 By Staff
June 30th, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
They are doing it again. This time the identity thieves are using Amazon as the skirts they hide behind.
 We didn’t place this order. We got this notification of an order we are supposed to have placed – we didn’t place any such order. We now buy most of our books from A Different Drummer Book store.
However we have in the past purchased from Amazon and it is conceivable that I might have thought my wife placed an order and I would want to see what was bought.
The moment I click on that link – they have me. They then begin to suck information out of me and, if I am gullible enough, they might convince me to give them credit card and banking information. Once that happens you can almost hear the sound of their sucking money out of your accounts.
If it doesn’t look real – then it probably isn’t. That is especially the case with the internet.
Caution, always caution.
 By Pepper Parr
June 29, 2104
BURLINGTON, ON.
Not a lot being heard about what is happening at the Air Park these days. Other than the damage done to Appleby Line during the May rain storms where parts of the shoulder of the road were washed away there hasn’t been much news.
The Region went after the air park and wanted to know what was being done to manage the flow of water from a site that had been altered without site plan approval from the city. There are reasons for the city asking that a site plan be submitted when the contours and elevations of a property are changed.
 This is the drawing on the air park web site for a heli pad. They report that they are just waiting for potential tenants to sign on the dotted line. When the air park lost their appeal of the decision from a lower court their legal team had to review their options; one of which is to seek leave to appeal the appeal court decision to the Supreme Court. There is some scuttlebutt out there suggesting that Peter E. J. Wells and his colleague Glenn Grenier are no longer “on the case”.
 Glenn Grenier, second from the left, gets an earful from former city manager Jeff Fielding while city solicitor Nancy Shea Nicol and Blake Hurley look on. So now what?
Well if you go to the air park web site Vince Rossi has a notice of his plans for developing a heliport. The following appears on the air park web site:
If you’ve been out to the airport recently, you will notice work starting on the southwest portion of the filed. This area is predetermined as a dedicated heliport area and we’re excited about getting things going on that portion of the field.
Since we started advertising the plans for that phase 2 area, we have been fielding calls from interested tenants, and we are sure that there will be a few helicopters located there soon.
As things develop there, and we actually do secure some tenants we will do our best to keep all informed about traffic and the mix of fixed wing and rotary aircraft.
That is interesting news. The city has pulled together its legal team and is working through their options once the deadline for a Supreme Court appeal has passed.
Given what the city has invested in this file – it is reasonable to expect they will stay the course and do what should have been done five years ago when Rossi was peddling the “we are federally regulated” line that held water for a number of years at both the Regional and city level.
What should give the people of rural Burlington considerable comfort is that General manager Scott Stewart is on this file. Stewart is a bit of a bull dog, he earned his stripes in Hamilton where he was part of that city’s administration. He tends not to take prisoners. H e threw his hat in the ring when the city had to go looking for a new city manager after parting ways with former city manager Roman Martiuk. Scott wasn’t selected – council instead chose to hire Jeff Fielding and while Fielding certainly put a higher level of oxygen in the air at city hall he tended to be a 30,000 foot thinker and relied heavily on Scott Stewart to execute the big picture.
The two worked very well together. With Fielding in Calgary and Pat Moyle serving as interim city manager even more of the decision making falls on Stewart’s shoulders. Moyle will certainly understand the bigger picture and brings his six years as CAO at the Region to the table – but it is Stewart who knows where all the bones are buried.
Expect him to be very smart and very firm. The city probably still has Ian Blue on some form of retainer able to give sound advice.
It is going to be a different game once it is clear the case will not be going to the Supreme Court.
What can the public expect? Is Rossi going to be able to build a heliport that is less than 25 yards away from the driveway of a private residence?
 Is there some additional land assembly that should be done here? Where do the sound by laws come into play here? When Michael Lee Chin flies into his property on Kerns Road with his private helicopter city hall hears about it real quick if the noise is too loud and the necessary accommodations are worked it. The people of Appleby Line deserve the same treatment the good folks over at Tyendaga get.
Our sense is that Michael Lee Chin has a lot more clout than Vince Rossi and if Lee Chin can respect the rights of other, Vince Rossi can learn to do the same thing.
The Sheldon house was built in 1850 on what was then a 200 acres farm. At some point the land was severed into a nice rural lot and the house with a fed pond. The rest is now part of the air park.
The Sheldon house has been there much longer than the air park. If the air park wants to develop their property let them do what every other developer has to do – buy out those properties that are needed for expansion or to be able to comply with regional and municipal planning.
Rossi seems to have decided that he will harass and do work on his property that limits the ability of a property owner to enjoy the rights everyone else in Burlington has with the way they are able to enjoy peace and quiet.
The Rossi development has devalued the property at the edges of the air park. Rossi is doing what slum landlords do – damage the value of property to lower its price and then go in and buy it as a fire sale price.
There are three property owners on Appleby Line who need to be done right by. Let’s see how city hall fights for the rights of these property owners and what it does to ensure that air park development works for the city and not just a developer who has difficulty with the city’s bylaws.
 By Pepper Parr
June 30, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition (RBGC) has created a web site to raise funds for what they are calling the Burlington Airpark SLAPP Suit Defense Fund.
A SLAPP Suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) is a merit-less legal action brought to intimidate opponents, deplete their resources, reduce their ability to participate in public affairs, and deter others from participating in discussion on matters of public interest.
We, the Burlington Gazette and me, Pepper Parr seem to be a part of it – but until a colleague told us about this fund raising web site – we knew nothing about it other than there were plans to put up a web site to solicit funds to help with the legal costs to defend ourselves against the law suit that has been filed against us by the Burlington Executive Air Park Inc.
Support is certainly going to be needed but this is not the way to get it.
First, the web site focuses on what it calls a SLAPP suit, unfortunately in law there is no such thing at this point in time. There should be such a thing but in a court of law what should be and what is – are two very, very different things. Judges go on evidence and precedent.
There is no SLAPP suit; there are no such things as SLAPP suits. The legal counsel representing Vanessa Warren and Monte Dennis have a vested interests in promoting legislation that would prevent SLAPP suits – and good on them. What they are advocating is necessary; should have been done years ago.
David Donnelly of Donnelly Environmental Law, and Brian MacLeod Rogers, a leading libel lawyer and member of the Attorney General’s Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel have been advocating for SLAPP legislation for some time. Both will become specialists in this niche market and do some good work. We assume some of the funds donated will go to Donnelly and Rogers.
Rogers represents both Warren and Dennis. Parr and the Gazette have different legal counsel and a different legal strategy. The word SLAPP will never leave our lips in our defence arguemts.
What the Gazette, Parr, Warren and Monte are facing is a libel suit where the plaintiff is seeking $100,000 in exemplary damages from the three of us. It’s a significant case and only fools try to pretend the case is something other than what it is.
At some point there may be anti SLAPP legislation. But we do not have that now. What we do have now is a court case – and some financial support fighting that case would be welcome. But from the Gazette’s point of view, not under the terms and conditions the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition is asking for donations.
The RBGC does not say what will be done with the funds; they do not say how any funds received will be distributed; they do not say they will be accountable to the donors and report on exactly where every nickel goes.
It is just a request for financial support – and I guess they are saying trust us. Neither the Gazette nor Pepper Parr will be accepting any funds you may choose to donate until there are solid rules in place for the accounting of funds.
It looks as if the funds are going to the RBGC – but that isn’t clear. Were it not for the fact that I know these people personally I would look upon this as one of the dozens of internet scams that show up in my email box every day.
I expect the highest possible level of transparency and accountability from the people mounting this fund raising campaign. The web site they have up right now is the equivalent of what a couple of high school students might do because they didn’t know any better.
RBGC should know better – the candidate for public office should know better; if this is the way Vanessa Warren is going to conduct herself as a member of city council – she will be worse than the incumbent. The city Clerk has a form available for those who feel they want to withdraw from the election.
The fund raising web site does an excellent job of setting out the problem and what the issues are about – they just lost their focus and are talking about something that doesn’t exist – yet.
The Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition fund raising web site .
 By Pepper Parr
June 29th
BURLINGTON, ON
There will be tens of thousands of people strolling along the promenade of Spencer Smith Park on Canada Day as we celebrate our 147 year of existence as a country.
