 By Pepper Parr
November 2nd, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Work to determine the City of Burlington’s 2022 budget continues. An overview of the budget will be presented to Council at a virtual Corporate Services, Strategy, Risk and Accountability Committee meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 3 at 9:30 a.m. The overview will include a look at the proposed 2022 operating budget as well as the 2022 capital budget and forecast.
Key areas of focus for the proposed 2022 budget
Each year, during the City’s budget process, decisions are made to ensure an appropriate balance between affordability, maintaining service levels and financial sustainability over the long term.
The proposed 2022 budget focuses on:
- Mitigating the financial impacts of COVID-19
- maintaining service levels
- ensuring city assets are maintained in a good state of repair
- continuing to provide strategic investments aligned to the City’s work plan, 2018 to 2022: Vision to Focus
- upholding legislative requirements while ensuring competitive property taxes.
Proposed capital budget
The proposed 2022 capital budget is $77.3 million, with a ten-year program of $829.5 million. From this total:
- 68.5% is for infrastructure renewal
- 15.1% goes towards growth-related projects
- 12.8% is for new/enhanced projects
- 3.6% goes towards green projects which support the City’s climate goals.
Proposed operating budget
The proposed 2022 operating budget is $284.8 million and includes new funding to support:
- Sustaining city services ($685,333)
- Additional funding for on-going recreation facility maintenance to meet lifecycle requirements and reduce risk
- One-time funding to support a Gypsy Moth spraying program in 2022
- One-time funding to extend the contracts of two bylaw officers
- Enhancing services ($199,130)
- Funding to make the free transit for seniors pilot a permanent program
- Operating expenses to support the new Orchard Community Hub
- Modifications to services to address COVID-19 ($332,733)
- Funding to make the bus cleaning pilot program permanent
- Dedicated operations space for building inspection and bylaw enforcement staff.
 There was a time when citizens met and discussed the budget options – COVID19 is being used as the reason for not being able to do that this year. Proposed tax increase
When combined with the estimated regional and education tax levies, the overall projected tax increase for a Burlington homeowner in 2022 is 3.18% or $24.76 per $100,000 of assessment. For example, homeowners with a home assessed at $500,000 would pay an additional $123.80 per year or $2.38 per week. This represents a 5.45% increase to the City’s portion of the tax bill.
In a statement reported to have been made by Mayor Meed Ward last week the budget and its tax increase was described as a Staff wish list and would not be passed. Staff do not appar to have gotten that memo.
A copy of the proposed budget for 2022 will be available online.
Public Input
To gather feedback from residents about how municipal services are valued and which ones are a priority for residents, the City hosted an online budget survey from July 5 to Sept. 30, 2021. A total of 539 responses were received.
Survey results:
- 71.7% indicated they are satisfied with the services provided by the City of Burlington
- 64.5% rated the value they receive for their tax investment as good or very good
- 70.3% said it is important to them for funding to be put aside for infrastructure renewal
- 86.3% said it is important to them to set aside additional funding to address potential future emergencies like a pandemic or natural disaster.
Get Involved Burlington also features an interactive budget simulation tool where residents and taxpayers can show the City how they would balance the budget. Users can increase and decrease funding for different City service areas as they see fit while still maintaining a balanced budget.
Virtual 2022 Budget Town Hall – Nov. 22 at 7 p.m. – Save the Date
An additional opportunity for public input on the 2022 budget will be held on Monday, Nov. 22, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. during a virtual town hall hosted by Mayor Marianne Meed Ward. The live, online meeting provides residents an opportunity to learn more and ask questions to City staff about the proposed 2022 budget priorities.
 By Staff
November 1, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The City is encouraging neighbours to come together to maintain outdoor community ice rinks this winter. Applications for the Neighbourhood Rink program are available now at burlington.ca/neighbourhoodrink and are due by Nov. 12, 2021.
 Champions have started out on rinks like this – thousands of kids learned to skate at places like this. Create one in your community. Groups looking to organize a neighbourhood rink will need a minimum of six people from their community to maintain the rink. Volunteers who are approved to move forward with their rink will need to agree to the terms and conditions set out in the Neighbourhood Rinks program, agree to complete training and agree to keep maintenance records of the rink and provide their own water source.
City staff will install rink boards, hoses and tarps in each requested location and provide a training manual with tips on ice maintenance. As the colder weather arrives, each neighbourhood group will flood the rinks to get them ready for a first skate and then maintain them throughout the winter.
Neighbourhood rinks are open to all community members to skate for free.
For more information, visit burlington.ca/neighbourhoodrink.
 By Staff
November 1st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
If you haven’t been fully vaccinated yet, here’s your chance!
GO-VAXX bus coming to Burlington
 The Go-VAXX bus will at Burlington’s Maple Park (750 Maple Avenue) in Burlington on Nov. 3, 11am to 7pm
No appointment is necessary and anyone born in 2009 and before is eligible to get vaccinated.
Which vaccine you will get
The GO-VAXX buses are administering the Pfizer vaccine.
What to bring with you
If you would like to get vaccinated at a GO-VAXX bus mobile clinic, remember to:
• bring your health card — if you do not have a health card or if it’s expired, bring another form of government-issued photo identification such as a driver’s license, passport, status card, or birth certificate
• eat and drink something before you arrive at your appointment to prevent feeling faint or dizzy while being vaccinated
• dress for the weather in case there is a line-up
• wear clothing that allows for easy access to your upper arm, such as a loose-fitting top or a t-shirt
• wear a mask that covers your nose, mouth and chin
Do not visit the GO-VAXX bus if you have symptoms of COVID-19covid 19.
Stay safe, stay healthy and be grateful.
 By Staff
October 31st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Tribunal hearings are based on evidence given by people who are shown to be experts.
The hearings are dry, close to boring and one sometimes wonders if there is a purpose behind it all.
In arguing the merits of the case one of the questions that was set out was:
The numbers before each section used to identify a comment made.
The City is the City of Burlington.
Lakeshore refers to Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc., the corporate name for the Carriage Gate development at the north east corner of Lakeshore and Pearl.
 The developer wanted 29 storeys; city said it could live with 22 – developer won. The Tower in the center will be three storeys higher than the one on the right that is currently under construction. Does the Lakeshore Proposal fail to conform to the City’s Official Plan due to ‘Negative Impacts’ and Lack of ‘Compatibility’ stemming from the 29-storey tower design?
Lack of Shadow Impact
[39] Ralph Bouwmeester testified on behalf of Lakeshore with respect to the shadow impact issues raised by the City. He is a professional engineer and the Principal of R. Bouwmeester and Associates and has over 40 years of experience in urban development and municipal servicing design. Mr. Bouwmeester has provided expert testimony regarding sun/shadow position modeling in numerous proceedings before the Tribunal and various Courts in both Canada and the USA. He was duly qualified before the Tribunal in this proceeding without objection to provide opinion evidence on the same matters.
[40] Mr. Bouwmeester’s views as expressed in his WS, Reply WS and in oral testimony before the Tribunal were:
(a) New net shadows from the proposed development on the surroundings are limited and do not result in unacceptable shadows within the context of a downtown urban environment;
(b) The proposed Development meets the purpose and intent of the Shadow Impact Criteria of the City as set out in its Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (June 2020);
(c) The resultant new net shadow resulting from the Development is limited and therefore the floorplate size of the proposed 29-storey residential tower is appropriate from a shadowing perspective;
 29 and 26 storeys on this block; across the street and one block west 22 storeys, another block to the west there is a development proposed that would have two towers – one at 35 and the other at 30 storeys. (d) The City’s shadow studies do not meet the requirements of the City’s Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (June 2020) (“Shadow Guidelines”). For example, these studies do not include the dates and hourly test times required by the Shadow Guidelines nor do they include the required sun/shade area calculations necessary to determine the Sun Access Factor targets stipulated in the Shadow Guidelines. The City’s shadow studies are based on test dates and times (only 3 per day) that the City required prior to the adoption of the current Shadow Guidelines and are not supportable;
(e) Despite there being a limited cumulative shadow on the townhouse garage roof deck and rooftop amenity areas adjacent to the Development, the degree of impact meets the purpose and intent of the Shadow Guidelines;
(f) There is no additional morning shadow on the roof decks and rooftop amenity areas on March 21 caused by Lakeshore’s 29-storey proposal as compared to the City-supported 22-storey alternative. There is minor additional shadowing on the roof decks and rooftop amenity areas at 12:00,1:00 and 2:00 PM over small areas for short periods;
(g) There is very little difference in the shadow impact of 22 storeys versus 29 stories on the townhouse development adjacent to the Development. In any event, the degree of impact meets the purpose and intent of the Shadow Guidelines; and
(i) Therefore, the Proposal meets the City’s goal “to promote high-quality development proposals that ensure adequate access to sunlight is maintained for the enjoyment of public and private spaces alike”.
