Haldimand "No Nuclear Plant slated for Haldimand County"

I had a conversation with MPP Toby Barrett on Monday of this week regarding a Nuclear Power Generating Station in Nanticoke. According to Toby, the New Nuclear Plant is slated for Clarington. I am wondering now where did the information originally come from that there was a possibility of a Nuclear Plant being built in Nanticoke? I certainly believed that this was a possibility, as recently (November 2007) Haldimand County spent $5,000.00 on a report regarding the benefits of a Nuclear Plant in Haldimand County. Well I did a bit of research (took about 10 minutes) and I had all the answers.

The following reports are from the Haldimand County website. One report from September 29th, 2007, and the other from December 17th, 2007. While I was doing some research on the quest that our Council has taken regarding securing a Nuclear Plant in Haldimand County, I came across some information from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Report PED-ED-06-2007 ( a little over midway down the page):

http://www.haldimandcounty.on.ca/includes/list-directory.asp?folder=/Documents/council_cao/Reports%20Considered%20by%20Council/2007/2007-09-24

Report PED-PD-08-2007 is at the following link and is found near the bottom of the page:

http://www.haldimandcounty.on.ca/includes/list-directory.asp?folder=/Documents/council_cao/Reports%20Considered%20by%20Council/2007/2007-12-17

What I found very interesting is that it seems that Haldimand County was "never" an option for a Nuclear Power Generating Station, as I found no information relating to Haldimand County. In fact in September 2006, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) received an application from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for a licence to prepare a site for the future construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the Darlington nuclear site located in the regional municipality of Durham, Ontario. (this information is below as well in the regulatory related information)

The following information comes directly from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It gives the history and related news releases regarding the building of a "NEW" Nuclear Plant in Ontario. This process seems to have started in September 2006.

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/


Information Bulletin

07-10 October 18, 2007

Subject: Public Consultation, Draft Regulatory Document RD-346, Site Evaluation for New Nuclear Power Plants

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has released for public consultation, draft regulatory document RD-346, Site Evaluation for New Nuclear Power Plants.This draft document sets out regulatory expectations for site evaluations of new nuclear power plants. It takes into account all phases of the nuclear power plant’s life cycle, from site preparation to abandonment. Information gathered during the site evaluation process may be used during the environmental assessment process.

RD-346 sets out the technical safety and security criteria against which the CNSC will review the results of site evaluation when it receives an application for a Licence to Prepare a Site for a new nuclear power plant. The document represents the CNSC’s adoption and where applicable, adaptation of the guidance established by the International Atomic Energy Agency in document NS-R-3, Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations and associated guidance documents.

Given the importance and complexity of the subject matter contained in draft RD-346, Site Evaluation for New Nuclear Power Plants, CNSC staff will hold an information session in the upcoming weeks, to help our stakeholders better understand this document. An overview of the document will be presented, along with an explanation of the safety philosophy, fundamentals, and principles underlying its development. A question and answer session will follow, to provide an opportunity to ask questions for clarification. Further details about this information session will be posted on the CNSC’s Web site at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca.

"The consultation period is from October 16, 2007 to January 14, 2008."

Stakeholder comments, including names and affiliations, may be made public.
Draft documents can be consulted online on our Website. Comments can be submitted electronically, to consultation@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca.

To order a printed copy, or to communicate with us in writing, please contact us at the address below.

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Regulatory Framework Division 280 Slater Street, P.O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9

Regulatory-related Information

Update

Darlington Nuclear Generating Station: New Nuclear Power Plant Application

In September 2006, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) received an application from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for a licence to prepare a site for the future construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the Darlington nuclear site located in the regional municipality of Durham, Ontario.

In November 2006, the CNSC conditionally accepted OPG’s application subject to the provision of further information.

CNSC staff has determined that the application is for a project which requires an Environmental Assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (external link) and related regulations before any licence may be granted.

