 From the left: Michelle Bennett Environment, Sam Kawazoye Community Service, Trevor Copp Arts , Mayor Goldring, Wendy Hager, Citizen of the Year, Dan Taylor Junior Citizen and Jim Frizzle, Senior of the year. By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 11, 2012 One award recipient saw the letter from city hall and thought it was a bill – so she didn’t open it. Another had a voice that was made for the world of broadcasting. Ellen Wilkes Irmisch, speaking about the Arts Person of the Year Award given in her parents name, had the funniest line when she recalled for the audience the comment her mother used to make as she went out for an evening with a friend: “ make sure your hot date doesn’t become your due date.” It had nothing to do with the award she was giving but it gave one an insight as to the kind of Mom she had.
 Michelle Bennett’s acceptance speech: This award deserves to be shared. People who volunteer require the support of all the guests who are here tonight or in my case parents that stayed home to watch our kids. Without the family and friendship networks that help cover our at home and work responsibilities, we’d be so hard pressed to join organizations and committees and support the good work being done in Burlington. So my heartfelt thank you to you all.Another reason to share this award is because it was and still is a team effort to create this wonderful new community garden. City Staff identified available funds early on, and worked diligently to prepare staff reports that City Council unanimously endorsed. The Burlington Sustainable Development CAC led the charge and BurlingtonGreen received the baton and ran with it to create a wonderful supportive program to really kick start this new pilot community garden. Citizens have been impressed with the good work of the Parks and RPM staff in the garden construction, and are simply thrilled to be involved with this healthy grow-it-yourself opportunity to add fresh food to their daily plates.To receive this Environmental award has made me ponder the meaning of being identified publically as an Environmentalist.An environmentalist is someone who believes our consumer driven lifestyles have collectively contributed to climate change. Someone who believes that by reducing our personal impact and by voicing our concern to change government policy and corporate practice that collectively we can hope to mitigate the negative consequences that threaten our immediate security, and our future survival.Personal action is where we each have the most control. For instance, our household of 5 uses one vehicle. Our kids and I quite easily get the majority of what we need and want done by carpooling, taking a bus, walking or riding a bike. To transition from stay at home mom I chose to spend my time volunteering for causes I felt important, and work for a local non-profit that advocates and provides programs to support environmental awareness and local policy for a healthier, greener city. Thank you to Amy Schnurr and BurlingtonGreen for this opportunity. I grow a garden (a few now actually), buy organic and local food when I can, and hope to inspire others to do the same. I am a daughter, a spouse, mother and citizen. I do not wear an environmentalist label exclusively or intentionally. It seems to be something that has grown on me naturally as I have simply altered small and large day to day practices making decisions with a conscious scope on what many consider common sense basics: Refuse. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Grow. Buy and Eat Local. Many people are aligned with the environmental movement’s goals even if they don’t necessarily align themselves with the movement itself. We all can live eco friendly lives simply by striving daily to make rational balanced decisions. Living lightly is a balancing act we can all improve upon.To truly create a more sustainable and equitable social and economic system we need to embrace the creation of “green” jobs and welcome more eco-conscious industry and services to Burlington. I hope that the City or Chamber of Commerce will someday create an award to recognize the achievement of social, economic and environmental triple bottom line success in Burlington. We need to look past inherited divisions and understand that most of us are on the same side with the same fears, hopes and goals regardless of what labels we may wear. Timelines are a victim of politics, but goals can be reached in both the short and long term as long as the commitment is made. Individual efforts can make a difference, and collectively we can make good things grow.
The Civic Recognition Awards is a community event; a time to recognize those people who do the things that make a community real; a place where you can live a good, comfortable life and spend some of your time helping others.
 Jim Frizzle, recognized as the Burlington Senior of the Year arrived 20 years ago and got to know his neighbour Keith Strong. And anyone who knows Keith Strong knows the rest of the story.
Jim Frizzle, who certainly did a lot of helping, explained that when he moved to Burlington twenty years ago, his neighbour said he would have plenty of things to volunteer on. His neighbour was Keith Strong, chair of the Civic Recognition Committee for 2011, and probably the best civic minded strong arm the city has. We are fortunate to have both of them.
Dan Taylor, Junior Citizen of the Year thanked his parents for driving him to all the places he had to get to as he both motivated and lead fellow high school students. This young man has a voice that was made for broadcasting; listening to him – and you understand immediately how he motivates.
There were award recipients in six categories.
Community Service Award given to Sam Hawazoye, the sole nominee in the category.
Environmental Award given to Michelle Bennett with Susan Fraser and Barbara Frensch nominated.
Arts Person of the Year given to Trevor Copp with Myles Erlick nominated.
Junior Citizen of the Year given to Dan Taylor with Bo Chen Han and Amy Stringer nominated.
Senior Person of the year award given to Jim Frizzle, with Donald Jervis, Mary Plows and Dr. Salem Rao nominated.
Citizen of the Year Award was given to Wendy Hagar with Marilyn Heinz, Bev Jacobs and Crystal McNerney nominated.
