Mail bag: 06/11/26

‘Trust is gone’

Dear Editor:

For a very long time , municipal governments were viewed as the most trustworthy of politicians. The reason was obvious. You’re going to see these people at church , at the fair, at the super market and so on, and you won’t have an RCMP security detail to keep people away from you either.

The politicians and the bureaucrats were genuinely your neighbours and were inclined to give you the time of day. And, god forbid, help you to navigate the system.

Now we are in the era of the highly credentialed expert, the ones who fill the executive planning, legal and clerk positions and wield a great deal of power in the current system. The CAO and the clerk even sit at the council table, though none of us voted for them (all the other staff are not at the table but to the side). 

It seems it’s no longer possible to hire locally as a great many of these people come from other municipalities and seem to move around quite a bit, like hockey players with free agency. Mercenaries with no particular skin in the game and they aren’t concerned about seeing you publicly.

Now the game is don’t answer emails, only do phone calls if absolutely necessary as those have plausible deniability. Never respond in writing and don’t offer any advice This is what we get for these exploding salaries.

If you have a question for staff or council, good luck, especially if it’s on an issue like the fill that has been generating a great deal of controversy And where is our fearless mayor to provide leadership and answers to a lot of questions on this matter? Nowhere. 

You’d think he’s gone into a witness protection program. He tried unsuccessfully to shut down the discussion after a delegation at council and now not a word. And the mercenaries will support that approach. Say nothing. Do not write anything. Go legal if you must.

It’s not been my experience of this small town of 12,000 for the last 28 years that I’ve lived here. The trust is gone.

Tom Carroll,
Erin

‘Reasonable questions’

Dear Editor:

How can a three-year agreement with an option to extend by mutual consent be transformed into a binding 20-year agreement without returning to council for approval or informing the public?

I am writing to ask a simple question: when does a revision stop being a revision and become a fundamentally different agreement?

Council approved a bylaw amendment and authorized the mayor and clerk to execute a commercial fill agreement “substantially in the form attached as Appendix A, subject to such revisions as may be necessary to the satisfaction of the director.”

The agreement presented to the public contained an initial three-year term, with any extension beyond that requiring the mutual agreement of both parties and potentially extending up to 20 years.

That consent provision was significant. It ensured that future councils would have an opportunity to assess the operation’s impacts, listen to residents, and determine whether any extension was in the public interest.

However, on April 7, after council’s Feb. 26 approval, the agreement was changed from an initial three-year term with a future consent requirement to a straight 20-year agreement.

In my view, that is not a minor administrative revision. It is a substantial change to one of the most important terms of the agreement.

This is particularly troubling because the current council has repeatedly criticized decisions of previous administrations that committed the town to long-term obligations. 

We have heard allegations that former municipal leaders left residents burdened with expensive infrastructure commitments that future councils would have to manage. How is this situation materially different? A 20-year commitment extends well beyond the mandate of the current council.

The issue is larger than this one project. It is about transparency, accountability and public trust. Residents deserve confidence that major decisions are being made openly and that substantial changes to approved agreements are not occurring without public scrutiny.

The public should be asking whether this change was within the authority granted by council, whether it should have been brought back for another vote, and why residents were never informed that the agreement they had been shown was no longer the agreement that was ultimately signed.

These are reasonable questions. They deserve clear answers.

Jacqueline Guagliardi,
Hillsburgh

Who is the real Estill?

Dear Editor:

In the past, we in Guelph and Puslinch have been proud of local businessman Jim Estill, especially for his work in 2015 supporting Syrian refugees fleeing the disastrous results of dictatorial Middle East governments. 

So recently it came as quite a surprise when Jim applied to the provincial government for what are essentially dictatorial powers (a Ministerial Zoning Order [MZO]) to move an industrial proposal of his forward, clearly against the will of our community and our local government and in an area outside of provincial jurisdiction.

This is the same Jim Estill who in 2023 stated with respect to this proposal, that “he did not want to be somewhere he was not wanted,” a rather different position than that of this 2026 Jim Estill seeking an MZO. 

We would appreciate the real Jim Estill standing up in 2026 and not just standing up to identify himself but standing up for the democratic principles that are the foundation of our Ontario, nurturing not just our communities but every Ontario individual including the 69 Syrian, now-Canadian families he stewarded back in 2015.

John McNie,
Puslinch

‘No transparency’

Dear Editor:

RE: New space for temporary doctors opens in Fergus, May 21.

I read with interest the restoration of this cottage to house doctors for Groves hospital. 

Some years back I remember reading that the town council had purchased this cottage for a little over $400,000. I have watched the total restoration as it was completely gutted leaving only the walls. Knowing the cost of construction today as well as all the furnishings, there was no transparency of the total cost of $1.02 million. 

Are we taxpayers totally responsible? If so, why wasn’t town council being forthright?

Judy Haddad,
Elora

‘Appalling’ behaviour

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command,” Orwell, 1984.

Remember the premier hanging out with the OPP, the same OPP – the ones now supposedly investigating the Toronto Police Service and implicitly Doug Ford, concerning the Umar Zameer case. 

Doug who is seen wearing an OPP sweatshirt on CP24 showing us who he is cheering for.  I say implicitly because John Tory and Doug Ford were immediately hands on, at the beginning of this case, calling for publicity black outs. Throwing up the secrecy veil. You may remember the case. A well-dressed middle-aged man, an accountant, was downtown celebrating Canada Day with his pregnant wife and their two-year-old son. He was driving a BMW and would be the least likely perpetrator of crime. 

Leaving the underground parking he was “attacked” by two crazy people – in no way identified as plain clothes cops. Two other cars in the underground burst the barriers to escape fearing a similar assault. Were these addicts needing money for drugs? A pleasant outing turns real ugly instantaneously. 

The male cop in shorts and T-shirt was run over in the discombobulation. They blamed Umar, hit him, handcuffed him, traumatizing him, his pregnant wife and their very young son. The cops then contrived his guilt, charging him with murder. Expert forensic specialists showed that the prosecution case was a pack of lies. 

The Toronto chief said immediately he was disappointed with the ruling. After the ‘investigation’ both Ford and Chief Myron Demkiw claimed victory and threatened the judge. This is as a blatant as blatant gets. Police chief and Premier Ford with not a shred of new evidence applauded their version of events that contradicted evidence. 

Think about it! They were willing to make this young man go to jail. That is appalling. 

This government is letting schools crumble while planning mega-prisons. This amid hundreds of cases thrown out because of charter infringement.

David Courtney,
Belwood

‘Enjoyable, peaceful’

Dear Editor:

We took the liberty to take the bicycle out on the newly opened bicycle route north of Arthur at Wellington Road 14 going east on the former railway tracks in the former West Luther township. 

It was an enjoyable and peaceful ride. We heard countless birds. At one point there is a bench along the creek and I could see small fish scooting around. 

I smelled decaying leaves, freshly cut hay and yes, also cow manure. Country at it’s best. 

Get out and see for yourself.

Nick and Agnes Ammerlaan,
Kenilworth