Turning an Incinerator into a Teddy Bear

This is about an issue that is still relevant in New Brunswick: an incinerator in the northern New Brunswick town of Belledune and the ressitance to it by communities in the region. The article, more specifically, is an analysis of coverage of the issue by Irving-owned media. For updates on the resistance to the incinerator, check out www.stopbennett.com.

The point of the following is to demonstrate how a multi-million dollar company, Bennett Environmental Inc. has had a toxic soil incinerator—as explained below—approved of by the province of New Brunswick, and how the presentation of the controversy over the issues (major opposition from residents in the area and in the nearby Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec) was heavily biased in favour of Bennett as a result of almost doubtless collusion between the Irving print media empire in New Brunswick and Bennett. The discussion begins with an overview of the incinerator project, followed by a brief description of the undemocratic provincial approval process as well as the health concerns people have over the incinerator and consequent protest. This is followed by a description of the role of the Irving company’s (the corporate empire in New Brunswick) English print media monopoly in New Brunswick. This puts context on the proceeding section on the Irving media’s coverage of the controversy (including a discussion on incinerator euphemisms), which when placed next to the actual background to the whole issue seems very obviously to be designed to downplay any environmental dangers to the whole project (disinformation), and on at least one occasion, to not even talk about the issue after a major protest. Finally, the Irving Media’s shitty coverage will be contrasted with sentiments from a member of the opposition to the incinerator about the much more honest French media (where Irving has very little power) coverage of the controversy, and this will lead to the conclusion on how to reverse/change the negative repercussions of the disinformation (lack of detailed/empowering information amongst English communities).

Bennett Environmental, Inc. is proposing to import large quantities of toxic waste (100,000+ tons per year of contaminated soil), from polluted sites in the U.S. & Canada, then treating (incinerating) it in the Chaleur region of New Brunswick, specifically at the location of the town of Belledune—though smoke does not like to stay in one place. Bennett facilities have been rejected in the province of British Columbia, Ontario and by the state of Massachusetts. But the New Brunswick government, dismissing fierce opposition from doctors, scientists, environmentalists, and many concerned citizens, has given preliminary approval for the Bennett toxic soil incinerator in Belledune. The incinerator is currently under construction and could be operational some time between July 2004 and the fall of 2004.

The company describes themselves in the following laudatory way—note that John Bennett, the company’s founder once held a high position in Monsanto Ltd, a company that obviously needs no introduction when it comes to environmental abuses (http://www.bennettenv.com):

Bennett Environmental Inc. has over 30 years experience in the environmental industry and has provided high temperature remedial soil treatment solutions to contaminated sites in Canada and the United States. The company has developed a technology, referred to as the Thermal Oxidizer process in which contaminated soils are treated at extremely high temperatures to separate, remove and destroy the contaminants.

Mr. John Bennett, Chairman of the Board, is a chartered Mechanical and Marine Engineer. He is a recognized pollution control and hazardous waste expert with over 30 years experience in the environmental industry. After attaining the position of Chief Engineer for Monsanto Ltd. in the UK, Mr. Bennett founded several highly successful environmental companies in Canada, namely, Bennett Pollution Controls Ltd., Bennett Environmental Consultants Ltd. and Aqua-Guard Technologies Ltd. before establishing Bennett Environmental Inc. in 1993.

Bennett Environmental is committed to helping customers solve the problem of liability for contaminated soil in an effective, economical and environmentally responsible manner. High temperature thermal processing is a complete, permanent and safe solution for the treatment of contaminated soils and is recognized as the ‘Best Demonstrated Available Technology’ (BDAT) by both government agencies and companies alike.

Remediation of contaminated sites is a growing environmental issue. The worldwide increase of environmental awareness has resulted in new laws and regulations governing all aspects of waste storage, treatment, and disposal. Recent restrictions on the disposal of untreated contaminated soil into landfills have lead to significant growth in the soil treatment market.

Bennett's focus is soil contaminated with a wide range of chlorinated material, including PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans and wood treatment by-products such as creosote and PCPs. Through this innovative thermal treatment, contaminated soils are heated to extremely high temperatures to separate, remove, and destroy the contaminants.