[41] Interestingly, the City chose not call testimony from an outside engineering expert to offer opinion evidence on shadow impacts. Instead, Mr. Todd Evershed, who is currently employed by the City as an urban designer, purported to provide such evidence. Mr. Evershed is not an engineer, nor does he have any experience in providing expert analysis concerning shadowing beyond his contributions to the development of the City’s Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (June 2020). He is a Registered Professional Planner and has worked in various roles as a City employee since 2013
[42] Counsel for Lakeshore objected to the notion that Mr. Evershed could be qualified to provide opinion evidence on sun/shadow matters concerning the Development, and the City’s counsel did not seek to achieve that. Instead, he requested that Mr. Evershed offer urban design opinion evidence only, and the Tribunal qualified him solely for that purpose.
[43] As pointed out by Lakeshore’s counsel, the ‘sun/shadow’ issue initially raised by Mr. Evershed as a design issue was his contention that the proposed development would: “…result in excessive and inappropriate shadow impacts on the adjacent public realm and nearby residential properties…”.
 BeauSoleil is the marketing name given to the development. 44] However, during his testimony, Mr. Evershed’s concerns had narrowed to the question of the possible shadow impact on one block within the live-work townhouse project directly behind the Development – referred to as the “West Block”. Mr. Evershed focused on the cumulative shadow impact on elevated decks above the at-grade parking spaces for each of the live-work units.
[45] Mr. Evershed insisted that because those decks did not meet the minimum Sun Access Factor (“SAF”), the Lakeshore Proposal fails to meet the City’s Shadow Guidelines and, therefore should be rejected and redesigned to ensure that the SAF is met. Instead, the Tribunal accepts and agrees with the contrary analysis of sun/shadow matters provided by Mr. Bouwmeester as detailed in paragraph [39] above. As noted, his evidence was the only expert opinion available to the OLT.
[46] As noted in paragraph [39], Mr. Bouwmeester conducted a careful and detailed evaluation of the shadow impacts on these same private elevated decks and also completed a SAF analysis in accordance with the City’s Shadow Guidelines. While his analysis does demonstrate that these elevated decks fail to receive the minimum SAF on March 21st, this does not mean that these decks never receive sun at other times of the year. In fact, Mr. Bouwmeester demonstrated that the townhouse decks received receive considerable amounts of sun during the summer months. Moreover, he concluded that the Lakeshore Proposal meets the purpose and intent of the shadow impact criteria of the City’s Shadow Guidelines. The Tribunal reiterates that it accepts Mr. Bouwmeester’s opinion evidence on this matter, which was not successfully challenged during cross-examination.
[47] Interestingly, when questioned about the need to balance his claimed shadow problems as against other planning objectives, Mr. Evershed stated that such a need was a matter for evaluation by the City’s Planning Expert Mr. Paul Johnston. Yet, for his part, Mr. Johnston conceded during cross-examination that he no longer was of the view that the Lakeshore Proposal will cause unacceptable shadow impacts – or any negative impacts whatsoever.
[48] Based on the significant admissions of Mr. Johnston and Mr. Evershed as described above in paragraph [47], and in light of the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Bouwmeester all as described in this Part 3 (a), the Tribunal found that the City has failed to demonstrate that the Development will cause any unacceptable sun/shadow impacts.
If the city witnesses can’t agree on the facts – don’t expect favourable decisions from a Tribunal.
The city blew this part of the hearing
 By Staff
October 31st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Is former Mayor Rick Goldring getting ready to jump back into the political ring again? He recently wrote an Opinion piece for the Local News (he was the founder of that online news source).
 At this point the structure on the left has been approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal. He came out pretty strongly against the Mayor Meed Ward about the Ontario Land Tribunal decision to permit the building of a 29 storey tower at Lakeshore and Pearl. But he doesn’t tell the whole story.
His opinion.
“This week, the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly the OMB — Ontario Municipal Board) ruled in favour of the developer Carriage Gate Homes for a 29-storey mixed-use condominium development on the northeast corner of Pearl and Lakeshore. The City of Burlington press release, along with the comments from
 Meed Ward with then Mayor Goldring: the two never did get along all that well. the mayor and ward councillor, had a strong tone of indignancy as result of the decision. It makes good politics to blame others and not look in the mirror to consider whether the mayor and council could have approached this differently. Now council will have a closed session meeting in early November with City of Burlington planners and lawyers to hear what options they have in an attempt to remove seven storeys from the development. (The mayor and council have already voted to accept a 22-storey building on the site.)
“I am reminded of the Nautique development application immediately to the east of the Carriage Gate site.
“Adi Development Group originally submitted an application for 28 storeys in 2014; they then reduced the height to 26 storeys and in 2016, council, with yours truly as mayor, rejected the application. Adi appealed the council decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and won the appeal in 2018. Council then asked for a review of the OMB decision to no avail.
 The ADI Group had better legal talent in their corner and they were tougher. The city missed several opportunities to put forward a stronger case. “When I look back on the process of the Nautique development application, council, led by me, made mistakes. The best way to deal with the situation politically is to fight the developer and application and that is just what we did, but that approach invariably does not (and did not) end up in a winning situation for the city.
“We would have been much better off to negotiate with the developer from the beginning. We could have saved the city time and money and we could have saved the developer time and money by reaching a compromise much earlier in the process. However, that approach is not good politics. Politically, it is better to fight and lose than compromise and look like you are acquiescing to developers.
“Based on previous development applications that resulted in 17-storey buildings (360 on Pearl and the Berkeley), the right approach with Adi back in 2014 was to push to compromise at 17 storeys (between the 28 that Adi wanted and the four to eight allowed in the Official Plan). This would have been defensible at the OMB even if Adi did not agree.
 This small bus terminal on John Street that the Transit people wanted to demolish at one point has had a massive impact on the kind of development taking place in the downtown core. “Fast forward to 2021, the current council will most likely decide to keep fighting the Carriage Gate 29-storey development when they already have approved 22 storeys, and for what purpose? To look good politically with an election coming next year? After all, looking good is much more important than making thoughtful decisions.”
What Goldring didn’t comment on was the way that OMB hearing went.
The ADI Group took their case to the OMB because the city failed to make a decision within the required time frame. How the city missed that deadline was never explained at the time.
Between the time that ADI filed their appeal and when the appeal was actually heard the ADI Group bought the small property to the north of the site they had acquired.
 The dark shaded area was the area that ADI owned and made an application to build on. They later bought the house in the area to the north (marked as a 4 storey) and added it to their plans – making it a new development. The city had a chance to insist that ADI file a new application – but they let that opportunity get away. And that purchase made it a totally different application – which had not been presented to the city.
The city could have advised the OMB member of that fact – but they chose not to do so and they were out-maneuvered by a lawyer who saw a loophole and made it work for her client.
That loophole was the transit station, smaller than some washrooms in the larger monster homes that got defined as a Mobility Hub (that’s what they were called at the time). The words Mobility Hub were replaced with MTSA (Major Transit Station Area).
The blame for the Nautique rests on the Goldring Council. It looks as if Goldring wants to place a layer of blame on Mayor Meed Ward for the Carriage Gate property at the corner of Lakeshore and Pearl – to be known as BeauSoleil.
Cute isn’t it.
 By Staff
October 30th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
We had the election no one wanted , at least not the people paying for that event.
Then the Prime Minister gathered together the team he needed to run the country.
The number of people in his Cabinet was a bit of a surprise.
There are 39 of them, each being paid the full salary that a Cabinet Minister gets along with staff and, we believe a car and driver when they have to be transported.