Burlington has been recognizing its leading citizens since 1955
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 9, 2012 The Friends of Freeman Station (FoFS) appear to have gotten at least a two base hit with the announcement on the location for the structure that is sitting on the Fire Station parking lot on Fairview Avenue. Less than an hour after the location announcement the Burlington Historical Society (BHS) said they wanted to share “good news” which it certainly was; a generous pledge to the restoration of the Freeman Station, as well as a matching pledge for donations by members of the BHS.
Now if the Mayor announces he will be bringing a motion to provide the Friends of Freeman station a significant chunk of money and then those city Councillors who shamed themselves when they let the federal Stimulus money get away on them were to agree to support the motion and at least buy a Save the Freeman Station T- shirt this could go down as a day in Burlington history where its heritage got a decent shake.
The new location, which the FoFS call “temporary” is less than 50 yards from where it sits. The property was donated to the city by Ashland Inc., a company that has been in Burlington for 100 years.
Each time any of the FoFS checked in on the station they would see this empty triangular shaped space with a hydro tower looming over it and wonder why the station couldn’t be stored there. Calls to the people who owned the property went very well and before they knew it The Friends of Freeman Station had a partner and a place to put the station. Prior to that break the FoFS were beginning to feel a little glum and some people began to give up.
“I was just blown away by how receptive they were to the ideas we had. Scott Thomson couldn’t do enough for us” said James Smith, president of FoFS which now has charitable status that lets them issues tax receipts and eligible for federal and or provincial grants.
 The Burlington West Station at Freeman is going to need a lot of tender loving care but now that she is with a family that wants her she will grow into a beautiful structure.station FoFS have done surprisingly well on the local fund raising. They are all but sold out with their first run of T-shirts. The second run should be slightly different so that the first run become real collectors’ items.
The Burlington West Station in Freeman, built in 1906, was closed more than 20 years ago, but is still part of Burlington’s living history.
The relocation was approved April 30, 2012, by City Council, based on a proposal by the non-profit community group Friends of Freeman Station. The historical structure, bought by the city in 2005, will move to land offered by Ashland, a global company that specializes in chemical solutions for consumer and industrial markets.
 A spot of land that Ashland could not use was made available to the Friends of Freeman who brokered a deal with the city that has the station, which the city owns, being located on land that Ashland donates or leases to the city. The building will sit just inside the gates shown above. The Fire Station on Fairview is adjacent to the property. “I’m thrilled we’ve found a home for the station so restoration can begin soon,” said James Smith, president of the Friends of Freeman Station. “Our volunteers have worked very hard to achieve this arrangement. I’m excited by the opportunity and impressed by the positive response from Ashland.”
 Somehow the station name sign was salvaged. It won't be long before it sits in its rightful place with a new coat of paint. The city, challenged with finding an agreeable home for historic Freeman Station, in January 2011 approved the creation of an ad hoc committee that was facilitated by Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward and Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster to look at options for saving Freeman Station. Sites that had already been rejected by the previous City Council were not to be considered.
“The Friends of Freeman Station has done a phenomenal job, and has grown to 243 members,” said Councillor Meed Ward. “The community has really come through for the station, donating more than $30,000. I would like to send a special thanks to Rob and Laura Freeman and Don and Wendy Smith for their lead donations of $5,000 each.”
 Station will sit on a triangle of land right beside the Fairview Street fire station The relocation of the station is expected to take place later this year. The first step is to get it moved onto the property and that means getting some kind of a base put in place. Then perhaps looking for a way to cover the structure so that there is no more damage from the weather. Smith thinks the roof is the first part that needs attention.
Ashland celebrates a 100th anniversary this year. The current Ashland facility was built in 1912 by the Vera Chemical Company of Canada Ltd. Its four employees manufactured rosin sizing to supply Canadian paper mills. The Hercules Powder Company of Wilmington, Delaware bought the company in 1931. Ashland bought Hercules in 2008.
“We look forward to working with the Friends of Freeman Station to achieve a successful and timely completion of the restoration to Freeman Station,” said Scott Thomson, Ashland plant manager.
Headquartered in Kentucky, Ashland markets high quality motor oils under the Valvoline brand name
So, who are the people that pulled this off after city council basically walked away from the building and hoped that someone might buy it for scrap. An advertisement was run in newspapers – but there were no takers.
 The scope of the restoration work can be seen - lots of work to be done. Willing hands ready to do it. Give the Friends of Freeman a call - they will keep you busy for the next while. The Friends of Freeman Station is a non-profit community group and registered charity whose aim is to relocate, restore and preserve the historic Freeman Station for the enjoyment of current and future generations. Freeman Station is recognized for its architectural and historic significance by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Culture and Heritage Burlington.
While the group and many members of the public are still hopeful that the station ultimately can be located in Beachway Park, an immediate move will allow FoFS members to begin restoration and continue fundraising and public education in a new and more visible location. Public events are planned in co-operation with Ashland Inc., whose site is celebrating 100 years in Burlington this year.
