By: Ryan Kost, The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon 21-May-2013 –

But none of that was enough. For the fourth time since 1956, Portlanders on Tuesday night rejected a plan to fluoridate city water, 60 percent to 40 percent.

“There’s a libertarian component to Oregon politics … a kind of opposition to what the establishment might want,” said Bill Lunch, a political science professor at Oregon State University. “Those who have more money, despite the kind of popular presumptions in this regard, don’t always win elections.”

The lesser-known of two issues on the Portland ballot passed easily. Voters approved a third renewal of the city’s Children’s Levy with more than 70 percent in favor. The levy directs more than $9 million a year to programs that support about 14,000 children annually in areas such as child abuse prevention, after-school activities and foster care.

The campaign to renew the levy, however, took a back seat to the fight over fluoride, which intensified in the weeks leading to Election Day.

In Portland, where a largely Democratic electorate often finds liberal candidates struggling to differentiate themselves, the fluoride debate created stark, and heated, divisions.

Both campaigns accused the other of stealing yard signs. A thinly veiled anti-fluoride push poll went out to voters. Opponents were described as insensitive to equity issues, while proponents were accused of wanting to willingly pollute the city’s famously pure water.

The issue also wound up politicizing a statewide health report that showed falling cavity and tooth decay rates in the state over the past five years. One of the report’s authors said she felt pressured by Upstream Health, the group spearheading fluoridation, to present the findings in a certain way.

More than $1 million was spent on the campaign, a considerable total for a Portland-only election. But Portland finds itself back where it has historically been, as the only city among the nation’s 30 most populous to not approve fluoridation.

Clean Water Portland, the group leading the opposition, was hesitant to claim victory, but it was clear an hour after the 8 p.m. ballot deadline that the measure didn’t have enough support.

Still, said Kelly Barnes, a spokeswoman for the group, “when you really get down to it, clean water is a universal issue.

“When citizens took a look at the information, they decided for themselves that the risk wasn’t worth it.”

Barnes wouldn’t discuss possible next steps, although the group has said it would like a ban on fluoride written into the city charter.

“I think we’re going to take a little rest and reevaluate where we are.”

The pro-fluoride group Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland conceded defeat early. “Disappointed” was the word of the night.

“The results are certainly disappointing, but I think they’re mostly disappointing because, at the end of the day, we were not able to provide this preventative measure” to people who need it, said Alejandro Queral, co-chair of the group’s steering committee. “The issue doesn’t go away at the end of the election.”

Dana Haynes, Mayor Charlie Hales’ spokesman, said Hales had no plans to come back at the issue but shared supporters’ frustration.

“The measure lost even with my own ‘yes’ vote,” the mayor said in a statement. “Disappointing, but I accept the will of the voters.”

Portland has been at odds with fluoridation for more than half a century.

In the 1950s, residents considered the question of fluoridation about the same time many of the nation’s other large metro areas were adopting the practice as a way of fighting tooth decay. Portland voters bucked the trend and rejected the proposal. They said no again in 1962.

It seemed Portlanders had come around to the idea in 1978 when they approved a fluoridation plan. But two years later, they reversed course and voted to scrap it.

Since then, fluoridation has remained a constant political issue, on par with mandatory gas station attendants, occasionally coming up at the Legislature but never finding any traction.

That changed in September when, after a year of pro-fluoride lobbying, the Portland City Council quickly approved a plan to add fluoride at 0.7 parts per million beginning in March 2014.

The decision affected not just Portland, but 19 other cities, including Gresham, Tigard and Tualatin, that contract with the city to buy water from the Bull Run Reservoir. All told, the fluoridated water would have reached 900,000 people.

Early estimates put the project at $5 million for startup costs and $575,000 annually after that.

Opponents, however, quickly moved to get fluoride on the ballot.

In the months leading to the election, Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland focused on making the issue about equity. The group pulled together support among communities of color and raised more than $800,000 in cash and in-kind contributions. The group sold fluoridation as a scientifically sound method for fighting what they called the state’s dental crisis, continuously noting that nearly three-fourths of Americans drink fluoridated water.