The annual salary is $88,700, with a car allowance.
There are numerous additional tasks for which there is an additional remuneration.
A Caucus Chair for a political party would get an additional $12,800; Parliamentary Secretaries would get an additional $18,100 per session. The list is extensive.
 The 2021 Cabinet for the government of Canada – 39 members Right Hon. Justin Trudeau Prime Minister
Hon. Chrystia Freeland Minister of Finance
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay Minister of Veterans Affairs
Hon. Carolyn Bennett Minister of Mental Health and Addictions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc Minister of Infrastructure and Communities
Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos Minister of Health
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Hon. Mélanie Joly Minister of Foreign Affairs
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier Minister of National Revenue
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan Minister of International Development
Hon. Carla Qualtrough Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion
Hon. Patty Hajdu Minister of Indigenous Services
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.
Hon. Karina Gould Minister of Families, Children and Social Development
Hon. Ahmed Hussen Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor Minister of Official Languages
Hon. Seamus O’Regan Minister of Labour
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez Minister of Canadian Heritage
Hon. Bill Blair President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada
Hon. Mary Ng Minister of Economic Development
Hon. Filomena Tassi Minister of Public Services and Procurement
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson Minister of Natural Resources
Hon. David Lametti Minister of Justice
Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard
Hon. Anita Anand Minister of National Defence
Hon. Mona Fortier President of the Treasury Board
Hon. Steven Guilbeault Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Hon. Marco Mendicino Minister of Public Safety
Hon. Marc Miller Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations
Hon. Dan Vandal Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada
Hon. Omar Alghabra Minister of Transport
Hon. Randy Boissonnault Minister of Tourism
Hon. Sean Fraser Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Hon. Mark Holland Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Hon. Gudie Hutchings Minister of Rural Economic Development
Hon. Marci Ien Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth
Hon. Helena Jaczek Minister responsible for Federal Economic Development Agency, Southern ON
Hon. Kamal Khera Minister of Seniors
Hon. Pascale St-Onge Minister of Sport
 By Matthew Major
October 31st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Recently, the government has committed to investing around $5.2 million in three culture and recreation projects in Central Ontario and the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA).
The impact of Covid stretches far beyond our health and hospitals. All areas of the local community have been affected by lockdowns, and families, businesses and communities across the country have had to make big changes to their way of lives. As a result of this disruption, the Canadian and Ontario governments are working together to support people and communities by ensuring that local infrastructure is safe and reliable. At the same time, the government is also looking ahead to see what else can be done in these unprecedented times.
 Recently, Sven Spengemann, member of parliament for Mississauga—Lakeshore, announced a series of joint funding. This funding will be specifically for three culture and recreation infrastructure projects in the GTHA and Central Ontario. This announcement was made on behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities as well as Ontario’s Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction. The move will see businesses receive some bonus funding for Covid support, but as Bonusfinder Canada explains, there can be restrictions to watch out for.
Who is Paying for These Projects?
The Government of Canada will be spending approximately $2.8 million on these projects under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program’s Community, Culture, and Recreation Infrastructure Stream. The Ontario government alone will also be funding more than $2.3 million to these initiatives, while beneficiaries are investing a total of more than $1.9 million in their own projects.
Under the Community, Culture, and Recreation Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, Ontario will contribute roughly $320 million over the next ten years, while Canada will invest around $407 million.
What Is the Money Being Spent On?
This announcement comes after a wave of infrastructure spending is planned for the country in the wake of the Covid pandemic. The government is hoping that with increased spending, communities will be able to return to normal much faster once restrictions have been lifted. This funding will aim to support the building of new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities. All of the projects focus on improving community infrastructure and also include recreational venues and cultural spaces such as museums, theatres and more.
 Upgrades to trail infrastructure in conservation areas in Caledon, Erin, Halton Hills, and Mississauga are among the projects that have been financed. They will improve public access to local greenspaces by better connecting trails with neighbouring towns and removing barriers. Trail improvements include the repair of four pedestrian bridges, the construction of three new pedestrian bridges, the expansion of paths by 2.8 kilometres, and the repair of 3.1 kilometres of boardwalk.
The Lincoln Museum and Cultural Centre will also receive funding for the design, manufacturing, and installation of an indoor and outdoor children’s gallery, which will provide families with educational content to learn more about local history and culture. Upgrades to the Unionville Seniors Hub’s Community Centre in Markham will provide new programmes and services to meet the special requirements of seniors and their caregivers. These initiatives, once completed, will provide citizens with better access to recreation facilities for many years to come.
Spengemann had the following to say about the funding “Ensuring residents have access to quality recreation infrastructure is vital for community well-being and development. Today’s investment for three culture and recreation infrastructure projects in the GTHA and Central Ontario will provide residents with access to modern, reliable, and even more accessible recreation facilities”.
By Staff
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Following the Province’s announcement to lift capacity limits in select settings where proof of vaccination is required, the City of Burlington will begin to move towards gradually increasing capacities for recreation facilities and programs. Visitors and participants are asked for patience as the City works toward returning to pre-pandemic capacity as programming is expanded where possible. To accommodate the changes, some programs may have to change times, dates or locations.
Some drop-in programs will see an immediate increase in capacity. Pre-registration is still required for all drop-in programs.
Capacities for registered programs and community rentals at rinks, pools, meeting rooms and community centres will also begin to increase gradually.
All current regulations around proof of vaccination, screening, masking and physical distancing remain.
For more information on what to expect when visiting City of Burlington recreation facilities and programs, visit burlington.ca/coronavirus.
 City Hall
Service Burlington is open at City Hall. Residents can visit Service Burlington Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. for:
• Parking permits and ticket payments
• Property tax payments
• Freedom of Information payments
• Garbage tag purchases
• Dog licenses
• Property information requests
• Recreation services payments
Marriage licenses and Commissioning services are also available at City Hall by appointment. Make your booking online at burlington.ca/marriagelicences or burlington.ca/commissioning.
To connect directly with a member of the Service Burlington team, call 905-335-7777 or email city@burlington.ca.
Hours are Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Building and Bylaw Department Changes
The Building and Bylaw Department has seen a drastic increase in building permit and bylaw inquiries/complaints over the past 18 months. To help streamline the work, anyone looking for services regarding building permits, building inspections, licensing services or bylaw enforcement, can contact the City the following ways:
Service Area Contact them when…
Building Permits • Inquiries and complaints (e.g., permit application status, permit pickup, etc.)
• Telephone: 905-335-7731, ext. 7470
• Email: buildingpermits@burlington.ca
Building Inspections • Inquiries and complaints (e.g. illegal construction, construction sites, unsafe buildings, etc.)
• Telephone: 905-335-7731, ext. 7470
• Email: buildingpermits@burlington.ca
Licensing Services • Inquiries and complaints (e.g., business licenses, pool/sign permits, lottery/liquor licences)
• Telephone: 905-335-7731
• Email: bylaw@burlington.ca
Bylaw Enforcement • Inquiries and complaints (e.g., property standards, nuisance/noise, lot maintenance, etc.)
• Telephone: 905-335-7731
• Email: bylaw@burlington.ca
 By Ray Rivers
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
Jason Kenny asked Albertans whether they think Canada’s regional equalization program should continue to exist. He did this through a divisive referendum no less sneaky than Quebec’s René Lévesque had crafted when he mislabelled his plan for independence ‘sovereignty association’.
Kenny admitted the referendum was purely a political ploy, since even after the public responded as he had wanted them to (62%), Alberta has no authority to change the equalization program. Equalization is entrenched in Canada’s constitution and administered by the federal government.
 Jason Kenny: Will he be the Premier come the next election? Of course this is all partisan theatrics. Mr. Kenny had been an influential senior minister in the Harper government. Why didn’t he lobby his party leader for change when he was actually in a position to do so.? And Kenny is alone, no other province shares his zeal to remove this pan-national program that has helped to glue the country together for more than half a decade.
Kenny complains that Albertans pay 15 billion dollars a year more in income and other taxes to the federal government than the province receives back from the feds. Of that amount Kenny tells us that $3 billion gets allocated towards the 20 billion dollar equalization fund, which the federal government administers based on the program’s eligibility criterion.