In May 2007, the Project Description was accepted as suitable for the Environmental Assessment determination and for the implementation of Federal Co-Ordination Regulations (external link to legal text).

News Releases

CNSC Announces Early Referral Decision on Environmental Assessment Regarding Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s Proposal to Construct and Operate a Nuclear Power Generating Station at the Darlington Nuclear Site in Ontario

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 8, 2008

Following a Commission meeting held on December 5, 2007 in Ottawa, Ontario, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced today its decision to request that the federal Minister of the Environment refer to a review panel the environmental assessment of the project for new nuclear reactors proposed by Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s (OPG).


The referral is now with the Minister of the Environment for his consideration.

OPG has applied to the CNSC for a licence to prepare a site for the future construction and operation of additional nuclear reactors on the Darlington Nuclear Site within the municipality of Clarington, Ontario. An environmental assessment is required pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act before the Commission may proceed with its consideration of the licence application.

The Commission, in making its decision, considered OPG’s project description. The Commission also considered the views already expressed by public interest groups and in media reports on major nuclear projects, as well as the Commission’s extensive experience with consultation on major nuclear projects. The Commission determined that public concerns warrant that a request be made to the Minister for an early referral to a review panel.

A Record of Proceedings, including Reasons for Decision and transcripts of the hearing are available on the CNSC Web site at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca, or by contacting the CNSC.

The CNSC regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Pascale Bourassa
Commission Secretariat
613-947-0247
1-800-668-5284
interventions@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca

Haldimand "Really People We have Nothing to Hide!"

In accordance with Bill 130-The Municipal Statue Law Amendment Act, Haldimand County recently had to amend some of it's by-laws. These amendments took place in December 2007.

A few of the changes to the Municipal Act 2001 came into effect January 1st 2008. One of these changes was that an individual could formally put in a complaint to the Ombudsman of Ontario regarding "closed sessions" of Council Meetings. The procedure would be that if you felt that your Council was carrying on business of the Municipality behind closed doors and you felt that they were doing this "wrongfully", the Ombudsman would investigate on your behalf.

The procedure for a formal complaint to the Ombudsman of Ontario is directed to the Ombudsman, either through mail, phone call or the Internet. The Ombudsman is an unbiased organization that investigates government bodies. There is no charge for this service to either parties involved. The Ombudsman has nothing to gain by this and in my opinion would work for the best interest of the people.

An option for Municipalities was to have an "independent" investigator. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has trumped up to offer their services under the heading of Local Authority Services Ltd. (LAS), at a cost of $300.00 a year contract fee and a daily fee of $1,250.00 plus tax, and applicable expenses such as Lunch, gas etc., and this is based on an "8" hour day. LAS states that the average investigation should take "2" days.

Through the services of LAS, an individual that had a complaint would have to go to the Haldimand County Clerk's Office. The procedure would be that you go to the Haldimand County Clerk's office fill out a complaint form with background information and the county would forward your documentation to LAS. Once the complaint was put in, LAS would pull from their pool of investigators, these investigators would be individuals that are for an example past CAO's like Bill Pearce. In my opinion this is biased, as the AMO's mandate really is for the protection of the Municipality.

If a Municipality had not contacted the Ombudsman of Ontario by January 1st, 2008, the Ombudsman would automatically assume the investigation process until such a time that the Municipality would contact the Ombudsman and inform them of any changes. So really what I am saying is that there was no "emergency" for Haldimand County Council to make a decision.

Well obviously our "elected officials" here in Haldimand didn't want to waste a minute in making their decision, in fact they signed a "2" year contract! Haldimand County Council in a vote of 7-0 voted to adopt the services of LAS! I don't know about you, but I certainly have a problem with this decision. I wonder do we have that much money floating around? As there is no precedent set here of how many complaints could be presenting themselves, this could cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

There are a lot of residents out there that feel our county is behind closed doors more than they are in the public view. So my question is why on earth did this Council not see the wisdom of going with the Ombudsman? It would have certainly proved to a few of us that Council Members want the "residents" to have faith that our "local" officials take "transparency and accountability" seriously.

