First Nation chief downstream of proposed rural Ontario dump calls out province
The fight over a proposed rural southwestern Ontario landfill is back in the spotlight, and it's reached the highest levels of provincial politics this week.
Last summer, Dresden-area residents in Chatham-Kent thought they had scored a win. The Conservative government said any move to reopen a long-dormant landfill site would require a full environmental assessment.
But that may be changing.
In April, the province introduced Bill 5 — the Protect Ontario By Unleashing Our Economy Act. It includes language that would fast-track the project.
That concerns Walpole Island First Nation Chief Leela Thomas, who calls the proposed bill "devastating."
The reserve is downstream from the dump along the Sydenham River. The property also lies within the traditional territory of the Anishinabek people.
"It seems like our voices don't matter, especially when it comes to environmental issues and our role as stewards of the land," Thomas said.
"It's not a big ask because we're protecting people. We're protecting the land. We're protecting environment. We're protecting the livelihood of not only First Nations people, but everyone."
Thomas says their constitutional rights are being ignored.
"That, to me, is [environmental] racism."
Thomas says it seems like poor planning on the province's behalf, when it comes to landfill capacity.
"They knew that there was going to be issues with landfills in the province, and now that there are ... with the tariffs they're using that as a guise to push these landfills through."
Human rights advocacy group Amnesty International says the province's change of course on Bill 5 threatens Indigenous rights and erodes environmental protections.
"The creation of special economic zones where critical provincial laws, including those protecting endangered species, clean water, and consultation with Indigenous nations, may be suspended to fast-track development," said Ketty Nivyabandi, secretary general with Amnesty International Canada.
"We cannot build up Ontario by bulldozing down the rights of Indigenous nations and the natural environment we all depend on and share."
Capacity issues and Trump cited by premier
Ontario Premier Doug Ford says his government is committed to expanding the landfill site because of capacity issues and current U.S.-Canada relations.
"We're relying on the U.S. again," Ford said to reporters Tuesday.
"Here we go again. Forty per cent of all the garbage goes down to the U.S. It takes one phone call from President Trump to … cut us off, and then what do we do? We have to prepare, be prepared."
Ford says the existing site needs to be expanded.
"I'm not going to rely on President Trump any longer. We have to be responsible for our own garbage. We're gonna continue building capacity on that. I say we're gonna shut off the electricity. He says we're gonna shut off your garbage."
In a statement to CBC News, the province said the project would still undergo "extensive environmental processes" and remain subject to "strong provincial oversight."
'Give me a break'
Opposition leader Marit Stiles of the NDP says the Dresden landfill was something the Ontario Conservatives never actually meant to prevent.
"Give me a break here," she said Tuesday while speaking at Queen's Park.
"We've seen it again and again. The legislation that they've introduced creates more and more opportunities for the government to make Greenbelt-style corrupt deals to benefit landowners and big corporations and developers, and I think that's what we're going to continue to see here."
Recently, Kingston MPP Ted Hsu asked Ontario's integrity commissioner to probe an alleged connection between Premier Ford, two of his cabinet members, and a former minister to the proposed Chatham-Kent landfill.
Stiles says she's unsure if the complaint will meet the standards of an investigation.
"Unfortunately, the integrity commissioner has a very narrow scope."
Stiles believes the integrity commissioner would like the complaint to be broadened.
"But … just because it doesn't pass … that smell test, doesn't mean that it's right. The premier promised he wasn't going to let that landfill happen. He broke his promise to people in Dresden."
What's at risk
The project site is adjacent to a creek and river — a vital spawning ground and home to more than 80 endangered species, according to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.
Thomas says there are a lot of unknowns without having rigorous environmental and health assessments — and not just for her Anishinabek people, but the surrounding communities as well.