And what a marvelous country we have. We are a wealthy country and we are a free country able to elect who we want to represent us and lead us. Two home grown examples are the seven candidates running in ward 6 and the decision of the voters in Burlington to end more than 70 years of Progressive Conservative rule – with a shot being fired from something as small as a pea shooter.
Contrast that to the hundreds, make that thousands, who are being killed, to day, now, in far off countries. There are a reported five million people in refugee camps in the Middle East because they cannot go home – there homes were destroyed or they face death if they do return.
 Spine of the classically bound book of Best Wishes for Prince George. Tuesday is expected to be a sunny day – so when you stroll along the edge of Lake Ontario – revel in how fortunate we are and realize that the freedom you have was earned by men and woman who paid the ultimate price.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy. This means that the powers of the monarchy in Canada are limited by the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of basic principles, laws and rules that explain the powers and duties of the government and the rights and freedoms of the citizens. Our formal head of state is a monarch. Our monarch is now Elizabeth II, who is also the Queen of the United Kingdom.
 Seven foot banner that will be on the Spencer Smith Park promenade on Canada. It will be hard to miss. A group of Burlington citizens came up with the idea of creating a Book of Best Wishes that would be available for everyone to sign and convey their Best Wishes to the Prince on his birthday.
Thousands of citizens have already signed and provided a greeting. Monday evening, members of Council will sign the Book of Best Wishes. City staff will have an opportunity to sign the Book which will be at city hall during the day on Monday the 30th.
 Commemorative bookmark for those who sign the Book of Best Wishes.
On Canada Day the Book of Best Wishes will be set up in a booth on the waterfront where anyone passing by can sign. You won’t be able to miss the seven foot high banner. Everyone who signs the Book of Best Wishes will be given a commemorative bookmark.
When the pages have been bound the book will be taken by Burlington MP Mike Wallace to Rideau Hall, the home of the Governor General who will have it transported to Kensington Palace, where the Prince currently lives with his parents the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
 Cover of the leather bound 14 x 11 inch Book of Best Wishes that will be delivered to the Prince on his first birthday. The group that started this initiative will be organized as a trust – the Burlington Royal Reading Trust, that will exist until the day the Prince dies. Given the length of time his Great Great Grandmother lived Burlingtonians can expect to be signing a Book of Best Wished well into the next century. Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King George VI, known as the Queen Mother in her later years visited Canada many times. Canadians, can expect the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to visit Canada frequently. When do you think the Prince and his parents will come to Burlington?
 By Ray Rivers
June 29, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Premier Wynne made a number of commitments during the recent Ontario election. Here are three more I think she needs to look at.
1: Improve Democracy
Traditionally the candidate with the highest number of electoral votes wins the election. This works well when there are only two political parties but not so well in our multiparty system. The last provincial election provides an example, where Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals won a majority government with 58 seats but with less than 40% of the vote. This vote splitting among the parties is pretty common place, as Stephen Harper and Jean Chretien also won majorities with less than 40% of the popular vote.
 Is the way we count the ballots working for us? Some jurisdictions have introduced proportional representation, a complicated system engineered to moderate the political advantage of vote splitting. However, voters in referenda recently in B.C., as well as Ontario rejected a move to that system.
Another option involves use of a preferential ballot whereby voters rank their electoral choices in priority. If no candidate gets 51% of the total vote, then the second ballot choices are counted until someone wins, etc. The federal Liberals passed a motion at one of their policy conventions to introduce this system should they form government.
With preferential balloting the winning candidate will always have the support of over half of the voters as their first or second priority choice. There should be fewer minority governments as a result, since the impact of third parties in splitting votes will be diminished. And policies may tend to become more moderate as parties opt to please a broad swath of the public rather than just their own partisan base.
The province also needs to consider implementing electronic voting via the internet to encourage greater voter participation. Less than 60% turnout in a general election is unhealthy for a nation and province that prides itself on government by the people. Australia makes voting compulsory with legal penalties for failing to exercise your franchise.
Electronic voting should also reduce the the high cost of elections and facilitate quicker results. Finally, government may find it useful to include referenda questions on delicate issues as guidance in policy setting, a practice rarely used in Canada. And as for trust-worthy, well, we trust the internet for our banking, don’t we?.
2. Make Public Education Truly Public
There is a condition in the Canadian constitution, originating from the British North America Act of 1867, which enables provinces to retain Catholic schools as part of their educational system. That clause was added at the insistence of Quebec, which ironically has now eliminated its own Catholic schools, as indeed has Newfoundland.
Somehow when the political parties in the last election talked about cost cutting the elephant in the room was our redundant Catholic education system. Duplication at the board level, under-utilized classrooms in older areas, four school buses when there could be two – these are just the most glaring examples of waste.
 Is a separate and a public education system something Ontario can afford? Doesn’t exist in most of the other provinces. Public education is a great equalizer in our society. We may not all be born equal but the class room is a wonderful place for children coming from income, ethnic and religiously diverse households to grow together, better understanding each other and each other’s point of view. Hopefully that provides a formula for a more tolerant, understanding and competitive future for our youth.
3. Raise Taxes to Stem the Red
Ontario has the lowest cost-of-services delivery of any jurisdiction in Canada. Yet we are still running a deficit and our debt is piling up. It’s obvious we need to fix the revenue side of the balance sheet. And that means taxes.
There has been lot of talk about carbon taxes. B.C. and Quebec generate revenue in addition to encouraging energy conservation, though these taxes. In the case of B.C. the tax is revenue-neutral, offset by reductions in other taxes. And revenue neutral is not going to help us with the bottom line, is it?
Road tolls have also been bandied about and the 407, though being the greatest rip-off ever invented by man, is a system that works. Applying that formula to all divided highways and charging a reasonable toll would bring in a lot of revenue, in addition to helping the motorist better understand the value of the time they spend commuting.
 Are inheritance taxes something the government wants to bring back? Great cry from the wealthy if that ever happens. Is it time to bring back inheritance taxes? It’s not like the deceased will complain about paying death taxes. Why is it that we don’t tax lottery and gaming winnings as income?
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
Background links:
Catholic Schools More Schools Even More Schools Even More
 By Staff
June 29, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The two strongest philosophical liberals on city council have joined forces and put forward a resolution that should have come from the Mayor with the support of Regional Chair Garry Carr.
Meed Ward and Taylor want the province to revive a Private Members Bill that died on the order paper, when the provincial election was called.
 When media reported on this form of harassment – parking heavy equipment yards away from a private home; when private citizens commented publicly on what they honestly believed to be work being done at the air park that was damaging to the environment and the public interest and contrary to the city’s by laws and provincial regulation, they were sued for libel. Many believe the law suits were an attempt to intimidate. The resolution Meed Ward and Taylor put forward is as follows.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION: PROTECTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT, 2014 (Bill 83);
WHEREAS Bill 83, Protection of Public Participation Act, 2014 being “An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers of Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest” was introduced into the Provincial Legislature in June 2013;
WHEREAS Bill 83 was introduced by the government out of concern that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), being lawsuits brought before the court by one party against another party or individual as a tactic for silencing or intimidating the other party, are having a chilling effect on public participation on contentious matters of public interest in Ontario;
WHEREAS Bill 83 is intended to protect persons from being subjected to legal proceedings that would stifle their ability to speak out on public issues or promote, in the public interest, action by the public or any level of government;
WHEREAS the ability to engage in public participation forums is the foundation of a democratic society;
WHEREAS there exist a number of high profile environmental issues in the City of Burlington that are of public interest and that have generated a great deal of debate in the community;
WHEREAS City Council is of the opinion that public participation in matters of public interest ought to be encouraged and not discouraged through tactics such as strategic lawsuits against public participation;
WHEREAS provision is made in Bill 83 to amend the Courts of Justice Act for such SLAPP legal proceeding to be dismissed at an early stage and for defendants subjected to such proceedings to be indemnified for incurred costs in such proceedings with the potential for additional damages to be awarded in appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS provision is made in Bill 83 to amend the Libel and Slander Act to state that any qualified privilege that applies in respect of an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other persons;
WHEREAS provision is made in Bill 83 to amend the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to provide that submissions for a costs order in a proceeding must be made in writing, unless the tribunal determines that to do so is likely to cause a party to the proceeding significant prejudice;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the City of Burlington advise the newly elected Premier of the Province of Ontario, the Honorable Kathleen Wynne and its local members of Provincial Legislative Assembly of its support for the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2014 (Bill 83) and request that the Bill be re-introduced forthwith in the Legislature;
THAT Mayor Goldring be requested to meet with Burlington’s newly elected Member of Provincial Parliament, Eleanor McMahon to encourage the Province to re-introduce the anti-SLAPP legislation; and
THAT the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be requested to support this resolution.
 Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor co-sponsored a resolution designed to protect the right of the public to speak on public issues.
It is a fine resolution and it will be interesting to see how this council handles it. The problem is that it will take months, perhaps years to get much in the way of traction on this at the provincial level, unless Eleanor McMahon, our newly elected MPP has all kinds of clout with the Premier.
The document also feels as if it was written by a lawyer; someone with a vested interest in the SLAPP legislation, which it was.
Anti-SLAPP legislation provides immunity from civil liability for people engaging in legitimate speech and public participation. It allows for early review and speedy processes to resolve SLAPP suits; reverses the onus so the initiator of the suit must prove, that inhibiting public participation is not the reason for the lawsuit; provides strong and effective disincentives – financial and otherwise – to dissuade potential SLAPP plaintiffs from initiating merit less claims; and suspends governmental spending and approval processes until alleged SLAPP suits are resolved (perhaps the strongest disincentive for property developers).
Related articles: Time for the good people to stand up
By Pepper Parr
June 27, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
We are unabashed fans of the Freeman Station project. Partly because we are history buffs, but more importantly, because this project showed how a group of citizens was able to save the city from itself.
The city screwed up this project from the get go. They couldn’t find a home for the structure, even though they had a bag of money from the federal government to restore the building.
They couldn’t agree on a place for the structure.
The best they were able to do was agree to run an advertisement and see if anyone would buy it for kindling.
 Jane Irwin and Les Armstrong – two of the strongest advocates for recognizing and saving the history of Burlington. Both passed away. It was the late Jane Irwin, the late Les Armstrong, the founding president of the Friends of Freeman Station, that pulled together a bunch of people and, after almost pleading with city council, they got some breathing room – and that saved the building.
Councillors Marianne Meed Ward and Blair Lancaster also got behind the project, and refused to let the rest of council kill the idea.
Mayor Goldring is reported to have said he didn’t want any city staff time spent on this project. Just as well – few in the city engineering department had much love for this idea.
 Should all the people in this picture be in this picture. Were they all true believers in the idea of saving and restoring the Freeman Station? The day the Freeman station is officially opened expect the politicians to be there with their faces ready for the cameras – they do that all the time. Those who know the true history of the effort to save the structure, will know that while Les and Jane will not be in the picture – they will be with them.
Meanwhile John Mellow, the Restoration Chairman is looking for volunteers to help with the restoration. John will need carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and painters. He can also use volunteers, who would like to help clean up the building, do minor repair work, pick up smaller building supplies, (a pick up or van would be useful), plus other small jobs that need to be done.
Straw boss on the site is John Mellow. You can reach him at donstn63@gmail.com to volunteer your services.
 By Pepper Parr
June 26, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Now that she is sworn in as the Member of the provincial legislature for Burlington, Eleanor McMahon can open her constituency office, get staff in place and be open for business locally. We look forward to hearing from her frequently and getting regular quarterly updates.
While getting the constituency office opened, Ms McMahon will also be getting her legislative agenda set up. We look forward to the day she gives her maiden speech.
All that stuff is in a day’s work – this Friday there is an evening’s fun to be had, as the Liberals gather somewhere in the city to hoot and holler; let their hair down and just have fun.
Had the Premier decided to make McMahon a Parliamentary assistant, we just might have seen McMahon dancing on the table tops.
The Liberals do have their work cut out for them. There is a public that remembers all too well, the profligate spending during the McGuinty era. One of their fears going into the election was that this pattern might continue.
There was a recent report on the way Premier Wynne handled the handing out of food cards, during the December ice storm. The process that was used proved to be less than effective. City of Toronto staff advised the Premier of several alternative approaches that could have been taken – the advice was apparently dismissed – rather quickly.
One can appreciate Wynne wanting to ensure that people had funds to buy food – putting a program like that in place was good public policy and also very good politics. That’s what the politicians are supposed to do – then they need to leave it to the bureaucrats to manage the program.
Premier Wynne needs to show the public that she is running a much more financially responsible government. She needs to not only be accountable, but to be seen to be accountable – and when someone screws up – and someone will – she needs to be decisive and direct in rooting out the problem.
Economic growth in both Quebec and Ontario are slower than the rest of Canada. Far more public money is spent in these two provinces than western Canada. The public needs to see benefits from that spending – and they need to see something soon.
The people of Ontario are generous; they believe that we need to take care of each other, to be considerate and compassionate – but realize that there is a financial score card that needs to be paid attention to.
 By Pepper Parr
June 25, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
A number of months ago we did a piece on what the city needs in the way of solid candidates for the six council seats. We said then that serving the public was good for ones career. Many corporations want people, who have served at the municipal level, because they have an understanding of the process.
 Rob Narejko fits a large part of the bill we put forward. That does not mean Narejko will be a star candidate – the election process will tell the public, what this man is made of and if he can stay the course and undergo the kind of scrutiny every person who wants to serve the public should undergo.
Who is Robert Narejko? The latest candidate for ward 6, where there are now seven candidates seeking the seat currently held by Blair Lancaster.
Narejko has lived in Burlington, in the same house, for the past 26 years. He likes being close to the GO station and having access to the QEW, 403 and 407. Narejko adds that he likes being a short ride away from our unique rural areas and the green spaces that surround Burlington. His home is in ward six; something that cannot be said for all the nominated candidates.
Narejko met his wife in high school – they have two children – a boy 19 – a girl 16. He has worked in Information technology for the past 30 years both as an entrepreneur and in the large corporate sector.
He has worked with Royal Bank, IBM and PricewaterhouseCoopers , always in the field of information technology, usually on large projects with multi-million dollar budgets and large teams of people assigned to a project, where he was responsible for creating and then managing both the strategic and tactical plans.
His citizen involvement has been mostly with the cycling world. Narejko is an ardent cyclist, who can be found frequently racing up Walkers Line. He also plays fast pitch baseball.
He was Chair of the City’s Cycling Committee, Chair of the inaugural Car Free Sunday events and Race Director of the 2011 Canadian Road Cycling Championships.
Narejko was nominated for Burlington’s Best – Community Service Award 2012.
What makes Narejko different?
He wants city hall to be more accountable. He was a key part of the team involved in bringing pre-Olympic trial bike racing to Burlington. The project failed – Narejko believes city hall just couldn’t make something that should have happened – actually happen.
He doesn’t understand why it took close to a year to complete a neighbourhood study.
Narejko wants to work to ensure Burlington has an increased presence at Regional Council.
Narejko wants people to feel they are getting value for their tax dollars; he adds to that – timely responses. When people go to the building permit counter, he wants them to leave with a document, that sets out every step that has to be taken and probable time lines as well as the name and telephone number of who to talk to if there are problems.
For Narejko – this is aligning words and deeds.
He also wants to see recorded votes for everything at council meetings. There is very simple technology that will let council members press a button to record a vote.
Why is he running for public office?
Narejko believes the City needs to be accountable for results to the people and there needs to be a sense of urgency, when city staff respond to people’s questions. The status quo of 12 month time lines is not acceptable in business and is not acceptable in the Public Sector.
“When the City is accountable to the people, it will attract business. Businesses will want to work with a City that wants to work with them, and when business moves in, it means economic activity, bringing in more job opportunities, which will reinvigorate Burlington”, said Narejko.
 Narejko points out that he has worked with many people at city hall over the years and has the utmost respect for them as people and professionals. The problem is the system they are working within. They work within a system that stifles initiative and independent thought. There is no incentive to be a high performing, customer centered employee.
Creating a strategy is very important as it defines your direction and provides guidelines for making decisions. Creating a strategic plan would take up to 2 months in the private sector – Burlington needed 12 months to create its Strategic Plan. For Narejko that just isn’t acceptable.
“It has taken more than 12 months to re-organize the Burlington Economic Development Corporation. Economic development is key to the future of Burlington and we needed a year to re-organize the people who are going to make that happen” asks Narejko.
