Dear Editor,
Rick Bradshaw and Jennifer Quaile have both brought to light serious concerns regarding the management and functioning of the MRC Pontiac Waste Management Committee. Their accounts raise critical questions about the irregularities in how this committee was run, its true purpose, and whether it was ever intended to foster genuine collaboration and problem-solving. What was the goal of the committee if its members were systematically shut down or ignored?

Bradshaw’s experience as a municipal councillor on the committee, as he outlined in his letter, highlights a disturbing reality, (https://theequity.ca/waste-committee-wasted/). The committee, which should have been a democratic space for discussing best practices in waste management, was instead used as a platform to push the warden’s preferred solution: garbage incineration. Councillors like Bradshaw and Quaile sought to discuss more sustainable waste reduction practices at local transfer sites, but their suggestions were disregarded. Bradshaw described how discussions were repeatedly blocked by the chair, an MRC employee with a personal agenda, and overseen by a warden who continued to push incineration despite public protest.

Quaile, a councillor from Otter Lake, shared similar frustrations, (https://theequity.ca/mrc-waste-committee-disbanded-members-say-work-is-not-done/). In her remarks at a public meeting in Ladysmith, she explained how the waste management committee lacked a clear mandate or mission and was essentially used to promote incineration as the only solution to Pontiac’s landfill issues. What Quaile expected to be a forum for discussions on reducing, reusing, recycling, and composting quickly became a one-sided conversation where alternative ideas were sidelined. Like Bradshaw, Quaile also expressed concerns that this committee was never intended to explore diverse waste management options but instead served to promote a narrow agenda.

Both Bradshaw and Quaile emphasized the lack of respect and open dialogue on the committee. When the committee started to develop its own ideas, the warden abruptly shut it down, declaring that its work was complete when it had barely begun. Similarly, Quaile described how, when she raised environmental concerns at public meetings, the warden attempted to silence her, labeling her as an “environmentalist” and dismissing her objections. This type of conduct — where committee members and public voices are interrupted, mocked, or ignored — undermines the very purpose of having a committee in the first place.

What both councillors have exposed is not just a failure of leadership, but a larger issue of control. Rather than encouraging a democratic and inclusive space for diverse opinions, the committee was managed in a way that stifled dissent and pushed through a predetermined agenda. Bradshaw rightly questioned whether the warden’s real issue was losing control of the committee’s direction. Quaile, after conducting extensive research into incineration and discovering significant environmental and economic risks, found herself repeatedly blocked when trying to present her findings to her colleagues and the public. Both councillors paint a picture of a committee that was never about problem-solving, but rather about maintaining a narrative that was increasingly out of step with the reality of waste management best practices.

The bigger question here is: are these committees just for show? Bradshaw and Quaile’s experiences certainly suggest that this particular committee was not designed to serve its intended purpose. If the voices of elected officials are being silenced and if input from experts and community members is ignored, then the committee cannot function effectively. Instead of fostering collaboration, the committee became a space where the warden’s agenda dominated, even when it was met with resistance from both the public and councillors.

So, what can be done to restore trust and transparency? Bradshaw and Quaile both offer solutions. It should be chaired by an impartial individual who is committed to facilitating rather than controlling the conversation. Committees should be given official standing to report directly to the council of mayors, ensuring that its ideas and recommendations are taken seriously. Only by creating an environment where all voices can be heard will the committee be able to fulfill its role in addressing the waste management challenges in the Pontiac.

It takes real integrity and courage for public officials like Rick Bradshaw and Jennifer Quaile to speak out against these irregularities. Their voices are a reminder that democratic processes require transparency, accountability, and respect for differing opinions. The people of the Pontiac deserve better leadership—one that listens, encourages open dialogue, and genuinely seeks the best solutions for the community’s challenges.

The questions become why is such conduct tolerated at the MRC Pontiac?

Amy Taylor, Chapeau
Pat Goyette, Fort Coulonge