"There's going to be construction and demolition debris that's going to have asbestos that's going to be leaked into the drinking water," said Walpole Island's chief.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
34 minutes ago
- CBC
'We are very nimble': Calgary mayor keeps door open to G7 white hatting
With a little more than a week to go before world leaders arrive in Kananaskis, Alta., for the G7 summit, Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek said she is ready to continue the city's white hat ceremony tradition if logistics allow. "We are happy to white hat any of the dignitaries that are coming to town," Gondek said in an interview Friday. "We have been patient as the government has been figuring out their plans, and as dignitaries are determining how they will be traveling in and through our city." On Wednesday, a Tourism Calgary spokesperson said that "given the complexity around security and the event, at this time, there are no plans for our team to conduct a white hat ceremony for G7." Alberta's ministry of tourism and sport also said it's not planning a ceremony for the G7. Federal organizers with the G7 haven't responded to requests for comment. The Smithbilt cowboy hat has long been presented to visitors as a symbol of the city's hospitality. In 2002, then-Calgary mayor Dave Bronconnier greeted G8 leaders on the Calgary airport tarmac, including former U.S. president George W. Bush and former French president Jacques Chirac. Gondek emphasized the significance of the gesture. "We are known for our hospitality and our volunteerism and our ability to make people feel so welcome when they visit our city," Gondek said. "It's a really good symbol of who we are." Unclear which leaders will travel through Calgary While there's currently no ceremony planned, Gondek confirmed she is scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Mark Carney and said she's awaiting further guidance from officials. "We are very nimble and responsive to whatever the situation may be. And if there's an opportunity to do something bigger and more formal, obviously we will be engaging with any partners that we can," she said. Asked if she would be open to white hatting all G7 leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump amid ongoing trade tensions, Gondek said any such plans would depend on travel logistics and who actually passes through Calgary. "I can't deal in hypotheticals, but as opportunities come up, we'll definitely evaluate them," she said. The G7 summit in Kananaskis is set to run from June 15 to 17 and has been referred to by officials as one of the most complex domestic security operations a country can undertake, with thousands of personnel deployed across the region. Gondek said the city has been working closely with the Calgary Police Service to ensure any traffic detours that need to be put into place are being done as quickly as possible. She also noted the airport tunnel's closure from June 15 to 18. "We are advising all employees, all travelers, anyone going to businesses in that vicinity that you won't have access to the tunnel," she said. "There's [also] a lot of motorcade drills that are happening in the city right now. So it's best to give yourself a little bit of extra time." Officials from the United States, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Italy and Canada, as well as the European Union, are scheduled to attend this year's summit.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
In Washington's forests, Trump's timber mandate looks shaky
For decades now, the forests of Snohomish County have taunted the people of Darrington. It was not long ago that this small Washington town on the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains drew its life from the towering stands of Douglas fir, cedar and hemlock on federal lands that surround it on three sides. But federal environmental rules have made the area's loggers mostly unwelcome in the places they, and the generations before them, harvested. Efforts to protect the spotted owl severely restricted timber sales on federal land. 'We've struggled since the owl wars to find an economy,' says Dan Rankin, who grew up in a local logging family and has for the past 14 years been the mayor of Darrington, a 120-kilometre drive northeast of Seattle. Four decades ago, nearly nine in 10 people here won their livelihood from the woods. Today, nearly eight in 10 work 'down below,' outside of town, commuting past the trees toward the I-5 for jobs far from the forest and closer to the state's major urban centres. So Mr. Rankin, like many in forestry towns along the Pacific coast, had reason for hope when Donald Trump re-entered the White House with promises to start cutting trees again. On March 1, an executive order decried the suffocating effects of 'heavy-handed Federal policies' and ordered new efforts to make more national forests open to loggers. 'Done right, it would be really good,' Mr. Rankin said. That possibility has given potency to Mr. Trump's Make America Great Again refrain. The fundamental premise of his presidency has been the restoration of places like Darrington and its countless cousins across U.S. rustbelts and farming centres. Mr. Trump has promised to saw off regulatory handcuffs and fend off foreign alternatives so that the products of local hands can once again prosper. The thrilling hope in forestry towns is: 'It's going to bring back the heyday,' said Mindy Crandall, an associate professor of forest policy at Oregon State University. But more than four months into Mr. Trump's turbulent second mandate, an alternative outcome is already looming: that the dramatic actions his administration has taken since its return to office could result in fewer federal trees being cut rather than more – and that even if the White House succeeds in extracting greater volumes of timber from national forests, the chief beneficiaries are unlikely to be the people and places most in need. Mr. Rankin's worries are rooted, in part, in what he has seen happening at the U.S. Forest Service office on the outskirts of town, home to the Darrington Ranger District of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Decades ago, it employed 170 people. Before Mr. Trump came to office, it was down to 28 positions. 