 For Narejko it is all about community, streets where the road is shared Narejko points out that if you want to hold a new event in Burlington that brings in tourist dollars and drives the local economy by creating jobs, filling hotel rooms and restaurants, you need to have it registered 18 months in advance – whether it is a simple street party or a major national event. In Calgary you only need three months to register an event
In Toronto they can register a street festival with an on line application.
Narejko says he has seen staff at city hall create amazing plans, that work in record time, when they are enabled.
What will Narejko do for you?
He says he will ensure you get value for your tax dollar from the City and Region; make City Hall easier to do business with and get the results you need faster. He says he will work to implement efficiencies and compare our expenses to bench marks with comparable cities.
Narejko wants to engage citizens in meaningful discussions where there are transparent communications – no smoke blowing.
While not yet elected, Narejko has already determined what he wants to get done in his first year: instill a sense of urgency in making decisions, create a plan to handle the intensification of ‘Places to Grow’ without alienating current home owners and represent Burlington better at the Regional level.
This sounds like a driven man. Narejko points to his role models as examples on how one can get things done. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State (USA) and Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff (US) is seen by Narejko as a thoughtful, inclusive, decisive, strong communicator . Sam Mercanti is another role model. The CEO CARSTAR Canada is a disciplined visionary and a lifelong learner. Narejko adds to these two – his parents who were caring , frugal and supportive.
Rob Narejko doesn’t walk on water – but he has an agenda. He likes the look of the chair the Mayor sits in and believes his skills, his experience and his focus will serve the city well. His plan is to get four years’ experience as a member of council, and then go for the brass ring.
This is a candidate that needs to be looked at very carefully. Does he have the right stuff? The pedigree looks pretty good, but the proof is always in the eating, isn’t it?
It will be interesting to see how Narejko goes up against Vanessa Warren, Jennifer Hlusko, two nominated candidates and incumbent Blair Lancaster.
Narejko’s web site: www.electrobn.com
Related article: Serving as a city Councillor
 By Pepper Parr
June 26, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Henry Schilthuis got his turn to tell the public what the Brant Street Pier settlement was all about. His picture was a little different than that of the Mayor and interim city manager Pat Moyle, who was acting as a spokesperson for the city.
“Quite frankly” said Schilthuis, in a prepared statement “ we believe this process could have and should have been avoided. We did what we had to do to protect our company, and feel vindicated in all we have done to achieve the settlement. We wish the people of Burlington much enjoyment of their waterfront.”
 Henry Schilthuis works from a nondescript office in Ancaster continuing the hard work, honest delivery approach of the 60 year old family firm. There were numerous occasions, when the dispute could have been settled. Former Mayor Jackson never liked the pier – it was a former Mayor Rob MacIsaac initiative, and anything that had MacIsaac’s finger prints on it, was not something Jackson could digest. He advised newly installed Mayor Goldring to tear the thing down in 2010
The settlement is complex, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who the winner was in all this.
The city sued HSS for $10 million – they didn’t see a dime of that money – despite the Mayor assuring the public on several occasions that the city was going to get back every penny. There were a number of council members, who were adamant throughout the past three years, that the city had a strong case and would prevail.
Councillors Craven, Taylor and Dennison who were at the table, when the pier idea was first proposed, didn’t say all that much in public during the 2011 and 2012 council meetings. There were a number, far too many, closed sessions during which council and its legal advisers had long conversations behind closed doors.
 It was a much more professional team on the city side, when the second attempt to build the pier started. Nothing was left to chance and the hard questions were asked every step of the way. Here city manager Scott Stewart and Craig Stevens meet with the steel beam fabricators to ensure that the job gets done right. When the Post made a Freedom of Information request the city objected, but quickly saw the stupidity behind that move and relented – letting the public know, that they had spent $1.3 million on legal fees to date.
The city recovered $1.5 million and is going to be allowed to keep $500,000 in hold back funds it has. This is all the city will see from the three law suits it filed. They sought $10 million from AECOM their project managers; they sought $10 million from HSS and they sought $3.5 million from Zurich Insurance, the HSS bonding company.
The pool of funds set up to make payments, appears to have gone to just the city and HSS. The total amount the city will see is $2 million, while HSS will see $2.4 million, which is made up of the $1.75 million cash payment and a total of $650,000 that will be paid to HSS by other parties.
Besides the $1.75 million it will be paid, HSS will be given an additional $650,000 – for a total net benefit of $2.4 million for HSS.
“I am proud” said Schilthuis, “ of this entrepreneurial and family owned company. Our concerns about the challenges facing the pier guided us in our actions. We maintained our position with dignity and grace – simply because it was the right thing to do. The result of this settlement is proof of this.”
“I want to thank all of our staff and our community. You stuck with us the entire time despite the stress and burden of this onerous ordeal. We have remained true to our values as a 60 year old company and that makes it all worth it.”
A proud man who stuck to his principles and did what he believed to be right and feels the settlement supports his decision to walk off a project, that could not be built with the plans he was given.
The current city council might look to the way Schilthuis handled himself, throughout what he called a “long and arduous ordeal”. City staff had no problem working with Henry Schilthuis – it was the politicians that made a mess of this one. Hopefully council members will reflect on how this worked out and be honest with themselves – this was not their finest hour.
 The pier in December 2011 stripped of all the steel Schilthuis installed – with nothing but the caissons in place. The trestle to the right of the pier was used for construction equipment to lay down the new beams. During the summer when people talk about how they want to vote come October – they might be persistent and consistent in asking the incumbents, what went wrong.
The $6 million plus that was spent would have done a lot for our transit system and road maintenance work, that we are so far behind on. Hold their feet to the flames.
By Pepper Parr
June 24, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The full story on the Brant Street Pier settlement is going to come out in bits and pieces. Yesterday the city of Burlington got its story out. The announced that they were awarded $1.5 million from a pool of funds and got to keep an additional $500,000 they had on hand as a hold back from a company; they weren’t prepared to say who the hold-back belonged to.
 It was a unique design, it was going to put the city on the map – all it did was keep everyone in a room with their lawyers. With those numbers on the table, the city declared victory and said it was time to move on. “The city has $500 million in capital projects going on and from time to time some of those projects don’t work out” said the Mayor. The pier was one of those projects that didn’t work out and the public is apparently going to be expected to suck it up and accept the fact that the pier has cost twice the original price.
Later this week Harm Schilthuis and Sons Ltd., (HSS) will tell its side of the story in a press release.
The Gazette can tell you now that HSS will be given $1.75 million cash from the pool of funds that was created plus an additional $650,000 which will be funds other parties have to pay them.
In an early version of this article there was a typo showing the amount as $65,000. The correct amount is $650,000
This settlement is not yet final; two of the nine parties had to get approval from their boards. While these two parties were not named – it seems pretty clear that they are the ones who have had to contribute the bulks of the funds to the pool.
That pool will pay out $1.5 million to the city of Burlington and $1.75 million to HSS which brings the pool total to $3.25 million – so far
Henry Schilthuis, president of HSS said he is “satisfied with the settlements. The city of Burlington sued HSS and AECOM for a total of $10 million each and sued Zurich Insurance for $3.5 million – they didn’t get any of that money – all they got was a sum to cover their legal fees.” Schilthuis never felt the city had a case – but it took more than four years of grinding legal work to make that point.
There was a point at which Schilthuis wasn’t sure he could keep the company alive. Tens of thousands was owed to his sub contractors but they stood by the firm and agreed to wait. The wait has proven worthwhile
It is a real stretch for the city to claim that it “won”. One has to wonder just how gullible this council thinks its voters are.
HSS was given more than enough to cover their legal fees and the additional engineering costs that were incurred when they tried to come up with a solution to the engineering problems.
The amounts they will get allows them to pay the sub-contractors who stood by the company while the city was hammering HSS financially.
During the city’s media briefing on Monday, much was made of the “shuttle diplomacy” that former city manager Jeff Fielding used to try and broker a deal.
Before the examinations for discovery took place Fielding got approval from the Mayor to broker a deal said Schilthuis and “we arrived at a figure we could live with” said Schilthuis. But when fielding took it back to Council – council turned it down.
Fielding made another attempt at brokering a deal – but HSS didn’t like the look of the numbers the second time around. They had a better picture as to who did what when as a result of the examinations for discovery and took a pass on the offering Fielding made.
