The more people question the status quo, the healthier our society remains.

Mayorgate from its inception has stood against the voluntary censorship imposed by conventional media. Media moguls still labour under the illusion that they are the king makers when the fact is that they swear allegiance to either the left, right or centre, and then tow the line. Mayorgate's articles are not always popular with those who are in the spotlight, yet each article stands on its own ready for any criticism or comment, in fact we welcome your comments and opinions.

As publisher I am making an appeal to our readers who can afford a contribution in these difficult times to please use the donate button (in the top right hand corner), with whatever amount you can. We do not receive federal nor provincial funding of any sort and ask our readers to help us grow.

A Toothless Watchdog

The Office of the Ombudsman, what really is it? It claims to be “Ontario's Watchdog,” but how is it really the watchdog. Many of us believe that if wrong-doing by government has been identified that such issues can be brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Yet how many know that the powers of the Ombudsman are limited to our elected representatives. In truth there is no oversight body at all in existence in Ontario that has any authority over the elected representatives of government. It is up to the individual citizen to find the money and hire a lawyer to bring the issue to the courts. As often the case, the politician has more money and a more expensive lawyer.

We are faced today with the example of Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford's limitless arrogance awaiting adjudication by Ontario's courts. Toronto's Integrity Commissioner found Mayor Ford in breach of the Municipal Act Conflict of Interest Legislation. Mayor Ford ignored the Integrity Commissioner and it has been up to a private individual to take action and bring Mayor Ford before the court. Ford's lawyer is quoted as saying, .... “You don't have to obey the law, an order, that is clearly unlawful.” (Natalie Alcoba, National Post)

Who decides that a law is improper or fair? Regardless, there is no sign of the Ombudsman nor any real action other than empty words by the Integrity Commissioner.

A budget of 10.75 million dollars for the 2011-2012 operating period and a staff with titles such as 'early resolution officer', the Office of the Ombudsman makes some impressive claims. In Ontario the Office of the Ombudsman was instituted in 1975, with powers and authorities set out in the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman is independent of government and political parties, and his job is to hold government accountable by reviewing and investigating public complaints about the administration of government services.

Sounds impressive, more so as the Ombudsman has the power to enter any government premises to gather evidence, and the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. “He may investigate and report his findings publicly if he finds that a decision, recommendation, act or omission of a body he oversees was contrary to law, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, discriminatory, based on a mistake of law or fact, or simply wrong,” (Wikipedia, Ontario Ombudsman).

These powers are augmented by teams at the Ombudsman's office such as SORT and OMLET. Yet the reality is simple and somewhat alarming, that not one elected representative's egg has ever been cracked to date. SORT (Special Ombudsman Response Team) brags of training hundreds of investigators and ombudsman around the world since the inception of its annual training course titled “Sharpening Your Teeth.” Still all of this looks good in annual reports to justify the 10.75 million dollar budget, the reality paints a different picture one that is far less impressive.

Our Ombudsman has no authority at all to do anything with those elected into public office regardless how dishonest, arrogant or plainly corrupt they might be. He cannot question, compel or investigate in any way a cabinet minister regardless of how definite the evidence is that proves that minister's breaches. OMLET, SORT and all the “Sharpening” of Teeth is simply a fallacy.

Our Ombudsman and his team was provided with clear evidence of a cabinet minister who had instructed directors from his ministry to lie and alter reports that had been entered into official record. It was not a simple allegation without supporting evidence.

Minister Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment had requested Lisa Feldman Director of Investigation and Enforcement to alter what were instructions set out in a ministry report of February 16^th 2011. Minister Jim Bradley requested Director Bill Bardswick to alter and add to a report submitted in March 2010. Ministry of the Environment reports are official documents submitted under the protocol of the Environmental Bill of Rights. A copy is provided to the individual who had applied for an investigation under the EBR and a copy to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. The ECO then combines MOE reports into his annual report which he presents to the Ontario Legislature.

Official documents were being altered by an elected member of our Ontario Provincial Parliament. Clear evidence was provided to support these very serious allegations and the Office of the Ombudsman appointed an Early Resolution Officer, one Maggie DiDomizio to conduct the investigation. It is difficult to understand what is the role of an 'early resolution officer' at the Office of the Ombudsman. Who are these 'officers', what experience or knowledge do they have. According to the Ombudsman's Act they have some authority at their disposal. The title of such an individual infers that it is their job to find some form of resolution to a situation therefore avoiding an investigation? In this case no resolution was possible and only an investigation at a senior level was required. Maggie DiDomizio found herself out of her depth and that became alarmingly apparent with her actions.

True the Ombudsman has no power or authority over the Ontario government, its ministers or how it conducts its business of politics. Still one would think there is enough authority to question the directors and other employees of a ministry and comprehend the material provided. DiDomizio presented a report in relation to file #187333, and proved the real impotence of the Office of the Ombudsman. In fact DiDomizio simply became a mouthpiece for Director Feldman in presenting another lie and now altering a part of the original report submitted by the MOE. DiDomizio ignored written confirmation provided by the author of the original report of 2011 and totally ignored what was presented in relation to Director Bardswick. When questioned about the status of any investigation of that situation, DiDomizio simply refused to reply and claimed she was out of the office till September 17^th.

DiDomizio in her report states “She (the Director of Investigations and Enforcement) said that, while there is no MOE offence relating to the parking of the vehicles, the MOE made a suggestion that the vehicles be moved as their location could possibly be a concern for the City of St. Catharines.” The original MOE report of February 16^th 2011 states “As a preventative measure, the property owner has already been advised to move the damaged vehicles away from the property lines so as to lessen the potential for fluids to move offsite and to clean up any spills detected in a timely manner.”

The original report of February 16^th 2011 was signed by Ass. Dep. Min. Kevin French. On behalf of Kevin French an email was sent on July 16^th 2012 by Jayne Harten, Issues Manager and Strategic Advisor Office of the ADM Operations Division. Jayne Harten states, “Ministry staff spoke to the property owner of Sun Collision, Mr. Sam Demita, during their visit on January 5 2011 and followed up with a written letter dated January 13 2011, requesting that the damaged vehicles be parked away from the fence line as a preventative measure. This request was outlined in the EBR decision summary which was sent to you in February 2011. A copy was also provided to Sun Collision.”

