized by the Campbell and Harper governments (our money), which are in power partly as a result of political donations from developers!

    Saturday, April 17, 2010

    PUBLIC FORUM on SENIORS' CARE


    Sunday, April 18, 2010, 2:00–3:30 pm
    Cadboro Bay United Church, 2625 Arbutus Rd.

    The South Island Health Coalition and others are organizing a Public Forum on Seniors’ Care to highlight our concerns about the sell-off and corporatization of Oak Bay Lodge and Mount Tolmie Hospital and the future of public seniors’ care. We will have a panel to discuss seniors’ care and time for comments and questions. The press and our MLA will also be invited as well as other local politicians.
    Information: Jessica Van der Veen, 250-598-9272

    Friday, April 9, 2010

    Next Monthly Board Meeting

    Board Meeting: Wed. April 28, 2010, 7-9 pm BCGEU Building, 2994 Douglas St.

    All members of the Council of Canadians are welcome, as long as they are invited or approved ahead of time as attendees by the board. If you are not a board member, and you wish to attend, and/or if you have items you would like to have added to the agenda, please contact us at least a week in advance of the meeting.

    WIN! Public sewage treatment in Victoria


    A CUPE BC media release this evening states, “On March 31, Capital Regional District (CRD) directors gave final approval to a business case that will see public operation in at least five, and possibly all seven communities mandated to develop sewage treatment.”

    That means, “residents of Greater Victoria have the option of choosing fully public sewage treatment and resource recovery.”

    “Mauricio Navarette, president of CUPE 1978 which represents CRD workers, said that the work of CUPE’s ‘Keep it Public’ campaign, coordinated by Kim Manton, along with the Greater Victoria Water Watch Coalition and the Council of Canadians has gone a long way to ensuring public and environmentally sound sewage treatment.”

    On November 20, 2009, Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow spoke against the privatization of sewage treatment in Victoria. More on that at www.canadians.org/campaignblog/?p=2251



    Kim Manton wrote in the November 2009 issue of our newsletter ‘Making Waves’ that, “Public opinion research and consultation confirms that the residents of Greater Victoria overwhelmingly reject privatization.” That’s at www.canadians.org/publications/subscribe/making-waves/vol-1.html



    There’s also much more about this campaign on our Victoria chapter’s website at http://victoriacouncilofcanadians.blogspot.com/



    The Victoria Times-Colonist reports that, “The provincial government requires that every project needing more than $50 million of provincial funding look at a public-private partnership.”

    “Ninety per cent of the people who attended public meetings and gave their opinion on how the project should be done were in favour of a fully public system, the (Capital Regional District) board heard today.”

    “The regional sewage committee earlier decided that the major components of the system be done publicly, and that the West Shore treatment centre and a resource recovery centre where biosolids are converted should have the option of a P3 or public.”

    “That recommendation was approved by the (CRD) board this afternnon, at a meeting filled with spectators advocating for a fully public system.”

    “The province’s Partnership BC will review the business plan and give its recommendation likely in June.”

    The CUPE BC media release is at http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Win-for-Public-Sewage-Treatment-in-Victoria-1141240.htm.


    (Reblogged from http://www.canadians.org/campaignblog/?p=3193)




    Parliament HAS Environmental Committees


    The Victoria Chapter's multi-party panel on "Trade, Politics and Global Climate Change" on Wednesday night (April 7, 2010) was extraordinarily well-managed and full of information. I would like to clarify one impression, however, that may have been misleading: in answer to a question posed about why there is no parliamentary committee on the environment, there are actually TWO:

    • Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources (EENR)
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/Common/Committee_SenHome.asp?Language=E&Comm_id=5

    • House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (ENVI)
    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/CommitteeHome.aspx?Cmte=ENVI&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3

    I particularly recommend the proceedings of the March 16th EENR meeting in which Murray Stewart, President of the Energy Council of Canada, is a witness.
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/enrg-e/01cv-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&comm_id=5



    Jane Brett

    Tuesday, March 16, 2010

    Bharat Chandramouli's Presentation to the CRD CALWMC


    March 10, 2010


    I thank the committee for giving the public an opportunity to speak on this very important issue. As a recent visitor to Coast Salish territory, I am happy to see that the greater Victoria region is installing secondary sewage treatment to deal with our ever increasing volumes of waste. As an environmental scientist, I am interested in the future direction of the CRD's water and waste management plans. I am concerned about the possible privatisation of local infrastructure. I want our infrastructure to be locally owned, controlled and operated so accountability and jobs stay within the community. The provision of water and sewage is universally regarded as basic infrastructure where local control is vital. P3s only make sense from a risk management perspective when a government is unable, or not considered trustworthy enough to carry out natural government monopoly functions. I can only hope that our trust in our governments' abilities to perform these basic functions has not eroded this far.