Despite its financial disadvantage, however, Clean Water Portland proved better at mobilizing an electorate wary of adding a chemical to one of the nation’s cleanest sources of drinking water. Signs calling for residents to reject “fluoridation chemicals” popped up on lawns across the city even as stories in the national media popped up, poking fun at the city’s resistance to a common practice.

“The simplicity of their message was certainly an advantage,” said Queral from Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland. “I think the opponents did a very good job of casting doubt on the science. I think they homed in on their message and they hammered away on it.”

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/05/portland_fluoride_for_the_four.html

By: Tyler Kula, Sarnia Observer, Sarnia, Ontario 20-May-2013 –

“The caution is it should be properly regulated,” said Dr. Sudit Ranade.

Fluoride in water has been used since the mid-20th century to strengthen teeth, although questions have been raised about whether it does any good — and whether it may actually cause harm.

Consuming excess amounts has been linked to low IQ and other health concerns, but the amount in tap water, which should be regulated to between 0.5 and 0.7 parts per million, doesn’t cause adverse affects, Ranade said.

“There isn’t a lot of evidence that fluoride is damaging to people in the quantities that it’s added to the water supply, or even when you add in the other kinds of treatment, like fluoride treatments and fluoridated toothpaste,” he said.

The cost of adding $1 of the controversial chemical to water can save up to $38 in dental treatment and oral health care costs — a relatively cheap preventative measure against tooth decay for people who can’t afford dental care, Ranade said.

“If we take it out, we’re disadvantaging all of the people who would like to have fluoride in their water,” he said, noting more than 90 professional health organizations, including Health Canada, support current fluoride levels in water.

Ranade recently recommended the Lambton Area Water Supply System (LAWSS) continue water fluoridation.

It’s six member municipalities in Sarnia-Lambton are in the midst of voting on whether to replace LAWSS’ $300,000 fluoridation system.

http://www.theobserver.ca/2013/05/20/dr-sudit-ranade-says-the-chemical-is-safe-if-regulated-properly

By: Clara Ho, Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta 17-May-2013 –

With the fluoride gone, Dr. Sarah Hulland, president of the Alberta Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, said kids are coming into her office with bigger cavities than historically seen before.

“More importantly, the progression to getting larger from go is much more rapid, which is really bad,” Hulland said.

Dr. Leonard Smith, who has been working as a pediatric dentist in Calgary for 42 years, said he noticed an improvement in his patients’ teeth after fluoride was introduced.

“Now we’re seeing again the horror stories in a younger population of children since they’ve taken the fluoride out,” Smith said, citing higher levels of decay in young children and even babies as young as 11 months.

“I predicted we’d see a big increase 12 months from the time the city took it out. We are busier.”

He acknowledges that fluoride alone does not stop dental decay cold, but it helps prevent dental problems primarily in the high-risk population by changing the density of the enamel and making it more resistant to acids produced by bacteria.

Hulland said she’s not confident city council would be willing to address the fluoride topic again, but added she wished council members would have been more willing to consider the information and knowledge of dentists, particularly those working with kids and in public health.

If the issue comes to council again, Hulland said there should be a plebiscite.

“Personally, I would like to see the fluoride brought back,” she said. “People benefiting from fluoride are lower income or on a fixed income. It’s not just pediatrics but also geriatrics, and it’s shameful we’re putting so much disrespect and disregard on that subpopulation.”

The city agreed to spend $750,000 — the same amount it would have spent adding the substance to the drinking water supply — to go to anti-cavity programs for children in need who are living in poverty.

But Hulland said the city has not consulted or updated pediatric dentists on the programs.

Ward 2 Ald. Gord Lowe, who voted against removing fluoride from the water, said he is “not the least bit surprised” to hear pediatric dentists reporting an increase in cavities among children.

“I was appalled when council took that decision,” Lowe said. “It was dead wrong, in my view.”

But Ward 7 Ald. Druh Farrell, who spearheaded the removal of fluoride from municipal drinking water, said cavities are on the rise across North America, including cities that fluoridate their water.

She said she’d prefer Alberta Health Services to address the problem in some other way.

Farrell also said she’s heard little on the issue since council scrapped fluoride treatment. “It’s gone quiet. It’s over.”

