Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 07 November 2020

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 03 November 2020

Walter Bauer, the excellent Green candidate in last year’s Federal election in Newmarket-Aurora, is disappointed he didn’t get an answer to the question he submitted to last Friday’s virtual Town Hall on the Environment. 

It was a star-studded line-up. The area’s Liberal MP, Tony Van Bynen, played host, selecting the questions, and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Jonathan Wilkinson, was the special guest. Newmarket Today tells us some Newmarket-Aurora residents were left unimpressed.

Cutting emissions

Walter was hoping for an answer to this:

Consistent with the Paris Agreement, the government has frequently stated, “Canada is on track to reduce our emission by 30% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.”

Environment Canada’s regular publications indicate that under a best-case scenario Canada’s emissions by 2030 will only be 19% below 2005 levels.

Environment Canada’s best-case scenario does not include expansion of Alberta’s Oil Sands with the continued development of Trans Mountain, Keystone XL and Enbridge Line 3 pipelines, which are going to increase not decrease our GHG emissions.

A Net zero 2050 target is an empty promise given we cannot meet our 2030 target.  Why is the government ignoring Environment Canada's data and worse, expanding Oil Sands production?

That’s a good question that gets to the heart of the matter. Will Canada meet the 2030 target or not? 

It is difficult not to feel a sense of despair when we read stories about zombie oil wells in Alberta belching methane into the atmosphere in climate changing volumes.

Out of sight. Out of mind 

And why is nothing being done about toxic tailings ponds leaking into Alberta’s rivers? (Photo above right)

My question (also not reached) was about Alberta’s oil sands where an environmental catastrophe is just around the corner. 

“What contingency plans the Federal Government has to deal with the rupture/leakage of tailings pond dams in the Oil Sands which would release toxins into the Mackenzie and Athabasca river systems which discharge into the high Arctic, polluting the environment and threatening the health and well-being of indigenous peoples.”

After the Town Hall wraps up I write to Van Bynen asking him to forward my question to the Minister in the hope of a reply.

My request may disappear into Van Bynen’s waste paper basket (joining all the others) but who knows?  He may pass it on.

It is conceivable that he, too, could be interested in the answer.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update on 19 November 2020: from the Globe and Mail: the Liberals' Climate Change Bill is underwhelming.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 25 October 2020

It is just over a year since the last Federal Election on 21 October 2019 and our new MP for Newmarket-Aurora has had time to get his feet under the table. How is he doing? 

Pretty much as I expected.

Van Bynen, at 69, was the oldest of the new intake of 91 rookie MPs. He is a loyal foot soldier and is never going to step out of line. (Photo right: last week, voting virtually from his Bayview Ave office)

Until the pandemic struck he was in the bottom 5% of rookie MPs in terms of interventions in the House of Commons. (My figures are from 8 March 2020) He took a while to find his feet.

Only four rookies out of 91 spoke on fewer occasions that Van Bynen. (Zuberi Sameer (Lib); Tim Louis (Lib); Mike Kelloway (Lib) and Derek Sloan (Con))

Of course, the number of speeches an MP makes in the Chamber is no guide to their quality. 

In the House of Commons as elsewhere Van Bynen always reads his speeches from a prepared text – even when they are very short, no more than a minute or two. For someone who has been in the public eye for years this has always surprised me.

Van Bynen says little about his "Priorities"

In the first of his four micro speeches on 11 December 2019 he thanked people for electing him and focussed on his priorities:

I have heard very clearly that our community is concerned about climate change, affordable housing, infrastructure funding, health care and a need for a long-term fiscal plan, but not at the expense of creating a social deficit. These things will by my priorities during the upcoming term.

He told the media that preserving local heritage would also be a priority but we’ve heard nothing from him about that. He has been silent on the unlawful demolition of the Simpson Building on Main Street by his friend Bob Forrest.  

When he went to the photo-shoot at Deerfield in August, we learn that the promised “affordable housing” has now morphed into “attainable housing”. Whatever that means.

The importance of hugging

On 6 February 2020 he spoke for a couple of minutes on the importance of hugging. On 27 February 2020 he spoke about the Coldest Night of the Year fundraising walk and on 28 February 2020 he asked the Minister of Health what the Government was doing to prevent and treat cancer. All in all, about five minutes work.

The Benefits of Retirement

2019 was a very good year for Tony Van Bynen, the retired Mayor of Newmarket. In January 2019, he received the second tranche of the $162,739 of taxpayers’ money designed to cushion his voluntary retirement from municipal politics. He kept quiet about that second tranche for as long as he could. He then joined the Liberal Party after hearing that Kyle Peterson, the then Liberal MP, was standing down. No-one else threw their hat into the ring and Van Bynen probably surprised himself by becoming the official Liberal candidate without a contest. And in the Federal Election in October he landed on his feet, taking 42% of the vote. The Liberals nationwide got support from 33.1% of Canadian voters - the lowest share of the popular vote in modern Canadian history.