    Sewage treatment is a well established and mature field where expertise is easily available, and it meshes well with the water provision infrastructure which is already municipally controlled. It makes little sense to spin the sewage off to a private entity. Costs will increase due to the extra layer of complexity, and due to the returns to the shareholders the companies need to provide. Governments traditionally have lower borrowing costs and superior bargaining abilities. Why waste that kind of power? Upper/middle management jobs may not be available to local people, so there is no jobs benefit or job diversity from privatization. There is lowered accountability as well. While P3s claim to shift risk away from governments, studies show that this risk shifting has not actually worked in practice. Non-local companies can leave if things go wrong, municipalities cannot. Non local companies can declare bankruptcy and shed all accountability if things go wrong, we cannot.

    I urge you to look at work produced by Aidan R. Vining of Simon Fraser University and Anthony E. Boardman of the University of British Columbia as a valuable counterpoint to estimates coming out of the Conference Board of Canada and Partnerships BC (see attachment). They find that official cost benefit analyses showing the supposed benefits of P3s are fundamentally flawed because they do not take any of the social costs, transaction costs or externalities into account. They conclude that P3s only work from a financial perspective when they are designed to closely mimic traditional design-build-transfer or build-transfer contracts. Why waste time and effort trying to make this shoe fit when it clearly does not?

    When we run the plant, we have the power to be flexible, to optimize the operations and modify them to suit our changing needs. We get to decide how much data we want to release, or what kind of research we want to support, what kind of relationship we have with the local community, and what kind of behavioural changes we would like to encourage to reduce waste. When we run the plant. our success does not depend on any one company's business practice or technology bias. We get to incorporate best practices to operate a sewage treatment facility that works for us, not the other way around. Public ownership is the conservative choice!

    In conclusion, I oppose privatisation of the water and sewage infrastructure for the following reasons:

    1) Increased costs

    2) decreased accountability

    3) Loss of job diversity

    4) Decreased efficiency due to increased complexity

    Thank you very much for your time.


    Bharat Chandramouli, Ph. D

    Monday, March 15, 2010

    Trade, Politics and Global Climate Change


    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Date: Wed., April 7, 2010
    Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm (doors open at 6:30pm)
    Location: Da Vinci Centre
    Street: 195 Bay St.
    City/Town: Victoria, BC

    Are International Trade Agreements undermining efforts to solve Global Climate Change? Can our politicians cooperatively address this issue, by working together across party lines?

    The Council of Canadians, Victoria Chapter presents a forum on climate change with the focus on trade agreements and how they affect the environment. We need to address how to create and enforce trade agreements that place environmental sustainability and the lowering of our carbon footprint in the forefront. It is time for our elected officials to cooperate on these issues. In this non-partisan forum we hope to discuss the challenges and the solutions to this most important issue. Microphones will be available for you to speak to this critical situation.

    Invited Guests:

    Elizabeth May leader@greenparty.ca

    Dr. Keith Martin MP MartiK@parl.gc.ca

    Hon. Gary Lunn MP lunng@parl.gc.ca
    Denise Savoie MP SavoieD@parl.gc.ca
    Further information: 250-380-7145 or 250-220-5355

    Sunday, March 14, 2010

    Stuart Hertzog's Presentation to the CRD CALWMC


    March 10, 2010

    Good evening.

    My name is Stuart Hertzog and I spoke to you this morning about the impact of this project on greenhouse gas emissions. I calculate that in 40 years, this project would add 1.6 Megatonnes of CO2e to the global atmosphere. On that basis, this project should not go ahead.

    Because it would create environmental and financial problems where none existed before, many people, including myself, are wondering why you have embarked on such an ill-advised path. Perhaps the answer lies in the push by the BC government to privatise public utilities?