The City of Burlington owns the station. Restoration is expected to cost $350,000. The station, which used to sit on the CN tracks just west of Brant Street, less than a “click away” explain Smith, is being stored behind the Burlington Fire headquarters on Fairview Street.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 8, 2012 There was a line from the film Cool Hand Luke, that starred the late Paul Newman, where a prison guard said “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” At the time Newman was doing everything he could not to communicate. The ending was a tough one.
One got the feeling that while delivering a very brief update to a Council Budget and Corporate Services committee meeting, General Manager Scott Stewart wanted to use those words but chose to be a little more diplomatic, which for Stewart is a stretch at the best of times.
 City General Manager Scott Stewart doesn't take this smile to hospital meetings. Stewart reported that the city had not been able to arrange a meeting with the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital (JBMH) until sometime in August to discuss the Contribution Agreement that is to be signed between the hospital and the city. That’s the document that is going to take $60 million of your dollars and slide it across the table to the hospital. The city has just over $4.8 million of the $60 million saved already but we are going to have to borrow much of the rest of it so the hospital can begin the build.
Stewart added that it looked as if the agreement would get worked out between the city and the hospital by email; which has got to be about as archaic as it gets – they are less than a twenty minute walk away from each other. Saying they are not available until sometime in August is basically the same as saying: ‘we don’t want to talk to you, so go away – but send us the money you have to give us’.
Apparently the real reason for not being able to meet before sometime in August is a combination of vacation schedules, commitments that can’t be broken – we all go through those problems. However, if you really want to meet – you make it happen. Unless of course there is a problem that is insurmountable – and that would be what? Wait for it. The lawyers, the lawyers can’t clear time for a meeting until sometime in August.
What are the lawyers doing in the room at all? Surely senior city people and senior hospital people can put together the basics – all we are doing here is setting out what they will do with the money we send them – then give it to the lawyers and let them make sure that all the niceties are covered, shake hands and then deliver the cheque.
Is the city negotiating with the hospital? We will know when the Contribution gets to a city council committee.
The city is required to help fund the renovation of the hospital and it has taxed its citizens and used a significant portion of last year’s surplus to come up with our share. The hospital has to raise an additional $60 million.
Burlington does not have a choice in this matter – the province mandated that we give the money to the hospital. We apparently don’t give the funds directly to the hospital corporation but to the hospital Foundation which in turn passes it along to the hospital.
The relationship between the city and the hospital corporation is getting a little caustic. The city needs an agreement that sets out a “responsible and timely release of funds” and given that we are going to have to borrow much of our contribution we would like to be able to plan the flow of funds. Burlington maintains a very strong, positive relationship with the Performing Arts Centre where more than half a million dollars is sent every year. They find a way to work through the differences with the Seniors basically because they meet and work through the issues.
With the city being required to come up with $60 million, the hospital, one would hope, would accept the fact that they have a new partner and not a junior partner either, and they have to learn to share the responsibility of working with the community to raise the funds and get the hospital to the point where it is not the mess it was when current president Vandewall was brought in.
 JBMH president Eric Vandewall is reported to be working on his schedule and making time to meet with the city. Dinner with senior city staff was a good start. The egos that are at times all too visible, have to be left at the door so that an adult relationship can take place.
When Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital president Eric Vandewall appeared before a city council committee last year he made the statement that the hospital would match the city contribution “dollar for dollar”, which made a number of Council members feel a little better about turning over tax payers’ dollars to the hospital. That good feeling has come close to evaporating.
General Manager Stewart and the city manager are to have dinner with the hospital president and some of his leading people, which will undoubtedly include VP Communication Mario Joanette – who might manage an explanation as to just what is wrong with the communications.
There have not been any announcements from the hospital foundation on how they are doing on the raising of their $60 million. We are told that there is a very big announcement coming and to expect a number of announcements at the Crystal Ball Gala, which takes place later this month. We are told it is a sold out event with more than 100 people learning they could not get a ticket. This Gala event – and it is quite the event, being held at the Mercedes Benz dealership on the North Service Road, is where the hospital Foundation may announce what it has collected to date in the way of its fund raising efforts.
The Foundation people are good at what they do – they don’t have any problem communicating. Things are a little different on the hospital administration side.
While the city does its best to meet with the hospital to work through the agreement on how the JBMH people are going to spend the tax dollars we give them – the city’s Planning Department is able to talk to the hospital people about the actual construction of the building – reported to be a seven storey building on land that currently serves as a parking lot.
Site Plan approval for the structure is anticipated in late May or early June with approval expected in September or early October. So far the public has very little information on what’s going on. It seems like a ‘send us your money and don’t ask any questions’
Site plan approval will include traffic impacts, archeological investigation, storm water management and public consultation. The city will have to deal with all this in a relatively short period of time.
The archeological aspects could turn out to be interesting. The land the hospital was built on is part of the original land grant to Joseph Brant and there are reported to be some strings attached to just what can and cannot be done with that land.