Bennett’s idea of an incinerator, or as they call it, “high temperature thermal oxidizer”, in Belledune is more than two years old. As of November 2002, the incinerator was still in the proposal stage. At that time, the New Brunswick Department of the Environment had a long list of concerns about the incinerator project, 89 in total. Bennett quickly made some amendments in their proposal to address some of these numerous concerns, but the idea was still questionable on public health grounds. On December 18th 2002, former Environment Minister Kim Jardine indicated in an unsigned letter dated December 18, 2002 (copied to former Business New Brunswick Minister Norm Betts) that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required. As stated on the government of New Brunswick website, (http://www.gnb.ca/0009/0377/0002/0001-e.asp):

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process gives technical specialists from government agencies, as well as local residents and the general public, a chance for input to the decision-making process regarding specific development proposals. Final approval from the Government of New Brunswick is required before any project subject to EIA can proceed.

Under the Regulation, individuals, companies or public agencies which propose certain types of projects are required to register information about the proposal with the Minister of the Environment and Local Government, at an early stage in the planning schedule.

The Minister then screens the proposal to determine whether it is likely to have significant environmental effects. In this regard, it is important to note that the definition of ‘environmental impacts’ in the relevant sections of the Clean Environment Act includes reference to both socio-economic and bio-physical effects which could result from the project.

The screening process is an examination of the possible or probable impacts of a proposal. If it appears that these are likely to be significant, the Minister will inform the project proponent that an Environmental Impact Assessment is required.

A failed impact assessment would have temporarily or permanently stopped construction of the incinerator, leaving the company with the choice of either canceling the whole project or making the changes called for.

Interestingly, on January 17th of 2003, not a month after the wheels were apparently set in motion for an Environmental Impact Assessment, the decision to undergo an EIA was suddenly overturned. The Minister of Environment exempted the project from a full EIA and instead allowed Bennett to hire a private contractor to perform their own impact assessment, Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd. What exactly the discussion was that motivated this change is still unknown.

A Certificate of Approval to Construct was issued under the Air Quality Regulation – Clean Air Act and the Water Quality Regulation – Clean Environment Act on September 9, 2003 to authorize the construction of the facility. Obviously this was to the great disapproval of people living in the area, who had been demanding and expecting an Environmental Impact Assessment for nearly a year.

Lack of assurances of safety through any meaningful, publicly accountable process has been a major cause for concern for quite some time. Dr. Neil Carman, former incinerator inspector for the state of Texas, speaking about the proposed facility on May 15, 2002 said,

It seems to me that in licensing these incineration operations, the government is creating zones of sacrifice. When I say ‘sacrifice zones’ I’m not just talking about people getting sick. I’ve seen them die. If the wind would blow the smoke towards the school on a Monday you’d see children being at home sick on Tuesday and Wednesday. The schools near incinerators had the highest absentee rates in the district. I met a lot of these children. I’ve seen them die of leukemia, brain cancer and a host of other disorders.

Available knowledge on the far reach of emissions from incinerators has increased the resistance of residents in the Gaspé region of Quebec—many are in the in the zone of toxicity—to the project in Belledune. As stated in a May 12th 2004 press release from the Return to Sender Coalition, opponents of the incinerator:

''Opponents to the project are indicating that POPs (persistent organic
pollutants) are posing a risk of dispersal many kilometres away from the incinerator, as is so well indicated by Environment Canada : ‘POPs are semi-volatile chemicals. After their release into the environment, they travel in multiple cycles of evaporation, transport by air and condensation. Called the grasshopper effect, this process allows POPs to travel great distances quickly.’ (The Green Lane, Environment Canada Web Site) This grasshopper effect increases the transboundary impact, specifically for the Gaspé area. It calls for the Canadian government, through the Minister of Environment, with its discretionary power to issue a ministerial order to suspend further development of the incinerator project.''