In my personal opinion, Council has just "closed the door right on our asses".

The following is some background information about what has been going on in the past few months;

"Ontario cities, including London, are being misled by their own lobby group over its plan to investigate public complaints about closed-door council meetings, Ontario's ombudsman says."


"The AMO clearly has a live business interest in generating revenue from towns and cities, a conflict which is not made apparent," Marin wrote in a terse letter to AMO head Doug Reycraft.

At the heart of Marin's swipe is a requirement for all Ontario municipalities to appoint by Jan. 1 someone to investigate public complaints about closed council meetings. Marin has offered to provide the service for free.

AMO has offered to councils a group of retired municipal administrators, known as Local Authority Services Ltd. It would charge $1,200 a day while probing complaints.

So far, 28 municipalities (there are over 400 municipalities in Ontario) have decided to hire LAS. But Sarnia, led by Mayor Mike Bradley, decided to go with the ombudsman and his free-of-charge service.

While London's board of control is recommending taking the AMO option, one controller says Marin's objections should be a red flag for council.

"I certainly would be listening to his position," Gina Barber said. "The whole proposal from the AMO just creates a situation that's too cosy.

"AMO does some wonderful work for us, but here we're talking not about what's going to be done for us, but what's going to be done for the public."

Back off, says ombudsman Peterborough Examiner Friday, Nov. 30, 2007
By BRENDAN WEDLEY

Ontario's ombudsman says he wants the provincial association of municipalities to back off on its personal, inflammatory, inaccurate and misleading statements about his office.

André Marin made the request last week in an open letter to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that he posted on the ombudsman's office website, http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/

The two are at odds over the provision of investigative services for closed- door meetings held by municipal councils.

As of Jan. 1, people will be able to file complaints, which could lead to an investigation, when they believe a meeting has been wrongly closed to the public.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has created a pool of investigators that municipalities can pay to use, while the ombudsman's office has offered to provide the service for free.

Marin used an example from Peterborough, attaching a copy of an Examiner story to his letter, to illustrate how the municipal association is competing for the work.

"The 'key messages' contained in the AMO's position statement are fraught with personal, inflammatory and - most importantly - inaccurate and misleading statements," Marin states.

"Such inaccuracies do a disservice to citizens who expect and deserve an intelligent, principled debate on the issue of open government at the municipal level."


"Peterborough County, and several of its townships, have gone with an independent investigator who's a former chief administrator of another county."

The association clearly has a business interest in generating revenue, a conflict which is not made apparent in its position statement, Marin states. The association put together the service on a cost recovery basis, said Doug Reycraft, president.

"It's not intended to be a money maker," he said. "It's one option that's out there. Some municipalities may choose it, some may choose to use the ombudsman, others may appoint an individual they believe is qualified to make the investigation."

"All of Ontario's 445 municipalities are currently scrambling to comply with a new requirement under the Municipal Act to appoint someone to look into public complaints by Jan. 1."

"AMO, through its Local Authority Services Limited, has seen a business opportunity and moved to fill it with a team of investigators a sort of retirement home for municipal bureaucrats that it's actively marketing to municipalities."

"The Ombudsman, whose services are free, has proven an effective watchdog that investigates government maladministration with honesty and integrity."

AMO's mandate; (The Association of Municipalities of Ontario)

Mandate

The mandate of the organization is to support and enhance strong and effective municipal government in Ontario. It promotes the value of the municipal level of government as a vital and essential component of Ontario and Canada's political system.



Local Authority Services Ltd. (LAS)

LAS was created in 1992 by AMO to deliver programs and services that help municipalities reduce the cost of "common expenditures and increase revenues."