'Then we lost another eight in the DOGE thing,' Mr. Rankin said. The loss of additional people through the actions of the Elon Musk-backed Department of Government Efficiency means it's not clear to Mr. Rankin how the federal government could muster the people necessary to open parts of that forest to increased logging. 'You have to have staff to be able to put up timber sales,' he said. Even before Mr. Trump returned to office, the entire Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, which stretches across an expanse larger than Prince Edward Island, had just one timber sales administrator on staff, Mr. Rankin said. It would be even worse, he said, if the Trump administration rushed through timber sales by short-circuiting the way things are done, which includes not just laying out proper tracts for sale but also conducting ecological and archeological evaluations. Doing so might prompt a short-term boom, but 'in four years, if this President isn't our president any more, those things get rolled back and they're all tied up in lawsuits – and we're in 1994 again.' It was in 1994 that a federally backed Northwest Forest Plan was set in place amidst a broader backdrop of timber wars that pitted environmentalists against loggers – and ultimately led to a huge decline in the cutting of federal forests. (A committee tasked with updating that plan was told earlier this year that it might be disbanded, Oregon Public Broadcasting has reported.) The prospect of renewed legal warfare over the trees is far from hypothetical. 'We've had a couple of lawsuits in the works for some time already,' said Phil Fenner, president of North Cascades Conservation Council, which advocates against damaging the region's natural resources. More could come as Mr. Trump pushes for forest development. In April, his administration proposed a regulatory revision that would alter the meaning of the Endangered Species Act in such a way that habitat destruction alone is not considered a harm to animals. 'You would have to see dead fish floating on the river before you could say there was a negative impact on that species,' Mr. Fenner said. 'These kinds of subtle rule changes are definitely setting the stage for this aggressive attack on the forest.' The U.S. Forest Service did not respond to a Globe and Mail request for comment. But a Forest Service employee told The Globe that there are ways to bridge the demand for more cutting with current staffing levels. One is to bolster the ranks of local offices with people sent down from central locations. Another is to off-load the work onto private industry. Rather than have government employees lay out cuts and do the necessary study before opening a tract for sale, the Forest Service can simply stipulate that a successful bidder complete those tasks. The Globe is not naming the employee because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The problem, the employee said, is that it will likely prove more difficult for smaller contractors – like the nimble outfits of 'gypo loggers' that were once the lifeblood of towns like Darrington – to take on such expanded requirements. Such an outcome would, however, be in keeping with broader economic shifts that have also hurt Darrington. 'Ownership has gone from locally owned to conglomerate-owned. Whether it's our sawmill, whether it's our grocery store, whether it's the new Dollar Tree,' said Mr. Rankin. 'The wealth that those businesses develop goes back to their headquarters. It doesn't stay in your community.' It's a major shift from the past. It wasn't until the 1990s that Darrington owned a town snowplow. Before then, the winter streets were cleared as a point of pride by local forestry companies. Local crews of gypo loggers cut the area's trees and shaped its identity. 'I grew up in a gypo family. I played baseball on the gypo Little League team,' Mr. Rankin recalled. Those loggers drew much of their livelihood from the federal forests. Today, logging is often on forests that are privately held, with profits flowing to landholders based in the big cities. The entire industry has been remade. Figures compiled by the Western Wood Products Association show there were nearly five times as many sawmills in the U.S. in 1970 compared with 2010. Closings have continued: In Oregon, seven mills closed in 2024 alone. Output per worker, which climbed more than 15 per cent between 1997 and 2009 alone, has meant fewer people are needed to make the same volume of lumber. Part of the restructuring has been geographic. 'Not only did mills consolidate, they tended to leave areas where they were surrounded by federal lands,' Prof. Crandall said. 'That means any federal timber sale is probably going to be farther from the mill today than it was 30 years ago. That adds to the cost. That adds to the likelihood of them not getting a successful bid on a timber sale.' Around Darrington, decades without much cutting mean even the basic infrastructure of forestry has badly deteriorated. Jeff Anderson, a fifth-generation logger whose family-owned 3 Rivers Cutting is the last active small gypo outfit in town, figures he can no longer drive up half the forest roads accessible when he was a kid. The local Forest Service 'can't even get to their timber at this point, let alone sell timber,' he said. The local office, too, has shed much of the equipment it would need to fix things. 'They couldn't even a dig a ditch right now if they needed to,' he said. Fixing the problem will require spending more on federal forest management – not the cutting undertaken by the Trump administration to date. 'Trump's going to have to put up some money,' Mr. Anderson said.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
The party is over. It's time to embrace a postparty system of governance