A copy of the original report of February 16^th 2011 and of the email by Jayne Harten on behalf of Ass. Dep. Min. Kevin French were provided and at the disposal of DiDomizio. In addition to both of these documents DiDomizio had a copy of the letter from Director Feldman, in fact DiDomizio states “I note that the Director said in her June 13 2012 letter that the MOE would convey your concerns to the City...” Feldman had this to say in her June 13^th letter, “You have expressed concerns in your emails about damaged vehicles parked by the fence on the Sun Collision property, a concern that you also raised in correspondence to Minister Bradley in February of 2012. In response to those concerns, the Ministry determined that there is no evidence of an offence in regards to this matter, and as such no action will be taken by the Ministry with respect to that issue.”

Nowhere at any time did it state that the MOE suggested the vehicles be moved because it may be a concern to the City of St. Catharines as is now claimed in the report by DiDomizio. Both the report of February 2011 and the email from Jayne Harten on behalf of Ass. Dep. Min. French made it clear that Sam Demita of Sun Collision was told to move the damaged vehicles in three separate ways, and on three separate occasions. It would seem that the MOE meant what they said, going to such lengths. Yet Director Feldman lied to an investigator from the Ombudsman's office, why? DiDomizio had all this at her disposal and yet monkeyed Feldman's lie! Is DiDomizio so ignorant of the evidence or did she have another motivation, one less pleasant to discuss? DiDomizio compromised the Office of the Ombudsman and must be investigated now herself.

It was not enough that DiDomizio parroted new lies by the Director of Investigations and Enforcement she also lied herself as to the author of the original complaint brought before the Ombudsman. DiDomizio states that in relation to the complaint “You questioned how the property owner could refuse to comply with MOE's instructions without consequence and alleged that the MOE had intentionally falsified its February 16 2011 report, which you claim is a breach of the Environmental Bill of Rights (the EBR).” An absolute lie by DiDomizio, either that or she has a serious problem in comprehending the English language. In my original letter to the Ombudsman it was made clear that the MOE had allowed a business owner to ignore its instructions potentially putting a neighbourhood at risk. At no point was it claimed “that the MOE had intentionally falsified its February 16 2011 report.”

Clear evidence had been provided that MOE had attempted to alter details of reports that they had filed officially on record. What was the reason for DiDomizio to lie? She continued to prove her incompetence with this statement: “The Ombudsman does not oversee the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, or any other officers of the legislature.” First of all the Environmental Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and he presents his final annual report to the Legislative Assembly. According to Wikipedia, “Ontario's Ombudsman oversees and investigates public complaints about the government of Ontario, including more than 500 provincial government ministries, agencies, corporations, tribunals, boards and commissions.”

That aside, at no point in the original letter had any request been made for an investigation nor any form of oversight of the Environmental Commissioner. The letter did state to the Ombudsman on July 15^th 2012, “As your procedure is to speak to representatives of the ministry in question it is of utmost importance that you also speak to Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Mr. Miller has been made aware of all details of the ministry attempts to alter details of reports filed under the Environmental Bill of Rights.” How was it possible in any way to misunderstand this?

Mr. Peter Lapp, Director of Operations at the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario states in a letter dated August 28^th 2012, “In your letters you state that you have forwarded your concerns to the Ombudsman. The ECO will cooperate in every way with any request from the Ombudsman.” The ECO has no powers to commence “own-motion” investigations and this would of been the only opportunity to provide serious information relevant to the 'investigation' at hand.

Did DiDomizio intentionally pretend not to understand what was set out before her in English? If her role was to review the details, then how was it possible to ignore the ECO on the grounds she quoted? It was the ECO who received the original reports and had presented them to the Legislative Assembly. It was the ECO who could provide all the details as to the severity and implications of any attempt to alter reports placed on record. All of this seemed to escape the purview of DiDomizio's investigative abilities. Yet there was more to come.

DiDomizio states “we have previously reviewed concerns that you have raised in connection with the subject property and the MOE.” A statement that is now on official record and one that intentionally presents an image of the complainant as vexatious. All the evidence and material provided was ignored and the Office of the Ombudsman had become a parrot presenting a new lie by MOE.

We in Ontario have no protection in reality against those elected. Andre Marin (appointed Ombudsman 2005 – present) may brag about his awards such as the one from the Ontario's Bar Association, he may brag about the special investigative powers such as SORT and OMLET, but he has no real authority. In his 2009 annual report, Marin emphasized the importance of oversight and accountability, yet he has no power to ensure that where it really matters. The elected representatives of our government still do as they please with complete impunity of the law.

Ontario Ombudsman file number #187333 proves that even with an annual budget of 10.75 million dollars, a staff of 80 plus, the Ombudsman Act in hand and special teams of investigators such as SORT and OMLET, Ontario's Watchdog is simply a toothless hound.

On Friday the 14^th of September 2012 a second letter was received from Mr. Peter Lapp, Director of Operations Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. For the second time Mr. Lapp states “...you have also forwarded your concerns to the Ombudsman. The ECO will cooperate in every way with any request from the Ombudsman.” Once again the ECO makes it clear that they were expecting to provide information in this extremely serious breach of legislation by the Ministry of Environment.

DiDomizio must be investigated as to her handling of this investigation. She lied in her report not only in relation to the original complaint presented to the Office of the Ombudsman but she also repeated a new lie by Director Lisa Feldman of the MOE and therefore Minister Jim Bradley. DiDomizio intentionally ignored the details requesting that she contact the ECO and covered that up with a lie. Testimony by the ECO would prove the breach of legislation against Lisa Feldman, the Ministry of the Environment and Minister Jim Bradley. DiDomizio intentionally avoided this potentially damaging testimony and the question lingers as to why.

