Talking about residual waste management and our part to play

Dear Editor,

I attended the public elaboration of the plan for the waste management of the MRC for 2023 – 2029 on Jan. 10. It was an audio visual power point presentation by environmental coordinators Thierry Raimbault speaking in French and Kari Richardson translating to English.

It was attended by four citizens, each representing several other groups. Three from PEP, one from THE EQUITY, one from The Pontiac Journal and one councillor from Mansfield.

There were lots of facts and figures represented on charts that referred to data from as far back as 2012. These comparisons served to indicate progress or lack of with respect to recycling habits. It underlined efforts needed to improve the collection of recyclables by creating centres to liaise with appropriate government agencies for these materials. There were lists of companies engaged in various activities and their capabilities. Goals for the future were to improve the public awareness about what is recyclable, including developing clear guidelines for where to take non-recyclables and penalties for illegal dumping.

Composting plans were elaborated on, with little allowance for municipalities receiving funding for home composting under the existing formula. Even though the government goal is to keep the process as simple and close to home as possible, their definition of “rural” for subsidized home composting leaves most of the MRC communities out of the category. There are other funding sources and some communities have taken this option, combining their efforts with nearby communities for mutual benefit. For example, septic processing in Kazabazua is much more environmentally safe than the existing one at Litchfield.

One interesting purpose for all these charts is that the recycQuebec uses a rate called Performance Évaluation or PE to assess each municipalities yearly garbage habits. The more recycling the better the rate and the greater the reimbursement for garbage disposal costs. This is where we can each participate in lowering our taxes.

Solutions discussed for larger scale garbage reduction included Incinerators and Aerated Static Piles. There are nearby examples of these, the first is Toronto and the second is Pembroke. We can all make an informed choice when the door is left open for everyone to decide.

Cathy Fox

Bryson, Que.

Freedom of speech

Dear Editor,

Here’s how I view freedom of speech as it exists in Pontiac County. We each have a right to say whatever we want, the responsibility to say only what we really believe to be true is a personal matter.

We don’t have an inherent right to be heard or published. It’s a privilege to hitch hike on someone else’s medium and the two newspapers, plus CHIP Radio, are enterprises which have their own reasons for including or not including correspondence.

The newspapers do not print every letter I send, and I, in turn, sometimes don’t get around to writing and sending. I feel very free to express my opinion within this framework. Should I require more freedom of speech, I can always start my own newspaper or radio station and then have to make a deal with those who fund the operation. These same principles apply to electronic media, even though you don’t know who owns and operates the platforms upon which you post.

I feel there’s a tendency to get distracted about freedom of speech, while neglecting the process of persuading fellow citizens of your point of view. Say something, if it makes sense, I’m bound to change my mind, at least a little bit.

Robert Wills

Shawville and Thorne, Que.

Does the one who wields the gavel hold all the power?

Dear Editor,

This is in response to, “Last meeting of 2022” (Jan. 4, 2023 THE EQUITY). We want to clarify our side of the story as we were not interviewed for the article.

What was so detrimental that rather than meet with us, the MRC Council thought it wise to use taxpayer money to pay a lawyer $1,000 to serve us a formal notice? What were they hoping to achieve? Silence public opinion?

After years of being left out of meaningful conversation through council forums and generally frustrated by indignation, we decided to form Pontiac Independent. Our own citizen’s association inclusive of all opinions, to share information, promote open dialogue and foster positive ideas for the region.

While exercising the rights afforded to us by law, we shared public information and statistics on social media which were either previously released by government entities, found in local media or obtained by email through the Freedom of Information Act. We asked questions, we voiced our concerns, and we shared our experiences.

Why, for example, in only three years has the MRC budget increased by $2.3 million, while losing 283 local jobs and offering no additional services? Considering the 2023 budget is $9.5 million, shouldn’t citizens be allowed to ask where the money is spent?

When transparentness is repeatedly questioned by not only us, but by other citizens, local media and municipalities, could the MRC’s obscurity be part of the problem and not the people asking for transparency or information?

How does one “injure” or “attack the integrity, transparency and competence of the MRC Pontiac, its warden, mayors and employees” if the information shared was already made public by law and government sources in the first place?

In the few minutes permitted during the December council meeting, we asked them to explain why they chose to intimidate us with legal threats. We left because we felt ridiculed and were subjected to allegations we were not permitted to respond to.

Accusations we have “harassed and bullied” members to cause harm, such as “calling people liars, insulting members and filling the screen with accusations during council meetings, of never being satisfied with answers and twisting information to make criticisms, because our group wants the Pontiac to fail” are simply not true and are not found on Pontiac Independent.

While suggesting we participate in committees, our experience has shown when you don’t tow the line, the committee is simply shut down and resumed without the dissenting voice. When offers to make presentations to council are not honoured and participation has already been tried, why further waste everyone’s time?

If the letter had its “desired effect,” as stated in the article, why continue to make allegations? Where does the MRC see a connection in Pontiac Independent with defamation and online harassment across Canada? How does the council expect “more involvement” if they scare off people who are trying to get involved?

Why should citizens be held liable when members’ actions, or inactions, are exposed, or bullied simply for having an opinion contrary to council? Would the taxpayers consider this “money well spent?”

Considering this situation has caused us and our families undue stress, sleepless nights and exacerbated medical conditions, who are the real victims of defamation and harassment?

Amy Taylor

Pat Goyette

Pontiac Independent