But Mr. Kenny has somehow forgotten that Ottawa has been subsidizing the fossil fuel industry for over forty years, most of it centered in Alberta, and much of it to expand oil sands operations. Some of the subsidies are direct payments for technology and infrastructure. Some are tax credits, wage subsidies and write offs of one form or another. And some are required to clean up the mess, the myriad of environmental legacies of orphan wells and tailing ponds.
The feds dole out somewhere between 3 and 18 billion dollars, depending on who you ask. So by any measure Alberta has been doing pretty well from that pig trough they like to call federal government. Kenny may not be receiving equalization payments, because as the wealthiest jurisdiction in the country Alberta is not eligible, but Alberta’s corporate interests have certainly been well fed by Ottawa.
That has to change if Canada is to meet its bold greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets of 40-45% by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Coal, oil and gas have to be phased out and shut down for any of that to happen, since those are the major sources of GHG in the country. And make no mistake Canada, being one of the worst global polluters has committed to this.
So, having recently renewed his mandate with an almost majority of seat in Parliament the PM has decided on action ahead of rhetoric. Former Quebec Greenpeace activist, Steven Gilbeault, who had once been arrested for scaling the CN Tower, is Canada’s newest Environment Minister. And the first order of business at the upcoming COP 26 Climate Change conference will be to announce that Canada will eliminate all subsidies to the fossil fuel sector by 2023, actually 2 years ahead of most other nations.
 Steven Gilbeault, the man on the right is now the Minister of the Environment This is not the first time we’ve seen that kind of promise. Mr. Trudeau said he’d do that back when he ran in 2015…. but he didn’t. In fact he ended up buying an oil pipeline for Alberta instead. And it’s not just the Liberals who can’t seen to cut the cash flow, because Mr. Harper also promised to end the subsidies way back in 2009… but he didn’t either.
Shutting off the subsidy taps sounds easy but it’s really pretty complicated. For one thing there is the regional political situation. Still Canadians have clearly demonstrated over the last two elections that they want to see action on climate change. And even voting Albertans and the petroleum sector are coming to that position.
Oil and gas contributes less than 10% to the country’s GDP. But that sector is a critical source of income and employment for at least four provinces. And most of us still drive gasoline powered cars and rely on fossil fuelled transportation for our goods and services. So phasing out will require substantial adjustment and retraining.
And not everyone agrees on the definition of a subsidy. In 2019 the Prime Minister requested his then-finance minister Bill Morneau to prepare a list of Canada’s fossil fuel financial supports. By March 2021 that report was still “a work in progress”. But they know where the low hanging subsidy fruit lies.
Subsidies, serve to lower the price of a commodity, since governments pick up some of the costs of production. That is the exact opposite of what the national carbon tax is all about. Why would we charge consumers more at the pump, for gasoline, and then help the oil companies reduce their costs and thus prices? The last federal budget projected $18 billion spending over the next 5 years on climate actions. Yet we gave the oil and gas sector as much as $18 B last year in subsidies.
 The Prime Minister bought the pipeline to show the people of Alberta that he cared. Mr. Trudeau purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline against his better judgement to show Alberta some love. But he got no thanks in return. By appointing long time climate activist Steven Gilbeault as Canada’s new environment minister, he is sending Mr. Kenny a message. No more Mr. Nice Guy. The Empire is striking back – Canada will be turning off its carbon rich taps, starting with the money that feeds the fossil fuel industry.
As for the troublesome Mr. Kenny, the most unpopular premier in Canada, one can only hope the voters in Alberta look long and hard at just what an asset he is for them and the province’s longer term economic health. It is time to embrace the future.
 Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Trudeau’s – the Alberta Memo – Alberta’s Claim – $18 Billion Subsidy –
Canada’s Carbon Tax – Environment Minister –
By Pepper Parr
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington has a Heritage Advisory Committee that has a colourful checkered past.
There was a time when it was a disaster.
Anyone who felt there was a chance their house would be designated had been led to believe by some in the real estate sector that the resale potential for their house was going to plummet.
There was a lot of ignorance and some pretty stupid people who did all kinds of dumb things to ensure that their house was not designated historically significant.
 Jim Clemens: the Chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee who put it on a sound footing after years of dysfunction. That began to change in 2013 when the membership of the Advisory committee was changed and a new chair working with an informed and realistic board took over.
When the bulk of their work was done city council, they came as close as they could to giving standing ovations.
Heritage now had a sound footing and was in a position to approve and recommend grants to people who wanted to improve their homes to make them worth designating and keeping them up to standard once they were designated.
The Advisory Committee could recommend that property owners be given grants of up to 25% of the total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000.
It was city council that made the grant award based on the Advisory Committee recommendation.
A recent award to a resident was placed in the Consent section of the Standing Committee Agenda.
Consent items get little in the way of attention unless a member of Council asks to have it pulled so it can be discussed in open session.
The Gazette has a practice of going through everything on the consent agenda, if only to keep an eye on what Council is up to.
The item that caught our eye was detailed in the Staff report of September 7th, 2021 which was set out as a report responding to an application for a grant from the Community Heritage Fund.
 By any standard this is a very handsome house. The Staff report said:
The subject property known as 2411 Lakeshore Road is located on the north side of Lakeshore Road, between Market Street and St. Paul Street. It currently supports a three-storey residence in the Queen Anne style, as demonstrated by the characteristic architectural features including the irregular façade, multiple surfaces with intricate decorative wooden elements, multiple rooflines and gables, verandah, tall windows, bay windows, and tall chimneys. The subject property also contributes to the character of Lakeshore Road through its setbacks, historic architecture, mature trees, and massing.
The property at 2411 Lakeshore Road was designated under Part IV, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1995 through By-law 8-1995. The by-law also designates four other properties in the immediate area.
In 2019, as a condition of approval of the current property owner’s application for consent to sever the westerly portion of 2411 Lakeshore Road, the designation by-law was updated to come into conformity with a 2005 amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act.
Background on the Community Heritage Fund and Grant Application
The Burlington Community Heritage Fund (CHF) was established by Council in 1985 to encourage the preservation of structures designated under the Ontario Heritage Act by providing financial assistance to property owners in the form of loans and grants. It was also an objective of the CHF to encourage the designation of properties of cultural heritage value or significance under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The CHF was amended in 1993 and 2014 and now provides grants of up to 25% of the total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000, subject to specific guidelines. Loans may be provided for up to 50% of total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000.
The requested grant on the agenda at the September 7th meeting represents 25% of the total project cost of $3,616.00. The property owner originally obtained quotes from two tradespersons to complete the work and elected to retain the more economical option.
Staff support the applicant’s request for a grant from the CHF in the amount of $904.00 as it aligns with the CHF eligibility criteria by constituting “work which conserves or enhances elements specified in the by-law”.
There was a sentence in the Staff report that made mention of previous grants made for improvements to the same property.
 Funds were provided to replace some of the decking on the western side of the house. The Gazette decided dig a little deeper and learned that the recommendation was made for a grant to an individual who was a member of the Heritage Advisory and that this grant was not the first but the fourth grant made. Technically this item was not a grant but it was a decision that we believe was necessary for the Committee of Adjustment to proceed.
The very first was recommended on July 10th, 2019
From the Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes:
David Barker declared an interest in Item 7.1 b. – consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road – as he is the owner of the property. He refrained from discussion and voting on this item.
From the minutes:
Consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika advised that 2411 Lakeshore Road is designated by By-law 8-1995 which protects heritage attributes on the front (south) and side (west) elevations of the building. The owner proposes to sever the westerly portion of the property to create an additional lot, allow variances to support the severance and demolish the existing detached garage located on the proposed severed parcel. Danika provided an overview of the variances for the retained and severed parcel and asked the Committee to consider whether they would have an impact on the heritage value of the property.
Members discussed and feel there are no issues from a heritage perspective. Motion – Heritage Burlington supports the requested consent and minor variances for 2411 Lakeshore Road under the assumption that any new development on the proposed severed lot is sited behind the existing heritage home.