The final settlement documents will get prepared and signed, cheques will get sent out and bills paid and everyone will move on.
At some point the city and Schilthuis will have to figure out what they want to do with the steel, beams that were taken out of the pier, that is now sitting in the HSS work yard in Ancaster. Schilthuis sold the property and is moving to a new location in Caledonia and the steel will have to be removed
By Pepper Parr
June 23, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
In the world of politics what matters most is the spin that can be put on news that is not all that good. And in the world of politics there is a lot of news that is not that good.
 Steel beams are swung into place during the second round of pier construction. The city of Burlington held a media briefing this morning in which they announced that they had settled their disputes with the people they were suing over the delays in the construction of the Brant Street Pier. They made it sound like a victory.
Interim city manager Pat Moyle explained that a pool of funds had been created and that the city was given $1.5 million from that pool of funds to cover their legal costs.
The mediated settlement, which has yet to be ratified, also said the city did not have to return $500,000 in a holdback they had on hand.
What the public has yet to learn is:
Who put money into the pool of funds? The city said they didn’t put in any money.
Who were they holding back money from? The city wouldn’t say.
All we got was an explanation as to what the city got – not a word about what they didn’t get which was the several million they had sued HSS for when they walked off the job when the determined the pier could not be built with the plans they were given.
After issuing the writs the city was given an alternative proposal from Zurich Insurance to complete the building of the pier for an increased amount. The exact amount the insurance company wanted to complete the job was never very clear.
The idea of creating a pool of funds into which different companies would contribute and then see them distributed to the damaged parties is both creative and unique. Of interest to the citizens of Burlington who have had to pay more than $6 million to Graham Infrastructure to strip away steel and put in new steel and pour new cents to complete the deck of the pier which opened officially just over a year ago.
The city is positioning this as a win – and to some degree it is. They could have gotten whacked by the original contractor for the losses he experienced.
What the public does not know yet is who had to put money into the pool of funds and how much did the different parties put in.
And then – who was that money distributed to?
Let’s look at the parties to the dispute: There were nine of them.
Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited sued the City of Burlington
City of Burlington sued Zurich Insurance Company (Bonding Company for HSS)
City of Burlington who sued HSS, EFCO, Aecom, Lombard, PV &V, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
City of Burlington sued Aecom
HSS sued Lombard, PV &V, City, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
Out of this crowd who is likely to have gotten money from the pool of funds that was created? We know that the city got $1.5 million to cover their legal costs.
While there has not been a public statement sources indicate that Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited did not contribute to the pool of funds and an unauthorized spokesperson said “Henry was happy” Henry Schilthuis is the president of HSS.
 Re bar in place ready for the concrete pour around the node that is now the observation platform. City skyline in the background That leaves a bunch of insurance companies and AECOM.
We expect to know in the near future what Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited was paid out of the pool of funds.
City Council was given a full briefing and “approved a settlement related to the Brant Street Pier that totals $2 million for the City of Burlington and more than pays for the city’s legal costs.” That’s a pretty positive spin. No mention of the millions they sued HSS for because he quit the job he felt couldn’t be built with the plans he was given.
The plans came from Totten Sims Hubicki, (TSH) the architects of the pier who were bought out by AECOM.
“The job of the mediator was to try and facilitate a settlement between the parties, whom I believe all came to table with a willingness to resolve their differences,” said Interim City Manager Pat Moyle.
“The settlement” explained Moyle “is still subject to the final approval of two of the parties’ boards, which the city expects will take place within 10 days from the date of settlement and execution of final releases. There is also a confidentiality agreement related to some of the terms.”
That gag order may prevent the public from ever knowing how much money went into the pool – not that knowing would make all that much difference. What we now know for certain is that the city didn’t recover a dime of the cost for the second contractor.
 Did the city’s reputation take a hit during the pier construction fiasco? We made headlines that was certain. Now we have a pier – it is heavily used and was it worth the price? Another condition that was released was this statement: “No contribution in any form to the settlement shall be deemed an admission of liability, and any such liability is denied.”
What the city has also not released is the amount they paid Morrison Hershfield for the quality assurance work and the amount paid the second project manager METTKO for the work they did to ensure they work was properly done the second time around.
The total cost of the Brant Street Pier construction is $14.4 million. (it is actually quite a bit higher than that). The Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program funded $4.4 million of this amount while Halton Region provided $2.5 million.
Does the settlement remove the pier as an election issue? Let’s see what unfolds in the next few days.
When asked what went wrong with the project Mayor Goldring said “there are some projects that just don’t work out”.
City staff on the legal and financial side did a very good job. Treasurer Joan Ford took part in the negotiations; if there is anyone who know what the numbers were – it was Ms Ford.
Former city manager Jeff Fielding was thanked for the “shuttle diplomacy” he did trying to get a deal from HSS. That didn’t work.
Getting your legal fees paid and then told to go home isn’t much of a victory – not after turning down an opportunity in 2011 to have the pier built for a lot less than the $6million plus we had to pay Graham Infrastructure and then turning down an opportunity in 2013 to settle.
 A lot of steel, a lot of concrete – did the public get value for the money that was spent. And are there lessons to be learned – and will anyone be held accountable? What appears to be clear – though not certain yet, is that there was a problem with the design which moves the liability to AECOM and the TSH firm they purchased.
When some of the other parties make public statements the picture will become clearer. The city did the right thing strategically and politically by putting out a statement and putting the needed spin on their story.
The fact is – we paid for the pier twice.
By Pepper Parr
June 23, 2104
BURLINGTON, ON.
REVISED
The quickie version of the city’s media briefing on the legal settlement related to the costs of building the Brant Street Pier is that the city say they will not have to pay as much as a dine.
 Mayor takes the position that the pier is now bought and paid for. No more special meetings of council, no more legal fees. The end of a project that has plagued the city since the day the crane toppled. They in fact did quite a bit better – they are going to pocket $1.5 million and hang on to $500,000 that was in a “holdback” account.
What the city did not get was as much as a dime of the $6,429,700 it paid Graham Infrastructure to complete the construction of the pier.
Many on council thought the original contractor should have paid the city for walking off the job when he claimed he could not build the pier with the plans he was given.
That position appears to have been validated – but there are still a lot of details that have yet to be made known – there are some we will probably never know.
The deal is still provisional in that there are two of the nine parties that have to get approval from their boards of directors.
The pier problems have always been complex. From the concept during the Rob MacIsaac era to the Goldring era the project has gone through far too many ups and downs and the full story has not been told and it looks as if there are parts that the public will never get to hear.
The city always took the position that it did nothing wrong and that would seem to be borne out by the details we have to date on the settlement.
The headline we used on a story published yesterday – Final phase of the Brant Street Pier saga about to unfold – it will be painful. The city chose to focus on the getting funds to pay legal fees – not a word about the $6 million it had to pay a different contractor to complete the pier
We will follow up with a more detailed story.
 By Pepper Parr
June 23, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
City hall has taken to using the old journalism approach: the 5 w’s – Who, what, when, where why to what they tell the public.
 How these seven men and woman “square the circle” and tell the public what it is going to take to finally settle the legal problems related to the construction of the Brant Street pier. Ballooning from more than $7 million to something considerably beyond $14 million can never be justified – but it is something they are going to have to live with. About time. We learned Friday that there was going to be a Special Council meeting at which they would immediately go into a closed session so the city’s solicitor could brief them on what had taken place during three days of mediation.
The city lawyers have always been cautious with information. For years they told the public they could not release any data on how much they had paid the lawyers representing the city. Few understood how that could do any harm but the lawyers held to that position until the Post filed a Freedom of Information requesting asking just how much had been spent on lawyers. The city resisted for a bit but then came to the conclusion that they were going to have to say what the number was – more than $1.3 million.
At this point one would be really hard pressed to see any damage done to the city’s legal position with that number public.
Late Sunday evening the city advised media that there would be a briefing at noon on Monday during which interim city manager Pat Moyle would speak. The purpose of the briefing: “To provide openness and transparency regarding Brant Street Pier legal matters.”
While mediation is a closed process to allow everyone to put their position before everyone else with a mediator looking for a way to pull together an agreement everyone can live with and avoid a lengthy, costly trial, we can tell you this:
There is a deal – but it has yet to be ratified. Mediation went on very long on the first day – well into the evening without much headway. Sometime on Thursday there was a breakthrough and the mediator was able to send everyone back to the offices with instructions to make the deal real by getting the approvals needed.