Has Minister Jim Bradley used a representative of the Office of the Ombudsman to further cover up his breach of legislation? Has Minister Jim Bradley used Maggie DiDomizio, Early Resolution Officer at the Office of the Ombudsman to place on record aspersions upon the credibility of the complainant labelling the complainant as vexatious? DiDomizio with her report on Ombudsman file #187333 dated August 27^th 2012 has slandered the complainant, she has perpetuated the lie by Director Lisa Feldman of the MOE made at the request of Minister Jim Bradley and intentionally avoided crucial testimony that would of been provided by the ECO.

Andre Marin is responsible for the actions of all his staff. This investigation must be reopened and conducted by an impartial experienced investigator. Maggie DiDomizio has to face a full internal investigation and her report struck from record. A full public apology is required to be provided to the original complainant. The Ombudsman may not have any authority to investigate corruption within our government or its ministers but he can take action against Director's Feldman and Bardswick and the ministry. Clear evidence has been provided of lies and breach of legislation, additional evidence is willingly awaiting. It is time for Andre Marin to yank the chain on Ontario's Watchdog, put its dentures in and take a bite.

Send comments to demtruth@gmail.com 

RECALL, RECALL, RECALL – no not the movie

Should we the people have some form of accountability from those we elect to govern us, or do we have to wait till the next election as our only recourse? According to Sun Media columnist Brian MacLeod the answer is “All you need is an electorate who, from time to time, wakes up and pays attention.” MacLeod wrote a column titled 'Recalls rarely achieve intended goal' and it was published in The Standard August 23^rd 2012. Almost half of this column is spent on criticism of the US and their style of politics, even Arnold Schwarzenegger is mentioned. Then the question is raised, “Now, hands up all those who believe the US has better governance than Canada.”

As always we will jump up on our pedestals here and point fingers at the US style of governance in comparison to Canadian. Yet in the US a State Governor faced hand cuffs and jail whilst here in Canada an individual no longer in public office can admit to receiving brown paper envelopes stuffed with cash and walk away from any consequence. Maybe it's not the US style of governance that should be compared but the fact that accountability does exist there. How much of it exists in Canada?

MacLeod in his column says, “It's almost always about two things – politics and money.” Truer words have never been spoken, but who's money is the real question. Millions of tax payer dollars were spent on an enquiry that made an attempt to dig up the truth. The result was as expected and the head of the enquiry publicly stated that his hands were tied by the parameters set for the scope of the enquiry. Why was that so?

What avenues do we the people have in Canada when an elected public official is proven to have committed irregularities? Is the only recourse left to us in Canada to wait for a sinking popularity for the next election before we can “yank a politicians chain.” After all if that's all we have then the politician walks away with a healthy pension paid with our tax dollars and a huge grin on his face. Now that's true governance Canadian style, eh.

It is not the tough or unpopular decisions that we want to stop they are necessary at times and it is not possible to please all in the community. What we need is some kind of mechanism that holds politicians accountable and enforces consequences. Everyone knows how politicians change during the elections, the promises made and deals formulated in exchange for voter support. What happens after the election?

In Ontario we have the Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner, well at least an individual holds that title and is paid with our tax dollars. The title makes one think that he as an independent body overseas issues regarding members of the provincial parliament. How wrong anyone can be.

Minister Jim Bradley currently holds the position as Minister of Environment in the McGuinty government. A 35 year veteran of politics touted for his incredible record of public service. This same Minister Jim Bradley protected a political pal from any consequence as that pal bent and butchered the law. Still that was not enough, Jim Bradley then gives his pal Mayor Brian McMullan of St. Catharines a contribution for his municipal re-election campaign. True there are times we forget that our elected representatives are also Canadian citizens and therefore have the same rights as we all do. In this situation Minister Jim Bradley clearly protected Mayor McMullan from investigation and any consequences for breaches of the Municipal Act and more, to have made a financial contribution to his re-election campaign was simply a sign of arrogance by Jim Bradley.

So now let's look elsewhere, anywhere that the public may take a grievance to. We now stand at the doors of the Ombudsman of Ontario. On the wall as one first exits the elevators it states “ONTARIO'S WATCH DOG.” Beg to differ on that boast, it is only a dog with dentures.

Back once again to Minister Jim Bradley, Ontario's hero of public service. As the Environment Minister Jim Bradley instructed two individual directors of the ministry to lie regarding official reports submitted by the ministry into record. The instructions to these directors had in fact been proven and documented. Our Environmental Bill of Rights shattered and official reports that were submitted to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, who in turn submitted them in his annual report to the legislature, now tampered and altered. All the material and hard evidence provided to the Office of the Ombudsman, as it is within the jurisdictional authority of the Ombudsman to investigate provincial issues. In all fairness there has been no response as yet from the Ombudsman though little faith is held for an outcome that will enforce any consequences on Minister Jim Bradley.

The same Ombudsman had been provided direct evidence of the most senior public health official in the Niagara Region to have intentionally lied regarding a potential public health issue. Mind you the Ombudsman would normally not have jurisdictional authority to investigate municipal issues but in the case of the Niagara Region the province had taken authority over the Niagara Health System and appointed a provincial supervisor at its head. Niagara suffered heavily through the C.difficile outbreak with over three dozen deaths before the McGuinty government took action and in effect took control of the NHS, making it for the time being a provincially controlled body. Our Ombudsman, stated that since Dr. Valerie Jaeger MD, PhD., was a public official from the regional municipality of Niagara the Ombudsman had no authority to investigate. Mind you Dr. Jaeger MD, PhD., is also a practising family physician in St. Catharines governed under the rules of the NHS.

Moving on to our municipal government, after all it was Sudbury Mayor Marianne Matichuk who inspired Brian McLeod and his article. Who in fact oversees the municipalities? Does anyone in fact provide any protection to the people against mayors and city councillors? Mayor Matichuk had made a request of Municipal Affairs Minister Kathleen Wynne “to press for recall legislation in Ontario.” Brian MacLeod in his immense wisdom and knowledge had this to say, “Wynne would do well to smile and nod at the suggestion, then move on to more pressing issues.” Someone should tell MacLeod that this is all that ministers of the provincial Liberals do at all times without his advice.