– CARRIED
Danika is the Staff planner assigned to the Heritage Advisory Committee
The second application made by David Barker was on October 9, 2019. From the Heritage Advisory Committee minutes:
 A garage was demolished and a severance of the western section applied for – granted by the Committee of Adjustment. Declarations of Interest:
Consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika advised that 2411 Lakeshore Road is designated by By- law 8-1995 which protects heritage attributes on the front (south) and side (west) elevations of the building. The owner proposes to sever the westerly portion of the property to create an additional lot, allow variances to support the severance and demolish the existing detached garage located on the proposed severed parcel. Danika provided an overview of the variances for the retained and severed parcel and asked the Committee to consider whether they would have an impact on the heritage value of the property.
Members discussed and feel there are no issues from a heritage perspective. Motion – Heritage Burlington supports the requested consent and minor variances for 2411 Lakeshore Road under the assumption that any new development on the proposed severed lot is sited behind the existing heritage home.
The third application made by David Barker was on September 16th, 2020.
Regrets:
David Barker, Trisha Murray, Alan Harrington and Rick Wilson did not attend the meeting.
From the Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting
Grant from Community Heritage Fund for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika provided an overview of the original application, received in September 2019, for a grant from the Community Heritage Fund to financially assist the owner of 2411 Lakeshore Road in replacing rotten deck boards on their porch verandah in the amount of $375. Since that time, the applicant has advised that the scope of work increased to include the replacement of additional deck boards.
Based on final cost receipts, the applicant has now applied for an additional grant in the amount of $673.15.
Committee discussed and supported the application. Motion – Approve the grant application for 2411 Lakeshore Road for an additional amount of $673.15. – CARRIED
 The house has kept much of its rural roots with the deck on the side probably leading into the kitchen. This house should be on the next Heritage Tour On September 7th, 2021 a fourth application was made in the amount of $904.00
The minutes of the meeting note that:
David Barker declared an interest in Item 7.1 b. – Heritage permit and Community Heritage Fund applications for 2411 Lakeshore Road – as he is the owner of the subject property. He refrained from discussion and voting on this item.
The minutes of the Standing Committee reported that:
Grant from Community Heritage Fund for 2411 Lakeshore Road (PL-45-21)
Moved by Councillor Stolte
Approve the grant application for restoration work to front verandah, including sanding, filling and painting to the support columns and sun motif, at 2411 Lakeshore Road in the amount of $904.00 to be funded by the Burlington Community Heritage Fund.
CARRIED
 Mayor Meed Ward lives in a house that she had designated long before she became Mayor. On the vote Mayor Meed Ward commented that “it was great to see residents of designated homes investing in the upkeep of their property” adding she wanted to see more of this – we do have a grant program that will help so keep those applications coming.”
The item that was voted on was in the Consent section of the Standing Committee agenda. These items, as noted earlier, seldom get any attention.
Our issue is not with the grant – it is with the way council chose to handle the matter.
To be fair, the work done with the funds that were awarded was sterling. The house on the north side of Lakeshore Road between Market and St. Paul is a handsome addition to the inventory of historically significant houses.
Mr. Barker is known by every member of Council. He is an active participant in civic matters. He has contributed opinion pieces to the Gazette.
Where we have an issue is with a member of an Advisory Committee benefiting financially as the result of a decision made by the committee. Recusing oneself from the discussion and not voting isn’t enough.
Also, where was Council on this? The Staff report made mention that Barker had been given grants in the past.
However, Council members didn’t apparently read the report.
Someone (Who?) put the item on the consent agenda aware that the item would not have been given any attention.
While the sums involved are small there is a large matter of principal.
 David Barker delegating before Council The Gazette believes there are some gaps in the Governance protocols and will be asking Integrity Principles, the council advisors on matters of protocol and governance, to look into this matter with the suggestion that changes be made to ensure that an individual does not personally benefit financially from an Advisory Committee they serve on.
A reasonable question to ask is: Should Mr. Barker resign from the Heritage Advisory Committee or at a minimum should the rules be changed to prevent this from happening in the future ?
Colourful background
By Staff
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Yesterday, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) released its decision on Lakeshore Inc.’s proposal at 2069-2079 Lakeshore Rd.
The City strongly disagrees with and is shocked by the ruling, which allows for a 29-storey building at that location.
 It’s tall – but not THE tallest development in the works. There is a developer with a 32 storey idea for Brant Street. It’s This decision is not at all reflective of the planned context for the Downtown as expressed in the new Official Plan. It not only ignores the citizens of Burlington and Halton Region, and their Councils, it has ignored the stated intent of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to change the planning context by adjusting the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) boundary.
City Planning and Legal staff will review the decision in more detail to determine if a review of the decision by the Tribunal or a Court should be pursued, including their findings on the City’s motion regarding the impact of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC).
At a special meeting of City Council on Nov. 3, staff will present these potential options and next steps in-camera.
Burlington’s revised new Official Plan (OP) was approved by Halton Region on Nov. 30, 2020. The new OP includes stronger protections for green space, heritage, jobs, the rural community, established low-density neighbourhoods and a special focus on preserving the character of the downtown. The modifications presented in the final Notice of Decision address the issues of non-conformity, changes to Provincial Plans and policies, and Official Plan Amendments and the need to balance Regional and Provincial conformity requirements. In addition, the modifications capture endorsed policy modifications related to two areas identified by Council for re-examination and refinement. The policies of the Official Plan with the recommended modifications establish a comprehensive policy framework to a planning horizon of 2031.
 Things are getting crowded downtown. A number of developments in the talking and planning stages are not shown. At the hearing, the City argued that Lakeshore Inc.’s proposal for 29-storeys was not appropriate for that location for a number of reasons, including the fact that the proposal far exceeded the height limits of 17-storeys allowed in that area, the City’s vision and planned context for the downtown as expressed in the new Official Plan, and the proposed building’s height and mass were not compatible with or provided appropriate transition to the surrounding area. In its decision, however, the OLT states that the development should be allowed as because provincial policy in the Growth Plan directs new residential growth to the Urban Growth Centre in a significant or ‘optimized’ manner.
The decision underscores the importance of the future boundary adjustment of the UGC to the Burlington GO station and the need for the new downtown policies in the new OP to be determined and brought into force. The OLT stated “The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence of negative impact or any other justification for the modifications as advanced by the City to support a 22-storey tower instead of the 29-storey tower under the Lakeshore Proposal. Moreover, there is also no basis for the resultant substantial reduction in the number of residential units stemming from the City’s proposed modifications. The height reduction alone would eliminate between 63 and 77 residential units. Reducing the tower floorplate to 690 m2 as proposed … would eliminate a further 64 to 80 residential units.”
The City further argued that it is on track to meet or exceed provincial growth targets and regardless, the number of residential units should not result in a development that is incompatible with the existing area.
This decision is not indicative of the best planning outcome for Burlington residents or City of Burlington planning goals.
Burlington is a City where people, nature and businesses thrive. As residents continue to rediscover many of their favourite spaces and activities in the city, City services may look different as we work to stop the spread of COVID-19. The City’s commitment to providing the community with essential services remains a priority.
 The 29 storey development will be marketed under the name BeauSoleil Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns had this to say in a prepared statement they rel;eased jointly:
“This is a devastating and shocking decision imposed on our community, which completely disregards the vision of residents, council and staff for this area. And so, Council will be examining all of our options for a review of this OLT decision.
This decision completely dismisses the considerable feedback from residents in opposition to this file – and their valuable suggestions for what would be appropriate. This decision ignored over 100 people who took the time to attend a community meeting, delegate to council, and write pages of letters. There was no acknowledgement of our community’s voice in this decision.
 We once knew it as the Pearle Street Cafe – those were the days. The decision highlights the inappropriate application of Provincial Planning Policies to justify over development and underscores the importance of a speedy decision from the Minister to remove the Major Transit Station Area designation from downtown and adjust the boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre to the Burlington GO Station, where this scale of development should be. We will continue to work to defend our plan and put growth where it belongs.”
 By Pepper Parr
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir, a regular Gazette reader and commentator said he “ saw the Mayor on CHCH TV this morning and the budget was covered. She said 5.45% is a wish list, is too much, and will not be approved.”
In the budget discussions we have heard so far not a peep from the Mayor on what she thought was an appropriate level of tax increase Council could accept.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward reported to have described the 5.45% budget increase as a “staff wish list” that would not be passed. To say publicly that the budget is a “Staff wish list” is disrespectful and condescending in the extreme.