Additionally, there are problems with what to do with the waste once it is “treated”. The in-construction incinerator will be treating some soils and building materials containing heavy metals: chromium, lead and arsenic. Incineration cannot destroy any heavy metals. Post-incineration soil, if contaminated with heavy metals prior to incineration, is still contaminated afterwards. Many places won’t want this “treated” soil. Quite ironically, the US—where most of the waste will be originating from—will not take it back once treated. When waste is listed as hazardous in the US, it is considered to be permanently hazardous, regardless of how it is processed or treated. Once it is labeled as such, it is not allowed into the United States. They will also not accept any water or ash involved in the treating process.

The public on the North Shore of New Brunswick and across the water in the Gaspé region of Quebec have not been sitting still during this whole fiasco. There have been numerous public meetings with government officials, community-based information forums, letter-writing campaigns, currently about 55,000 named on a petition (residents of New Brunswick and the Gaspe) to oppose the incinerator, street protests such as the peaceful demonstration of 2500-plus concerned citizens in Belledune on October 5th of 2003, and even an office occupation.

The occupation took place on March 23rd. A small group of protestors occupied Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Montreal area constituency office on that day. Seven people were arrested, but not before the police had to barge their way in by knocking over a wall. The occupiers were demanding that Martin declare a moratorium on the construction of the incinerator in Belledune, making clear their desperation that Bennett was already preparing to do test burns in April, the following month. Another protest took place on April 8th in Ste-Anne-des-Monts, Que. It intercepted Paul Martin on his tour through the region. Martin was surrounded by security as he faced 20 opponents to the Belledune incinerator. The group called for Martin to personally intervene in stopping the Belledune project, an action he did not engage in; however, he did mention that an environmental assessment on behalf of the Federal Government is in progress, which would be followed by a recommendation to the Government. This did in fact turn out to be true.

On the afternoon of May 16th, groups opposed to the incinerator, from all over northern New Brunswick, First Nations in the region, the Gaspe, and a few from other parts of New Brunswick cooperated to bring together approximately 1000 people to the site of the nearly complete incinerator for what was certainly a very passionate protest. There were a series of speeches, songs and poems in Micmac, French and English, but there was also action. During the entire time that I was there, there were always at least a few people standing in front of the fence door to the incinerator, behind which there were a few security guards present—a few police were also hovering about the area. After a stuffed, faceless doll hanging from a noose with the sign “Bennett” on its chest—hanging from a 15-foot high hangman’s scaffolding—was “incinerated” by a couple of members of the crowd, more people would eventually gather at the fence-door. Eventually a crowd of about a couple of hundred people gathered at the fence, and after some collective shaking of the door, the security guards and police officers were no longer able to keep it closed any longer. There was no real confrontation, however, just a lot of drumming, dancing, chanting, and cheering. Eventually, there was a decision by the crowd to pull back for the day; the crowd allowed the security and police to close the door. One more symbolic action took place just before people left though. A few dozen people formed a human chain, symbolic of unity against the incinerator and readiness to stand together (again) when the time comes.

During the past year, Bennett tried to push off protest through legal “power” tactics. On February 20th 2004, after months of threats, Bennett indicated it was prepared to commence legal proceedings against the Conservation Council of New Brunswick—amongst the staunch opposition to the incinerator—and its Science Advisor Inka Milewski. Bennett was claiming to be seeking damages for statements it claims were defamatory. The Conservation Council did not simply take this threat passively. “This is nothing more than a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) to try to silence us,” said Stephanie Coburn, the Conservation Council's President. “We will not be intimidated into silence. This is a project designed to incinerate toxic chemicals shipped into our province in truck load after truck load of contaminated soil,” said Ms. Coburn. “Importing someone else's toxic problem from the United States to New Brunswick for treatment is fundamentally unjust,” said David Coon, the environmental organization's Policy Director. “It has been our position for years that hazardous waste should be treated as close to its source as possible - which is a specific aim of the UN's Basel Convention on Controlling the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste,” said Coon. As well, the Conservation Council has been calling for a clean-up of already established pollution in the Belledune area. Soil in the area is already contaminated with heavy metals from 38 years of lead smelting by Noranda according to studies performed by the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