— With files from Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Dentists+report+more+cavities+kids+after+fluoride+removed+from+water/8397862/story.html

By: Chris Eakin, Fairview Post, Fairview, Alberta 01-May-2013 –

Director of public works Garry Leathem started off the evening by explaining what Fairview does at present. The chemical used (hydrofluorosilicic acid) costs $2,000 per year and the water treatment plant is licensed to add it to the water supply although operators must keep the concentration in the water around 0.7 mg/litre. Leathem explained that if they go more than .2mg/l above or below that level they have 24 hours to get the concentration back where it should be before reporting the plant as out of compliance. He explained the testing required usually takes about an hour but when the operator has run into problems it has taken as long as four hours.

Dr. de Villiers and Dr. Luke Shwart spoke on behalf of Alberta Health in favour of fluoridation, Dr. James Beck against with the Alberta Health team of de Villiers and Shwart speaking first.

The starting point was a series of questions that included: is it safe? Is it ethical? Is it effective? De Villiers and Shwart said yes, Beck said no.

De Villiers and Shwart carefully explained how Alberta Health and Health Canada used existing scientific studies as a basis for their approval of fluoridation to improved general dental health. They quoted several studies showing fluoridation is effective in improving dental health and is not linked to any health problems bar fluorosis which they say is more of a esthetic problem than a health problem.

“We reached this position [on fluoridation] not just willy-nilly. We’ve looked at all the data, all the ongoing research, all the published literature.”

Beck went on the attack from the start, saying the studies were incorrect or biased or misrepresented the authors’ actual intent. He also disagreed with their take on fluorosis, saying it can be very serious.

He did not cite any studies for his own conclusions but did offer to give website addresses with information about the studies that favour his side.

Beck said councillors have a tough job making the decision to fluoridate or not and likened it to a doctor trying to give a patient a drug without consent, without a prescription a drug which hasn’t been approved for the purpose it’s being given and the dosage isn’t controlled.

Beck went so far as to compare fluoridation to thalidomide and Shwart called it a smear tactic.

Beck said he merely meant to point out that doctors have made mistakes before.

He doesn’t accept the 1955 plebiscite as giving consent and said most plebiscites are close decisions with only a few percentage points between the yes and no side.

Councillor Tony Prybysh rebutted that by saying the conservative government rules with only 30% of the vote, “it’s the way the system works.”

As for the drug being approved, Health Canada does approve of the use of fluoride for water treatment as does Alberta Health and the amount in the water is very tightly controlled, although Dr. Beck did point out the total amount an individual ingests will vary with how much water they drink.

De Villiers and Shwart pointed out the health authorities have to take that into consideration as well as varying levels of health when they determine safe concentrations for drinking water.

The question came from the audience asking which would make more difference to children’s dental health – getting a proper diet with no junk food or having fluoride in the water.

Shwart said without hesitation proper diet would have a greater affect but would be much more difficult to bring about than fluoridation of the water supply.

At the end of the debate/forum, CAO Davidson asked everyone to fill out a questionnaire which asked how they felt about fluoridation, whether the town should stop it, continue it or take it to a plebiscite.

The next town council meeting should show where council is prepared to go on the question.

In the weeks before the forum, AHS had done a phone survey, talking to local residents and sounding them out on the topic and apparently 60% of those they talked to are in favour of continuing fluoridation.

http://www.fairviewpost.com/2013/05/01/fluoridation-forum-not-decisive-time-will-tell-on-taxpayer-conclusions

By: Ruth Bednar (Letter to the Editor), What’s Up Muskoka, Gravenhurst, Ontario 01-May-2013 – It has been two years now since our Muskoka District councillors have received a big “pat-on-the-back” from the Ministry of Health for voting to continue the practice of adding the drug called fluoride (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid or HFSA) to the drinking water to ostensibly treat dental disease in our Muskoka communities. This chemical has nothing to do with the potability of the drinking water, such as chlorine.

With 50 or more communities across Canada stopping or saying “no” to adding this chemical, plus the overwhelming recent scientific research, some councillors and citizens have looked at these independent, unbiased studies. They are aware of the accumulation and overexposure of fluoride in so many other food, beverage and dental products.