In the city of St. Catharines its mayor decides that he can do as he pleases with the law and fixes a by-law fine after it was issued to an individual. One of his own city councillors for the Merritton Ward Jennie Stevens leaves an answering machine message to the individual who had the by-law infringement. The message states that Mayor Brian McMullan had taken care of the ticket and he did not have to pay for it. Under the Municipal Act no mayor has the legal authority to interfere with by-law fines once issued. This was breach of the Municipal Act and perjury of oath of office.

All the information including a copy of the message left by Councillor Jennie Stevens was sent to the Minister for Municipal Affairs, at that time it was Jim Bradley. St. Catharines is Minister Jim Bradley's riding and Mayor Brian McMullan is his personal friend. Minister Jim Bradley sheltered his pal from any consequence, and in his arrogance provided a cash contribution to Brian McMullan's re-election campaign.

This has not been the end of the transgressions of St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan. In an odd situation a Niagara Regional Councillor became the target of anonymous accusations. These accusations were sent to the local press, through the internet and reached senior staff at Niagara Region. The anonymous accusers even sent a false complaint to the Niagara Regional Police which is in breach of the Criminal Code. Regional Councillor Andrew Petrowski and his family had to survive this onslaught in public. Mayor Brian McMullan who sits on Regional Council called for Councillor Petrowski to resign on the basis of the anonymous accusations that had been proven to be false and malicious. Mayor Brian McMullan took things much further by making a public statement in the press admitting to have knowledge of the identity of the anonymous accusers. In fact Mayor McMullan admitted to complicity to a breach of the criminal code. Nothing was done, no questions asked of Mayor McMullan and the matter was left to die.

Arrogance by our elected representatives is not uncommon. Each holds his or her hat in their hands when an election times roll around and quickly forgetting everything once elected. True there are times for hard and tough decisions making it impossible to please everyone in the community. Yet in Ontario we have no protection at all against the intentional transgressions of those we elect. Do not bring up the Integrity Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Environmental Commissioner nor the Auditor General. Each is a pseudo-government watchdog that barks when it suits them and drops its false teeth in a jar.

So what are we left with in the end. Are we to simply shut up and bare it till the next election? According to the brilliance of Brian MacLeod that is all. Another brilliant representative of Sun Media wisdom Jim Hendry had this to say in relation to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford who faces the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. “Ford didn't and should have his knuckles rapped. But the Conflict of Interest Act doesn't provide for small punishment, and no mayor should be turfed for $3150 worth of arrogance.” (Point of view: Toronto mayor's stupidity could be his salvation. The Standard, August 30^th 2012, by Jim Hendry). According to Sun Media we now have a dollar value on the need for consequence by our elected representatives when caught breaking the law. Shall we transfer such an attitude when applying the Criminal Code? But then it did happen that way in St. Catharines with another mayor, Mayor Brian McMullan.

When is it simply enough?

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

PUSSY RIOT Censored by Disappropriate Justice

The key ingredient of democracy is the freedom of expression and of speech though a degree of restraint is of value to avoid the heavy hand of authority freely expressing itself. Humanity's struggle for freedom has peppered the history of all nations, some had to face violence to achieve their freedom, others with far less sacrifice. Yet Russia in its long history has never known true freedom, and the fall of the Soviet Union did nothing more than provide democracy with a threatening noose around its neck.

Czarist Russia kept the masses uneducated and obedient whilst the chosen few enjoyed immense wealth and power. Russia's Orthodox Church did not object to being a willing partner ensuring that the populace remained obedient and superstitious. In the end anger brought about a demand for equality and the Russian people through uncontrollable violent struggle exchanged Czarist oppression for Soviet suppression. Regardless of who was the supreme leader whether it was Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushehev or Brezhnev the Orthodox Church suffered persecution and was forced to recognize the Soviet regime as the ultimate power over the church.

Russia and its people survived the Revolution, Civil War and the Second World War and little fight was left in them as they became human fodder for the Soviet power machine. The promise of equality never was realized under the iron hand of a new era of government. Under Mikhail Gorbachev and Glasnost the Soviet Union found a softer face and new political and social freedoms. This brought about an eventual end of the Soviet rule with promises of a new Russia, democratic and free. This fantasy did not last long.

Under Vladimir Putin Russia faces no less of an iron fist, only this time the disguise is democracy not communism for a face. Putin has to deal with public protests and open opposition something the old Soviet leaders destroyed. He must find a way to discourage such open opposition and still remain acceptable by world leaders, hence once again the use of the puppet – the Russian Orthodox Church. Pussy Riot played a bluff with the Putin power machine and the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was only a stage. Was it always the intention of these political activists to fail and face the corrupt judiciary? A legitimate question that has not been answered, though the statement by Pussy Riot band member Yekaterina Samutsevich appears to point to the affirmative.

Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova only lasted less than a minute in the Cathedral before being led out by security. Their arrest came days after the event and only after a cry of blasphemy had been engineered across the country. The judge at the trial called their act as being offensive to Orthodox believers and the church. Nothing of the anti-government stance by Pussy Riot was publicly recognized by the judge only the fact that they had offended the church. In a fashion the apparent guilt of the Russian people of surrendering their faith during the Soviet years has now been manipulated in this public condemnation of these three young women. Black scarfed old women clamoring at the prison gates demanding severe punishment against these unbelievers is not so much of a satirical vision.

Putin has been successful and the voice of democracy seems to have been intimidated, but has it. Today Russia is in a new era and the modern world has brought with it new weapons to the struggle. Eduction, travel and the internet have provided a broader base for the anti-government movement. At its head Alexey Navalny who has shown no fear of Putin and has seen the wrath of a power hungry individual willing to manipulate everything to stay in position. Navalny has bought attention to corruption in the main Russian political party, United Russia, calling its members “crooks and thieves.” Alexei shared a prison with other activists for 15 days for “defying a government official,” after a protest in December 2011. Then again in May 2012, Navalny was sentenced to another 15 days jail after another anti-Putin rally. Alexei Venediktov has said that “jailing Navalny transforms him from an online leader into an offline one.” 