Currently (into the third week of June), there are a couple of legal procedures underway to challenge the incinerator. In one, federal Environment Minister David Anderson announced late Friday May 21st that a review panel would assess the potential ‘transboundary environmental effects’ of the ‘high-temperature thermal oxidizer’ being built by Bennett Environmental Inc. in Belledune. The timing of this just as the federal election was about to be called (on May 23rd) makes it somewhat questionable in terms of actual intent—it might be an election promise designed to gain immediate support. The other issue is by the Belledune Citizens Committee, where they (over 60 signatories) have been challenging the approval of the project by the Belledune Planning Commission. In this case, there have been (what is difficult to see other than) legal stalling tactics played by the Planning Commission; Robert Basque, the lawyer for the Commission argued that the Appeal Board was improperly constituted (according to regional representation) to hear the case. The Judge, Justice Réginald Léger of the Court of Queen's Bench, ruled that the Board did not officially have jurisdiction to decide on the case, but it appears that on June 7th, he indicated that the hearings would be allowed to continue and the Board/panel will be reconstituted.

Irving is the largest corporation based in the province of New Brunswick; it is also amongst the largest in the country, valued at approximately $4 billion. The company is appropriately described as an empire in the province because of the degree to which it is intertwined, in an overarching way, into the daily lives of the province’s residents. As an example, someone starting the day can pull into an Irving gas station, get an Irving coffee (under the brand name Riverdale), drop someone off at the bus station where that person would get into the Irving-operated inter-city bus service, where along the bus ride the person would undoubtedly pass by Irving trucks (Sunbury) and Crown (public) forest land leased to Irving, which feed trees to Irving pulp mills (mostly) and sawmills. It is also likely that either of these people might pass by or enter into an Irving owned Kent Building Supplies store, where Irving wood products are sold, to purchase materials for their homes. Of course, neither of these characters’ days would be very complete without at least a little bit of reading from the local paper, wherever in the province that might be for either of them. If they happen to buy a paper based in any of the three largest urban centers in the province (where daily papers are available): Times and Transcript in Moncton, Telegraph Journal in St. John, or the Daily Gleaner in Fredericton, then the money is again destined for Irving. If either of these two live elsewhere in the province, then local news could come from the following Irving-owned papers: the Miramichi Leader, Kings County record (town of Sussex), Hartland Observer, Woodstock Tribune, or the Northern Light (based in the city of Bathurst). It is safe to say that Irving has a stranglehold over the province’s economy, with the English print media being a part of this.

Amongst the New Brunswick Daily papers—Daily Gleaner out of Fredericton, Telegraph Journal out of St. John, and the Times and Transcript out of Moncton—there has been a distinct avoidance of using the term “incinerator”. Many substitutes, that are clearly designed to be euphemisms, are used in place of the word “incinerator” in articles about the facility and its controversy since the beginning of 2004. A list of these euphemisms (from most recent to least recent) from each paper is as follows, and instances of “incinerator” are marked with a star:

Telegraph Journal:
- “Bennett issue”, “contaminated soil treatment plant”, “Bennett Environmental Inc’s planned soil recycling project”, “Bennett project” (June 8th)
- “contaminated soil treatment plant” (June 4th)

- “controversial soil treatment plant” and “high temperature thermal oxidizer” (May 24th)
- “soil treatment plant” (May 18th)
- “Bennett Environmental Inc.’s Belledune project” (April 16th)
- “planned operations at Belledune” (March 31st)
- *“toxic waste incinerator” (Dec 6th)

Times and Transcript:
- “soil treatment plant” (June 1st)
- *“soil incinerator” (in title) and “Bennett Environmental Project in Belledune” (May 29th)

- “Belledune Plant”, “Bennett soil treatment plant” and “soil treatment facility” (May 27th)
- “soil treatment plant” (April 8th).
- “Belledune soil plant” (March 23rd).