Joan Ford and her crew work hard on the budgets and they look for ways to trim costs where they can.
Ford, who fully understands how municipal budgets work, struggles to get this Mayor to understand that reserves are in place for a reason and they are to be respected.
How Meed Ward convinced herself that more than $4 million could be taken from the Hydro Reserve fund and used to pay for a wave break at the LaSalle Marina. The decision was so egregious that City Manager Tim Commisso said aloud that he would begin looking for ways to group the Reserve funds so that it wasn’t so evident just how much money was kept for extreme situations.
There are still those recovering from the flood of 2014. The city had reserves in place then that allowed immediate spending to clear up the creek beds and repair the bridges that had been damaged.
Staff takes their lead from Council. To have people in the finance department working their tails off only to learn that their efforts are seen as a “wish list” hurts.
An apology might be in order.
By Ryan O’Dowd: Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
November 5th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
One year ago Anita Ceh had a life-changing hike at Mount Nemo.
Anita and her friend, Jennifer, met in the parking lot last October to walk a Mount Nemo trail. Anita has always been active but doesn’t consider herself much of a hiker, favouring more leisurely walks – what followed was anything but. Mount Nemo’s cliffside trail looms large on the escarpment skyline and looks out over rural parts of the city adorned with autumn foliage of golds and reds. Anita doesn’t remember how long they walked before the fall.
Anita jumped across a small gap in the trail and she immediately knew something was wrong. The earth gave way and Anita lost her footing, she grabbed hold of a tree on the other side of the clearing but too much ground had given way, soil and stone gobbled up by the jagged mouth of a deep crevasse. Her grip couldn’t hold. The tree slipped out of her grasp and Anita’s friend tells her she grabbed at the edge of the ground, but the cliff face crumbled too.
After losing purchase on the cliff face Anita curled into the fetal position to protect her head and neck. She doesn’t remember the fall.
Anita fell fifty feet into the gaping crevasse. She remembers coming to, here and there, as emergency responders fastened ropes to a stretcher for a vertical elevation because the crevasse was too narrow for any other kind of evacuation. Although Anita’s recollection of her time caught in the crevasse is spotty, Jennifer Massel , who found a passerby to call 911, tells her they communicated the whole time. Jennifer never thought Anita was going to die, Anita says the firefighters thought differently.
 Meeting with fire fighters a year after a 50 foot fall into a crevasse on Mount Nemo. Anita Ceh is in the leather jacket, and friend Jennifer “They thought they’d be bringing a body up,” said Anita. “And so I don’t know how I survived, I guess determination, divine intervention. I’m not a religious person, but I have to believe that there is somebody watching over me.”
Anita spent seven weeks in the hospital, much of it she described as lost time in a brain fog. Anita worked as an x-ray technician, she remembered seeing the terrible x-rays of badly injured patients during her career and never imagined she’d be one of them. The brain fog was mostly lifted by the last two weeks of her hospital stay and Anita, grateful to have survived, grew restless and frustrated with her hospital stay, eager to return to her life.
Now she has.
“Amazingly, I’m feeling really good,” said Anita.
Following her long hospital stay, Anita walked around with a cane for two weeks due to a fracture in her spine. She attributes ditching the cane to her stubbornness and is back to being active now. She left the crevasse with a “fair bit of hardware” in her shoulder and wrist. Anita has started riding her bike again, one of her favourite ways to stay active, but she’s more cautious than before.
Despite how foggy the incident at Mount Nemo has become it weighs heavy on Anita’s mind.
 Mt Nemo has dozens of hidden crevasses – wiser to walk along the well marked trails. “I kind of was concerned about going back to Mount Nemo because of post-traumatic stress, which I know I’m suffering from now. But I want to go back and see, and have a look at the crevasse.”
One year after the event Anita had the opportunity to meet the firefighters who saved her life. Anita said she got the idea to meet the first responders again from a friend who told her they’re always appreciative of the gratitude. Anita was emotional speaking about the firefighter’s heroism.
 Acting Platoon Chief Jason Laporte standing with Anita Ceh, (on the right) and her friend Jennifer “I have such respect for them, I always have, but when you actually have to be saved from such a dangerous situation you realize they risk their lives to save our lives.”
Acting Platoon Chief Jason Laporte mentioned it is a rare opportunity to reconnect with someone they helped during an emergency but says when it happens it’s “one of the most rewarding parts of the job.”
The Burlington Fire Department is using a mobile application called what3words to help emergency responders find callers in remote areas without a known or specific address. Residents are encouraged to download the free app to mobile devices so public safety telecommunicators can quickly identify your location, down to a 3-meter square area, during an emergency.
When the passerby called 9-1-1 for Anita they were unsure how to describe the location, but eventually were able to coordinate with first responders. Burlington Fire Chief Karen Roche pointed out what3words will help responders and citizens in emergency situations.
“We’re thankful the 9-1-1 caller was able to help us locate her. Every second we spend trying to search for a caller could mean their chances of a positive outcome is reduced. The faster we can get to the person, the better the outcome. Downloading the what3words application on your mobile device helps us help you,” said Roche.
 By Staff
October 27th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) has made an arrest and laid multiple charges after a human trafficking investigation in Oakville.
 Frank Yeboah of Burlington: charged with Trafficking in Persons On Monday October 25, 2021, investigators arrested 25 year-old Frank Yeboah of Burlington. He has been charged with the following:
- Trafficking in Persons
- Adult Procuring
- Sexual Assault (x2)
- Extortion
Yeboah was held in custody pending a bail hearing in Milton.
Police believe there may be additional victims and ask that anyone with information contact the Human Trafficking Unit at 905-825-4747 ext. 5331.
The Halton Regional Police Service firmly believes that every person has the right to feel safe in our community.
Victims of violence and/or sexual assault and witnesses are encouraged to contact the Halton Regional Police Service. The following is a list of valuable support services and resources in our region for victims of violence and/or sexual assault:
- Halton Regional Police Service Victim Services Unit 905-825-4777 ext. 5239 or by email at VictimServices@haltonpolice.ca
- Nina’s Place Sexual Assault and Domestic Assault Care Centre 905-336-4116 or 905-681-4880
- Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services (SAVIS) 905-875-1555 (24-hour crisis line)
- Radius Child & Youth Services 905-825-3242 (Oakville) or 1-855-744-9001
- Kid’s Help Phone 1-800-668-6868 (24-hour crisis line)
- THRIVE Counselling 905-845-3811 or 905-637-5256
Signs / Indicators of Human Trafficking
- Not being allowed to speak for themselves;
- Not having control of their own money or cellphone;
- Suddenly having a new or second cell phone with a secret number;
- Being controlled by others and escorted at all times;
- Not being allowed to contact family or friends;
- Withdrawing from family and friends;
- Providing rehearsed answers to casual questions;
- Being secretive about their activities;
- Showing signs of abuse, such as bruising, cigarette burns, fractures, etc.
- Having a new boyfriend, girlfriend or friend who they won’t introduce to friends/family; and
- Having new items (clothing, jewelry etc.) outside their financial means.
What Should I Do if I Think Someone is a Victim of Trafficking?
If there is immediate danger or if you suspect someone is being trafficked, call 9-1-1.
You may also call the Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-833-900-1010.
The Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline is a confidential, multilingual service, operating 24/7 to connect victims and survivors with social services, law enforcement, and emergency services, as well as receive tips from the public. The hotline uses a victim-centered approach when connecting human trafficking victims and survivors with local emergency, transition, and/or long-term supports and services across the country, as well as connecting callers to law enforcement where appropriate.
By Pepper Parr
October 26th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
This is one of those chicken and egg situations – which came first ?
We’d like to revise that just a little bit and ask – which should come first?
The public was recently treated to a pre-application presentation by Bousfields, the planning consultants hired by Vrancorp to re-develop the Waterfront Hotel site.
 The twin towers would change more than the skyline of the city. The designs that were made public were stunning – but much of the public reaction was less than enthusiastic – what stunned them was the idea of putting two towers on Lakeshore Road, one that would be the highest in the city.
Nice buildings but not in Spencer Smith Park, was the predominant comment.