 It's supposed to be all about the hospital and its desperately needed re-build. Can they all not just get on with it? Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has been a very strong proponent of ensuring that the public is given every opportunity to comment on developments in the city and has been very vocal about the amount of time the public has to read the reports and given the time to form their opinion. Meed Ward is a member of the hospital board and while there is an evident conflict in sitting on the hospital board and sitting as a Councillor, especially when there is serious and significant tension over the wording of the Contribution Agreement, but that does not seem to bother Meed Ward. Can she act for her constituents to ensure they are given the information they need and at the same time sit on the hospital board and argue that information should be made available and that the public, who after all are picking up a significant part of the cost of the redevelopment, be given every opportunity to comment?
Elections cost money. Anyone running for the office of Mayor needs people who can write the cheques to cover the cost of an election campaign. Meed Ward doesn’t accept campaign funds from developers but she would be comfortable with getting funds from the kind of people who attend social events with impressive ticket prices.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 9, 2012 If the team overseeing the review of the city’s Official Plan thought they were going to be able to give transit a once over – they learned Monday that Walter Mulkewich, a former Mayor, was not going to let that happen.
The city may have a Transit Advisory Committee and Ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward might have a group in her community taking a close look at transit as well, but Mulkewich and his crowd are going to be sure that the city fully understands the link between transit and the social welfare of the city.
 Walter Mulkewich will bring years of experience and a committement to social justice will be brought to bear on how transit is treated in the Official Plan Review. Being a former Mayor won't hurt either. Mulkewich delegated to the Special Council meeting held to hear delegations on the Official Plan Review
The committee has some of the best citizen transit thinkers in the city and they fully intend to ensure the Official Plan review gets a full ear on transit matters
Mulkewich was there to speak for an Interim Steering Committee, which is a group of citizens who are in the process of organizing a broad based coalition to advocate for better transit as a apart of the Burlington transportation system.
This is a group that is citizen based, that has people with a solid background in transit and the ability to not only lay their hands on the data that tells what is happening with the transit system but also the ability as well to do the analysis and draw conclusions from which evidence based decisions can be made.
 Transit is more than just busses - some people would be delighted if bus transit got the attention and the funding it needs. Mulkewich set out the premise the group is working from when he said “we support the significant point in the staff report that a long-term view of the city’s transportation system is a necessary part of the Official Plan. Our hope and expectation” he added, “ would be that the parallel Transportation Plan would include all modes of transportation, including transit, walking and cycling as well as automobile and truck transportation.
Mulkewich noted with interest that all six major topic areas that staff has identified to date will require a consideration of a significant role of transit.
The six major topics Mulkewich refers to are those that the team leading the Official Plan review think need attention. The six Neighbourhoods; Downtown; Nodes and Corridors; Metrolinx and Mobility Hubs; Movement and Connectivity and Community Infrastructure. We will expand on each of these in some detail later in the process and follow each for the two years (mercy) the city expects to require for the full review of the Official Plan.
 This series is a first person account, told by a parent who has lived through the fear and pain that rocked Woodstock when an eight year old girl was abducted on her way home from school and subsequently murdered. Elizabeth Maloney takes us through each step of the ordeal and starts with: A girl the same age as my daughter – is missing, she didn’t get home after school. The worry sets in. No longer can a parent feel reassured by the spotlight of safety once provided by broad daylight. Things are different now. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and the most gut-wrenching of all; to anyone.
By Elizabeth Maloney
WOODSTOCK, ON May 5, 2012 The trial trying Michael Rafferty for the murder of Tori Stafford is in its final stages. The prosecution made its case with close to a score of witnesses; the defence called just the one witness who with her testimony shed some serious light on the relation between Terri-Lynne McClintic and eight year old Tori. It would appear from that testimony that the child knew McClintic who earlier plead guilty to the murder of the child.
Now it was all coming to a close – the jury would hear closing arguments from the prosecution and the defence and the judge would then instruct the jury and they would then deliberate and come back with a verdict. In less than ten days the decision would be known. Would Woodstock feel any sense of relief? The city was feeling very anxious, worried and afraid three years earlier when we didn’t know enough.
In the weeks following Tori’s abduction, Woodstock had weathered a roller coaster of events. The parents were investigated, searches were conducted and the police scandalized over the Amber Alert. A reward for Tori’s safe return was offered by a mysterious unnamed benefactor and the child’s story was highlighted on America’s Most Wanted. The drama had played on and on and the emotion of it all was wearing on the community. We didn’t seem to be any further ahead than we were 41 days ago when it all started. Hope was dwindling. People began to vocally speculate Tori had met an unfortunate end. No trace, no signs – what other answer could there be?
Even Tara McDonald and Rodney Stafford, Tori’s parents, were reaching their limit. For the most part they had respected each other’s boundaries, not treading on each other in the public eye. But by May 15th, 2009, something snapped and they were caught publicly bickering at each other during a news conference. The fact that they made it this far without something happening sooner was laudable. But the emotional toll of constant interviews and media conferences seemed to finally get to them. They made up a few days later when they jointly announced they had accepted the help of a private investigator and apologized to the media for their previous behavior. They wanted the focus to remain on Tori.