LAS has established a bulk electricity procurement program for all interested municipalities. This program is expected to realize substantial savings for municipalities for all electricity consumption, including street lighting accounts.

The Natural Gas Program currently purchases more than 10,000GJ of natural gas for over 2,200 physical locations within 175 municipalities and other public sector organizations. In 2006 the program provided members with 14% savings compared to utility gas rates.

The ONE Funds investment program, jointly operated with the CHUMS Financing Corp. offers a diversified way for municipalities to invest short-term and long-term surplus funds. Recently an Equity Fund was launched as a way for municipalities to leverage new investment powers provided by the Province.

Haldimand "Local Councillor Charged"

lThe following was taken from Haldimand "Vote Deferred Again", that I posted back in August of 2007. I can't believe that this actually took almost "5 months". What the hell is wrong with our system. If that had been you or I, we would have been charged on the spot. I can only hope that the "Crown" and the "Court" do the right thing. It is called "Justice".

We stayed in the council chambers for about 10 minutes talking, we then proceeded outside, to discuss what we were going to do next. Once outside we noticed Councillor Sloat just outside the side door on his cell phone. Merlyn Kinrade and Jeff Parkinson left the group to go and speak with councillor Sloat. We all stood there watching, I was little concerned about the body language of Councillor Sloat, and then all of a sudden Jeff starting walking towards us and Merlyn and Councillor Sloat went inside the building.

This is what happened, (Jeff Parkinson quote’s) "Buck Sloat suddenly grabbed my shoulder with one hand and ripped my digital recorder aggressively out of my pocket with the other proceeding to drop it on the concrete below".

I would like to at this time send a my personal apology to Jeff on behalf of the residents of Haldimand County. Councillor Sloat was out of line when he assaulted Jeff, and I would hope that Councillor Sloat publicly gives Jeff an apology on Monday August 13th, 2007. If he refuses, I would then expect that Mayor Trainer will need to send her apology on behalf of herself and Council!

This incident is currently being investigated by the O.P.P., I will update you when I know the outcome.

If Councillor Sloat is charged with assault, and found guilty, he will be forced to leave his post as a Municipal Councillor, and will be unable to run for council for "6" years!

The following is a post from Jeff's site today. This will update you on what has transpired since August of 2007! Kudo's to Jeff for his tenacity, not many would have gone through what Jeff has the last five months!

Haldimand Councillor Charged with Assault
by Jeff Parkinson;

After much effort by myself and Merlyn Kinrade, a Justice of the Peace has signed a criminal charge of assault against Haldimand council member Buck Sloat, and he will have to appear at the Cayuga court house on February 6, 2008 at 9am to answer to the charge.

The foundation of the law and order that we are fighting to see upheld clearly states that Mr. Sloat is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, so please consider all statements below to be alleged until such time as they are proven.

The circumstances are somewhat unique as the OPP refused to lay this charge and I had to go to court personally to get it done.

On August 7, 2007 I attended a council meeting at the municipal building in Cayuga to hear the outcome of a resolution by Council to monitor the correspondence of Mayor Marie Trainer. During the lunch break, Merlyn Kinrade and I noticed Mr. Sloat standing on the back steps of the building and decided to go talk to him to see if he could tell us anything about the resolution before council.

A short time into a conversation between me, Mr. Sloat, and Mr. Kinrade, Mr. Sloat became upset, grabbed me by the shoulder, pulled the digital recorder from my pocket where it had been clearly visible the entire time, and dropped it to the concrete below.

After lunch Mr. Kinrade and I attended the OPP station in Cayuga to file a complaint of assault. Constable Andrusyk agreed to take our statements after spending considerable time trying to council me not to proceed with a criminal complaint and assured me that the matter would be investigated thoroughly. He suggested that I would hear from him within a week with the outcome.

Two weeks later I phoned the OPP station as I had not heard anything and I was told that Constable Andrusyk was on duty and would be paged to call me. He called me late the following afternoon and informed me "Basically we’ve reviewed the statements and everything, we’ve spoken with Mr. Sloat and at this time there is not enough grounds to lay any charges".