Many communities, such as Barrie or Orillia, have never had fluoridation chemicals added to their drinking water. It is clearly apparent that adding more HFSA to the drinking water supply is irresponsible and certainly unethical.

If you think drinking bottled water prevents you from receiving this chemical… think again, as artificially fluoridated water is used in Muskoka restaurants, as well as in beverages including wine and beers made in Muskoka.

Do you think your family should be medicated without a doctor monitoring the dosage and without your consent?

We can fight dental disease with a healthy diet, eliminating sugars, and teaching your children how to take care for their teeth. However, fluoridated toothpaste should never be swallowed.

Health Canada concedes that the chemical HFSA that we use to fluoridate our water has not been regulated under Canada’s Food and Drug Act, nor is it regulated under Canada’s Natural Health Product Regulations.

This is why members of Muskoka Citizens Opposing Fluoridation www.muskokacof.webs.com are speaking up and joining over 4,000 health professionals to put a stop to this unsafe, uneffective, unnecessary, and most importantly unethical practice.

http://eedition.whatsupmuskoka.com/doc/Whats-Up-Muskoka/wum_may1_2013/2013050101/#8

By: Cathy Dobson, Sarnia Observer, Sarnia, Ontario 29-Apr-2013 –

Coun. Mike Kelch unexpectedly brought the issue up at the end of Monday’s council meeting, setting the stage for renewed public discussion.

“A lot has changed in the world since someone thought fluoride was a good thing to stick in drinking water,” Kelch said. “We are now trying to reduce the chemical burden on people.”

He said the “jury is out” on whether fluoridated water is harmful. But people these days are more conscious of what goes in their bodies than they were when fluoride was first added to Sarnia’s drinking water to fight tooth decay in the 1960s.

Local residents should now be given the right to determine if they want to consume it or not, he said.

Kelch began by making a motion for city council to direct the Lambton Area Water Supply System (LAWSS) to stop fluoridating local drinking water.

If council had voted on it Monday, there would have been no chance for public input.

Kelch agreed it was unusual to make such a significant motion without giving any notice but said he was taken off guard himself by a staff report in Monday’s council package that he received only four days prior.

That report said the LAWSS board wants to hear from its six member municipalities about adding fluoride before it commits to replacing its aging $300,000 fluoride system.

Coun. Jon McEachran, the city’s rep at LAWSS, said he wants to find out if local residents are in favour of fluoridation before spending the money.

McEachran voted against fluoridating water last time the question came to council in 2010.

“I’m still against it,” he said Monday. “I think we should err on the side of caution. It’s a dangerous chemical and there are a lot of unknowns. I suspect that one day we’ll see it wasn’t wise to add it.”

Kelch, who was absent for the 2010 vote that ended in a tie, said he isn’t in favour of fluoridated water either.

“Let’s provide the purest water available with the least amount of chemical added. How about that?” he said.

Mayor Mike Bradley has advocated for fluoride in the past.

He grew up in a community without fluoride in the water and has said he regrets that as an adult.

Bradley cautioned council about taking action on Kelch’s motion without any public debate.

“It’s unfair to have no discussion,” he said.

Adding fluoride to local water produced heated debate in the 60s and ultimately resulted in a plebiscite to allow Sarnians to vote on it.

Bradley said a plebiscite should be held again at the next election to see what the majority wants now.

Kelch agreed to table his motion and wait for a staff report to answer questions and possibly hold a public meeting.

“I recognize I didn’t provide notice. It’s a bit like dropping the bomb,” he said. “…I could have unleashed a thunderdome here.”

LAWSS provides drinking water to Sarnia, Point Edward, St.Clair Township, Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton Shores and Warwick Township.

In 2010, the LAWSS board relied on a weighted voting system since Sarnia consumes 70% of the water. If the weighted system is used again, Sarnia will have five votes, St. Clair two and the rest of the communities one each.

St. Clair Township’s council recently voted against fluoride use.

http://www.theobserver.ca/2013/04/29/kelch-says-chemical-use-should-be-a-choice

Le ministre de la Santé, Réjean Hébert, se dit clairement en faveur de la fluoration de l’eau, malgré les promesses électorales du Parti québécois disant qu’un gouvernement péquiste « modifiera la loi pour interdire la fluoration de l’eau potable ».