    There is no doubt my mind and the minds of many others, that this entire project has been mandated by the BC government's desire to privatise municipal sewage services. But the public response you have been receiving points to considerable concern about this. There is strong public support that the CRD's sewage system should be publicly owned and operated.

    You are asking the public to choose from a menu of six procurement options, from the public Design Bid Build to the P3 Design Build Operate Maintain. But there is another option that has not been included, which is not to proceed at all with this billion-dollar mega-project. There is considerable public support for that option, too.

    This public 'involvement' process is manipulative and meaningless without including "none-of-the-above," which I suggest is the best choice.

    Without the option of not proceeding, you are faced with three political solutions to the thorny issue of ownership and procurement: a fully-public system; a hybrid mix of public and private; and a full P3 package.

    Because you must somehow assuage the public fear of privatisation, there is no doubt in my own mind that you will favour the politically less-damaging, 'hybrid' solution. That way you can appear to be fair and balanced -- except that this will be the worst possible choice.

    This 'hybrid' solution is in fact a P3, in which the heart of this project -- ownership and sale of the revenue-producing streams of biogas and biosolids -- will be moved into private hands, while the costly, non-revenue, supporting infrastructure, will be paid for with public funds.

    The devil is hidden in the details. The draft Business Case presented by Ernst & Young last week, recommended that both the West Shore and the Victoria biosolids plants be P3s. I suggest to you that these two plums are of great interest to the private sector.

    These two plants will receive the liquid waste streams from the entire Capital Region District. They will dry and process them to produce methane biogas for internal process use, with any surplus for sale to Terasen Gas. The operator will sell the biosolids as cement kiln or municipal waste incinerator fuel. The CRD will be reduced to a supplier of liquid waste at public expense.

    It's the perfect money machine. The plant operator is guaranteed a flow of feedstock, which it can process as cheaply as possible. It can then resell its products to the highest bidder, maybe even while being paid to process the sewage -- it all depends on the details of the contract.

    Who would own the incoming feedstock? Who would own the biogas and biosolids produced? What about any future carbon credits -- who will own these valuable, tradable assets? These details are vitally important to the regional taxpayer -- but we aren't being asked about those, nor are we likely ever to learn exactly what will be negotiated on our behalf.

    Should these two plants be privatised, we know that the financial and operational details of any contract will be hidden from public view on the grounds of commercial secrecy. Yet these contracts could contain minimum and maximum flow requirements that could limit the ability of the CRD to fulfil other policies, such as water use and greenhouse gas reduction.

    You are asking the public to choose between just six models of procurement, while the devilish details are hidden in carefully-crafted reports that suggest privatising these two key plants.

    That's like Henry Ford saying "you can have any colour car you want -- as long as it's black."

    By choosing the hybrid option, you will be still turning over the valuable assets of a municipal service to the private sector, while asking the public to pick up the tab. This doesn't seem right to me, nor to the majority of the voting public in your municipalities.

    The decisions you will be making in the next months are crucial, both for the financial stability of the CRD and each for municipality; for public health; and for the global environment.

    Do not deliver valuable CRD sewage assets into the hands of a private operator while calling it a "hybrid" solution. This would be subterfuge and sleight-of-hand.

    Thank you.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010

    Coffee Night Speaker: Arthur Caldicott


    “Vancouver Island's Watersheds in Peril”

    Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010
    Time: 7:00 – 9:15 p.m.
    Place: BCGEU, 2994 Douglas St.

    Arthur Caldicott is an analyst of energy and mining issues in British Columbia. His
    research, writing and presentations focus on the environmental, health, and public interest
    aspects of those issues, as well as the economic considerations.
    A company proposing a project will come to a community selling jobs and taxes as the
    local benefits which will accrue from its pipeline, or mine, or mall. The company will
    minimize the environmental impacts, avoid the fact that most of the jobs last only as long
    as the construction period, and that the real economic benefits flow to its shareholders.
    Caldicott tells the other side of the story – the parts the company is less keen to talk
    about.
    Using thoroughly researched and verifiable information, his writing and
    presentations are balanced and credible. He is an insightful and engaging speaker.
    Twenty years as an IT professional, and ten years as an energy analyst have equipped
    Caldicott with an understanding of what motivates business (it is the profit motive, of
    course, but informed and nuanced by complex factors), and how our governments
    frequently seem to confuse the corporate interest for the public interest. Communities get good information clearly presented – and are then better equipped to make informed
    decisions.
    A sampling of Arthur Caldicott’s work is available at http://www.sqwalk.com/cv. Please
    contact him at 250-384-5551 or arthurcaldicott@sqwalk.com.
    Free Admission
    Free parking at the Lifestyle foods plaza next door
    Fairly traded coffee and tea are available with a donation
    Contact: Nana 483-1277

    Friday, March 12, 2010

    John Luton's Presentation to the CRD CALWMC


    March 10, 2010

    I’m here to ask you to support the public option for sewage treatment.