Around this time I learned that a person can see a Justice of the Peace at the Courthouse and do what is called swearing a private information which is basically filing a charge for such things as assault or theft as a private citizen.

I attended court several times as there were various delays not the least of which was my inability to attend due to a head injury suffered in December, and today myself and Mr. Kinrade told a Justice of the Peace what happened at which time he issued process for the charge which means Mr. Sloat has now been charged by the court with assault, and will receive a summons to appear at a later date.

The entire procedure was handled with the utmost professionalism by the Court system and both a crown and Justice of the Peace were brought in from another jurisdiction to hear the complaint to ensure total impartiality for both Mr. Sloat and myself.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Court as the Justice informed me that the Crown may at their discretion simply dismiss the charge at a later date, and the Crown who attended these hearings was opposed to it as she stated "it’s not enough of an assault for the crown to be interested in pursuing", but after reading from the Criminal Code of Canada, the Justice clearly stated that this falls under the definition of assault and issued the charge.

I asked the crown if I could speak with her after the hearing to enquire about her opposition and her answer was simply "No".

Regardless of the outcome of this charge, it’s nice to know as a Canadian that when the Police fail us, we do have other options at our disposal to pursue justice.

Jeff Parkinson
Caledonia Wakeup Call
Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality
Jeff@CaledoniaWakeupCall.com
http://caledoniawakeupcall.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/haldimand-councilor-charged-with-assault/

Haldimand "The Law is the Law?"

THE LAW IS THE LAW?

I hope this makes its way around CANADA several times over!!!

So if the CANADIAN government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.

And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.

And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which they deem their authority, then so be it.

I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding Canadian citizen.

I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.

I would like to think that those people have the Canadian Public's best interests at heart.

BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?

Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas.... celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of Canadian life.

I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, and Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.

I'd like our Government to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it's just another day.

I'd like ALL Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all ~~~it's just another day.

I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."

In fact....

I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day....

What do you all think????

Haldimand "An Update on the Petition for a Forensic Audit"

I have been asked by a few people where I have been, and why I have not posted any blogs lately. As I am sure that most will understand that for me family always comes first. It has certainly been a challenging year for myself and my family, but I am still here. Some will not be so happy that I haven't just disappeared, but at the same time, I am sure that some of you will be happy to know that I am still involved in local issues. So here it goes, just catching you up on one issue that is still ongoing.

I will be meeting with MPP Toby Barrett in the New Year regarding the petition that circulated for about a month or so in the late fall asking Municipal Affairs to undertake a "Forensic Audit" on the affairs of Haldimand County.

Toby Barrett will be presenting the petitions to the Legislature on our behalf in February 2008.

Thanks to you, I will be presenting Toby with approx. 1,000 signatures from residents of Haldimand County, that signed this petition in such a short period of time!

I will keep you updated.

Haldimand "An update from Toby"

The following are some updates from MPP Toby Barrett. Some are from a few weeks ago. I believe that Toby will be back in the Legislature in February. I will keep you up to date. In the meantime if you have not signed the petition, please contact myself or Toby's office directly.

Hi, Toby here,

Please find attached, and below, my column to be published in this week's local papers (submitted Friday November 30th) calling for public hearings on land disputes to provide for a more open and scrutinized structure of communication for all sides.

Please also note that, further to this weekend's confrontations, the Queens Park media studo has been booked by "Concerned Citizens of Caledonia" (Merlyn Kinrade) to discuss illegal tobacco and its impacts on area communities already being detrimentally affected by ongoing land disputes. This media conference will be held Tuesday December 4th at 12-noon at the Ontario Legislature.

P.S. With regard to my column, petitions calling for public hearings can be obtained through contacting my office at 519-428-0446 or 1-800-903-8629

It’s time for public hearings on land disputes

"Give us a deep and thorough understanding of the needs of the people we serve."

