The burning question

Dear Editor,

Ms. Toller’s letter in last week’s Equity (Landfill for household waste? THE EQUITY Oct. 11, 2023) clearly stated once again her view of the Energy from Waste project. She feels that burning garbage is a better alternative to burying it in the ground. And in addition, this super incinerator would be a boost for our local economy. She also believes that local residents gave clear indication some time ago of their support for that view when the huge landfill project at Hilton Mines was widely opposed and finally abandoned. Support for burning versus burying? Hardly.

As a long-time Bristol resident, I must reject that conclusion. What we in Bristol were concerned about was the possibility of environmental damage, should the leakage from the site reach the Ottawa River, as well as adding a lot of truck traffic to our roads, with accompanying noise and air pollution. We are a small rural community and we like the peace and quiet that it affords. Might these two concerns not also apply to a large incinerator, supplied by trucking garbage from hither and yon?

Perhaps the people of our MRC actually are willing to take the risk, spend the money to build it, and hope that it will aid in economic development here. I suppose we do need that. But to consider the project already approved because the mayors of our 18 local municipalities have assented does not meet my definition of democracy. Was public opinion actually considered in any of our municipalities? Were the pros and cons discussed openly?

This is a huge and costly venture. If the people were given the opportunity to either agree or disagree and the consultation was then used in making a final decision, they could then be expected to bear part of the responsibility for the final outcome. The Americans hold referendums on this sort of thing. Maybe they’re right.

William Smith, Bristol

Incinerate or not

Dear Editor:

It seems that the future of the Pontiac and its inhabitants are facing two dilemmas – controlling and reducing waste that is currently being shipped to Lachute and the bleed of workers leaving the Pontiac to seek employment.

I do not adhere to any social media platform, but do depend on our local newspapers for information about my community and surrounding municipalities. I try to keep an open mind about any controversial subjects, as from experience, there are always two sides to every story. This might, however, be the time for a little reality check.

Ms. Toller is correct in her views that the Pontiac needs to be revitalized and that new industry has to be introduced to accomplish that. She is also correct that we need to be fully-informed about costs and revenues regarding this EFW incinerator. We are being assured that the business plan, upon completion, will answer these questions.

The front-page headline of July 19 stated that our Otter Lake council had unanimously voted against the Pontiac incinerator project. Each member voiced their reasons and concerns, all of which were pertinent and valid. As our mayor, Mr. Lafleur, stated, “They did their homework.” Their comments should be a source of consideration and questions for all municipalities. I thank each of those councillors for their diligence and the exemplary job they have done.

The environmental concerns and impacts are particularly worrisome, especially for the municipality where this facility will be constructed. The emissions are “supposed” to be 99.9 per cent pure – this is not only highly unlikely but remains to be verified. Apparently, we will end up having two-and-a-half times more waste than what we currently produce now – and this is an improvement? What are the plans for this residual waste – ship it out and to where, or store it on site – near a waterway – really? An Otter Lake councillor claims there are alternate ways to divert waste; why not listen to this approach.

Ms. Toller has stated that environmental concerns will be heard and addressed. Will this mean we are headed to BAPE (Bureau d’Audiences Publiques sur l’Environnement) hearings? Earlier, this millennium, a mega dump project was purposed for the Alleyn and Cawood municipality. It also would have been located on land near a waterway. Many residents, landowners and concerned citizens fought hard, prepared briefs to the Commission and succeeded in shelving the project as the Commission concluded that “It was not desirable to authorize the project.” Please refer to the complete report handed down Sept 27, 2007, to check for parallel comparisons.

The business plan has been awarded to Deliotte and it comes with a price tag of $100,000, but there is some speculation that the price could go as high as twice that amount. If it reaches any amount over and above $121,000 which seems to be the criteria for awarding a contract without going through the regular tender process – what budget will it come out of and how do you justify any amount over and above the $121,000 to Municipal Affairs Quebec?

From what I can understand, in 2020 an amount of $50,000 was set aside for research and feasibility of this project – somewhere in the course of events, $30,000 had to be reallocated into other parts of the budget. On the other hand, the expenses for the mayors and warden to visit and gather information on the Durham-York facility in the amount of $4,000 doesn’t seem to have come from the remaining $20,000 either(?) Our parents would probably say “Aren’t we robbing Peter to pay Paul?” At the end of the day, I suppose this is peanuts compared to the half-billion-dollar price tag of this incinerator and the accounting nightmare that comes with it.

Please don’t be overwhelmed or too optimistic with the prospect of 800 jobs to build this facility or the 50 permanent jobs once it is in operation. How many businesses in the Pontiac are currently in search of employees, right now? Does that mean that the majority of these jobs will be awarded to workers coming from all areas of Quebec and beyond. This job site will require skilled, licensed, card-carrying trades people. Will these workers settle in the Pontiac – not likely – they will live in larger centers and travel to work? As for the 50 permanent jobs – if there are 18 mayors/municipalities represented at the MRC table – in a best-case scenario, that means two to three jobs per municipality. But of those jobs, how many will require engineering degrees or technical training? As for the trucking industry, realistically the partner centres shipping to this facility will be contracting to their own local transport companies.