 While being held on an unrelated charge Terri-Lynne McClintic was questioned about the murder of Tori Stafford. Unbeknownst to Tara & Rodney, as they were representing their unified front, police were working on a break in the case. A young woman named Terri-Lynn McClintic was in police custody and had been since April 12th on an unrelated charge. She had been placed in Genst Youth Detention Centre in London, and during her time there, had agreed to a polygraph test regarding that other charge. In order to prepare for administering the polygraph, police interviewed several of Terri-Lynn’s acquaintances, including Michael Rafferty, who had made two visits to see McClintic during her stay at Genst. On May 19th police administered the polygraph to McClintic with surprising results.
On the same day police arrested McClintic and later her friend Rafferty. During that polygraph on the unrelated charge, Terri-Lynn confessed to the abduction of Tori Stafford and implicated her friend Michael as her co-conspirator and identified him as Tori’s rapist and murderer. Rafferty was charged with first degree murder and abduction of someone under the age of 16. McClinitc was booked on abducting someone under the age of 16 and accessory to murder.
So there it was. Six weeks of mystery concluded with an answer no one wanted- Tori was dead. There was no body, so some in the community refused to give up hope. Most others accepted what they already felt all along. Tori’s young bright light had been snuffed out in a twisted reality that seemed more like an episode of Law & Order SVU than real life. It was a relief in some ways. It was over and the parties presumed responsible were in police custody.
It was also a frustrating end to a very painful six weeks. Woodstock had invested a lot of time into Tori and finding her. The community involvement in the case was overwhelming, with many people actively volunteering. The last thing we had was hope- waning hope, but still hope. And now that too was taken from us. The fear of the unknown was gone and we were faced with the stark reality.
 While the details were not fully known - there were now two people that were identified as being somehow involved with the murder of Tori Stafford. Michael Rafferty was the second suspect. The attention in the community now shifted from Tori to these two suspects. Who were they? Where in the city did they live? Had we been interacting with these people and not know what they really were? To many of us it was hard to comprehend that the people charged with this heinous set of crimes had been living amongst us all along. I found myself wondering if I had passed one or both in the local Wal-Mart or one of the grocery stores. It’s one thing to suspect there is a predator on the loose, it’s another to realize you may have been standing next to one of them in a line somewhere.
And my daughter- she was with me in those stores. Did they look at her? Did they think about taking another child?…. maybe even my own? It was a horrid thought but a realization I could not help but come to. How close did we come to these two suspects? Too close for me. I later found out both McClintic and Rafferty lived within less than a 2 km radius of my home.
The following weeks and months would be a continuous leak of new information about these two individuals. What they posted on Facebook, the things they said, the people they knew. What was once a lack of information had become an almost overwhelming wave of detail and minutia. Did I want to know this much about the alleged murderers of our beloved Tori? No, but I needed to know. I needed to face it out of respect for Tori.
 The pictures of Tori Stafford were now harder to look at because we knew now we would never see her again. The end of May brought the announcement that McClintic and Rafferty would be tried separately. Rafferty’s newly hired counsel speculated publicly that there was no need for it unless there was a deal in the works, a very bold jab at McClintic’ s camp. The pieces were starting to fall into place, with everyone beginning their preparations for the eventual trial. The roller coaster of information would take another dive as each camp begun to hold their cards closer to their chest, not wanting to tip their hand before their day in court. It would be the start of a 3 year battle to bring the accused killers to justice.
And what of Tori’s family? Now having to face the idea that they will never see their precious little girl again. Never again to hold her hand when crossing the street or feel the brush of her cheek as she kisses them goodnight. No prom, no graduation, no wedding or grandchildren. It was more than the loss of a life, it was the loss of a future. There is no charge for that, although there should be.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
 Stephen Chen is a retiree who has lived in Burlington for many years. He delegated to the Special Session of City Council that is the early part f the Official Plan Review, expected to take about two years to complete. Mr. Chen made comments that Mayor Goldring later said reflected the views of many people in Burlington. City Director of Planning and Building, Bruce Krushelnicki said he understood the remarks Mr. Chen made and hoped there would be an opportunity during the review of the Official Plan for there to be an educational component to the review. Each of the situations Mr. Chen detailed have solid explanations behind them, said Krushelnicki.
By Stephen Chen
May 7th, 2012.
Presentation to Special Meeting of Council, Review of Official Plan.
My topic tonight will be about Downtown Burlington
Downtown Burlington has been identified as an area for increased population, aka intensification in the 2008 Official Plan. My concern is that we will have a Downtown dominated by very tall buildings which will completely change the character of the area and not for the better.
The Downtown already has buildings of five storeys or less which work well visually, have appropriate scale and provide increased intensity. Why then does the Planning Department permit and even encourage taller buildings? Does Burlington feel the need to compete with Toronto or Mississauga? Oakville has a vibrant downtown without any tall buildings in its core area.
 Four storey buildings are what Stephen Chen thought the Official Plan was all about - he reads about 17 and 22 storey buildings and asks if this is the kind of "high rise jungle" citizens want. My concern arises both from a review of the Official Plan as well as what has taken place in terms of new buildings over the past few years. The Official Plan, if you can call it a Plan, exhibits a distressing amount of elasticity when it comes to building height.
