|
January
14, 2000
THREAT TO BUILD EXPRESSWAY WITHOUT FEDERAL PERMITS REBUFFED
Environment
Minister says he won't allow it
Yesterday
in Burlington, the federal Minister of the Environment,
the Honourable David Anderson, warned Hamilton-Wentworth
not to proceed with the Red Hill Creek Expressway before
the completion of the federal environmental assessment Panel
Review of the project (Hamilton Spectator, January
14, A2).
Hamilton-Wentworth's
regional council has asked for a report from its lawyer
on how it could start construction on the expressway prior
to receiving a permit under the federal Fisheries Act. When
confronted with this threat, Minister Anderson is reported
to have stated: "We're way beyond the point in Canada where
you could ignore the permitting process". He declared that
the federal government did "not intend to sit back" and
allow the road construction to begin.
Earlier this week the Regional Council ignored a January
12 deadline to provide a schedule of when the Region will
supply necessary information to the federal Review Panel.
The Region has made an application to the Federal Court
of Canada arguing that the expressway doesn't need federal
permits and shouldn't be subjected to an assessment. They
are also saying that the assessment process should be stopped
until the court challenge is completed. However, the Region
apparently sees no contradiction in suggesting that construction
of the project should proceed before the court challenge
is completed.
Friends of Red Hill Valley has been unsuccessfully
attempting to address the Region's Transportation Services
Committee about the threat to start construction. Four separate
requests have gone unanswered. On Monday of this week, the
Committee refused to make a decision on the most recent
request. Subsequently, Dr. Joe Minor, the Chair of Friends
of Red Hill sent the attached letter to the Committee.
A copy has also been forwarded to the Ontario Minister of
Municipal Affairs, Mr. Tony Clement (also attached). Dr.
Minor asked Minister Clement to look into the refusal of
the Committee to hear him.
Letter
sent to Committee and Council
January 12, 2000
To: The Regional Chairman and All Members of Regional Council
c/o the Regional Clerk
Despite two letters to Regional Council (Dec.17, 1999 and
Jan.7, 2000) and three phone conversations with the Chairman
of the Transportation Services Committee Robert Wade (on
Jan.7, 2000), Friends of Red Hill Valley has once
again been denied the right to speak to a committee of Regional
Council. This is the fourth time (in four tries) that this
has occurred, maintaining Council's "perfect" record of
refusing to permit Friends of Red Hill Valley to
address it. Despite assurances to the contrary from the
Committee Chair, on Jan.10, 2000 the Transportation Services
Committee failed to follow its "normal operating procedure"
(see Appendix) and neglected to consider and then issue
a decision to our requests to appear before the Committee.
Consequently,
with some consternation, we are repeating the request.
Friends of Red Hill Valley is concerned about the
plans of regional government to begin construction in the
Red Hill Valley. We again request that we be permitted to
address the Transportation Services Committee regarding
this matter. As noted in our previous requests on Dec.17
and Jan.7, we expect to be accompanied by our legal counsel.
Specifically,
we wish to comment on a report ordered by the Committee
and now predicted to be completed prior to the Feb.28 meeting
of the Committee. That report was ordered by the Committee
on Nov.29 and is referred in the Committee's report 9-99
made to Regional Council on Dec.7, where it is referred
to as follows:
"Staff
was instructed to bring a report back to the Committee detailing
the strategy to be used to begin construction of the north-south
extension of the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway." Friends
of Red Hill Valley believes contemplating the breaking
of Canadian law is a very serious matter. We think it is
reasonable to request the following of Regional Government:
1) that this report be made available to the public (including
Friends of Red Hill Valley) well in advance of any
committee or council debate on its contents; 2) that Friends
of Red Hill Valley be allowed to make a presentation
to the Transportation Services Committee in advance of any
debate, motion, or other actions regarding the contents
of the report (or for that matter in advance of any debate,
motions, or other actions regarding construction activities
in the valley in general); 3) that Friends of Red Hill
Valley be allowed to choose who will represent us in
the presentation; and 4) that the Transportation Services
Committee set a date and time for the presentation to take
place, and inform Friends of Red Hill Valley well
in advance of that date.