The two towers were proposed for what the planners called the iconic ground zero location – the intersection of Brant and Lakeshore Road where a 35 storey and a 30 story tower were to replace the nine storey hotel.
The site has been the focus point for a lot of planning – some of it going back more than a decade.
An agreement had been put in place to have a study done on how best to develop the hotel site and have it compliment Spencer Smith Park and the Promenade.
 The area to be covered in the Waterfront Study that started back in 2005. At this point there isn’t a completion date – there is a report that is scheduled to go to Council in 1Q of 2022 Vrancor, the corporation that owns the hotel, is reported to have put up the $150,000 to have the study done. They are understandably upset. They paid for the study but the study was not completed. The city doesn’t have a planner assigned to the study – the most recent word is that the planning department will be getting something to council in 2022.
This may be one of those times when the horses are out of the barn and it’s too late to close the door.
In June 2018 Council went along with a revised Work Plan for the study that was to be completed by Q1 of 2019, (This was before Meed Ward became Mayor.)
The re-thinking of what could be done with the site goes back to 2005 with a follow up report in 2006.
There was a subsequent site-specific policy requiring that a planning study process be completed prior to any redevelopment of the subject site.
 Residents at a workshop setting out their ideas with planner Thomas Walker. The 2018 report called for a high quality of urban design reflecting the landmark nature of this site, that “shall be contingent upon the completion of a master plan to the satisfaction of City Council.”
Public meeting to consider what the waterfront area should include.
In 2015 Council approved the terms of reference for the Waterfront Hotel Lands Planning Study.
In 2017 the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study was publicly launched, beginning with a pair of visioning workshops in May.
In November of 2018 the site’s significance was affirmed at the Planning and Development Committee meeting, evidenced by a number of delegations that presented a varied set of interests and development concepts.
 A series of drawings that got whittled down to two Preferred Concept – and that as far as the study of the Waterfront Hotel site has gone. At this point, 2018, the public had a series of drawings that resulted in two preferred concepts for development.
A group known as Plan B inserted itself into the process with their position that a thin red line be drawn beyond which there would be no development west of the hotel site.
Despite extensive engagement opportunities, a clear consensus on direction had not yet been achieved. Staff then built upon the consultation work done through three community workshops (a total of six sessions); what came out of the Planning and Development Committee held on November 28, 2017, and significant contributions from the Vrancor Group and the Plan B Citizen Group; they created key policy directions to move forward.
The key policy directions were intended to align with the vision statement, accommodate an iconic landmark building, and reinforce the site’s unique location as a major gateway to the waterfront.
 One of two renderings of what the site might look like. The entrance to the development would be from John Street not Brant
 Early concept didn’t have the height that was shown in the pre-application presentation. The key policy directions have been organized around the study’s three frameworks and guiding design principles of Land Use and Built Form, Public Realm, and Mobility and Access, as follows: Land use and built form and Public Realm are important and it is vital that everyone share the same understanding as to just what this means.
Land Use and Built Form
1) Create building frontages along Lakeshore Road and Elizabeth Street with building placement that establishes a defining street wall and frames the street zone.
2) Provide active uses at grade along Lakeshore Road and Elizabeth Street.
3) Achieve active and animated edges adjacent to Spencer Smith Park, with a requirement for retail and service commercial uses at grade:
a. Built form next to the south property line shall activate and animate this edge, respect the existing grade, and be scaled to the waterfront trail with higher levels stepping back as necessary.
b. Built form next to the west property line shall activate and animate this edge, respect the existing grade, and be scaled to Spencer Smith Park with higher levels stepping back as necessary.
4) Require a minimum of two uses within buildings and where feasible, encourage three uses.
5) Establish an iconic landmark building on the site subject to the following:
a. A new public, pedestrian space is provided at the foot of Brant Street where public views to the Lake and Pier are enhanced;
b. The iconic landmark building must contain a destination use or function;
c. The iconic landmark building shall enhance the City of Burlington’s image/identity.
6) Require design excellence in all matters of architecture, landscape architecture, sustainable and urban design and require that all public and private development proposals on or adjacent to the site be evaluated/reviewed by the Burlington Urban Design Advisory Panel.
 An unobstructed view of the Pier from Brant Street was objective number 1 for almost everyone. Public Realm
7) Protect public view corridors to Lake Ontario from Brant and Elizabeth Streets, and where possible John Street.
8) Enhance the Brant Street view corridor to frame views to the Brant Street Pier, and require a significant building setback from the west property line.
9) Create new and enhanced publicly accessible green/open space, which would include new north-south pedestrian connections between Lakeshore Road and Spencer Smith Park (mid-block and along the site’s edges).
10) Minimize changes to the existing grade along the southern edge of the site and enhance the interface with Spencer Smith Park.
11) Integrate a public washroom within the future redevelopment; with an entrance that is accessible, highly visible and within close proximity to Spencer Smith Park.
12) Identify opportunities for the placement of public art on and adjacent to the site.
Staff was to continue with background work and in early 2019, re-start the process with a refreshed look and feel building on the above policy directions. This will include a revised work plan and new public engagement plan which leverages the city’s newest communication and engagement software and tools.
Changes to the existing land use designation and permitted building height are not included in the new Official Plan – as it was in the then current Official Plan – not the one that the new Council adopted in 2019.
The process would involve a site-specific amendment to the Official Plan at such time as the study is completed by the City and approved by City Council.
What muddies up a clear understanding was the existence then of a downtown mobility hub, that problem was resolved; then a change in the Urban Growth Centre boundary.
The ICBL – Interim Control By Law was imposed and then the world was hit with a pandemic brought about by the Covid19 virus.
We are now at the point where a sense or normality seems to be returning.
Add to that a frenetic increase in the development applications that required the city to hire more than a dozen new planners.
Then along comes the planner for the hotel site owner saying they were tired of waiting and did a pre-application presentation that shocked many.
That pre-application is the beginning of a process that has a ticking clock.
 The towers are closer than many realize – closer to the street than the hotel on the site. So back to that first question: which should come first – the completion of the Waterfront Study or the accepting of a development application.
There is an important connection between this Waterfront Study and the City’s new Official Plan, the Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Plan, the City’s Transportation Plan, Cycling Master Plan, Community Trails Strategy, the Transit Plan and the Tall Building and Downtown Streetscape Guidelines, all of which are necessary to ensure that redevelopment of the subject property meets the City’s urban design and growth management goals, as well as enhances the adjacent public space and waterfront.
People began asking – what about the Waterfront Hotel Study and wondering how a pre-application presentation could be done before the study was complete.
There is a lot riding on what is to be built on the hotel site; people are getting anxious.
Will the downtown core begin to look like the Toronto waterfront where a lot of the land south of the Gardner Expressway is studded with towers that limit the view of Lake Ontario?
Not much is being heard from the politicians – they have taken the view that they can’t say much at this point without being accused of being biased.
The point at which they feel they can comment is when planning staff produce their report that either recommends that a development proceed, or that the development not proceed or that they should continue working with the developer.
The stickler at this point is this: the city has 120 days to produce their report to council – something that is close to impossible for a development of this size.
Once the 120 point has been met the developer has the right to go to the Ontario Land Tribunal to ask for permission to proceed with the development.
Burlington has not done very well at the tribunal level, partly many feel because of the direction that comes out of Burlington’s legal department.
With all those agencies commenting the project begins to create some momentum that it might not be possible to hold in check.
The Gazette has made the telling of this story a mission.
The people of Burlington are going to have to make it a mission to ensure that Council hears what they think and feel.
In the next 13 months we are going to go through a provincial election and a municipal election. The strategy for those who care about where growth takes place and the kind of growth that takes place should be a mission as well.
Related news stories:
The pre-application presentation
Is there a different approach to how the site can be used? A land swap perhaps?
 By Pepper Parr
October 26th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Karina Gould.
She is now the Minister of Family, Children and Social Development.
It isn’t a promotion and it isn’t a demotion.
She had to leave the International Development Ministry in order for the former Minister of Defence to have something to do.
Having all but raised her son in the House of Commons she will do well in this new Ministry.
 Karina Gould getting the official PM elbow bump during her searing in this morning.