In the Official Plan we come to a part called the
Downtown Mixed Use Centre (Part III, Sec 5.5)
Allow me to take you through this particular section of the Plan which covers the area we generally refer to as Downtown Burlington. It is divided into smaller parts called precincts.
St Luke’s is the area North of St Luke’s Anglican church on Elgin Ave. Emerald is the area to the East and South of the No Frills plaza. We first read that the precinct will have detached dwellings, 25 units per hectare (ha) and a maximum building height of 2-1/2 storeys. Later on we read that, notwithstanding what we just read, a density greater than 50 units per ha and a maximum building height of 5 storeys may be considered in a certain part of the precinct.
For the Downtown Medium and High Density precincts we read that there will be between 25 to 185 dwelling units per ha. These are the areas to the East of Maple Av and East of Martha St. Right after reading that we discover that one building on Maple Av has 321 units per ha and 21 storeys. Another at the corner of Elgin and Brock will have 353 units per ha and 14 storeys.
 Stephen Chen doesn't understand why a developer will be allowed to put up a 12 storey building on this part of the Lakeshore. For the Old Lakeshore Rd precinct, the land between Lakeshore Rd and Old Lakeshore Rd, Area A on the West, we first read that maximum building height will be 10 storeys. For Area B on the East the maximum height will be 6 storeys. Right after that we read that, never mind what you just read, the Planning Department will actually allow 15 storeys in Area A and 8 storeys in Area B.
For the Downtown Core precinct, which is pretty much the central part of the Downtown, we read that the maximum building height will be 4 storeys. But the Planning Department will let you have up to 8 storeys if you use terracing above the second floor. If you contain a public post-secondary educational institute, why, you can go up to 10 storeys. And, by the way, they`ve also allowed one 17 storey apartment building, just so you know.
For the Wellington Square precinct, mostly the North side of Lakeshore between Locust and Pearl, the maximum building height will be 8 storeys with terracing required above the second floor. But they`ll allow you up to 14 storeys if they think your building looks good and you give them some Community Benefits. Never mind the 17 storey building already standing on the NW corner of Pearl and Lakeshore. And, by the way, an even taller building could be coming South of Lakeshore between Elizabeth and Pearl. Would you believe 22 storeys?
Well, with that kind of track record, what do I think of the 2008 Official Plan? Truly I think it should be renamed. It should be called the Official Suggestion.
Community Benefits
Community Benefits are an interesting concept. They are used to justify the ad hoc nature of permitted building height.
When I first heard of the expression I thought ok, we are allowing the developer to take away a piece of the sky, so to speak, with the additional building height over and above what the Plan specifies, but we the community will be compensated in some fashion for him being allowed to do that.
 Stephen wonders how development money was used to pay for this public art and exactly who benefits from something almost underneath a reailway underpass. It seems reasonable to me that the compensation would be somehow related to the increased economic benefit that the developer obtains from however many additional housing units he can put into the building. Like maybe 50%. Hey, this could be a good thing for the City. It would certainly buy quite a few of those “Windows on the Lake” that we would like to have.
Alas, I have since learned that our Community Benefits have nothing to do with the extra $$ the developer pockets. It is based on the difference in value of the land alone with and without the additional building height and density. Which has to be a pittance compared to what my suggestion would bring in.
In fact, with Community Benefits set up that way, why wouldn’t a developer push the envelope on building height? The upside is enormous for very little expenditure. And the City has a track record of allowing the additional height and density.
The City likes to portray Community Benefits as something really good for the community. I disagree. I think it’s a sell-out.
On the Ground
Well enough of Official Plans or Suggestions and Community Benefits. What really counts is what you see as you walk around Downtown Burlington. How’s the city coming along?
Right along the North side of Lakeshore road from Locust over to Pearl there are 4 tall buildings. Two have terracing extending all the way up to the top and are attractive. Two have the minimum amount of terracing required. If the other lots in this precinct get re-developed with minimum terracing we will have a high rise wall along Lakeshore Rd, not a particularly attractive architectural feature. And don’t forget what’s potentially coming along the South side of Lakeshore Rd, East of Elizabeth. Why, if everything goes according to plan, we’ll have our very own Grand Canyon along Lakeshore Rd.
 This part of Burlington is a lost cause to Stephen Chen. How about over on Maple Ave? That’s a lost cause. Just one tall box after another. And there’s another one going in at the corner of Brock and Elgin. This may be great for meeting the Province’s intensification goals but pretty it ain’t.
Is There any Hope?
If I didn’t think there was I wouldn’t have bothered to come here tonight to talk to you and make you aware of my concern. I can imagine the developers and the Planning Department filling the Downtown Core precinct with lots of very tall and not very imaginative buildings. Which would be a shame.
It’s really up to Council. Do you want to be remembered as the Council who created a high-rise jungle in downtown Burlington? Or do you want to be remembered as the Council who encouraged innovative design and made downtown Burlington a place of creative buildings of 5 or 6 storeys where young families wanted, and, equally important, could afford to live and possibly work?