- the Speaker’s Prayer

We have an opportunity to get to the bottom of land disputes in our area – disputes that have been ongoing 22 months, going on 220 years.

This past Thursday marked the commencement of the 39th Parliament of Ontario with the Lord’s Prayer, the Speaker’s Prayer and Her Majesty’s Speech from the Throne. The first session of the Legislative Assembly – held at Newark in what was then Upper Canada - commenced September 17, 1792.

Since the 1700’s, millions of words have been written about disputes among the English, French and Indians in our part of North America. As our new Ontario parliament moves forward it is incumbent on decision-makers to separate fact from fiction – to start making decisions to resolve area land disputes based on understanding of accurate, comprehensive evidence.

Evidence can be found in the plethora of legal papers, government reports, depositions, theses, council reports, tribal records, court rulings, newspapers and other documents that have been archived over the years.

The facts speak for themselves.

But, we all have a responsibility. We – on all sides of the issue – cannot stick our heads in the sand and let someone else deal with it. We cannot shirk our responsibilities as citizens. We have a mutual investment and must continue to remain engaged; to assemble; to speak up and to demand resolution.

I remain hopeful that the visit of the new Aboriginal Affairs Minister to Caledonia this past week represents a turning away from the secrecy, lack of transparency, and total disregard for public input that has become a hallmark of this 22 month land dispute. These months represent a ‘black hole’ with respect to government communication on land disputes. I take Minister Bryant at his word when he indicates that he, 'wants to hear from local people', and that, 'we need local homegrown solutions’.

Given the Minister's reported, "interest in listening to people", I am calling for real input and communication through recorded, public meetings open to the media. Our taxpayer dollars fund Ontario Legislature activities for just such a purpose – to understand the needs of the people we serve as articulated in the Prayer of the Speaker of the Legislature. To that end, I have drawn up a petition calling for parliamentarians to hold a round of recorded hearings whereby deputations - both spoken and written - would be made to a standing or select committee of the Ontario Parliament.

I don’t mean to raise unrealistic expectations, but theoretically there is no excuse for leaders in our society to not marshal the significant resources at their disposal to explore the truth.

The Ontario Legislature is there to work for us, not the other way around. We all pay taxes to support these various entities. We do not hire people or elect people to see them play their cards close to their vest or to spend years equivocating until they can eventually pass the problem on to the next generation.

We have a wealth of knowledge and wisdom in this area - knowledge that the Ontario Parliament has yet to tap. That's why I'm calling on all those affected to sign my petition calling for public hearings.

Hi Toby here,

Please find attached 2 news releases and the Hansard transcript reflecting,

1. Questions I asked in the Legislature yesterday regarding who's in charge with respect to the OPP; and

2. Petitions I tabled at the Ontario Legislature calling for public hearings on land disputes.

According to Ontario Legislative rules, within 24 sitting days of the day on which the presentation of the petition, the government is required to file a response to the petition with the Clerk of the House and to provide a copy of the response to the M.P.P. who presented the petition. I will keep you posted.

In the meantime, keep those petitions coming. Together, we have an opportunity to help reverse the secrecy, lack of transparency, and total disregard for public input that has become a hallmark of this 22 month land dispute.

Petitions are available through my office. Please contact 519-428-0446 or 1-800-903-8629 - or send me an e-mail - for more information.

For immediate release: December 4, 2007

Barrett asks who’s in charge at Caledonia??

Still no answers from a government that holds itself unaccountable

Queen’s Park—MPP Toby Barrett echoed the questions of Caledonia area residents today by the Ontario Legislature in asking the McGuinty Government "Who is in charge" regarding the Caledonia land dispute.

"There have been confrontations in Caledonia resulted in people being knocked unconscious and sent to the hospital," Barrett asserted. "I receive countless phone calls and e-mails asking me one specific question: Who’s in charge??? Who is in charge of the OPP???"

The Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services (formerly known as the Solicitor General), Rick Bartolucci, failed to directly answer the question, instead choosing to state that he is "very, very pleased with the way the OPP has acted." Barrett went on to again highlight the Minister’s responsibility according the Police Services Act.

"In Section 17(2), the Ontario Police Services Act states that the OPP is subject to the Solicitor General’s direction," cited Barrett. "Minister, do you agree – or perhaps you do not agree with the police act, that you have ministerial responsibility for setting direction for the OPP? Are you the one - or are you not the one my constituents can go to with respect to democratic responsibility concerning OPP services in Caledonia?"

Once again the Minister attempted to dodge the question, this time suggesting that if Barrett is suggesting government interfere then he is "dead wrong".

Following Question Period, Barrett noted that given the stakes and the growing injury count, it is high time for the McGuinty government to be held to account on Caledonia.

For more information, please contact MPP Toby Barrett at: (519) 428-0446 or 1-800-903-8629

For immediate release: December 4, 2007

Barrett demands public hearings on land disputes

Haldimand-Norfolk MPP presents petitions at Queen’s Park
Queen’s Park—MPP Toby Barrett delivered petitions on behalf of residents from Canfield, Dunnville, Hagersville, and Caledonia, calling for public hearings on land disputes.

Barrett was the first to rise in the Legislature to read in his petition that has garnered hundreds of signatures from local residents in less than a week.

"Whereas, land dispute deliberations to date, have operated under a veil of secrecy, without transparency, and have created an atmosphere of privacy and scepticism, shutting out people from information and decisions that impact them directly," Barrett began. "and Whereas, Ontario’s Aboriginal Affairs Minister has indicated, in both the media and during his visit to Caledonia, his intention to garner local public input; and Whereas, our Ontario Legislative Assembly provides a mechanism for open, accountable, transparent recorded discussion through all-party committee hearings that are open to the media," "We the undersigned petition our provincially-elected legislators, representing all political parties, to commence public hearings through a select or standing committee, as soon as possible," concluded Barrett.

The Haldimand-Norfolk MPP is continuing to press government for Public hearings as one step toward providing more open and scrutinized communication for all sides, accessing both the wealth of knowledge - and experience - of area residents, and that of historical accounts that have documented land disputes throughout Ontario.

Barrett is asking all those interested to contact his office to obtain a copy of his petition and add their names to the growing list of concerned citizens demanding public hearings on land disputes.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 December 2007

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services: Minister, over the past few months, confrontations in Caledonia have resulted in people being knocked unconscious and sent to the hospital. As a result of this violence and as a representative for Caledonia, I have received countless phone calls and e-mails. People are asking me one specific question. They are asking, "Who’s in charge? Who’s in charge of the OPP?"

Minister, can you assure the people in my riding that you are accountable, that you are the one who sets the policy and you are the one who sets the direction for our OPP?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, congratulations on your appointment. Certainly the role of the OPP is to ensure that the community and its residents are safe, and I have to tell you and the people of Ontario that I am very, very pleased with the way the OPP has acted throughout this entire incident. I believe that we should be very proud of the very excellent and professional nature of engagement with the community that has taken place over the course of the last little while.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Minister, I’ll go back to my question. Subsection 17[2] of the Ontario Police Services Act states that the OPP is subject to the Solicitor General’s direction. That’s you. Going back to my question, Minister, do you agree—perhaps you do not agree with the police act—that you have ministerial responsibility for setting direction for the OPP? Are you the one, or are you not the one? Are you the one my constituents can go to with respect to some of the concerns with the OPP with respect to democratic responsibility concerning OPP services in Caledonia? Are you the guy?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: If the member is suggesting that the solicitor general or any other minister or member should interfere with the operation of the OPP, he’s wrong. He’s dead wrong.