This proposed incinerator is supposed to generate energy in the form of electricity from the process of incinerating garbage. In that we are situated in close proximity of a hydro-electric dam at Bryson (Hydro-Quebec) and another at Chenaux (Ontario Hydro). Has either one shown any interest in including the power produced to be integrated into their grids?

As far as potential investors – beware of those bearing gifts – are these investors Canadian (who can be held legally liable and accountable) or will they be more concerned over the health and wealth of their shareholder’s wallets than the health and wealth of the local residents?

I fail to understand how in the same breath we can tout all the health-filled benefits of having a public swimming pool as positive amenity and leave other residents to take the possible health risks of an incinerator. Amenities versus necessities of supporting, maintaining and improving on our health care system, education system, daycare facilities and road infrastructure for our existing population, leaves one to wonder if a serious re-alignment of our priorities is in order? We are already a forgotten area of Quebec. Do we honestly want to “noticed”/”to be put on the map” as the dumping grounds for everybody else’s problems?

A visitor to our village made the comment of how impressed he was with “God’s country”. As idyllic as that sounds, as caretakers do we not all have a moral responsibility for looking after our earth for the generations that follow. So far, on the whole, our track record isn’t outstanding.

There has to be a more viable and acceptable solution to both dilemmas. I believe that information sessions and a referendum are in order. At this point, unless I hear something more positive about this proposal, my vote would be a resounding NO! Should anyone out there have a realistic and sound take on this project, please share. I will listen. Thank you.

Glenda Beauregard

Otter Lake, Qc

Response to Wills’ “Clarification”

Mr. Wills,

Your recent questions about the incinerator and landfill issue have given me pause. As a councillor in the municipality of Thorne, I find it rather surprising that you would raise such queries.

One would assume that, before casting your vote in support of the EFW project, you conducted thorough research into the pros and cons of such a venture, as well as explored all available alternatives for managing waste in the Pontiac. Did you do so?

I’m aware that, in my municipality, only one councilor had undertaken some research on waste management, possibly due to their involvement with the waste committee. I assume that the majority of councilors in Pontiac may not have delved into the issue in great detail. Please understand that I am not singling you out.

In light of your recent article and previous writings, which I have enjoyed, it appears that your responsibilities as a councilor have been somewhat neglected. Your role in the council involves proposing, reviewing, and voting on policies that impact our municipality and its residents. It seems that this essential duty has been overlooked, especially when you inquire about a third option. Have you, and the other councilors, diligently carried out your research before voting? Such thorough research is an integral part of making well-informed and prudent decisions in various scenarios. These questions should have been asked at the outset of the EFW project, not after decisions were already made.

If incineration is indeed the most viable solution for the waste issue in the Pontiac, why is the City of Ottawa still exploring alternative options? Why have the majority of municipalities in the Ottawa Valley on the Ontario side been reviewing technologies other than incineration? Why is it that none of the waste management plans I’ve perused, whether from the MRC Pontiac, other MRCs, the City of Ottawa, or most municipalities in Ontario, make no mention of the EFW project? These are all questions that should have been raised at the project’s inception.

As an elected representative, it is your duty to consider the needs and opinions of our community and advocate for their best interests within the council. This entails thoroughly investigating all possible solutions. Voting on a motion without ensuring social acceptability among your constituents and relying solely on a biased presentation from the project’s promoter seems contrary to the oath of office that all elected officials swear to uphold.

Let’s work together to ensure the best outcome for our community and make informed, responsible decisions.

Amy Taylor, Chapeau

Pat Goyette, Fort Coulonge

FilloGreen kerfuffle

Dear Editor,

The warden of the MRC Pontiac and various local mayors and councils appear not to read LeDroit which published an article about Centre FilloGreen back in August, when they voted to support CF’s request to provide a landfill for domestic garbage.

The following extract was Google-translated:

“While operating under the name Pontiac Sorting Centre, Centre FilloGreen was found guilty in 2018 of four offences committed in the past. The company had notably contravened its government authorization by not respecting the storage areas for certain materials in 2013, we can read in a press release at the time from the Ministry of the Environment and the Fight against climate change.

In 2015, while it owned a site where residual materials were stored and rejected, the company had not taken the necessary measures to ensure that the waste was stored, treated and disposed of in an authorized location. The ministry fined it more than $40,000 for these violations. An order was also issued in 2019 by Minister Benoît Charette to the Pontiac Sorting Centre so that it stops depositing and burying residual materials “in an unauthorized place and that it proceeds with restoring the site.”

You can view the Le Droit article Des Municipalités veulent un site d’enfouissement à Litchfield here https://tinyurl.com/yvrpa2tx

Mo Laidlaw, Breckenridge