It was close to impossible to get anyone to say anything during the weekend. Phone calls weren’t returned, “can’t say anything now but give me a call Tuesday” was the response most of the time.
Was it a good idea? With at least two city council candidates that we know of having never walked on the pier it is difficult to see what it was that moved former Mayor Rob MacIsaac to push so hard for the structure. There is a deal but no one is going to be completely happy and it looks as if the city is going to have to bite an expensive bullet. It will be interesting to hear how those council members with rock hard positions a year ago back down and explain themselves.
There were opportunities at several points to settle with the contractor but this council said no. In the next few days this same council is going to have to say yes.
By Pepper Parr
June 22, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
When people hear what is happening it sounds like the kind of thing you hear about in some banana republic where the roots of a democracy have yet to firmly plant themselves.
A community faces a major issue with a large piece of property where they believe the owner of the property is breaking all the rules. They form an organization and take their case to city council. They contact local media and the story begins to unfold.
The community group delegates to both city council and Regional Council and in both instances make a strong case. The city does a little digging and quickly realizes there is a problem and begins to organize.
They find that the property owner is not cooperating and after a lot of huffing and puffing both sides end up in a court room.
 Placing this large hulking piece of equipment less than 20 yards from a property line is outright harassment. The landfill had already been placed on the property. The physical harassment has now been taken to a judicial level. The city wins its case. Justice John Murray finds that the Burlington Air Park must comply with the city’s site plan by law.
The Burlington Air Park decides to appeal the Justice Murray decision. The appeal court makes up its mind in less than half a day. The air park must comply.
Prior to the appeal, the Burlington Air Park serves Notices of Libel on two citizens and the Burlington Gazette. A Notice of Libel calls for the person that wrote something to retract what they wrote and apologize. Neither the Gazette or the two citizens, Monte Dennis and Vanessa Warren felt there was anything to apologize for.
Prior to the appeal court hearing all three: the Gazette, Dennis and Warren were served with Statements of Claim asking for $100,000 in exemplary damages.
Readers of the Gazette will know what we wrote. Key the words air park into the search engine on our web site and the more than 20 articles will appear.
Monte Dennis wrote a response to a Letter to the Editor that appeared in the Hamilton Spectator. This was a citizen doing what every citizen has a right to do. We note that the Burlington Air Park chose not to include the Hamilton Spectator in the claim for damages. Vanessa Warren wrote the following comment in the Gazette:
The Kovachik family opened the airpark in 1962, and for 44 years operated in harmony with its neighbours and its rural surroundings . You are not allowed to capitalize on that history. The history that you ‘re accountable for is amounting to an environmental disaster in our pristine protected countryside, and you may not manipulate that truth unchallenged anymore.
This is not an airpark improvement issue. This is a landfill issue, a water protection issue, a storm water management issue, a truck entrance and road use issue, and a property destruction and flooding issue.
Are we to celebrate that you ‘ve spent money to improve your for-profi t business? Who doesn ‘t do that? You say you ‘ve spent 4 million in improvements , but what about the income you ‘ve made from charging for untold hundreds of thousands of tons of unregulated fill? What about the protected watercourse you ‘ve destroyed? What about the regionally significant woodlot you gutted? The cost to the environment, the community and the City for your ‘improvements ‘ has been too high to bear.
Ask your immediate neighbours – none of whom have “recently purchased their homes” – bow things have improved for them? Flooded fields are unfarmable. Backyards and septic beds are underwater from silted run off. Sight lines and property enjoyment are destroyed. Anxiety about well water safety is high, and you will not permit the MOE to release on-site testing data. Writing that you ‘ve “always respected your neighbours .. .” is more than untrue; it’s cruel.
There are no unsubstantiated claims. Terrapex Environmental found unacceptably high levels of contaminants like hydrocarbons and heavy metals in the paltry 52 soil reports you were able to provide. Off-site water testing may be fine to date (again, where’s the data?), but how long might it tale for those contaminants to leach into wells?
The City of Burlington legally won the right to impose it’s Site Alteration Bylaw on airpark property , and yet you still will not comply. The community would truly love to know that your property is NOT full of contaminated fill – why don’t you give us the verified, third-party data to prove it?
We are all so weary of your attempts to manipulate . Standing up to you and stopping the trucks was never political, it was ethical, and you have no ethical credibility left.
Vanessa Warren
 Vanessa Warren, founder of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition chose to run for public office and represent ward 6 because she felt the community was not being well served by the incumbent. The owner of the land park is now uses the courts to silence her. What makes the claim against Vanessa Warren so serious is that she is a nominated candidate for the ward 6 council seat where the air park is located. One could take from the Burlington Air Park legal action that they do not want to see Vanessa Warren on city council.
In an Open Letter to city council the group that has been leading the fight against the air park, the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition (RBGC) asked that the city “defend public engagement and public advocacy – the cornerstones of our democratic system – from the Burlington Airpark’s SLAPP suit, so that this type of legal coercion does not silence the citizens of Burlington.”
Prior to the provincial election there was a bill on the order paper calling for laws that would prevent what is being called Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). It was a private members bill brought forward by the New Democratic Party that got all party approval but that bill died on the order paper when the election was called.
The RBGC hopes it can persuade the provincial government to pick up the bill and make it a priority. They would be delighted if the province moved real quick and then made any legislation retroactive.
The issue is serious, very serious. When people with significant funding at their disposal decide to use the power of a law suit to silence people who care about their community and are prepared to speak out publicly the courts should not be the place where these public issues get worked through.
The Burlington Air Park has paid more than $62,000 in court ordered costs – so the judiciary is doing its part.
What is profoundly disappointing is that the public has yet to hear anything from the Mayor of Burlington or the Regional Chair Gary Carr. These two men lead public opinion and they have in the past put their views forward on important issues. When the Mayor saw for the first time the damage done to the Sheldon property on Appleby Line by the air park landfill he was reported to have said he was appalled.
Disappointing too is the reaction from the private pilots who are seeing the airport they have used for years put at risk. The Gazette has talked to a number of these pilots – not one is prepared to say a word publicly. One exception is Andrew Forber who has commented on several occasions at some length.
Having people fear making public comments is a very unhealthy situation for any democratic society.
Much of the history of the struggle between good and evil is explained by philosopher Edmund Burke’s observation. Time and again those who profess to be good seem to clearly outnumber those who are evil, yet those who are evil seem to prevail far too often. Seldom is it the numbers that determine the outcome, but whether those who claim to be good men are willing to stand up and fight for what they know to be right.
City staff battle with the air park on an almost daily basis over the illegal use of gateways to the air park property and access to the site. Staff are focused and well led and they persevere – but we are hearing nothing from the people who are in a position to mold public opinion. Taking the position that they cannot comment on an ongoing court case is hiding behind skirts
The people of Burlington need to hear from the good people.
By Staff
June 22, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Burlington Liberals are in a twitter. Their newly elected MPP will be on a CFRB broadcast on Sunday and they are making it sound like this is close to the second coming.
 With a Cabinet to be sworn in on Tuesday, the Liberal folk are looking for any sign that Premier Wynne will let one slip telegraphing to the listening audience that Eleanor McMahon is headed for the Cabinet.
The Premier and McMahon will be part of “The Province” at 1pm Sunday.
You can catch the broadcast on NewsTalk 1010 (CFRB) at 1pm Sunday. You can also listen online at https://www.newstalk1010.com/
By Pepper Parr
June 21, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
It started on Wednesday – It was to be the first day of a three day mediation marathon that on occasion started at 7:00 am and went on into the early evening.
When a crane on the pier site toppled and revealed serious imperfections with the steel being used every one of the cross beans had to be stripped leaving just the steel that formed the lazy S curve that was to make the pier distinct. The only distinct thing about the pier is its costs and the bad taste it has left in the mouths f the people who have to pay the bill.
 When a crane on the pier site toppled and revealed serious imperfections with the steel being used everyone of the corss beans had to be stripped leaving just the steel that formed the lazy S curve that was to make the pier distinct. The only distinct thing about the pier is its costs and the bad taste it has left in the mouths f the people who have to pay the bill. There were between 20and 30 people in the room at times arguing over who owes what to who on the pier construction problems. But for a time all the horses were not in the starting gate and there appeared to be some confusion as to whether or not one of the key players – AECOM – was going to show up and take part in what was scheduled as a three day event to attempt to settle the several million dollar difference of opinion on who owed who what.