Jessica Nadeau, Le Nouvelliste, Le Devoir, Québec, 22-avril-2013 – Le ministre de la Santé, Réjean Hébert, se dit clairement en faveur de la fluoration de l’eau. « En fonction des données scientifiques démontrées, la fluoration de l’eau est considérée comme une bonne mesure de santé publique selon le ministre, notamment pour la prévention de la carie dentaire », affirme son attachée de presse, Arianne Lareau.

« Toutefois, conscient qu’il y a des divergences d’opinion à ce sujet, le ministre était ouvert à l’idée que la Commission de la santé se penche sur ce sujet », précise-t-elle à la demande du Devoir, à la veille des travaux qui s’ouvriront à Québec lundi.

Cette position va clairement à l’encontre du programme électoral du Parti québécois, dans lequel on pouvait lire qu’un gouvernement péquiste « modifiera la loi pour interdire la fluoration de l’eau potable ».

Fort de cette promesse, les opposants à la fluoration ont interpellé le gouvernement ces dernières semaines afin qu’il respecte son engagement, plus de sept mois après son élection.

Question d’éthique

Le mois dernier, la députée libérale de Richmond, Karine Vallières, a déposé à l’Assemblée nationale une pétition signée par un regroupement de citoyens de sa circonscription réclamant une commission parlementaire pour « faire la lumière sur les aspects scientifiques, sanitaires, économiques et légaux » de la fluoration de l’eau potable. Les signataires demandent aux parlementaires de « statuer sur la nécessité d’abolir le programme de fluoration de l’eau potable ».

Les opposants ont réussi à imposer leur agenda et pourront exprimer leur point de vue lundi et mardi dans le cadre d’une commission parlementaire.

« Le gouvernement doit prendre ses responsabilités en déposant une loi claire et interdire la fluoration de l’eau potable pour éviter les conflits locaux, sources de tensions inutiles dans les municipalités du Québec », écrit la Coalition Eau Secours dans son mémoire, dont Le Devoir a obtenu copie.

L’organisme, qui milite depuis plusieurs années pour sensibiliser les citoyens et élus municipaux aux risques de la fluoration, estime que « de nombreux arguments scientifiques contredisent la thèse selon laquelle les fluorures dans l’eau potable sont bénéfiques pour la santé publique et sans effet observable pour l’environnement ».

En entrevue, la présidente de l’organisme, Martine Chatelain, affirme que c’est d’abord et avant tout une question d’éthique puisqu’un citoyen vivant dans une ville où l’eau est fluorée n’a pas le choix d’en ingérer. « C’est une médication sans l’accord de la personne. C’est comme si on disait : on va ajouter du fluorure pour la carie dentaire, mais on trouve aussi que les gens ne sont pas assez de bonne humeur, on va leur mettre un peu de Prozac et pour le cancer, il y a tel produit… on va arriver à quoi ? C’est de l’eau potable, de l’eau pour boire, pas de l’eau pour soigner les gens ! »

Stratégie nationale

Plusieurs tenants de la fluoration viendront également partager leur avis sur la question. Les parlementaires entendront notamment l’Ordre des dentistes du Québec, de même que l’Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ), dont la stratégie nationale prévoyait de « mobiliser un vaste ensemble des partenaires » afin de rejoindre, par cette mesure préventive, plus de 50 % de la population du Québec.

Depuis 2005, l’INSPQ fait la promotion de la fluoration auprès des municipalités de plus de 5000 habitants, qui sont libres de choisir si elles acceptent ou non de fluorer l’eau aux frais de l’État. Dans plusieurs villes, comme à Mont-Joli, où le débat sera tranché par référendum lors des prochaines élections municipales, les représentants de l’INSPQ se heurtent à la résistance des opposants sur le terrain. « Plus les gens sont informés, plus ils sont contre », estime Martine Chatelain de la Coalition Eau secours.

Il y a quelques années à peine, la ministre des Ressources naturelles, Martine Ouellet, tenait le même discours. Car avant de se lancer en politique, c’est elle qui menait la bataille contre la fluoration de l’eau à titre de présidente de la Coalition Eau Secours.