What I would suggest to this member, and to everyone in the province of Ontario, is that we understand, when tensions are high, that we do everything in our power to ensure that those tensions aren’t escalated, that we have confidence in the Ontario Provincial Police and the very professional way they carry out their mandate.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 December 2007

PETITIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett: This petition is titled "We Request Land Dispute Hearings" and is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas land dispute deliberations to date have operated under a veil of secrecy, without transparency, and have created a atmosphere of privacy and scepticism, shutting out people from information and decisions that impact them directly; and

"Whereas Ontario’s aboriginal affairs minister has indicated, in both the media and during his visit to Caledonia, his intention to garner local public input; and

"Whereas our Ontario Legislative Assembly provides a mechanism for open, accountable, transparent recorded discussion through all-party committee hearings that are open to the media;

"We, the undersigned, petition our provincially elected legislators, representing all political parties, to commence public hearings through a select or standing committee, as soon as possible."

These petitions are signed by people from Canfield, Dunnville, Hagersville and, of course, Caledonia.

Toby here,

Last week I got the opportunity to introduce a resolution in the Ontario Legislature asking the government to hold public hearings regarding land disputes across the province. Please see the attached news release.

Since I sent out this news release, this issue has received coverage from Canadian Press, CBC morning radio, CH Talk Back Live, Hamilton Spectator and various other media.
Opportunities remain for folks to affix their name to the petition I crafted regarding land dispute hearings.

If I don’t have the chance to talk to you before the holidays begin, I sincerely wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a well-deserved rest.

December 17, 2007

Barrett tables resolution for land dispute public hearings

Dunnville— Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett stepped up the fight for government-led public hearings regarding land disputes in Ontario.

On Wednesday, Barrett upped the ante by tabling a private members’ resolution to schedule hearings for consideration and debate:

"That, in the opinion of this House, the following Order of Reference should be assigned to an all-Party committee of the Legislative Assembly:

To inquire into and report on native land issues within the Province of Ontario.

The Committee shall:-

1. Conduct public hearings on this issue at Queen’s Park and in at least 7 other Ontario communities, including one community in Haldimand County;

2. Solicit input from Ontario citizens on their knowledge, experience and action proposals with respect to native land issues;

3. Present its report to the House, containing its observations, opinions and recommendations no later than the end of 2008."

The resolution has been printed in the Ontario Legislature "Orders and Notices Paper" from which it will be scheduled for debate.

Meantime, Barrett has stood twice to petition the Legislature for a round of recorded hearings whereby deputations - both spoken and written - could be made to a standing or select committee of the Ontario Parliament.

Over the last two weeks, Barrett has received and tabled petitions at Queens Park with names from the following towns: Lowbanks, Ayr, Cayuga, Nanticoke, Caledonia, Canfield, Dunnville, and Hagersville.

"We, the undersigned, petition our provincially elected legislators, representing all political parties, to commence public hearings through a select or standing committee, as soon as possible," Barrett concluded.
-
For more information, please contact MPP Toby Barrett at: (519) 428-0446 or 1-800-903-8629

Thanks Toby for all your efforts. Donna

Haldimand "Merry Christmas"

What a year it has been!

Thanks to everyone that has commented on my blog, without you, we would all be "Unheard Voices". Together we have made a difference!

I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Recipe for Christmas All Year Long

Take a heap of child-like wonder
That opens up our eyes
To the unexpected gifts in life—
Each day a sweet surprise.

Mix in fond appreciation
For the people whom we know;
Like festive Christmas candles,
Each one has a special glow.

Add some giggles and some laughter,
A dash of Christmas food,
(Amazing how a piece of pie
Improves our attitude!)

Stir it all with human kindness;
Wrap it up in love and peace,
Decorate with optimism, and
Our joy will never cease.

If we use this healthy recipe,
We know we will remember
To be in the Christmas spirit,
Even when it's not December.

Poem By Joanna Fuchs