    I believe that public services belong in public hands.

    We are transparent and accountable, and ultimately on the hook to provide the service project we are committing our current and future taxpayers to fund.

    Private owners will build and operate a system that best serves their shareholders. We have a responsibility to serve our shareholders, and they are the citizens and taxpayers of Victoria and the Capital Region.

    Private ownership and operation of our public services does not serve their interest, or that of future generations.

    There are still many opportunities for the private sector in a public project and you’ve heard how important that is to our local construction industry.

    When something goes wrong, the public owner and operator will say “how quickly can I fix this to make sure my shareholders get back the service they are paying for?” The private operator is going to ask “is this in our contract?”

    I’m happy that those who have purchased private sewage treatment are so far happy with their systems. And lots of people were just as happy with their new Toyotas.

    If my sewer backs up can I call the CRD, or am I going to have go through a call centre in Poughkeepsie?

    At this meeting and at the meeting two weeks ago you heard about the many examples of successful public systems built and in operation in Canada and in the U.S., and about some of the failures of P3s here and elsewhere.

    My example is a little different but illustrates well enough what we are exposed to with the P# model.

    In 2008 numbers of transit operators in the U.S. who had sold fleets of buses and leased them back from private capital companies, insured by giants like AIG, a name that should be familiar to anyone who paid attention to our most recent economic meltdown. Cascading and complex contracts between the myriad players and financiers forced some transit operators to cut service to meet payment demands from the private capital companies in distress.

    What do you do when your service provider goes bankrupt? AIG lately lost $8.87 billion U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2009, and company value dropped by 13%. The pressure to cut costs and return to profitability will ripple through their dependents and we’ll no doubt see what other public services in private hands are impacted as a result.

    You don’t transfer risk to the private sector, they are selling their risk premium to you.

    Our public option can be financed by the Municipal Finance Authority, an investor with a much sounder portfolio and a better track record than anything you can find in the private sector.

    We need to worry about our triple bottom line – social, economic and environmental values impacted by this project. Private operators are worried only about their bottom line, and they will compromise our environment, ship economic benefits offshore, and will have little interest in the community and social impacts of the project and its operations.

    The opportunity to adapt to new technologies and benefit from resource recoveries must be kept in public hands. We may not make a profit, be can reduce operating costs and help lower greenhouse gas emissions, an imperative we must be working for. Can we integrate more of our waste stream into a regional sewage system to generate heat, electricity or other recoveries, or will we have to purchase access?

    Can we integrate more of our waste stream into a regional sewage system to generate heat, electricity or other recoveries, or will we have to purchase access? I believe that opportunity will be lost with a P3.

    We already own the systems that will be used to transport our waste from source to plant and water to the sea. Let’s build on those assets, not give it away just to rent it back.

    Once they have our sewage pipes, are we going to sell off our water? Certainly that’s what the private multinationals are looking for.

    On the social side, I’d rather negotiate with the people who live and work in our community than multinational gamblers that run the world’s financial system – and badly it seems.

    We will have to live with your decision for decades. Please make the right one for ourselves and our children. The public option is the sustainable choice for our community.

    John Luton
    Victoria City Councillor

    Kim Manton's Presentation to the CRD CALWMC


    March 10, 2010


    "I would like to speak to you tonight about how two meetings have provided the framework of how I have spent the last three years....one meeting was on Sept. 5, 2007 and the other is fast approaching - March 24, 2010"...the first meeting motivated me to prepare for the second...

    My first meeting of the CALWMC was January 24th 2007 where I began my sewage treatment journey. The meeting that framed the way I would do my job however was on September 5, 2007….it was the Committee of the Whole meeting where those of you who were in attendance voted to support the P3 for the Patient tower at the Royal Jubilee. This meeting changed the way I viewed being a campaign coordinator, a citizen and a voter.