Russian political tactics have been the same for centuries. Fear and intimidation used as weapons against any protests. Today Russia faces world scrutiny which it cannot afford to have swing against it and the anti-Putin protesters are more courageous due to that fact. If Alexei Navalny who organized protesters in the thousands against Putin was jailed twice for 15 days, how is it that the three young women of Pussy Riot found such a harsh sentence?

There is no doubt that the actions of Pussy Riot were offensive. One may question their decision to perform a protest at a place of extreme reverence such as the Cathedral, still the resulting punishment seems outrageous. Like the jailing of Alexei Navalny, the sentencing of Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova will only make them public martyrs to the anti-Putin cause. Public outcry has come from around the world in defence of Pussy Riot members, and the three women now are world-famous for their 'courage'. Still those outside Russia raising their voices against the heavy hand seen in the Russian courts have some serious issues of credibility. In an article titled, 'The west's hypocrisy over Pussy Riot is breathtaking' for the guardian.co.uk, Simon Jenkin states “Anyone in England and Wales with a dog out of control can now be jailed for six months. If the dog causes injury, the maximum term is to be two years.” He spoke of a London court jailing a young man Charlie Gilmour to 18 months “after he swung on a union flag from the Cenotaph and tossed a bin at a police car.” Simon Jenkins does not defend these individuals nor the British courts.

In America human rights activists and Madonna condemned the Pussy Riot jail terms as disproportionate. Simon Jenkins reports “a US military court declared that reporting the Guantanamo Bay trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be censored. Any mention of his torture in prison was banned as “reasonably expected to damage national security.” This has no apparent connection to proportionate punishment or freedom of speech.” (Simon Jenkins, guardian.co.uk, August 21^st 2012)

True the actions of Pussy Riot would hardly seem to justify such a sentence. Reading the closing statement of Yekaterina Samutsevich it becomes clear that the motivation behind their actions had nothing to do with anti-Orthodox sentiment, the women of Pussy Riot were there to make a loud anti-Putin protest. Understanding Russia's history and the attitudes of the Russian people then it is not hard to understand the final outcome. Vladimir Putin has played musical chairs with Dmitry Medvedev to continue his hold on power even after his two-term limit in 2008 ended. No amount of protest outside of Russia will make any difference as long as Putin is able to convince Russians, in particular outside of the large cities, that this had to be done. The women of Pussy Riot are simply pawns in a game that has one prize at the end.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

The acceptance of ripening, another birthday

As I turn another year older an acceptance of the facts of life reach a clearer realization. My environmental work finds a new vest of motivation, an understanding of our responsibilities as stewards who bequeath to our children and grandchildren their future. For my 54^th I have been honoured with an invitation to become an ambassador for Tres Hombres Ecoliners Atlantis which I have accepted proudly. Mayorgate will continue on its path and I promise it won't become crabby or cantankerous simply because of an ache or two.

So I share with you all who are equally ripening, a birthday sentiment given to me by my daughter and Mayorgate's artist, Alexandra, its message provides lovely and amusing thoughts.

"People are so afraid of that nasty five letter word that begins with D (hint – the end, climax, crescendo of life). They're also fearful of natural ageing, determined through science and skin creams to reverse or at least halt the process. They hang a halo of shame upon the symptoms of the elderly (you know, forgetfulness, uncontrollable gas, constipation). Yet they throw lavish (and not so lavish) parties for their birthdays. Don't they know the 'birthday' is the early warning, the predecessor of all their fears? With every birthday the body wrinkles (on the inside and the out), getting settled and comfortable, procrastinating a little bit more, feeling more self-aware and mellow, as the cartilage softens and the personal happy time becomes more of a challenge to achieve. There are certain milestones and privileges associated with the passing of a Birthday, but most of those are bumped back at the opening of the tunnel, at a stage in development when the body and mind are still quite like an infant in that they are not yet fully connected. As soon as the proper connection between thought and action is made, there comes the onslaught of corrosion no organic diet or exercise can reverse.

Birthday – the symbol of having one less year to live. I don't quite see people looking forward with that celebration. Unless they embrace ageing. Maybe if we don't use the term 'ageing' we'll learn to appreciate its gifts a little more. Let's call it 'ripening', because a ripe fruit is always the tastiest! And when you've hit the deep end, you can avoid arguments by just forgetting what you were going to say, never excuse yourself because everyone expects you to let go anyway (if they know it's coming, what's the need to blurt it out verbally?) and sit back to enjoy the little things.

So cheers to the ripening of your brain and body fluids! 'Cause none of us are getting any younger."

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

Is news media obligated to present the truth?

Do we still demand honesty from news media, whether it is in print, television or radio? Can a newspaper, regardless of its size publish an article which omits by intent facts relating to the article, or worse publish a statement that is a lie? As a society we have become jaded in regards to many issues, whether it is a politician's integrity or a newspaper's choice to support one candidate in an election over another. Still whether we pick up a newspaper or turn on the television or radio we expect the truth, even if at times provided with a slant.

In the St. Catharines area, Niagara this Week is a community newspaper with a modest circulation. The pages of Niagara this Week are not filled with news of knitting events or community carnivals, rather it presents news relating to the local area and more. On July 2nd 2012, Niagara this Week published a column by an individual who is not a staff writer nor an experienced or published journalist.  The column first appeared online and then distributed in print July 11th 2012.

Webster's dictionary describes a column as: “a series of feature articles appearing regularly in a newspaper or magazine, by a particular writer or about a certain subject.” This article was on two pages and at the bottom of the article Niagara this Week did not say that these were the views of the writer only, instead they described the writer as a founder and chairman of a non-profit organization, lending greater credibility to the article and its author.