Daily Gleaner:
- Belledune soil treatment plant”, “controversial soil treatment plant” and “high temperature thermal oxidizer” (May 22nd)

The use of softer terminology—softer than “incinerator”—clearly conveys intent to not portray the incinerator in a way that generates any public disgust. Some of the terms are rather ridiculous. The term “Belledune soil plant” (Moncton Times and Transcript March 23rd) seems to indicate that the facility actually makes soil. “Belledune project” or “Bennett Environmental Project in Belledune” indicates nothing about what the facility actually does. “Bennett Environmental Project in Belledune” (Times and Transcript, May 29th) sounds like an attempt to be descriptive, but it actually says nothing. One descriptor that sounds like a bit too much of an attempt at being covert—almost like military-speak—is “planned operations in Belledune” (Telegraph Journal March 31st). The most common descriptor is “soil treatment plant”, which sounds very harmless. The more critical terms have been generally phased out since the beginning of 2004. It is interesting that in the Times and Transcript, the term “soil incinerator” appeared in the title of an article on May 29th, but the lack of the term’s appearance in the Times and Transcript anywhere else in preceding months of 2004 makes the May 29th appearance seem almost like an accident—either by the author or by the editors. On June 1st in the same paper, it was again called a “soil treatment plant”.

Why avoid using the word “incinerator”? The word “incinerator” or “incineration” could be considered frightening all by themselves, and the industry would not want to be portrayed as frightening in any way; however, it is likely that the major substance of the motivation has to do with classic word games played by large corporations. Incinerators are banned in many places. Soil plants, soil recycling plants, and soil treatment plants are not necessarily illegal in the same places; therefore, the company can keep its national and international reputation in good standing.

What the avoidance of the word “incinerator” on a systematic level indicates is that there is likely some dictating, possibly in forceful terms—consider that the company has already tried to take legal action for damage of reputation (above)—from Bennett about what they want their project to be called. The Irving Empire, of course, will not be dictated to. Irving media journalists are using soft terminology because that is what the Irving company desires, to some extent at least. More discussion on this is further below.

Other than misleading descriptors of the actual facility, another way that English, Irving-owned papers in the province have shaped the coverage is through often ignoring the issue as well as conveying a message that Bennett is being victimized by the opposition, who are generally portrayed as ill-informed, aggressive, and even selfish.

An example of issue avoidance was in the post May 16th protest coverage. The protest was attended by, as reasonable estimates indicate, possibly over 1,000 people—large for New Brunswick standards. It was filled with music, very emotional speeches in three languages, an effigy, and direct action involving the crowd opening the gate to the incinerator while police and Bennett security made futile attempts to keep it closed. An article in the Telegraph Journal on May 18th mentioned the protest, but avoided explaining the issue that brought people to the protest, which was a lack of provincial accountability through bypassing environmental regulations as well as major health and environmental concerns regardless. Instead, the article focused on a complaint, legitimate as it was, by one member of the protest in which the man charged that the police were not being cooperative by forcing people to park their cars well over a kilometer away from the protest site; the article also drew on ‘protester aggressiveness’. This article is the only one to have appeared in the Telegraph journal about the protest. Here is an excerpt:

Michel Goudreau, president of Environnement Vert Plus, says…‘We didn't get much co-operation from the police,’ said Mr. Goudreau. "They made it very hard for people to demonstrate to show their opposition to this project by making them walk up to three kilometres.’ Not so, say police officials. RCMP Cpl. Mark Gallagher said the road in front of the Bennett Environmental site was blocked off to traffic for safety reasons and the blockades were only put in place after consultation with environmentalists organizing the protest. ‘We even brought some people back (to the parked cars further up the road) in police cars,’ said Cpl. Gallagher. ‘We brought an elderly gentleman right up to his police car. There might have been half a dozen who made the request (for a lift back) and I asked them to announce it on the (public address system).’ Cpl. Gallagher also said some of the protesters squirted water in the faces of police officers and stuck sticks through the fence to provoke a response from officers.’

If a reader was wondering, in any detail, why people were there to protest, (s)he would not find the answer in this article. As well, a reader who might be unaware of the issue would likely empathize with the kind—give the ‘elderly gentleman’ a drive—police officers who seem to have been horribly abused by the vicious protesters.

The Daily Gleaner’s coverage was less damaging, but very small. THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:

Quebec singer Kevin Parent sings in front of about 1,500 protesters in Belledune on Sunday. The event, called Stop Poison, was a call to the federal government to respect its responsibility to the Stockholm Convention to reduce, if not eliminate, emissions and organic pollutants.

