HaltonHillsToday received the following letter from reader Dan Poirier in response to an earlier letter titled Reader not pleased with coverage of power plant decision.
I’d like to respond to the letter to the editor written by Kevin McKenna regarding the gas plant expansion.
He states that the reporting was not objective. In truth, I believe the reporting was neutral. It reflected exactly what took place during the council meeting. I know. I was there.
He states that the article covering the council meeting emphasized the anti-expansion point of view. In my opinion, the article fairly covered all of the delegations: the two proponents being Atura and IESO, the three opponent delegations from energy and climate experts and the 12 residents opposing the expansion.
Rebuffing Mr. McKenna’s comments regarding the resident delegations: the residents weren’t there to deliver expert briefs, but rather to articulate how the expansion would affect them.
A young and engaged member of the community, Matthew Tyhurst, who expressed how climate change will affect him and his cohort, does not deserve to be criticized by Mr. McKenna.
He goes on to lambaste Councillor Somerville for not justifying his reasons for voting as he did. In my opinion, Mr. Somerville explained very specifically his reasons for voting against the plant - reasons that were also confirmed by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment in a previous presentation to council.
I commend all the councillors who voted against the gas plant expansion and, in some cases, obviously changed their opinion based on the facts, on the science and, yes I hope, also on the opinion of the ratepayers.
Dan Poirier