    As I arrived at this meeting I assumed the room would be filled with citizens, local media and stakeholders – it is a hospital, healthcare - to my surprise I got there and found one media representative, 4 members of public, and a whole bunch of staff and consultants. To my bigger surprise I saw all the directors but one vote for the P3 but even more confusing was the dialogue around the table. I heard things like

    • I will support the motion because the care centre is necessary for the community and I am ambivalent about P3’s
    • “this is not the place to discuss P3’s – this information is way over our heads
    • This decision needs to be made at the provincial level.
    • Larry Blaine and his outfit are offering us a hospital for $107 million as a take it or leave it offer and we can not refuse this
    • This debate is one of pragmatism and idealism
    • I will reluctantly support the motion because we need the 500 beds

    This meeting, the dialogue, the decision and the participation moved to frame my work over the next three years. That there were no members of the public there to witness these comments and no media there to report them…a major infrastructure project being handed to private corporations and no one was there. This is when I knew I had my work was cut out for me – hell if they didn’t show up for a hospital what are the chances that they would show up for sewage treatment?

    So with over 50 CALWMC meetings and detailed notes combined with a mountain of reading on procurement under my belt I have taken the discussion to the citizens of the CRD. I have taken every possible opportunity to work with amazing activists, volunteers, stake holder groups, organizations, been to more that 75 public markets, community fairs, open houses, neighbourhood forums and community events from Saanich to the Luxton Fair..
    I have talked to anyone that would have me – including you. On Sept. 5, 2007 I committed to do what I could to ensure that residents of the CRD have the information to make an informed decision about privatization so that they understood the dialogue and debate and that they, the residents, could then empower you to make informed decisions.

    There have been hurdles and explaining P3’s was one… sewage ain’t sexy which has made engagement difficult. Many people don’t even know what the CRD is - let alone what procurement means but I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that once they understand what privatization means in their community, the citizens of the CRD overwhelmingly want this system to be public. Of course I did run into a few people who believed in P3s – we agreed to disagree.

    I also spent a lot of time (along with others) trying to raise this issue during the municipal elections and I know that at 4 separate All candidate meetings you were asked to stand if you supported public water and wastewater systems. I was proud to see so many of you stand. With our vote we entrusted you with our values and you now hold the responsibility to represent them– to represent us!

    As I said the last three years have been framed by two meetings one in 2007 and one coming up in two weeks – there are significant changes between then and now…

    On Sept. 5, 2007 you said that you received the information too late and didn’t have enough time to sort through it…

    • This time you will have had the information for almost a month
    • This time you will have had access to all sorts of evidence and information from around the world
    • This time you have rooms full of engaged citizens and media
    • This time you will be crystal clear about your residents want
    • This time your decision will not only be witnessed but it will be communicated.
    • This time you are accountable to your constituents
    • This time you have the opportunity to represent us with confidence


    In my efforts to engage our community I have handed out your contact information to more people than I can count. Sadly what I have heard over and over is that “it doesn’t matter what we tell them because they will do what they want anyway”.
    Or “the province gets what the province wants…”
    This is your opportunity to show people that they are wrong – that their voices and their actions do matter.

    Alice Walker said that “the most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any”…you have an opportunity to reconnect citizens to their power, let them know you heard them.

    Thank you,
    Kim Manton

    Thursday, March 11, 2010

    Joan Russow's Presentation to the CRD CALWMC


    Procurement must not be yet another act of negligence.