There was a large picture as well; however, again, the dilemma for the reader who asks, “Why were people protesting?” is unresolved. The incinerator or “soil recycling plant” in not even referred to. Interestingly, their crowd estimate was very large compared to other sources, such as Bennett spokesperson Bill McIntyre’s estimate of around 250 people.

A May 19th article in the Irving-owned weekly in Bathurst New Brunswick, the Northern Light, although giving a lot of space to coverage of the protest (perhaps a third of a page), did not actually go so far as to portray Bennett’s facility as dangerous. The word ‘dioxin’ was mentioned, but what exactly the danger of dioxins are (cancer-causing) was left out. An NDP MP’s criticism of the provincial government for not being more forthcoming with information about their knowledge of the Bennett incinerator was also mentioned, but the kind of information being kept secret was not alluded to. In other words, there is very little substance in the article to cause people to become too upset over the incinerator. Again, as with the Telegraph Journal article, there was a lot of attention given to the level of organization of the police. Although the word “incinerator” was used in the article, it was in a quote by an incinerator opponent—who would obviously use stronger language—which nullifies the effect.

More of the same trend in the Irving papers—of not going into detail about what the substance of the concerns over the incinerator are—is seen in an April 16th article in the Telegraph Journal. Note how in the following, the claims of incinerator opponent Florien Levesque are made to seem as if they are simply allegations, rather than based on actual substance. Excerpts of the empty article are as follows:

An environmental group opposed to Bennett Environmental Inc.'s Belledune project is raising the alarm over the transportation in the province of contaminated soil for the treatment plant, but a company official says there's no reason for that. Mr. Levesque (of the group Environnement Vie) said residents have reason to worry about having the soil travel through their area. But Bennett Environmental spokesman Bill McIntyre says there's no reason to raise concerns over transportation of the contaminated dirt. ”The material is soil. It’s wrapped in double plastic in a sealed container,” he said. “If it turns over, you get a bunch of guys to shovel it back up and sweep it up and your contamination is over. You're not in a situation where you have liquid draining into watersheds or vapours or things of that nature. It's soil.” Mr. McIntyre said environmentalists might want to take a look at the gasoline, acids and toxic chemicals already being transported on the province's highways before raising alarm over the contaminated dirt. Mr. Levesque also noted that radiation detectors will be installed at the truck scale in Belledune. He said local residents should be concerned that trucks carrying radioactive toxic waste might run through the area. “This is nothing more than a scare tactic”, Mr. McIntyre said. The soil was thoroughly tested twice for such contaminants before the bid was even placed, the detectors are a safeguard, he said.

The key point again is that the incinerator does not appear dangerous because, mainly, the opponent does not seem like a credible source. And the Bennett spokesperson’s voice is given dominance. He also gets the last word. This is the ongoing trend in all the coverage.

Overall, the French media covered the controversy over the incinerator much better than the English sources did, according to Allain Frigault of stopbennett.com (I spoke with him in mid-June). He noticed relatively decent coverage of the debate over the incinerator in the French media in the province versus relatively poor coverage in the English, Irving-owned media. The French media, he commented, offered much more balanced coverage; they were not showing themselves to be biased in favour of the incinerator, but neither did they give any obvious favouritism of the people and groups protesting against the incinerator; Alain described them as being much more honest in their coverage than the English, Irving-owned media. One paper in particular, Acadie Nouvelle, a French Daily in the province that is not owned by Irving, has given quite good coverage, as attested to by Mr. Frigault.

Mr. Frigault speculated that Bennett, as a company proposing a multi-million dollar project, would have had to have come to good terms with the dominant corporate power in New Brunswick, Irving, before entering into the province. This is a possible reason that the coverage of the incinerator controversy has been so favourable towards Bennett. He is unaware of a direct business link between the two.