While Burlingtonians and the people who visit the city do enjoy the pier – it isn’t fully paid for yet. What was put to the public as a close to $7 million project ballooned to more than $14 million and could go considerable higher when the court cases get worked out.
The city has been in litigation with Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited (HSS), the original contractor, Zurich Insurance Company (Bonding Company for HSS), Aecom, Lombard, PV &V, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
The mediation ended on Friday. There has not been an announcement as to whether or not the parties were able to come to an agreement.
How will this city council react to whatever news the city solicitor is going to give them Monday on the outcome of the court ordered mediation over the law suits on the costs of the pier? And will council be open, honest and up front with their constituents and tell them the truth, the whole and nothing but the truth. The seven of them will be asking you to re-elect them in October.
 How will this city council react to whatever news the city solicitor is going to give them Monday on the outcome of the court ordered mediation over the law suits on the costs of the pier? And will council be open, honest and up front with their constituents and tell them the truth, the whole and and nothing bt the truth. The seven of them will be asking you to re-elect them in October.. What we do know is that a Special meeting of city council has been called for Monday, June 23rd at 10:30 an when the city’s solicitor will speak to council in a closed session on the Brant Street Pier litigation.
So – something has happened and council is to get a briefing.
here are two possible directions: Mediation was successful and the city has settled with the other parties or mediation failed and the case will then go to trial.
Mediation is a way to keep differences out of a court room. People involved in legal disputes – and in the pier situation there are five law suits – are required to at least attempt to mediate that dispute. It is useful to look at who is suing who:
Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited (HSS) vs. City of Burlington
City of Burlington vs. Zurich Insurance Company (Bonding Company for HSS)
City of Burlington vs. HSS, EFCO, Aecom, Lombard, PV &V, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
City of Burlington vs. Aecom
HSS vs. Lombard, PV &V, City, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
What is instructive here is that HSS, the original contractor, is suing their insurance company and their insurance broker. You sue when you believe the service you bought was not delivered. HSS is also suing the city of Burlington – they believed they delivered and that the city has not paid for what was delivered.
The city is suing Zurich insurance – this is the company that provided the performance bond for the construction company – HSS. Early in this term of council the insurance company, Zurich, offered the city an alternative construction solution which the city turned down.
If mediation was successful and the parties came to an agreement council may be asked to approve the settlement. Frequently in such settlements one of the conditions is a “confidentiality agreement” often referred to as a gag order. No one is allowed to say anything other than that a settlement was reached.
The city sent more than $1 million on legal fees and didn’t want the public to know until the Post filed a Freedom of Information request which the city at first decided to argue against but saw the error of that idea and held a press conference in January at which they had then city manager Jeff Fielding tell the public that $1,349,952 $1. had been spent to date on just the legal fees. The city would get a rebate on the tax portion of that bill – but a million dollars is still a million dollars.
While no one on city council will admit it today – there was more than one occasion when the city had an opportunity to settle the dispute for a lot less than it is going to cost. Exactly how much the cost will amount to may be known on Monday – in a perfect world council would have the courage of their convictions to tell the public just what that costs is – but we should not hold our breath.
While the pier problems didn’t originate with this council – all that started when Rob MacIsaac became Mayor and wanted a grand legacy project that would put Burlington on the map. And it certainly did that. Things began to go wrong when a crane that was doing work on the pier toppled over.
The contractor at the time HSS and the insurance underwriters took a closer look at the steel that was being used – and there were problems with the product. At first a few beams were to be taken out and then a few more and before the public knew the structure had been stripped of much the steel and the original contractor was of the site.
The city re-tendered the project, a new contractor was brought in along with dozens of inspectors who checked every foot of the steel that was being fabricated to ensure that nothing went wrong the second time around.
The pier officially opened last June.
It was a grand day. The turnout wasn’t terrific but it was a lively crowd with cup cakes for everyone. some key people were not on hand. Former Mayors Rob MacIsaac and Cam Jackson took passes – MacIsaac had a convocation. There was one person who had more reason than anyone else to be out on that Pier that morning – Henry Schilthuis, a proud man who is close to fierce when it comes to defending his reputation and the man who did the original work but had to walk off the site when he realized it could not be built using the original plans. On Monday city council will learn if Schilthuis was right and if they are going to be able to settle with Schilthuis or if there is going to be a trial. A closing note in a story that may not be over yet. Earlier in the week I had occasion to be having coffee with two people who were both candidates for council in the October municipal election. It was a fine late Spring day and after coffee the two council wanna be’s decided to take a stroll towards the pier. Neither had been out on the pier before, which stunned this reporter.
Is the pier an unpopular place? Is it a $20 million dollar mistake? While the city uses a figure of $14 million + as the cost of the pier – the mediation is going to move that number very very close to $20 million.
The question the Gazette has is this: Will the public ever be given a full detailed accounting as just what Rob MacIsaac’s dream has cost the city?
By Pepper Parr
June 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
It takes time to get anything done when the wheels of justice are required to move. The making of a judicial system is not a simple or easy process. It is based on years of precedent and the need to adhere to changes in social mores. And they don’t always get it right the first time. It took the city of Burlington a bit of time to get a grip in just what was going on when local residents reports hundreds of trucks rumbling along the northern part of Appleby Line filled with earth that was being dumped on the air park property. Was this a land fill site many wondered.
The air park was seen by almost everyone as a sleepy little rural airport, owned by a local family. But it got sold for a reported $3.1 million to Vince Rossi who had some very big ideas and what he thought was a shield that would protect him from such meddlesome things as municipal bylaws. It was an air park declared Mr. Rossi and regulated by the federal government and anyone at the municipal or Regional government s could basically take a hike and keep out of Rossi’s business.
 This photograph depicts a seminal point in the evolution of public engagement for the city of Burlington. City general manager Scott Stewart talks to members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition, two of whom are bing sued for $100,000 bu the Burlington Air Park. Top the left at the rear is Blake Hurley, city lawyer who handled the city side of the two air park court cases. Seated on the left is the lawyer the city hired to argue the court cases and advise the city. Rossi got away with that kind of behaviour for quite some time – but there was a higher quality of civic government at city hall and they wanted to take a look at that “federally regulated” argument – and they found that it really didn’t hold all that much water.
Orders to cease and desist and all the options available to the city were used but when it became very clear that the air park was going to stick to its federally regulated position – off to a court room they all went. The city won the first round – Justice John Murray said the air park had to adhere to the city’s site plan by law.
It took the air park legal counsel less than five days to file an appeal of the Murray decision. The decision of the Appeal Court was even swifter – three hours after proceedings had begun the three Justice appeal panel said the Justice Murray was right – the air park has to comply with the city site plan by law. At some point in the very near future – the city will begin to press its case and demand that the air park present a site plan for work that has been going on for more than five years.
The Region recently hired AMEC, the former Phillips Environmental, to do an assessment of the storm water systems at the air park. Apparently AMEC had some difficulty getting on the site, but we have not been able to confirm that. The heavy rains of a few weeks ago saw small rivers of water running south along Appleby Line that did enough damage to require the Region to come in and repair the road shoulders. The Region now wants to be assured that storm water from the site can be effectively handled.
The local residents want to know ho is going to pay for the road repairs The Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition, the organization the air park lawyers call an “unincorporated collection of citizens” has gone public again and asked the city to re-double their efforts and begin ensuring that the soil on that 200 acre air park property be fully and properly inspected – and no more of this fighting tooth and nail to get inspection reports that the air park appears to want kept secret.
In an Open Letter to Mayor Goldring and Regional Chair Gary Carr, Vanessa Warren, a candidate for the ward 6 seat, home to the air park, said the following:
On behalf of the residents of rural north Burlington, the members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition and I would like to congratulate you on your enormous victory at the Ontario Court of Appeal. Thank you and City Staff for all your work and leadership on this precedent-setting case. Because of your commitment to protect our rural north and its protected countryside, the City of Burlington now stands as an example to other Ontario communities dealing with airpark fill operations.