Bullet News Niagara is an online news service published by an experienced individual who had the position as city editor at The Standard newspaper in St. Catharines. On-line news services are a relatively new format of presentation of news in a world where technology is diminishing distance and time. Yet the obligations are no different to that of the press or other more conventional media. As a member of the Ontario Press Council, Bullet News Niagara has the same responsibility to ensure its articles do not distort the truth and do not attempt to deceive the public.

At first glance 'Niagara falling short of goals on dysfunctional urban sprawl' by Bernie Slepkov, was nothing more than any other piece presented in Niagara this Week or Bullet News. Mr. Slepkov speaks in terms of an individual with knowledge, experience and background in relation to the issues raised by him in the article. The author's claim to “having been closely involved with local efforts since 2001” provides an air of authority to the following statements. He uses words such as “infilling,” “intensification” and provides what he calls as “key intents” to community planning and design. One of his points, or “key intents” was “Clean up and give rebirth to contaminated and abandoned industrial sites – called brownfields.”

Community planning is a necessity, as uncontrolled urban sprawl not only has devastating environmental impact but also logistical frustration to any municipality. Abandoned industrial sites are more than an eye-sore for the community, they are an under-used asset that needs to be redeveloped. Yet the redevelopment must be within the strict guidelines set out in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and legislation, as often these abandoned sites carry the burden of hazardous contamination requiring clean up.

Contamination was the single most important issue with the brownfields that Bernie Slepkov refers to and comments on. His total lack of understanding of the legislation governing the

criteria under which redevelopment is considered is no excuse for the ludicrous statements made. The land in question has a history as being part of the Domtar Paper Mills industry, at one time an important employer of many and a key to the local community. Yet the paper industry used various hazardous chemicals in its daily routines and at a period in time when environmental laws and understanding were far from maturity as they are today.

Before examining the depth of this article it is important to understand that Bernie Slepkov first lied with his statement, “I assure you that's all from intentional and efforts are afoot to address the shortcomings exposed within the following examples.” Websters Dictionary describes afoot as: “in motion or operation; in progress.” He then proceeds to comment on the developments and he specifically identifies, The Keg, the old Lybster Cotton Mill, the large brownfield site behind The Stone Mill and the new bank building and retail plaza beside The Keg in St. Catharines.

Claiming that something is “afoot” and that coupled with his previous boast, “having been closely involved with local efforts,” indicates knowledge. It can only be a lie! It is not only an absolute lack of understanding of the brownfield legislation, but of engineering and of common sense. Looking at the photos of the developments it is impossible to understand how anything is “afoot to address the shortcomings,” as Slepkov states “A basic smart growth development would have included at least one mid-to-high rise residential unit above the stores.” He continues, “Same thing across the street beside The Keg. The new bank building and the retail plaza wall enclosing a large parking lot should also have included a residential building.” Maybe using Google image search as one's research tool has its shortcomings.

Since these buildings have been completed and retail businesses already in operation it is impossible to imagine how anything can be considered to alter their use. Foundations for these buildings would not be able to accommodate any additional weight nor can any business close its operation for such a fantasy. Worse still as Slepkov identifies these sites as previous brownfields he should of done some research on the contamination identified and the environmental investigations conducted.

Instead Slepkov blunders along the path of ignorance or maybe something more. Each newspaper employs editors who vet each and every article before publishing. How is it possible for the city editor at Niagara this Week to have no knowledge of his local area? The publisher at Bullet News Niagara Mr. Peter Conradi, a former city editor at The Standard newspaper here in St. Catharines, has to have knowledge of what he approved for the front page in the past. No excuse can exist for either to publish deceit of this nature.

Brownfield legislation exists to ensure proper clean up of abandoned industrial land for its intended development and future use. Any plans for residential use of such land would face the strictest criteria for assessment under the EPA. Aside of the super human task of accommodating residential above already completed single storey construction, it would be impossible to comply with the EPA and brownfield legislation requirements.

Slepkov states that “the contamination was removed from the site and the original stone-brick building was transformed into The Keg.” Originally a Toronto developer was interested in redeveloping the site, but Dunvegan Developments and its engineers stated that the building was structurally unsafe and would need to be demolished. Mayor Tim Rigby, St. Catharines mayor at the time, didn't want the building torn down and found local developer Nino

Donatelli and Merritton Mills Redevelopment Corporation.

This is part of the excavation of land for development only some 200 metres from the Keg's kitchen doors.

Preparation for the building of two restaurants adjacent to the Keg. 

The excavation unearthed soil that stopped all work for nearly two weeks. A record of site condition should have identified potential contaminates in the soil prior to beginning an excavation for development. History of this property identified mercury, arsenic, lead and copper as contaminants yet Mr. Slepkov talks of residential to be included here. 

As Kalvin Reid of The Standard reported in July 2004, “The project has also included some environmental clean up when about 7000 tonnes of coal ash was discovered buried under a layer of clay.” Dr. Andy Panko who acted as the environmental consultant on the project said at the time, “But it has been a relatively straight-forward clean up.” (Kalvin Reid The Standard, July 21 2004). Yet in 2007 only a few hundred metres from the restaurant building over 5000 tonnes of heavily contaminated soil was dug up and dumped at Station Road Landfill in Wainfleet by developer Nino Donatelli. This soil was contaminated with mercury, lead, arsenic, copper and Nino Donatelli confirmed the contamination in a CBC News at Six interview on July 3rd 2007.

The building's concrete floor was in tact and no other clean up was conducted at the time. Although concrete appears quite solid as anyone who has been whacked by a piece of concrete and the result of the 'ouch test'. Still physics has proven that everything is only a collection of atoms moving at enormous speed and to add to the theory of atoms it is important to note concrete is a porous substance regardless of the 'ouch test'.