    Joan Russow PhD
    Presentation to the CRD, March 10, 2010

    There is a long history in Victoria, of negligence on the part of the CRD and of other authoritative figures. Particularly, from the CRD engineer, Michael Williams, who in the 1980’s authored a pale blue pamphlet with the poetic title "To the sea"- essentially he argued that, in Victoria, dilution was the solution to pollution. His work was eagerly supported by years of so-called academic research by two University of Victoria professors, Dr. Derek Ellis and Dr. Jack Littlepage, and regrettably their work was affirmed publicly by Dr. Shawn Peck, the then Deputy Provincial Health Officer
    [even today he is still involved with his anti-treatment campaign coined "will haste make waste] and even endorsed by the illustrious leader of the Western Concept Party when he made spurious claims that "Nature already provides us with an effective, inexpensive and environmentally beneficial treatment system.
    Then in the late1980s Dr. Tony Boydell conducted public hearings for the CRD on Sewage, and at every hearing he was told by most of the citizens that there must be some form of sewage treatment; yet when there was a 1990 referendum, there were three options, one of them to do nothing. So here we are now in 2010, and there is even an anti-treatment group formed to still urge the CRD, the Provincial Government and the Federal Government to do nothing and there are even different levels of government, ignoring the evidence of P3 failures, still pushing for P3s, and we as citizens are still before the CRD declaring that we want sewage treatment, and we don¹t want P3s. I have tried to unravel the convoluted decision-making process related to procurement, and I asked a not-to-be named official about the process. I was told that the Federal Government will not do anything until the Province commits -- probably that is code for committing to P3s. I was then told that, before there would be a commitment for provincial funding, there is a requirement under the Capital Asset Management Framework, that public sector agencies must investigate alternatives for capital development, including the P3 option to "design, build and operate". When I asked about the degree to which citizens' views will be taken into consideration by the Provincial Government, I was told that the CRD report following the public hearings, along with an investigation report, would form the basis for the Provincial decision. The investigation Report, however, is being done by Ernst and Young, whose firm has not only been embroiled in lawsuits (see Google “Ernst and Yonge” and lawsuits, related to fraud, breech of trust and negligence, but also appears, because of Ernst and Young’s pro-P3s, to be in conflict of interest, and does not have the sufficient expertise to address the issues of social and environmental impacts.
    (See attached note about the various lawsuits related to Ernst and Young). In 2002, Ernst and Young launched, with a former Employee of Arthur Andersen’s firm, an Environmental Advisory Services practice within its Real Estate Advisory Services group. It is obvious that due diligence on E and Y was not carried out.
    Jim Lloyd in his presentation to the CRD stated the following: "Ernst & Young is working on more P3 deals than any other financial advisory firm in the world and last year won the most P3 engagements, according to Tim Philpotts, who leads Ernst & Young’s Canadian Initiatives for P3s". The question then arises would the Provincial Government be able to allow or be prepared to allow public concern to prevail, and support the public¹s call for Design-Bid-Build, as well as the public’s opposition to P3s? It is, however, clear that the BC Government has made a firm commitment to P3s. In their Partnership BC document, the BC Government proclaims that P3s are the growing trend in Canada in the development and maintenance of public infrastructure, and then expounds on the virtues of the P3s. Now what happens if the CRD and BC Government actually listen to
    citizens’ concerns? What can the Federal Government be expected to do or be able to now do? Can the Federal Government be expected to or be able to support a potential CRD, and Provincial Government opposition to P3s? In Infrastructure Canada is the following statement:
    "The benefits of using P3s include: access to private-sector capital and expertise; faster completion of projects; and the transfer of risk to the private sector. In Canada, the Federal Government is taking a leadership role in developing P3 opportunities by establishing the P3 Fund. This fund will support innovative projects that provide an alternative to traditional government infrastructure procurement.” In addition, in recent years there have been several trade agreements which have resulted in a requirement for open sourcing: Internal Trade Agreement, involving all of Canada, the TILMA involving BC and Alberta, the WTO Procurement clause involving the US for a period of time, and more recently the Comprehensive Economic Agreement Negotiations (CETA) involving the European Union which is in between the 2nd and 3rd negotiating round. ...The next three rounds will tackle progressively more difficult issues of procurement, investment, etc
    The WTO procurement agreement will permit companies like Bechtel Corporation (see Democracy Center report on Bechtel in Latin America)
    The CETA could allow for a company like Veolia or Suez to seduce the provincial and Federal Governments into embracing P3 proposals. (see attached recent revelations about Veolia’s fiasco in Bruxelles, and the case against Suez’ exploitation of developing states (see Global Day of Action, Latin America, against Suez) . Thus will the biased Provincial and Federal Governments keep demanding more research and the P3-prone private sector keep lobbying, until finally the concerns of the citizens will be trumped and the P3s, victorious, and then the citizens will be given the option;
    either you agree to P3s and receive Provincial and Federal funding or you oppose P3s and through taxes bear the cost.
    So in April will all three levels of government continue to be negligent, being seduced into P3s, and will the people be condemned to live with the consequences, OR will there be the political will to seriously respect the will of the people. Citizens have a legitimate expectation that elected officials will opt for serving the public good.
    [This presentation (and all of the others published in this blog) was made at a public hearing, so all of it is in the public domain. The Council of Canadians is publishing it as a public service in order to allow as many citizens as possible to read it and comment on it in a free and democratic process.]

