Você está na página 1de 1

After 9 months of asking and around 90 days after Natalia Crowe formally filed an access to information request, we finally

received a copy of both the draft and final SWM report for the existing conditions in Shirleys Brook and Kizell that was done by the City for the EA on the water diversion proposed by KNL. You can download these reports from http://www.renaud.ca/public/Water_Related/2011_EA_ShirleysWatts_Creek_Water_Diversion/ Note that they are 34 and 38 MB in size so you may want to download only one of them at a time. I havent had a chance to read them in detail yet, but Appendix A (Page 46 in the final report) confirms that the City reviewed the report with KNLs consultant IBI on August 15 while simultaneously refusing public access to this document that was paid for with our tax dollars. This is a clear violation of the EA Act that requires that the proponent must treat ALL stakeholders equally. You will recall that at the same time last August I was pleading with Marianne Wilkinson to arrange for access to this document because of the citys lack of response to our requests. Meanwhile the city was secretly meeting with KNLs agents to discuss technical issues. So why does the developer get special status over the community? KNL has no special status in this EA because the city is the proponent for the EA and KNL is just another stakeholder. Arguably IBI has no status at all as they are an agent of KNL and have no direct interest in the outcome of the EA. It will be interesting to compare the draft and final reports with the details of these minutes to see just how much KNLs consultant was able to influence the outcome of a public engineering study. Having a closed door meeting to entertain comments from the developer on the draft report, while simultaneously blocking public access, is odious and smacks of impropriety. This behaviour is unconscionable and Don Herweyer, Eric Tousignant, & John Moser who presided over that meeting on behalf of the City should be held accountable for what appears to be a serious breach of both ethics and law. And why did the City accept documents labeled by AECOM as confidential and including a limitation of liability when they are a work for hire that is owned by the public who commissioned it? There should be no public engineering study which has any basis for secrecy. Nor is there a need for a limitation of liability when a professional engineer is engaged for such work unless the professional engineer who prepared the work is aware that it was not done to a professional standard. Is that the case here? What kind of Machiavellian world is Jim Watson allowing to be run at City Hall? The lack of transparency in such matters is a breeding ground for corruption. All city contracts should clearly confirm that a consultants work is owned by the public that paid for it so that there is no expectation of privacy or confidentiality. This is common practice in the private sector. And why are we paying professional engineers to consult on contracts if they are unwilling to stand as professionals behind the findings? Perhaps its finally time to take a broom to City Hall! With Fortitude, Paul Renaud