By Pepper Parr
October 25th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The cat is out of the bag.
 Ouch! Financial people are expected to put forward a budget asking for a 5.45% increase over last year.
That didn’t come as a big surprise.
In the media release from city hall they explained that “This represents a 5.45% increase to the City’s portion of the tax bill.”
The statement is totally true.
 In the beginning she was all about transparency and accountability. Something changed. The media release also said: “When combined with the estimated regional and education tax levies, the overall projected tax increase for a Burlington homeowner in 2022 is 3.18% or $24.76 per $100,000 of assessment. For example, homeowners with a home assessed at $500,000 would pay an additional $123.80 per year or $2.38 per week.
That statement is totally true as well. The point that never gets made is this: The city collects taxes for the education sector and the Regional government but has absolutely no impact on the amount taxes levied by the Boards of Education and a minimal impact on the Regional taxes levied. Burlington has just 7 of the 24 votes at the Regional level.
The combined tax level tends to make the Burlington 5.45 % look better, the reality is that the city is taxing its citizens at a level well above inflation. Two percent increases are not going to be seen for a long time.
 Citizens looking over a budget document that they have next to no chance of changing. Better that they be given a piece of cake. As for the public having any impact – the numbers are all but cast in stone well before the public gets to see them. For Mayor Meed Ward to say she wants the public to “ assist City Council in the budget process” and “to share their input and tell us what services are important to them.”
To what end? Adding insult to injury this Mayor does not appear to be doing anything to find ways to let tax payers meet in a live setting and express their views. She would rather have you “join in the conversation at the November 22 virtual town hall that she will be hosting.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
October 25th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Each member of Council finds their own way to meet with constituents.
 When she is on a roll – Kearns is a dangerous lady with a microphone. Lisa Kearns (ward 2) has the most active ward in the city, although the folks in Aldershot would differ with her on that.
She has broken the meeting mold that most members of Council are using and is now meeting with her constituents both virtually and live. She held her second hybrid meeting last week and found herself spending most of the two hours explaining what was happening on the development side of things.
It is hectic and it is complex.
Council decided recently to proceed with the hiring of about 15 additional planners who will be needed to cope with the development applications that have kept the planning department stretched to the limit.
 Councillor Kearns suggested she might take constituents on a walking tour of the developments in her ward. Kearns put together a map of where the development is taking place in her ward and the status of a number of those applications.
 Brant Street is on the right hand side and Prospect is on the left side. Prospect curves around the development. A pre-application from Camarro Developments for the proposed development at Brant and Prospect had already been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal – it has been there for some time.
It took a number of questions to get the people giving the pre application presentation to say just how tall the building is going to be.
The plan is for 293 units with 275 parking spaces in the four underground parking levels. 61 – 3 bedroom; 100 – 2 bedroom, and 132 – 1 bedroom.
There will be retail at grade level. It wasn’t clear just what would be in the 7 level podium.
During their presentation last week we got some detail on what is going to be a 31 storey structure with a seven level podium with 25 storey’s on top of the podium – which sets a new record for height in the city.
Permalink By Staff
October 25th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Police Board meeting is scheduled for this Thursday, October 28, at 9:00 a.m. If you would like to register and observe our meeting you can do so by clicking on this link:
The Police Service Board oversees the Halton Regional Police.
The Chief of Police and his senior staff attend and report regularly on what has happened, where the porblems are and explain what they are doing about the problems.
Key parts of the Agenda for Thursday are:
CONSENT AGENDA
3.1 Halton Happenings – September 2021
3.2 Quarterly Human Resources Summary
3.3 Seized Fund Statement – August 31, 2021
3.4 Communications Update – October 2021
3.5 Minutes of Advisory Committee Meeting – October 19, 2021
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 2022 Funding Request & 10 Year Capital Forecast
4.2 Proposed Governance Policies
4.3 Proposed 2022 HPB Governance Budget
4.4 Funding Request from Canadian Caribbean Association of Halton
 By Tamara De Dominicis
October 25th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON’
When you go to the emergency room of the hospital, you are at your most vulnerable. No matter the reason that you need to see a doctor, something prompted you to seek out medical attention and you need help. At Joseph Brant Hospital, current rules state that patients visiting the emergency department may only have a caregiver or support person under “special circumstances, such as for patients with cognitive, mobility or language difficulties” (Joseph Brant Hospital). This is unacceptable for numerous reasons, which I will outline below.
 The necessity of a support person in emergency should not be limited by Covid 19 protocols says resident. Let us first review the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic in Burlington, Ontario at the end of October 2021. At present, there are 5 active cases of COVID at the hospital, with 120 cases reported in the entire City of Burlington in the last 30 days (Joseph Brant Hospital) (Halton Region). Vaccination rate is 84% for the eligible population in Halton and with the system of vaccine passports in place, it is possible to access nonessential services (Hennessey and Rosella). That is, one can eat indoors at restaurants, go to movies, concerts, or games, use sports and recreation facilities, and even go to nightclubs (Ministry of Health).
If you decide to go to a restaurant, all you must do is provide your name and information for contact tracing to the host, then show your proof of vaccination and identification. But if you try and go to the hospital to support your spouse, family member or child, you are not permitted to do so unless that person isn’t able to advocate for themselves at that moment, regardless of whether you are vaccinated or inhabit the same household as the patient in question.
I understand the need to limit the spread of COVID-19; however, the pandemic is not the only medical concern that affects Burlington citizens. A year and a half into the pandemic medical professionals are busy, overworked, and exhausted (Science Table COVID-19 Advisory for Ontario). Wait times in the emergency room are long and the waiting area is unattended by medical personnel (Joseph Brant Hospital). Arriving at emergency, the person who determines the patient’s capacity to communicate their medical needs is not a medical practitioner at all but rather a volunteer. I do not believe that a person who possesses no medical training or licensing should be permitted to give medical advice that must be followed. Furthermore, a critical medical situation can change rapidly, with a patient perhaps being able to advocate for themselves when they first enter emergency, and their health changing so that they are no longer able to do so.
 Burlington MP Karina Gould, centre, with Minister of Defence Harjit Singh Sajjan looking through a scrapbook with a veteran at the hospital. I have personally witnessed several situations that illustrate the necessity of a support person in emergency. One patient insisted they did not need a caregiver; the person who accompanied them then informed the volunteer their parent had dementia. A father brought his teenage son for care after a concussion who was also told to leave; he refused, the patient’s symptoms worsened, and he was not able to explain his medical history without his father’s help. An elderly woman fell in the washroom and spent 15 minutes on the floor despite her daughter calling repeatedly for help. How much worse would these situations have become without a person present to advocate for the patient?
Other hospitals in the Halton and surrounding area have recognized the need for caregivers to attend their loved ones in the emergency room. At the hospitals included in the Halton Healthcare Network, emergency room patients are permitted two support people (Halton Healthcare). It is time for Burlington’s hospital to support both its staff and its citizens by allowing caregivers and support people in the emergency room.
Works Cited
Halton Healthcare. Emergency Department. 2020. Web. 23 October 2021.
Halton Region. Halton Cases By Neighbourhood. 22 October 2021. Web. 23 October 2021.
Hennessey, Melanie and Louie Rosella. Tracking the COVID vaccine rollout in Halton.
23 October 2021. Web. 23 October 2021.
Joseph Brant Hospital. COVID-19. n.d. Web. 23 October 2021.
—. Emergency Department. n.d. Web. 23 October 2021.
Ministry of Health. Proof of Vaccination. 15 October 2021. Web. 23 October 2021. Science Table COVID-19 Advisory for Ontario. “Burnout in Hospital-Based Healthcare
Workers during COVID-19.” Science Briefs (2021): 1-24. Web.
Tamara De Dominicis (she/her) is a poet in ceaseless conversation with the natural landscape. Her two poetry collections, “Where the landscape listens” and “wayward weeds” communicate the parallel and sympathetic concerns of people and the natural world while excavating the connections of memory and place. She is the founder and editor of Wildflower Press, a small digital press with the aim of giving voice and distribution to local talent. Her pandemic project, The Window Zine, brought together art and artists of different mediums to convert creativity into funds for community organizations. She lives in Burlington, Ontario with her spouse and their pets.
|
|