Dining out on our dollar (again)

In the early months after his election while he was getting to know the ropes he was billing taxpayers for breakfasts at the Buttery and elsewhere. It was just like old times. He holds meetings over bacon and eggs to “plan his priorities” and we pick up the tab. At least he did until the pandemic struck. In recent months he has stopped billing us for his breakfasts.

Partisan Games

Van Bynen sits on the Health Committee and he has a slot at every meeting to ask his pre-prepared questions. To my mind, they are all pretty softball. He is not the type of politician who wants to generate controversy. He says he dislikes “partisanship”. When others agree with him that means they want to get things done. When they disagree with him they are playing “partisan games".

In an interview with Newmarket Today on 25 September 2020 about the Throne Speech he trilled:

“We’ve learned during a time of crisis, partisanship falls to the wayside and everybody focuses on what’s right and what’s best for our shared constituencies… Everybody is focused on finding the best solutions.”

Minority Parliament means different rules

But that changed when the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP wanted a say in setting the agenda for forthcoming meetings of the Health Committee - it is a minority Parliament after all. (An election is off the cards for the moment but I doubt we shall have to wait another three years.)

The Opposition Parties want the Health Committee to focus on a range of matters such as vaccine development, Canada’s level of preparedness in responding to another pandemic and the availability of PPE equipment.  There will be a vote in the Chamber of the House of Commons tomorrow (Monday 26 October 2020) to decide the Committee's work programme. 

Speaking in the House of Commons virtually, from his constituency office in Bayview Avenue, Van Bynen makes it clear he wants the Committee to focus primarily on mental health:

“I am frustrated and disappointed in the Conservatives' new approach on the health committee. We did not always agree before, but it was always clear that everyone on the committee had a common goal to be productive rather than play partisan games.” 

Mental health is a big issue and it is laudable that Van Bynen is running with that particular ball. But that doesn't mean that vaccine development, the crisis in long-term care and all those other big issues identified by all the opposition parties are secondary and have to go to the back of the queue for discussion and debate in the Health Committee.

Shape-shifting

Personally, I would have forgiven a lot of Van Bynen’s politics (which are light years away from my own) if he had just stuck with a few principled positions. But his endless shape-shifting and weaselly evasions leave me cold.

In a virtual Town Hall with local members of the Liberal Party on 15 October 2020 he couldn’t or wouldn’t express an opinion on the planned cutbacks in the number of Registered Nurses at Southlake. That, he says, is a matter for the CEO Arden Krystal.

Gun Violence - empty promises

On the epidemic of gun violence he parrots the official line, telling his on-line viewers that the Government would allow municipalities to decide on handguns and where they should be stored. Oh dear! Before the election he said private individuals shouldn’t have handguns, a position he has now abandoned. And we get this drivel from Van Bynen at the same time the Chief of York Regional Police is telling the Regional Council that shooting incidents across the Region have gone up from 4 in 2015 to 57 in 2019. 

It’s difficult not to feel a little disappointed in Tony Van Bynen MP. 

He is furiously active on social media, endlessly tweeting and re-tweeting the latest Government line from Ottawa.

Yet he is predictably silent on many of the things that really matter.

He never shows leadership.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update on 26 October 2020: The House of Commons today instructed the Health Committee to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the Covid 19 pandemic etc etc. The Liberals (including Van Bynen) voted against the motion and the Opposition parties won 176 votes to 152 votes.

Update on 28 October 2020: Last week the Liberal Government took the view that a motion from the Conservatives instructing a Committee to investigate the WE charity affair was a vote of non-confidence in the Government. The Government survived the vote on 21 October 2020 by 180-146 with the NDP, Greens and Independents voting with the Liberals. But another Conservative motion on 26 October 2020 (see update above) instructing the Health Committee to investigate further the Covid pandemic - with extensive powers to call for papers and witness - was not deemed to be a vote of non-confidence.  Andrew Coyne in the Globe and Mail says Parliament should decide, not the Government, what constitutes a non-confidence vote. In the UK House of Commons a motion tabled in this form: "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" is always taken as first item of business on the next sitting day.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 20 October 2020

In the summer of 2018 the contractor, Joe Peluso, President of Peltar Paving and General Contracting Company Limited, had a contract with the York Catholic District School Board to reconstruct the car park at the Canadian Martyrs’ Elementary School in Newmarket's London Road. His earth-compacting machinery sent huge vibration waves into neighbouring properties on Harrison Drive (where I live) causing damage. It was so bad one neighbour called the Police.  

