In regards to the council meeting held last Thursday where
I presented a request for a public meeting on the issue of Info Energy, I'd
like to say only one thing. (although I'm sure it will develop into several
more things) Mr Heaslip made the argument that there was a witch hunt of
sorts going on, and that the company was private and had no obligation to
communicate anything to the ratepayers, legally, and that the money for the
company did not come from us. He did not tell us whose responsiblity this
was, just that he wasn't responsible. Well, I beg to differ. There is no
"witch hunt" as Mr Heaslip argued, as well, the startup funds came
from a public source, (indirect or direct, it really is all the same and
only a matter of how one chooses his words) and finally, we, the community,
were promised this meeting, so why on earth all of the effort to prevent it
from taking place? Fact is, many pages of the Bedard report and Info Energys'
rebuttal are absent from the city website. This was admitted to in council
when I pressed them on the issue. As well, in the interest of government
transparency and clarity, I would think that having a meeting, might just
clear the air, instead of denying it, and arousing even more suspicion. If
everything is all that Mr Heaslip cracked it up to be, than someone needs to
explain what the problem with a public meeting is? I just chalk this one up
to another bout of political verbal diarhea in the form of a promised
meeting from an elected official. Even the minister responsible for
municipal affairs, John Gerretsen said there should be a public debate on
the matter when I contacted him recently. (this was confirmed in a letter I
submitted to council as well last week.) So, I wonder, why when even the
minister for the OMA says, there should be a debate and discussion, by what
power of authority does the esteemed Mr Harding feel that he can nullify
that very request, when he in fact is the one that promised it?
Jim bender
