Sewage plan amounts to highway robbery
The project has no scientific basis, and should be put to a referendum
Doug Christie - Special to Times Colonist - August 26, 2009
Imagine a community of 500,000 people who face an imposed debt of $1 billion. That would be $2,000 for every man, woman or child, or $8,000 for a family of four.
Imagine this being ordered by a cabinet minister without any vote by a single elector.
Impossible, you say? Not at all. This is very similar to Victoria's sewage treatment edict from Environment Minister Barry Penner, except the cost is more likely to be $2 billion or more when it is done. Therefore a family of four's debt would be $16,000.
I attended a community information meeting sponsored by the majority of community associations on this proposal. I had two questions.
The chairman of the Capital Regional District has indicated, by way of correspondence, that he does not envision submitting the final cost of the liquid waste management plan for approval by the electorate in a referendum. In light of the onerous property-tax implications, I would submit that this is undemocratic and could be thought of as dictatorial.
I therefore wanted to request that each of the associations demand their respective municipal administrations ensure that any expenditure is legitimized by way of referendum. (Note: Section 24 (7) of Part 3 of the Environmental Management Act, by implication, states that the electorate approval is not mandatory. It is therefore discretionary.)
Since the proposed sewage-treatment facilities will seriously degrade the residential property values in their vicinities and their operations will bring continued social aggravation, I wanted to ask the associations, on behalf of your members and communities, to demand their municipal governments bring in policies that no treatment plants be permitted within their boundaries.
The community associations' representatives did not attend. The facilitator denied the right to ask either question.
Saanich Coun. Judy Brownoff ridiculed questions about the legitimacy of Penner's demand. She said we must obey and pay. Complain to the federal or provincial government, she said.
Penner has not indicated any fault in the existing system.
Why is he giving no reason for destroying our present system when the scientific evidence supports that the existing system is environmentally sufficient and acceptable?
Instead, Penner orders "the work must be done," according to Geoff Young, who chairs the CRD. Substantial fines are threatened if we decline to follow this interpretation of Penner's order.
All this is taxation without representation. This is highway robbery and property-value destruction.
Unless the minister has demonstrated serious environmental damage from the existing system, his threats of fines and his demand for secondary treatment are hollow and superfluous.
We should demand a referendum on this matter. The CRD should launch a constitutional challenge to the arbitrary power of the minister.
He has no legal right to breach the basic principles of democracy. Both Sections 1 and 7 of the Charter demand that government respect the democratic process.
The CRD should launch a referendum, and then a constitutional challenge to this arbitrary, undemocratic, ministerial arrogance.
- Doug Christie is a Victoria lawyer.