Although I cannot say if there is a direct business link (mutual profitability) between the two large companies, one conclusion seems reasonable regardless. It seems apparent that Bennett is not competing directly with Irving in undertaking the incinerator project; otherwise, there would likely be much more critical evaluation of the company’s plan in the Irving papers. There is, for example, evidence of competition between Irving and the second largest corporation based in New Brunswick, the McCain frozen foods empire:

“The Irvings ... have lots of interests in common with the McCains, because they are running a similar-class empire, but they're also their direct competitors, and the only truly deep investigative journalism that you see in the Irving papers is about the McCains. They'll have people following them around, and getting all sorts of sources to put together a really damning exposé on the McCains.” (Dru Oja Jay, journalist-in-training at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, writing for the March 20, 2003 edition of Argosy, an online independent student journal, interviewing sociology professor Erin Steuter, Author of The Irvings Cover Themselves: Media Representations of the Irving Oil Refinery Strike, 1994-1996)

Based on my own research, I can say with confidence that there is a fairly large amount of damaging content about Bennett that is being kept out of the Irving papers, and that there is certainly a direct attempt to avoid portraying the incinerator like…an incinerator, through the use of euphemisms that are very hard to get upset about. The attempt to make the incinerator appear benign would obviously be directed at preventing the general public of English New Brunswick from gaining momentum in opposition to the incinerator. From my own general conversations with people in my hometown of Fredericton, “serviced” by the Daily Gleaner, there does not seem to be a lot of in-depth awareness of the issue. I would like to like to get into a little more detail on what the public perception of the incinerator is in Irving media zones.

The Irving English Media Empire—more like the Irving Empire in general—creates a frightening situation in New Brunswick. The incinerator that is near completion in Belledune is one of only three in Canada, the second largest of its kind in North America, and has been rejected in other areas that applied environmental standards (British Columbia, Ontario, and Massachusetts). It is not a singular thing though. Because jurisdictions other than New Brunswick are applying tougher standards, corporations with particularly environmentally destructive facilities will no doubt look to New Brunswick as a potential place to put facilities that would not be welcome in too many other locations. Other corporations will no doubt ask/demand from the government the same low standards that were given to Bennett, otherwise the province can be charged with trade violations—this is not a stretch. Further cause for concern is in the fact that many towns in rural New Brunswick are emptying out, especially of youth. Loss of opportunity in rural New Brunswick has created a tough situation. Belledune was such a place of reduced opportunity, making it easier for the province to suggest unappetizing ‘job-creation’ strategies.

One of the biggest hurdles to stopping a major and effective resistance from occurring might actually be the lack of solidarity between the Francophone and Anglophone communities. The shitty English media coverage of the incinerator controversy in Belledune certainly limited the potential for more mobilization against the incinerator amongst the English communities, which would have created English-French solidarity. The communities along the North shore of New Brunswick, the Gaspe and First Nations in the area are probably mobilized nearly as much as can be reasonably expected. They are very determined to resist the planned operations of the incinerator and have already shown that they are willing to challenge the illegitimate property of Bennett in their area, both through the court system and through grassroots resistance. If this project can be made overly difficult, through massive opposition, it stands to reason that it will not go forward; however, for the massive opposition needed, large mobilizations amongst English communities might be necessary to provide various forms of solidarity and support in greater numbers.

In my personal opinion, if this project goes forward fully, it will potentially be a downward spiral, mostly for the residents of rural New Brunswick—as other companies site dirty projects in the province. If, on the other hand, it is stopped, bringing dirty projects to New Brunswick might be an unsafe prospect for companies planning such action, due to expected resistance.

One of the biggest challenges to large mobilization, again, is Irving. They are the great nullifiers of action in the province through their distribution of fluffy coverage. Now is a very important time to build up multi-lingual independent media centres in the province.

Media archives on www.stopbennett.com contain nearly every article written on the whole issue, both pro and con, in French and in English. I swept through all the English sources on the site.

Bennett Environmental Inc.: www.bennettenv.com

Conservation Council of New Brunswick: www.conservationcouncil.ca

Irving information http://www.yourmedia.ca

Additional information: personal communications with Allain Frigault of stopbennett.com and Florien Levesque of Environnement Vie Group. An important note perhaps is that Florien obtained documentation from Bennett Environmental Inc. itself demonstrating that a “high temperature thermal oxidizer” is in fact an “incinerator”.