Mais son collègue de la Santé et des Services sociaux, le docteur Réjean Hébert, penche plutôt du côté de l’INSPQ. Il en va de même pour le critique de l’opposition officielle, Yves Bolduc. « La position du Parti libéral, c’est de respecter l’opinion des experts et les experts, présentement, recommandent la fluoration de l’eau, répond l’ancien ministre de la Santé en entrevue. Mais quand on arrive en commission parlementaire, on arrive avec l’esprit d’écouter. Probablement que mardi soir, après avoir entendu tous les groupes, ça va nous permettre de nous faire une meilleure tête sur le sujet. »

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/376292/fluoration-de-l-eau-quebec-a-un-prejuge-favorable?utm_source=infolettre-2013-04-22&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=infolettre-quotidienne

Talk of the Town, Town of Fairview News Letter Volume IV, Fairview, Alberta, April 2013 – Municipal Water Fluoridation is a “hot topic” these days. The Town of Fairview has been fluoridating its water since the late 50s, and was the first municipality in the province to do so. However, the practice is now being questioned and more and more municipalities are choosing to discontinue fluoridation. The Town’s elected officials and staff are anxious to learn the facts to determine whether this is the right thing to do and the implications of continuing with or ceasing fluoridation.

We are pleased to announce two eminent speakers have agreed to attend a town hall meeting to each bring their perspectives on the controversial issue of municipal water fluoridation.

This is a very important subject that effects everysingle resident in town as well as those who are on the rural water line.

Each of the speakers will be given timeto present their points, followed by a question period and time for coffee and discussion.

Dr. Albert de Villiers, MB ChB, M.Med (Community Health), North Zone Lead Medical Officer for Alberta Health will be speaking in favour of municipal water fluoridation:

Simple, safe, cost-effective. As more Albertans keep their teeth for life, everyone benefits from community water fluoridation, regardless of age, race, income, education level or access to professional dental care. The protection of fluoridation reaches community members in their homes, at work and at school – simply by drinking the water…..Dr. Albert de Villiers

Dr. James S. Beck, MD, PhD is Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary will speak against municipal water fluoridation:

We have been misinformed about fluoridation for a long time and new information that calls it into question has been ignored by authorities. The three central questions we have to deal with are: Is it safe? Is it effective? Is it ethical? Science

answers “no” to the first two questions and common sense and our best traditions answer “no” to the third. We have alternative methods that do help us with oral health…….Dr. James Beck

When and Where:  Tuesday, April 23 – 7:00 p.m. at the Legion Hall

Fairview’s municipal water fluoridation may be put to plebiscite (public vote) during the municipal election on October 21, 2013. There will be no better opportunity to educate yourself in order to make an informed decision on how to cast your vote.

http://www.fairview.ca/April%202013.pdf

By: Tara Gesner, Almonte/Carleton Place EMC News, Carleton Place, Ontario 11-Apr-2013 – Matt Ingram had something to say, but no one to listen.

Carleton Place council refused to let the local resident speak about water fluoridation during the physical environment committee meeting last Tuesday, April 2, even though he was registered to do so.

When a motion was moved by mayor Wendy LeBlanc to not allow Ingram to speak, it carried on a 4-3 vote, with LeBlanc and councillors Doug Black, Rob Probert and Gary Strike in favour and deputy mayor Ed Sonnenburg and councillors Louis Antonakos and Jerry Flynn in opposition.

“If we hear from Matt tonight, I feel we are looking at an unbalanced view,” said the mayor.

“Matt is here as a concerned citizen,” Flynn pointed out.

Antonakos concurred. “He is not here as an expert,” he said. “He is here as a resident.”

“It gives an unbalanced viewpoint,” reiterated LeBlanc.

Instead she wanted to move ahead with the decision made by council in September 2011: to bring in a proponent to have fluoride removed and an advocate of fluoride, such as the medical officer of health.

“We have someone who has asked to make a comment,” said Sonnenburg, “and they are registered to speak.”

He added council normally gives this courtesy to all members of the gallery.

“Allowing someone from the gallery to speak is always at the discretion of council,” stressed LeBlanc.