The summary nature of the Appeal Court’s dismissal was, for our community, both gladdening and concerning. Gladdening because the City was so clearly vindicated and can now proceed to test and control fill quality on Airpark property through its Site Alteration bylaw, protecting our lands and water table from environmental damage. Concerning because it affirmed our beliefs that the Burlington Airpark and its legal team are unreasonably litigious. Our community continues to be under serious threat from the Burlington Airpark, this time through the use of Ontario’s onerous defamation laws against local advocates.
Their counsel, Brian Rogers, a leading libel lawyer and member of the Attorney General’s Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel, intends to defend them on the basis this lawsuit is no more than a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). In short, it is another legal action, without merit, brought to intimidate, silence and exhaust – both emotionally and financially – its opponents.
 The north Burlington citizen’s fight to defend their rights and their property was seen important enough bu the CBC National News to be given some coverage. So, while we are elated with the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal today, and grateful for the City’s commitment to environmental protection, we need your support now more than ever. We need to defend public engagement and public advocacy – the cornerstones of our democratic system – from the Burlington Airpark’s SLAPP suit, so that this type of legal coercion does not silence the citizens of Burlington.
 Councillors Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster, both serving their first term on city council were both members of the committee that wrote the Shape Burlington report, the document that marked the beginning of significant community participation. Unfortunately, neither Sharman or Lancaster have been strong advocates for community involvement and while there is an Engagement Charter it is a document that doesn’t get much use. Expecting Burlington to defend public engagement is a bit of a stretch. The city has yet to truly put its engagement charter into the hands of the public. But a public plea is better than nothing – at some point Burlington will get a city council that is attentive and responsive to it electors. We just aren’t there yet.
By Pepper Parr
June 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The jockey of course passed it on to the horse –and the horse told me.
This is that kind of a story because people want to spread the news around – but they don’t want to be the source.
We had occasion to talk to a Cabinet Minister from the region who assured us that this person (deliberately not using gender here) was back in the Cabinet of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne – but the member of the legislature wouldn’t say which portfolio – other than the person was very happy with what they had been given.
 Is this what Cabinet material looks like? word was the McMahon should not be counted out. We were discussing matters related to an issue germane to Burlington – the air park – what else – and mention was made of what role newly elected Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahan might play in the resolving of this issue.
We opined that while Ms McMahon has that incredible political pedigree with a Rolodex that is to die for, the fact is she doesn’t have any parliamentary experience and we don’t know if she will step up to and actually get over the bar. Her predecessor Jane McKenna certainly didn’t manage to make it.
Being a member of the legislature means being more than a pretty face – there is a thrust and cut to politics that is seen in the legislature. Is McMahon made of the “right stuff” and can she do it?
“I wouldn’t write her off quite that quickly” responded my contact. That got me sitting up in my chair real fast. Was I being telegraphed something? The Cabinet Minister I was talking to would be involved in the discussions as to who could and who should be in the Cabinet.
I pointed out that the area already had a Cabinet Minister in Ancaster – Dundas – Flamborough – Westdale and another in Oakville where Kevin Flynn serves as Minister of Labour. Would the Halton area qualify for three Cabinet posts? “The issue is not where the person comes from; the issue is what they bring to the table and the Premier has very high hopes for Eleanor McMahon. Remember the Premier recruited McMahon personally”, explained my source.
The Cabinet gets sworn in on Tuesday – we will be watching that broadcast quite a bit more closely. If anyone happens to see Eleanor out shopping for a new smartly cut suit – let us know. That would be a positive sign for sure.
 Premier Kathleen Wynne, Centre, knows how to wear an apron – we don’t know if she can bake an apple pie. we will know on Tuesday if she has chosen Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon to be part of her cabinet. The Premier visited Burlington a number of times before the election was called and took part in several election events as well. During my first introduction to the Premier, during RibFest last summer when she was flipping racks of ribs along with Mayor Goldring and then chit chatting with people wearing a Rotary Rib Fest apron, I asked if she did much baking. She assured me she did and I wondered aloud if that was true. “Well I was baking pies just the other day” said the Premier and I suggested the next time she was in town she might bring me an apple she had made.
She promised she would do just that. I’ve not seen that apple pie yet – but if the Premier appoints Eleanor McMahon to her Cabinet all of Burlington will send her several bushels of some of the best apples the region grows.
 By Ray Rivers
June 20, 2104
BURLINGTON, ON.
It has taken him six years to finally announce his first concrete action to combat global climate change and it’s still only a little – and a little late. US President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has imposed a 30% carbon emission reduction limit on US coal-powered electricity plants by 2030. That will mean scrapping some of the older plants and conversion of many others to natural gas. In addition to the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction benefits, this will also mean 6600 fewer premature deaths and 150,000 fewer asthma cases, they estimate.
By comparison, Ontario which historically burned coal for up to a quarter of its electrical needs, including at the largest coal-fired plant of its time, had completely shut down and banned coal burning earlier this year. Ontario’s courageous action is Canada’s single most significant greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction ever.
 Smokes stacks like this one dotted the province of Ontario. The government put an end to coal fired electrical generation plants – and we all breath easier now. The federal government had never really been supportive and had refused to help Ontario with costs of this shift away from coal. Nevertheless, Mr. Harper was only too proud to point out that Canada was already ahead of the US in cleaning up its coal-burning emissions, when Obama challenged him to follow the US regulatory lead. Canada’s share of emissions from coal burning are now only about a third of the equivalent in the US. But unlike the US, our overall GHG emissions are heading skywards making a mockery of Canada’s official reduction targets.
In any case, Obama wasn’t talking about coal, when he challenged our PM, he was referring to our oil sands. The oil industry claims they can now extract a barrel of oil from the sand without having to burn another full barrel in the process, but mining the tar sands is still the most inefficient and environmentally destructive resource extraction anywhere.
So Obama had the Keystone XL pipeline clearly in his sights. Approving Keystone would just enable further expansion of the oil sands, something US environmentalists have been decrying. And since American dependence on Canadian oil is declining thanks to horizontal hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the US, that Keystone project is looking less and less likely everyday.
Harper and Obama are on different wavelengths. That became clear as our leader joined with the new Australian PM, recently, promising to thwart carbon pricing and other global attempts to mitigate the effects of climate change, and to oppose efforts such as Obama’s press for climate change through forums like the G20. Why should we expect dinosaurs to care about fossil fuels?
And Canada isn’t about to be lectured by a lame-duck president. Mr. Harper has another plan to get the bitumen out of Alberta and into Chinese and other export markets – its called the Northern Gateway project. Northern Gateway is a pipeline from the tar sands across fragile B.C. terrain, over a thousand kilometres, and to the environmentally sensitive Pacific coast at Kitimat B.C. Northern Gateway was Harper’s baby form its inception, and just this week he employed the pretense of an energy board review before approving its construction, as everyone was fully predicting he would.
Many Canadians are still unsure about what this means, but not the opposition parties which are united in promising to stop this risky business. Some pundits think this project could become the PM’s final undoing, since he may lose the crucial support of B.C. voters in next year’s federal election.
The B.C. aboriginal communities, over whose land the pipeline will cross and whose fisheries on the coast would be devastated by the inevitable oil spill, are also unified in their opposition. And the B.C. government still has conditions and concerns ranging from its desire for compensation to better environmental safeguards, before it consents. The province does not want to end up saddled with the clean-up costs of any spills.
B.C. residents take their environmental stewardship seriously. For example, B.C. and Quebec are the only Canadian provinces with carbon taxes to reduce fossil fuel burning and GHG emissions. And the B.C. economy depends heavily on tourism and its fisheries, both of which are threatened by this project. How is it fair that Alberta gets the royalties while B.C. gets the risk?
 All he costs related to the transportation of oil through a pipeline have to be taken into account – is that happening? Early cost estimates of the project which would move the half-million or so barrels of diluted bitumen a day through the Northern Gateway and onto foreign tankers could easily approach twenty billion dollars. Even if the proponent is in the private sector, there are always federal and provincial subsidies and all the ancillary costs attached to these kinds of mega projects. One could buy a lot of renewable energy infrastructure for that kind of money. And damage to the environment from a leak or shipping accident would be… well… just priceless.
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
Background links:
Ontario Coal Phase-Out Obama’s Plan Implications for Canada Canada’s Response US Health Benefits Northern Gateway
Canada-Australia Coalition Oil Sands Emissions – B.C. Carbon Tax
|
|