David Berlin is an author, the former editor of the Literary Review of Canada and the founding editor of The Walrus magazine. He led The Bridge Party of Canada, which ran in the 2016 federal election. With uncanny prescience, as though peering into a crystal ball, America's first president, George Washington, anticipated and warned against the rise of the 45th and 47th U.S. president, Donald Trump. In his Farewell Address to the Nation, published in 1796, Washington predicted that 'sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.' Such a chief will not have attained power illegitimately – by coup d'état or secession – but by the usual shenanigans which pave a political party's path to glory. But Washington is very clear about where the fault lies: It lies not with the chief but with the 'spirit of party' which inevitably produces such a leader. The villain is the party system which 'agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasional riots and insurrection and opens the door to foreign influence and corruption.' The only way to avoid the rise of a leader inclined in the direction of a 'frightful despotism' is to prevent the 'spirit of party' from ever taking hold. Had he been around these days, America's founding father would have undoubtedly railed against the facile notion that parties and party leaders do no more than mirror, reflect and represent underlying societal tensions and differences. They do no such thing. Parties exacerbate and exploit such differences. Unlike virtually all other institutions, the party system thrives by dividing. It is polarizing by design. It should perhaps be noted that the invidious 'spirit of party' does not necessarily apply equally to every party system, at least not with the same force. The augmented Westminster model which Canadians have proffered, and the rise of a multiparty system, inoculated Canada from the full impact of a crazy-making polarization which is now bringing America close to a constitutional crisis. In Canada, throughout history, the two major parties differed very little on crucial questions. Their conception of power was almost identical. Both parties treated patronage as the lifeblood of the party, both traded favours for votes. For a long time, both parties respected one another's accomplishments. But such mutual respect is no longer the case. Canada, today, is far more vulnerable to the poison of partisan politics than many Canadians suspect. Consider that in the past election, the difference between Mark Carney's Liberals, who received 8,564,200 votes, and Pierre Poilievre's Conservative Party, which clocked in at 8,086,051 was 2.4 per cent. And it is not at all clear that the relations between the Liberals and the Conservatives are all that much better than the relations between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. Editorial board: Democracy is messy, and that's a good thing But even if Canada manages to resist the full force of what Quebec City mayor Joseph Cauchon, in 1865, called the 'miserable spirit of party,' and even if we manage to work around Mr. Trump's tariffs and threats and somehow survive the new world disorder which the current American administration is disseminating, there is still a good argument to be made for undertaking efforts to get us over political parties – to get us to a postparty system of governance. Many young Canadian activists are designing and experimenting with sophisticated and scalable manners of reviving versions of direct democracy. Vancouver-based Ethelo, for example, is developing a consensus-building platform which invites users to vote on granulated issues, challenge one another and review unexplored assumptions. Users are given ample opportunity to consider issues which are flagged by one party or another and those which are summarily ignored or buried by campaigns. Votes on the platform are 'weighted' as a display of each voter's priorities. The results are tabulated to produce 'the people's platform,' which is not a poll or survey but the highest attainable level of consensus at a particular time. The published platform may serve as a far better indication of where our 'centre' resides than the amorphous and unanchored centre currently in use. In 2016, I registered a new federal political party called The Bridge Party of Canada which was intended to introduce the 'People's Platform' as a first step toward a richer form of democracy. Though a federal party, The Bridge sought to attain official standing for a consensus-building stage in advance of federal, provincial and local elections. On the hustings, I spoke with many young Canadians who raged against a party's treatment of voters as numbers. Young people said they were weary of manipulative party campaigns that dumb down the electorate and reduce a rich inventory of issues to one or two wedges. Both young and older electors expressed disgust with the reductions of the public to consumers who care about nothing but the price of eggs. To many voters, it seems that far more serious engagement and participation in the decision-making process would be inspiring – a rising tide that would lift all boats. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of democracy-enhancing initiatives. Some are non-profits. Many are housed in universities in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Belgium, Germany and elsewhere. None with which I am familiar are ready for prime time. But it makes a lot of sense for Canada to establish, participate and support ongoing experimentation. Would a centre that funds, integrates and co-ordinates disparate efforts to decrease party dominance not be a thoughtful way of responding to Donald Trump's taunts, threats and tariffs? And given the state of liberal democracy in the West, are we not right to assume that the world is awaiting a new model and that this model could be Canada's gift to posterity? Democracy is not about nation-building. It is first of all a process by which settlers and Indigenous populations living under autocratic rule become voters, voters become citizens who, by resisting the centrifugal force which tears them apart, become a people. Parties may have a place in the process, but they cannot be permitted to monopolize the field.