 By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON –May 7, 2012. Conservation Halton advised this afternoon that the weather office is predicting a surface low to enter our region this afternoon and overnight tonight. The forecasted rainfall amount is approximately 15mm but this may be exceeded as thunderstorm activity of localized downpours is also forecasted this evening.
 Nothing iminent - but Conservation Halton advises that rain expected has the potential to flood the creeks. The majority of the creeks are running at low or near seasonal levels but are expected to experience higher levels and flows with the upcoming precipitation. Presently our reservoirs have large amounts of storage capacity available to accommodate this event.
Conservation Halton warns that all stream banks and slopes will become slippery and dangerous. In addition, this system may result in the potential of localized flooding in low-lying areas.
Please advise all persons to use extreme caution around bodies of water and stay well back from stream banks. Please alert children in your care of these imminent dangers.
Conservation Halton will continue to monitor stream and weather conditions and will issue further messages as necessary. This Watershed Condition Statement will be in effect through to Tuesday May 8, 2012.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 7, 2012 It’s the kind of thing that could probably only happen in Burlington.
Scott Stewart, the toughest guy there is at city hall, is serving as the Master of Ceremonies for the official opening of the Community Gardens tucked in behind the Seniors’ Centre and the Library at Central Park, is at the podium thanking everyone and pointing out various people in the audience he feels deserve recognition. He refers to Dave McKay by saying: “Nice to see Mr. McKay, my high school science teacher here with us today. You know, I can’t say “Dave, he was one of my high school teachers and to me he will always be Mr. McKay”
Hometown, home spun perhaps but it was a look at the city as it is. The day was to recognize one of those events that happen because people do what has to be done to make a difference. And for Michelle Bennett that difference was a program that will ideally result in community gardens elsewhere in the city and for Bennett a nomination as the Environmentalist of the Year.
 Michelle Bennett was the key driving force behind the Community Garden project that had to go a couple of rounds with city committees before they got over that hurdle - Bennett was determined to make it happen - she succeeded. It all came together when Michelle Bennett and Amy Schnurr were going over some literature about a provincial government program that was part solid idea and part pilot project. It fit the BurlingtonGreen mandate like a glove but there was a hitch. They had to have some real, cold hard cash participation from the city or from an organization that was on a par with the city. The Region perhaps?
The two woman put together their application and got it off to Queen’s Park who got back to them saying they liked the idea but there was nothing about the city’s participation. Burlington Green people have no problem delegating to city hall. It didn’t go all that well during the first round. Both woman brought more enthusiasm than solid business case to the city council committee but they were on to something and that was enough for Council to ask staff to take a look at it and see if they could make something of it.
 Three of the four people who made the Community Garden project happen: General Manager Scott Stewart, BurlingtonGreen Executive Director Amy Schnurr and Rob Peachey, Manager Parks and Open Space for the city. That put the BurlingtonGreen ladies into the hands of Rob Peachey, Manager Parks and Open Spaces, who found a way to come up with things the city could do that would amount to the 15% in cash or in kind the BurlingtonGreen people needed to get the provincial funding secured. A location was chosen that worked for everyone. It had a water line, it was steps away from the library where classes could be held, it was moments from the Seniors’ Centre where BurlingtonGreen hoped to entice some of the members.
The provincial funding was for a “teaching Pilot”; a program that would figure out the nuts and bolts of how to get a community garden up and running; what you had to do, what you shouldn’t do and where you go for help – that kind of thing.
With the garden lots steps away from the Library BurlingtonGreen expects to do some class work there.
How representative are the 29 people who got garden lots and who are these people anyway?
 The politicians that smooth the rough spots to make things like community gardens happen were all out on Saturday. Well, there are people from every ward in the city. Burlingtonians got first dibs and given that there were 120 applications those who applied from Oakville are out of luck for the immediate future.
The grant from the province for a two year period was $74,650 total which goes to staff support, promotion, support of the Go Local Food Network, tools, events, plant material. The garden construction was paid for by the city – their cash and in kind contribution was required if the grant was to be awarded to BurlingtonGreen. It looks as if the city, that was originally a little skeptical about the project, came around quite quickly and was more than just a cheerleader on this project.
BurlingtonGreen didn’t track age information but they report there are certainly seniors involved in the gardens as well as young families and a youth group. In a couple of instances there are groups of friends involved. So there are certainly more than just 29 people working at garden lots in behind the library.
Great start to a project that will add several years to the lives of those Seniors who decide they want to get out into the sunshine and get some dirt underneath their finger nails. The objective is to use this first site as a prototype for other. Two years from now we should be seeing half a dozen community gardens around the city. The finance people at city hall might want to make a note to add a bit to the 2014 budget for this kind of thing.