Based
on the past behaviour of the Transportation Services Committee
and on information provided to Friends of Red Hill Valley
by the secretary of the committee (Ms. Carolyn Biggs) and
the committee chairman (Mayor Robert Wade), Friends of Red
Hill Valley specifically requests that we be granted an
appointment to make a presentation to the Transportation
Services Committee at its Feb.28, 2000 meeting and that
the report be made available to us no later than Feb.25,
2000. We ask now, as we did in our letter of Jan.7, that
the Transportation Services Committee take whatever procedural
steps it deems necessary in order for this to happen and
to notify us of their decision as soon as possible. We note
that this decision could have been made at the Committee's
Jan.10th meeting and we see no reason why the decision can
not be made at the Committee's Jan.24th meeting, if not
sooner.
Joe
Minor, Ph.D., Chair, Friends of Red Hill Valley
APPENDIX
I
Friends of Red Hill Valley would like the Committee
to consider the inadequacy, from a public disclosure point
of view, of the Committee's current operating practices.
The Chairman of the Committee informed me that if "usual"
procedure is followed, the report will not be released to
the public until Friday, February 25th and the Committee
will meet to act on its contents on the NEXT BUSINESS DAY
(Monday, Feb.28th). This practice, when coupled with the
hurdles erected in front of selected citizens wishing to
address the Committee effectively precludes meaningful public
input into the decision making process. The inability of
Friends of Red Hill Valley to access the Committee
isn't due to lack of effort. Over the years there have been
repeated requests to address the Committee (from both Friends
and members of Friends requesting as individuals) that have
gone unanswered (in apparent violation of the Committee's
"normal operating procedure", examples in the Appendix).
The result is that nobody representing Friends of Red Hill
Valley has EVER been allowed to address the Transportation
Services Committee. Knowing from past history that a letter
from a citizen would disappear into the black hole that
is Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Government, I decided to
contact to the Chairman of the Committee (Robert Wade) by
phone. He assured me that while he was Chairman of the Committee,
"normal operating procedure" would be followed and that
any past failures of the committee to operate under these
rules were due to other Committee Chairmen (e.g., the unanswered
1996 letters were the responsibility of the previous Chairman,
Councillor Terry Anderson). I accepted this statement as
Chairman Wade's word, only to find that under his committee
leadership on Jan.10, 2000 the Transportation Services Committee
failed to follow "normal operating procedure" and issue
a decision on my request which I communicated directly to
Chairman Wade by phone and also by fax on Jan.7, 2000.
I am waiting for an answer to that request, which is repeated
in this letter. I am also waiting for a response to the
question I asked in 1996: "could someone there please tell
me what one has to do to be allowed to speak to regional
government?". Please respond in writing because the assurances
I have received over the phone do not match reality.
Sincerely,
Joe Minor, PhD
Chairman, Friends of Red Hill Valley
APPENDIX II
The "Normal Operating Procedure" of the Transportation Services
Committee.
Friends of Red Hill Valley has been told that the
reason for the delay in considering our request is that
the Transportation Services Committee must follow its "normal
operating procedure". The Committee Secretary and the Committee
Chairman have told me that the "normal operating procedure"
is that a request to make a presentation to the Committee
is made in writing to the Committee and the Committee then
considers the request and sets a time for the presentation
at a later meeting.
Friends of Red Hill Valley is amazed to discover
that the committee has such a "normal operating procedure",
because we have never observed the committee operating in
the described manner. First, and most obviously, our written
requests were NOT considered by the committee on Jan.10,
2000. In addition our members have attended several meetings
of the Transportation Services Committee over the years
and have never observed the committee to take up a piece
of correspondence and issue a motion for a presentation
to the committee at a later date.
The actual usual procedure is for a member of the Committee
(or even a member of Council from outside the Committee)
to get up and introduce someone who then immediately makes
a presentation. The presentation can occur without any previous
written communication with the Committee, and the presenter
can be either an individual or party directly affected by
committee business or an agent (including legal representatives)
of the individual/party. In contrast to the foregoing "usual"
behaviour of the Committee, the experience of members of
Friends of Red Hill Valley is that the Committee
fails to respond in any way to our written requests to address
the Committee. That is, our attempts to access the Committee
by its "normal operating procedure" are fruitless.