Photographs taken of an excavation for the construction of the retail plaza beside The Keg showed heavily dark soil and water green with a rainbow on the surface which was pumped into the run-off sewer. Independent laboratory tests of the soil samples and water alarming and only a couple of hundred metres from the side kitchen doors of The Keg. This is the same retail plaza that Slepkov says should of had residential housing. “The new bank building and retail plaza wall enclosing a large parking lot should also have included a residential building,” at least Slepkov researched all of this on Google image search.

Across the road next to the now Stone Mill Inn and Johnny Rocco's the property underwent massive excavation. The pit dug so grand that a full size Euclid could not be visible from the road when at ground level at the bottom of the excavation. Although MOE did not divulge the level or type of contaminates after the Record of Site Condition was approved they did say that commercial development was approved. At the time when the Sobey's building had been erected a large hole in the ground behind the building filled with water. The water had a rainbow across the surface, an immediate sign of petroleum effluent present. Most know that if a boater accidentally spills a small amount of petroleum into a lake whilst refilling his or her engine runs the risk of a heavy fine. Yet here pumps and a pump line were brought in, the pump line snaked hundreds of feet into a storm water run-off sewer and the contaminated water pumped for several days. Photographs taken over this period and samples tested at an accredited environmental laboratory were provided. No action taken.

A record of Site Condition is expected to be filed under the EPA Ontario Reg #153/04. The components which form this document are intensive and are designed to protect our future. No part of this process is taken lightly and the information gathered determines the use of land for development. Sections of the Ontario Reg 153/04 are provided here as the full document spans a total of 151 pages. 

As one looks at the development along this stretch of Glendale Avenue and remembers the vacant land it is hard to say that the development looks bad in any way. We need to utilize our resources with our land but within boundaries that protect the future and our environment of the present.

In mid 2006 a huge pit was dug next to The Keg, the excavation was due to heavy metal contaminates in the ground. This pit was approximately 25 feet deep and 50 feet in diameter. Water filled this pit, its base showing yellow soil as puss. Pumps were brought in and a road side storm water catch basin smashed in with sledge hammers and the water pumped. The Ministry of the Environment after two years of investigation said to disregard the test results as the tests were interfered with at the laboratory. Eventually the developer admitted to the pumping claiming he did not know he needed permission to pump into the sewer. An award winning developer, and not internationally acclaimed as Slepkov stated, just locally said he did not know he needed permission. The soil in the excavation pit was contaminated with mercury.

Many of our storm water run-off sewers in St. Catharines flow indirectly into Lake Ontario. How do we ignore the facts and glorify the omission or simply excuse it as ignorance. The editors at Niagara this Week, as the publisher at Bullet News have a responsibility to the public. Our media has a responsibility to the public to present the truth regardless of any political sympathies they harbour.

In the article by Bernie Slepkov the truth was twisted and mangled, the responsibility rests with the publishers of both Niagara this Week and Bullet News. Slepkov's motivation is not known for the wild statement of what is “afoot,” it would be interesting to hear his explanation. Yet those who are trusted by the community to present facts as news have no excuse. Regardless of whether it is a small time newspaper, a community newspaper or a national publication the publishers have a responsibility that cannot be wavered at any time. The publisher and editors of Niagara this Week have failed in their responsibility to the public. A redress is required and an explanation demanded.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

Rio's Environmental Carnivale

The United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development or the Earth Summit at its debut in 1992 had a twelve year old grab the attention of world leaders. This child became known as “the girl who silenced the world for five minutes,” her words filled with passion, bringing some of those listening to tears. To a gathering of world leaders, some 108 countries had been represented by their heads of state such as US President George Bush Sr. and Canada's P.M. Brian Mulroney, she said, “We've come 5000 miles to tell you adults you must change your ways.”

Fast forward to 2012 the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development or as it was called RIO+20 had no child to stop the world instead glamour was used to sell the concept to the young and inspire them to action. Prior to the Earth Summit several other events were held such as the UNEP Green Nations Fest. Ambassadors for the UNEP, supermodel Gisele and actor Don Cheadle (best known by the young for his Iron Man movie) came to encourage more people to take part in World Environment Day and promise to plant trees. As it was announced some 50,000 new trees were promised to be planted in Brazil, with the first in front of cameras and an adoring crowd planted by Gisele. For the sceptic the question remains, who is really going to keep an official count of the number of trees that will be planted and verified? In a country where deforestation is an acute problem this public gesture looked good on camera.

It has been weeks since the end of RIO+20 and the world stage is preoccupied with a new event, the 'Green' Olympics, perhaps it is the best time to take a look at the Rio Earth Summit and our need for public spectacles such as these gatherings. It is not scepticism but a need for reality that is the motivator now that the publicity has died down and Gisele is off to another fashion shoot, and the other stars and personalities crowding the pages of gossip magazines.

The United Nations Environmental Program, the same UNEP that hosted tree-huggers for World Environment Day, issued a dire warning when it released its Global Environment Outlook. It said “the world continues to speed down an unsustainable path despite over 500 international agreed goals and objectives to support the sustainable management of the environment and improve human well-being.” Data compiled by the UNEP shows that water quality and access to clean water still is the most important issue for many countries, and by 2015 more than 600 million people will lack access to safe drinking water. Water is a basic ingredient to human survival and these statistics are alarming.

Elizabeth Thompson, Executive Co-ordinator for the Rio Earth Summit had said, “We have failed. We have not properly maintained the issue of sustainable development as a way of living, doing business. That is the overall reason why we have not made the kind of progress that we should have.” Thompson said that the Rio conference is hoped to be a “transforming moment” (Connie Watson CBC news, UNEP report). Yet unlike the first Earth Summit of 1992 there will be no agreements that will legally bind countries to meet any environmental targets. This time it is a gentler RIO+20 where countries will be asked to work voluntarily to reach targets they set for themselves. How much of a “transforming moment” was it really when it was all over?