    Thursday, March 4, 2010

    Jim Lloyd's Presentation to the CRD CALWMC


    February 25, 2010

    My name is Jim Lloyd and I am a retired Water Resources Technologist. I have worked in Wastewater Plant Operations for many years in Ontario and at two plants in the Victoria area. Over the years I have seen, reviewed and worked with many examples of the good, the bad and the ugly of wastewater plant designs. And I am sad to say, the bad and the ugly, seem to be becoming more common these days.

    Design-Bid-Build is the Best Option

    Based on my first hand experiences with wastewater plants I know the Design-Bid-Build is the best available option. It will give the CRD complete control over the project, which is vital to a successful conclusion.

    With a complete and detailed design in hand the CRD can then tender the project and get firm prices and delivery dates from the largest number of bidders possible. This approach will give the CRD the best chance to eliminate the possibility of later cost overruns and/or delays in the project.

    It is a Real P3: Private design, Private building and Public operation.

    One key component that must be included in any contract is that the designer is held financially accountable for any additional costs due to design problems. This is vitally important since even small design issues can turn into multi million dollar problems.

    Learn from History – Don’t Repeat It

    The new Halifax Wastewater treatment plant was initially a Design-Build-Operate (P3) project with the French multinational, Suez leading the consortium. After Suez tried to change the terms of the operating contract the city took back the operational component but retained the same consortium to design and build the project.

    After just one year of operation the $54 million Halifax Wastewater Treatment Plant had a catastrophic failure in Jan. 2009 and will be out of commission until the Spring of this year. Repairs costs are estimated at 11 million dollars.

    It is a text book example of “What can go wrong, will go wrong” and why you have to properly design for it. The Design-Build option is more prone to this type of outcome.

    Design-Build or P3 – Too Many Ways It Can Go Wrong

    With a Design-Build or P3 the price is set before the design is even started, therefore the project will be designed to fit the budget. To maximize profit or stay within budget cutting corners will be sure to follow.

    So, on one hand you may have price certainty but on the other hand you will have product uncertainty as Halifax found out.

    A Design-Build approach may work with simple projects like highways or condo developments but it is not the best choice for wastewater plants.

    The P3 option also greatly reduces the number of bidders on a project. You could be down to one or two bidders at the end of a long drawn out process.

    Hamilton Wastewater Plant

    Hamilton, Ontario tried the privatization of the operation and maintenance of their wastewater plant in the 1990s. Over the term of the original contract there were many problems and the private company went through many changes in ownership including being owned by Enron.

    The private operator had basically operated the plant on the “run to failure” maintenance principal.

    In 2004, the contract was expiring and Hamilton put it out for public tender. Along with a number of private companies the city of Hamilton also put in their own bid to operate and maintain the plant. To no ones surprise Hamilton found it was much cheaper to do it in-house and they took back the operation, hired back staff, saved money and controlled the risks.

    “Procurement Business Plan” – Who’s Minding the Hen House?

    I would also like to comment on the documents that the CRD will be using to make a very difficult decision. The “Procurement Business Plan” and public information brochures with their comparison of the different procurement options were drafted by Ernst & Young. I consider this a real conflict of interest since Ernst & Young is very biased toward the P3 option and will gain financially if the P3 option is chosen.

    Their own web site states:


    “Ernst & Young is working on more P3 deals than any other financial advisory firm in the world and last year won the most P3 engagements, according to Tim Philpotts, who leads Ernst & Young’s Canadian initiatives for P3s.”


    In closing:

    -A traditional design-bid-build procurement method is the best approach

    - keep control of the operation.

    -Don’t rush the design phase, take your time and get it right the first time.

    -Learn from history, don’t repeat it.

    -and finally, the Provincial government may have forced the CRD to consider privatization (P3s) as an option – but the CRD is under no obligation to go that route.

    Thank you for your consideration of my comments.