The
Secretary of the Committee, Ms.Biggs, recently requested
that I forward to her examples of unanswered requests to
address the Committee. In a prompt and written response
to her request, these are outlined below and copies of the
correspondence are attached.
First
is a letter from Clerk Prowse dated Oct.18, 1996. In this
letter Mr.Prowse says that my correspondence was received
by regional council on Oct.15, 1996 (and some parts of it
were forwarded to the Regional Transportation Department).
Since the Clerk's letter fails to record either the date
of my letter or when it was received, it could be referring
to my letter of July 9 or to my letter of September 25 (or
both, copies of both letters are attached).
In
my July 9 letter, I specifically ask to speak to the Transportation
Services Committee. It would appear that despite this specific
request both council and the Roads Department failed to
forward the letter to the committee. As a result, a request
to speak to the Transportation Services Committee made over
three years ago has never been responded to.
My
letter of September 25th states: "On July 9, 1996 I requested
permission to speak to the Transportation Services Committee
about this expenditure, but I was not granted an audience.
I now realise that most of my concerns are financial in
nature, and I would very much appreciate it if this matter
could be referred to the finance committee so I can present
my concerns there." I was hoping that since the Transportation
Services Committee refused to grant me an opportunity to
speak, there would be some committee of council that would.
It would appear that this letter, which contains a specific
request to speak to a committee of council, was not referred
to ANY committee. As a result, a second request to speak
to a committee of council has not been responded to in over
three years.
Next
is a letter from Clerk Prowse dated Nov.21, 1996. It shows
two distinct improvements over the previous letter: 1) it
mentions the date of my correspondence (Oct.29) , and 2)
it specifically states that my Oct.29 letter was referred
to the Transportation Services Committee.
By this time I would have been grateful to speak to ANY
committee of council, and say so in the letter: "I would
really like to have to opportunity to speak to a committee
of council (preferably Finance) about this expenditure before
council votes on it. This is my third request to speak to
a committee of council regarding the mounting costs for
the North-South Red Hill Creek Expressway. If this request
is to be ignored like the last two, could someone there
please tell me what one has to do to be allowed to speak
to regional government?" This was the third time I had requested
to speak to a committee, ANY committee, of council. Despite
being forwarded to the Transportation Services Committee,
this third request to speak to council has gone unanswered.
It is our documented experience that the "normal operating
procedure" is a mechanism that is selectively applied to
prevent some citizens from adressing the Committee. All
of our attempts to access the Committee using its "normal
operating procedure" have been unsuccessful.
Letter
to Ontario Minister of Munipal Affairs
January 14, 2000
Tony Clement, Minister Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay St., 17th floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Dear Minister Clement,
It is my understanding that it is one of the functions of
your ministry to oversee the proper functioning of municipal
governments.
I am having difficulties with the functioning of Hamilton-Wentworth
Regional Government, and the problems are outlined in the
attached correspondence. Briefly, I have made repeated requests
to speak to the Transportation Services Committee of Council.
Despite repeated requests, I have never been allowed to
speak to this, or any other committee, of Council. To make
matters worse, the Transportation Services Committee hasn't
even had the decency to respond in any way to my inquiries.
This is despite the fact that some of my correspondence
was sent over three years ago (see attached letters).
I understand that your ministry is currently in the process
of reorganising local government here, and that may help
in the long run. However, decisions are pending soon on
the issues that I wish to address. These decisions will
be made before the reorganisation takes effect. Could your
ministry please look into: 1) why I receive no responses
to my requests to address the committee, and 2) what must
I do to be allowed to speak to the committee?
It is my opinion that the current government is not functioning
properly. If your ministry feels that these problems can
wait to be solved by the new governmental structure, I think
it is necessary for your ministry to require the current
government to postpone all new business (e.g., the issues
I wish to address) until the new government structure takes
effect. Otherwise, I need your ministry to please provide
an answer the following question: "could someone there please
tell me what one has to do to be allowed to speak to regional
government?" I realise this is a question that should be
answered by my own regional government. The attached correspondence
shows that I did, in fact, ask my regional government this
question in 1996. I never got a reply.
Sincerely,
Joe Minor, PhD
Chairman, Friends of Red Hill Valley
|