The York Catholic District School Board refused to accept any responsibility saying it was a matter for their contractor’s insurers and ours. Unfortunately, insurance companies do not insure for property damage caused by vibration and ground movement. The only recourse is to go to Court.

Pre-condition surveys

But without a pre-condition survey undertaken by the contractor before work begins it is impossible to establish causality. The contractor could say, for example, that the crack on the garage wall was pre-existing. It was there before the work began.

It is for this reason that the Town itself offers pre-condition surveys for the owners of homes adjacent to roads which are to be reconstructed. This happened to us in Harrison Drive in 2014. Fortunately, there was no property damage and everyone was happy.

The Town’s Committee of the Whole on 26 October 2020 will be considering a staff report on construction vibration and what can be done to protect residents from rogue organisations such as the York Catholic District School Board and their agents who cause damage and walk away. 

The Town already monitors the impact of construction vibration when new housing developments, for example, are going ahead. But nothing comparable happens when school car parks or shopping plazas are excavated and reconstructed before the asphalt goes down.

Vibration complaints

It is perfectly clear from the staff report that the overwhelming majority of complaints about construction vibration come from new developments where planning approvals are required. Unlike new housing, the reconstruction of a school car park does not require prior planning approval.

The staff report looks at practice in other York Region municipalities and in Toronto which was a pioneer in bringing in a Vibration Control By-law in 2008. But we are told this is primarily for construction and demolition: 

“and does not address vibration impacts from non-Planning Act development (e.g. driveway or parking lot paving)”

We are told that By-law enforcement officers in King and Vaughan regard structural damage caused by construction vibration to be:

“a civil matter and recourse for damage is pursued by (the) private landowner against the other property owner.”

But without a pre-condition survey how can the aggrieved property owner prove the damage was caused by the contractor?

Amending the Noise By-law

The report recommends amending the Town’s Noise By-law 2017-76 to include vibration. Complaints would be logged by the homeowners and followed up by Property Standards Officers. But what if the earth-shattering vibration and the resulting property damage occurs over a very short period as was the case with us in Harrison Drive? The Town needs to be proactive rather than reactive.

The report says that under this option (amending the Noise By-law):

“Council would also have an opportunity to increase regulations specifically pertaining to vibration. This could include by-law provisions which require vibration to be monitored on large sites that employ construction methods which can result in vibrations being transmitted to neighbouring properties. Other vibration-producing activities (e.g. pile driving) on smaller residential sites could also be clearly established within the regulations of the by-law.”

This hits the nail on the head.

This is the kind of heavy-duty construction work that should be captured by a vibration by-law

The only argument for delaying its implementation is that this kind of vibration damage doesn’t happen very often and there’s no need to wield a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I understand the argument.

But, then again, until our homes where shaken to their foundations in August 2018, I never for one moment believed the York District Catholic School Board would walk away from the damage they and their contractor caused.

I hope the by-law, as recommended by staff, gets support and is brought in before the next school car park is dug up and reconstructed by Joe Peluso.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Note 1: My deputation to the Committee of the Whole on 18 March 2019, setting out the sequence of events, is here starting at 1hour and 6 minutes in. The following day I wrote to councillors: 

“In my deputation yesterday afternoon I mentioned that I contacted the Town Clerk on 7 September 2018 about the construction vibration at the Canadian Martyrs but, for whatever reason, the report before you only focussed on new-build. I should have said - but didn’t - that Ms Lyons immediately passed my comments on to the Directors of Planning and Engineering. I may have inadvertently given the impression that the Town Clerk sat on her hands when that was certainly not the case.”

Note 2: The video of the debate at the Committee of the Whole on Monday 26 October 2020 is here (2 hours and 46 minutes in). The staff report on Construction Vibration is here.

Note 3: The Committee of the Whole agenda for 26 October 2020 also contained this correspondence from Stuart Hoffman which specifically addresses the issue of pre-condition surveys. 

Update on 3 November 2020: At the Council meeting yesterday (2 November) the Town decided today to bring in a permit system to regulate major construction work (to be defined) which generates vibration at an intensity that can damage homes. The details are being worked out by staff but the principle has now been agreed. Councillors deserve a round of applause. A comprehensive report setting out the new system will be considered by the Town in due course. To watch yesterday's debate at the Town Hall click here and scroll to 27 minutes in. The video of the debate at the Committee of the Whole on Monday 26 October 2020 is here (2 hours and 46 minutes in). The staff report on Construction Vibration is here.