Using your words....

I have been bothered, for lack of a better word about how the current city council has handled the issues around the Carp Road landfill and Waste Management’s request to the province for an expansion.  Early last month, there was a panic by the city, emphasized by the 5 west end councillors to provide comments to the Province on Waste Managements revised Terms of Reference [ToR] for the site.  While not the main point of this letter, I feel it is necessary to point out that Waste Management identified the fact that Carp road would be maxing out to the city in 2007.  That means, all the concerned parties who wanted to raise an issue to the province had 3 plus years to say why Carp Road should be moved, why Ottawa should have a viable Waste to Energy plant etc.  As the incumbent council members what they have done on the file since 2007, ask your MP, after all, YOU elected them to represent YOU.

The issue I want to discuss is the wording used in the submission by the City to the Ministry of Energy [MOE].  As you likely know, the MOE, as a Provincial entity controls the location of the Landfill and through provincial laws and regulations, is the defining authority.    Any comments made by the city might carry a bit of referential authority with the MOE, but in general, the comments on the ToR from the City carry about as much weight as the ones your neighbor may have sent in.  The issue is not just what the City sent to the MOE as issues but how it was transmitted.

For those who don’t regularly deal with contracts, I will give you an everyday analogy to the Province/City relationship on the Landfill issue.  The Province in this case would be the parent and the City would be the child, the venue is the toy aisle.  The child wants the new popular shiny object.  The child has 2 choices, either to convince the parent or to make a demand for the item.

An astute child, who understands the power dynamic would attempt to influence the parent by showing what the advantages are of getting the shiny object are to the parent and the parents goals.  “If you get it for me, I wont be watching TV”.  In contract and specification situations, the words used are things such as: “request, should and might”.  The key point is to for the child to do as much he/she can to explain their request and justify it for the parent to make a decision.

The other option is the arched back, screaming at the top of their lungs to get attention, using words directing the parent to get the item for the child.  Usually, the show is entertaining for those around but if the Parent is ready to stand their ground, the child goes home empty handed.  Again, in contracting and specification situations where one has a requirement to meet, the regulating authorities will use words such as:”Must, Shall and Will”.

If you look at the approved meeting minutes from July 14 on Ottawa.ca you find that Council recommendations to the province included the following items:” That the Ministry put in place programs and policies necessary;  That if the proposed terms of reference aren’t rejected,… the City encourages the Minister to include these principles as requirements in the finalized terms of reference for the EA: Waste Management must [three additional times]; The terms of reference must ; Waste Management must [7 more times]  The council amendment also has the taking my toys home statement:” That if Waste Management refuses to delete all references to the past agreement in its proposed terms of reference, the City of Ottawa urges the Ministry of the Environment to order them deleted and put no weight on them during any part of the EA process including finalization of the terms of reference.”
On other issues, I have come down on city staff, but on this file, the did things properly.    The staff comments are frequently looking for clarification of an ambiguous or contradictory statement.  The staff comments contained “should” approximately 34 times, 0 uses of ‘shall’, 1 use of “Must” but in the correct way:” Should they choose to do so, the leachate must meet the discharge limits prescribed in the City of Ottawa Sewer Use by-law”,  similarly “Will” gets applied several times correctly.
Let me show one example of how I personally think the Councillors would have done a better job.  One Council comment was:”   Waste Management must develop a program to provide an annual report to the City of Ottawa on all requirements of any certification of approval provided by the Ministry should approval be granted;”  Let’s suppose that WM don’t already do an annual report on all compliance issues for the Province which is posted online.  My suggestion for the comment would be something like:”  The City of Ottawa requests that whatever reports are generated for the province containing all environmental compliance items in force during the reports annual cycle be submitted to the City of Ottawa under a separate Cover.  These reports will be for information only.  The City of Ottawa also requests that any correspondence relating to environmental compliance of the site between its operator and the Regulatory Authority be forwarded to the City of Ottawa for “information purposes” within 15 working days of it being issued by either party”.
The council chambers have been referred to by observers in the media as a sandbox.  What I have seen and read in the media makes good press, but I believe in this situation, all the bluster and bravado really was a detriment to the point of the meeting which was to comment on the ToR.  Lets hope the next council is able to deal with the other levels of government in a mature and business like way.  With any luck, the new Plasco filters will solve the emission problems and let the system demonstrate its on paper potential in real sustained use.  My view of the future for trash is a number of neighborhood [industrial park] friendly waste to energy systems which generate enough power to the grid that they can provide for City of Ottawa energy users such as City Hall, garages, and assuming it actually hits the rails, the LRT!
Who would you respond in a favourable way to, a logical and justified request or a child having a tantrum?