She explained the gravity of the issue influenced her decision to prohibit Ingram from speaking. Moreover, it did not uphold the spirit of 18 months ago.

In regards to the education session for council, Probert said there needed to be some type of timeline.

“Staff need to coordinate this,” said Sonnenburg.

LeBlanc indicated the session should happen before the June physical environment committee meeting.

“If something is not organized by then, then there is something terribly wrong,” said Sonnenburg.

Flynn chairs the physical environment committee.

RIGHTS DENIED

“Matt Ingram’s democratic rights were denied as a registered speaker and a citizen of Carleton Place who wanted to address council on an issue that concerned him,” said Flynn in a follow-up email to the Canadian Gazette EMC April 3.

He stressed the resident was not there as an expert.

“I don’t remember ever having denied anyone an opportunity to address council, especially a registered speaker, no matter what the issue was,” said Flynn.

He added there are two sides to most issues, but council never demands both sides be present before allowing an individual to speak.

“As was pointed out, we were not going to vote on anything that Matt said, so all we were being asked to do was listen,” said Flynn.

EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED

In an email to councillors April 3, which was also sent to the Canadian Gazette EMC, Ingram stated he was thankful council decided to move ahead with an education session, to hear from proponents on both sides of the matter.

“That was my ultimate goal for last night,” he said. “So thank you for making that a priority.”

While he respected council’s position to not let him talk and wait to have speakers from both sides, he was “extremely disappointed” he wasn’t given the opportunity to make a “short comment.”

“It sounds like this has never happened before to a member of the public,” said Ingram. “And there is something very wrong when politicians are not willing to listen to even a short comment from a concerned member of the public.”

“I had expected that you would be disappointed in not being able to speak, and I most certainly appreciate that you understand why it is necessary to have a balanced playing field in the discussion of fluoride,” responded LeBlanc in an email in Ingram, which was also sent to the newspaper. “I, too, am pleased we are finally moving forward with the education session.”

She said fluoride can be an extremely contentious and, very often, divisive issue in a community.

“It is imperative we, as council, ensure we deal with the matter in a manner that is above reproach from any faction in the community,” explained LeBlanc. “To do anything less is unconscionable.”

“The press was there, your comment would have been reported on, we would then be off on an unequal footing,” she continued. “Please wait until the education session.”

Although details surrounding the education session for council are to be determined, the public can attend, but it will not be an opportunity for debate on the issue.

“This is to give council members enough information to move forward – or not – with a plebiscite (referendum type vote),” said LeBlanc.

http://www.emcalmontecarletonplace.ca/20130411/news/Council+denies+registered+presenter+opportunity+to+speak

Council of Canadians, Media Release, Toronto, Ontario 11-Apr-2013 –

Last year at this time, the Council launched its Great Lakes Need Great Friends speaking tour right here in Toronto. Our event later this month marks the return of the tour, and an opportunity for us to build on the great momentum that has been generated to protect water in our communities.

What: 2013 Great Lakes Commons Water Forum
When: Saturday, April 27 from 12:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Where: Harbourfront Centre (235 Queens Quay W, Toronto)
Guest speaker: Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, and others

The Great Lakes Commons theme reminds us that the City of Toronto is part of a larger community and that our water sources are shared. We cannot talk about Toronto’s water without including other groups and communities who are doing their own excellent and important work to protect our lakes, rivers, watersheds and aquifers that bring life to our region.

Please come out and join fellow members in your community for this exciting event. You’ll hear from riveting guest speakers from the Great Lakes Water Walkers, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, National Farmers Union (Ontario), On the Commons, International Institute of Concern for Public Health, and Rising Tide Toronto. We’ll also highlight the threat the proposed Line 9 pipeline poses to our region’s watersheds.

The event is free and open to everyone, and we hope you can make it!

You can send us an e-mail, or call our chapter contact, Tracy Frohlick, at 416-975-3895.

We hope to hear from you and look forward to seeing you at our events this year!

Thank you for your ongoing support of the Council of Canadians.

In solidarity and activism,

The Toronto Chapter of the Council of Canadians

http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Council-of-Canadians-2013-Water-Forum-Ad.pdf