In 1992 climate change was a new concept, today it is the basis of argument. Simply put many argue that Earth is simply going through changes and that the notion of climate change is merely a tool of the alarmists'. A recent poll in June conducted by the Washington Post and Stanford University showed that concern over climate change dropped from 33% to a low 18% as the number one environmental issue. Climate change is a hard sell in some ways even though we have enough changing around us to demand attention. The last decade was the warmest on record and in 2010 emissions from fossil fuels were at the highest level. “Under current models, greenhouse-gas emissions could double over the next 50 years, leading to a rise in global temperatures of three degrees Celsius or more by the end of the century UNEP said. The annual economic damage from climate change is estimated at one to two percent of world GDP by 2100 if temperatures increase by 2.5 C, it warned. The UN's target is 2 C.” (The Vancouver Sun 'Earth's Resources in Peril, UN Warns', Agence France – Presse June 8, 2012).

Still arguments will rage over the validity of science and those who have their own motivations will continue to point to historical evens as an explanation. Yet RIO+20 was not solely concerned with climate change. Instead it was an overall discussion on the sustainability of our Earth encompassing all facets of consumption, development and trade. Environmentalists from dozens of organizations had an opportunity to put their agendas forward, amongst organizations such as Prosperity Without Growth, UNCTAD and UN Global Compact, Christian Aid, World Wildlife Fund and so many more - all these interest groups looking for attention and all with their own views on what we need to safeguard our future.

RIO+20 was not only a meeting of government representatives, heads of state and NGO's, it was a set of conferences where corporate CEO's played the most important role. It is the business world that in fact has the power to bring about change and influence government policy. Whether it is the CEO's of Shell and BP with the development of Canada's oil sands, or Dow Chemicals and its production in Brazil or the mighty power of the world's stock exchanges with the ability to promote long-term sustainable investment in their markets, the will to change is in their hands.

To some this may be a frightening concept, that the true future of Earth rests in the hands of the few and the wealthy. Peter Bakker head of World Business Council for Sustainable Development had this to say in relation to the many various gatherings and sustainability initiatives around the world, “they don't even begin to make a dent in creating a more sustainable world.” He said that “Business has the technology, innovation, management skills and financial resources to help us lead us toward a more sustainable future, and mind you, business has the will to do this.” (the guardian,'RIO+20: the Earth Summit diaries' by Jo Confino).

Adding to Peter Bakker's sentiments on the power and will of global business, CEO's from the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (a network of sustainable banks), the Green Economy Coalition, and the Norwegian Forum for Environment and Development presented their proposals. Andrew Kroglund, Director of Information and Policy at the Norwegian Forum for Environment and Development said, “Reforming the financial system will require a range of enabling policies and cultural changes.” (the guardian, 'RIO+20: the Earth Summit diaries' by Jo Confino). It is hoped that these proposals will help create sustainable products, promote diversity to increase innovation, improve long-term sustainability reporting and discourage speculative activities with no social benefit. And not to forget a catchy new slogan, 'banking because the future matters.'

What is RIO+20 to be remembered for? It had no twelve year old child to silence the world or bring tears of emotion to our audience. After all we have had twenty years of maturity since the first Earth Summit of 1992. Today climate change is not a new concept with dire warnings, rather the basis for argument on its validity. We do have 'green' as a term or label of pride such as 'green' products and organically grown produce at the supermarkets, most costing double the usual price. Peter Bakker's CEO's can at least do their part for the 'Green' Economy with the purchase of these 'green' products which most of the ordinary folk cannot afford.

RIO+20 did bring celebrities such as Leonardo Di Caprio, Sir Richard Branson, Arnold Schwarzenegger and not to forget the opening guests such as Gisele and Don Cheadle, and hundreds of CEO's from around the world. US President Obama did not appear, nor did Canada's Prime Minister Harper or British P.M. David Cameron. Canada's Environment Minister Peter Kent was very happy with the lack of any firm commitments, he said “It does not have

unrealistic, inappropriate binding commitments, and that's a good thing.” (Heather Scoffield, The Canadian Press).

Was RIO+20 simply a carnival marking the twentieth anniversary of an event that brought global attention and commitment to our need to work together for the future of this Earth and for humanity as a whole? Was it an opportunity for ominous warnings as that by the UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon when he said, “If we really do not take firm actions, we may be heading towards the end – the end of our future.” Canadian environmental groups stayed away as did our prime minister, though international groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others made their voices heard.

Whether the opinion of RIO+20 is that of a failure or of a stepping stone for the future, the words of Cicero Lucena and John Geemer prior to the opening of the summit ring loud and clear. They speak of the true legacy of the Earth Summit of 1992 without the child or the emotion:

“Yet, two decades on, all the major scientific indicators continue to flash red. And sadly, it is now clear that a large part of the summit's riginal potential has been squandered. Since 2000 alone, forests equivalent in size to the land mass of Germany have been lost; 80% of the world's fish stocks have collapsed or are on the brink of collapse; and the Gobi desert is growing by roughly 10,000 square kilometres every year.  The list of environmental pressures grow by the day, and there can be little doubt that the unsustainable use of natural resources will be the biggest challenge facing mankind in the 21^st century. So why haven't we done better since 1992?” (the guardian, 'Why Rio failed in the past and how it can succeed this time). Senator Cicero Luccena is first Secretary of the Brazilian Senate and President of GLOBE Brazil. Lord Gummer is a former UK environment minister and president of GLOBE International.

Lasse Gustavsson of the WWF had this to say of RIO+20, “We don't need meaningless pages right now. What we need is a manual to save the world.” (the guardian, Jo Confino). RIO+20 produced a Lego manual and if anyone is familiar with one of those than you will understand just how much trouble we are in. Still there is the 11^th Conference of Parties (COP11) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CCBD) in Hyderabad, India in October, and the 'Green' Olympics.

Whereas in 1992, a twelve year old Canadian girl stood before world leaders and said, “We've come 5000 miles to tell you adults you must change your ways,” now it is we the adults who have to motivate you, the young to adapt the knowledge and make a difference for our combined future.

Another child stopped the world and brought many to tears. Who can forget the little girl running in Vietnam burnt and in pain. The horror of war had no more an alarming depiction yet it did not stop war, nor the pain of children.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com