Interesting crowd on hand for the event. Members of the Burlington Teen Tour Band were there to bring a little class to the event. The Lady Jane McKenna, who represents Burlington in the provincial Legislature, was not in attendance – but then she wasn’t on the “official” guests list and for reasons which the city’s public affairs department wasn’t able to make clear to us – there is a protocol that dictates who gets to speak and who doesn’t – the rule is basically the person delivering the cheque gets to do the talking. That may be a provincial government protocol but there is nothing saying Burlington has to adhere to such a silly rule. Jane McKenna is our MPP – she should be invited.
We don’t know if it was the sign of decent weather coming along or an environmental event, but it brought out all kinds of people including Henry Schilthuis, the man who operates the contracting firm of Henry Schilthuis and Sons, that is in a law suit with the city. Needless to say the Mayor and Henry did not exchange pleasantries.
 Dave McKay, the man one of the city's General Managers still calls "Mr. McKay" and the guy that taught thousands in Burlington all the high school science they can remember, was on hand for the event. Councillor Craven of Aldershot territory, some people call it ward 1, was on hand to get a look at how the gardens were set up and thinking that perhaps something like this could be done to make Francis Road the next possible community Garden site.
Local food security, which doesn’t get talked about nearly enough, was brought up.. The 29 gardens aren’t going to feed the city but hopefully we can begin to look at the part of the city north of Dundas as more than a place for the equestrian crowd and those that grow strawberries. There is a very significant opportunity to develop a much bigger market gardening business in this city.
Mayor Goldring let us see how little he knew about farming but did mention that he spent some time on his grandparents farm in the Niagara Region. And he did point out that there was a time when there were piers in Burlington that took away boat loads of fresh fruit from Burlington. He added quickly that he was talking of other piers.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 7, 2012 The BIG question come Friday afternoon when the Sound of Music Festival people announce the line-up for this June is – will they be on the stage?
Will who be on the stage? If you have to ask that question you are not a true native of Burlington and you should catch the GO bus to Hamilton before the sun sets.
Walk off the Earth – is who we are talking about. The video of their cover of Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used to Know” became rapidly popular on YouTube in early 2012, gathering over 100 million views in four months. It got them a spot on the Ellen DeGeneres Show for the accomplishment.
Gianni Luminati – Guitar, Electric Guitar, Bass, Ukulele, Banjo, Kazoo, Keys, Drums, Vocals, Theremin, Beatbox, Xylophone, Cigar Box; Ryan Marshall – Guitar, Ukulele, Vocals, Trumpet; Mike Taylor – (Widely known as “Beard Guy”, “Beard Man” and “Sea Captain”) – Keyboards, Vocals; Joel Cassady – Drums, Cigar box guitar; Sarah Blackwood – Guitar, Electric Guitar, Kazoo, Ukulele, Banjo, Bass, Vocals, Piano, Glockenspiel, Tamborine, Cigar box guitar, xylophone.
In an early version of our story about this band we erred with a couple of the names and got this from a loyal reader. “They’re now up to over 10 million views! Small name correction: the one on the right is Michael Taylor, who just happens to be the father of my beautiful goddaughter! (It’s a small town.) Ryan Marshall is second from the right.”
 Better than the Fab Five - from left to right:Joel Cassady, Sarah Blackwood, Gianni Nicassio, Ryan Marshal and Michael Taylor. All of Burlington wants to see then in person. But now that they are “bigger time” than they have ever been the fee goes up – and given that Dave Miller didn’t manage to squeeze any additional dollars out of city council for this years events – the SOM folk could have found themselves between a rock and a hard place.
The SOM depends on the good will of the people in this city – so a way was found to get that band on stage – and they will be there. When – tune into Our Burlington on Saturday And we will tell you when.
You heard it here first.
Part 5
 This series is a first person account, told by a parent who has lived through the fear and pain that rocked Woodstock when an eight year old girl was abducted on her way home from school and subsequently murdered. Elizabeth Maloney takes us through each step of the ordeal and starts with: A girl the same age as my daughter – is missing, she didn’t get home after school. The worry sets in. No longer can a parent feel reassured by the spotlight of safety once provided by broad daylight. Things are different now. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and the most gut-wrenching of all; to anyone.
By Elizabeth Maloney
WOODSTCOK, Ontario May 6, 2012 The presentation of evidence in the trial is over. Lawyers for each side in the murder trial of eight year old Tori Stafford prepare to make their submissions to a jury after which a judge will charge that jury and they will decide if there is any guilt.
The decision on the part of the defence lawyer to call just the one witness, did manage to raise some doubt as to just how young Tori Stafford came to walk out of her school with someone that was not her Mother.
The first degree murder trial of Michael Rafferty, boyfriend of Terri-Lynne McClintic who had already pled guilty of murdering the child, had been moved to London, Ontario. McClintic had already plead guilty to the murder of Tori Stafford and was serving a life sentence. The prosecution had made their case against Rafferty – his defence counsel said Rafferty will not testify and that they will call just the one witness.
 The missing child case was still in the hands of the local police - the Provincial Police had not yet been called in. The community was not happy. Throughout the duration of Tori’s disappearance, many questions had been raised. Why was Tori taken? Who was the woman in the video? Was she involved? Did the parents have something to do with her abduction? The list goes on. But no one question caused as much controversy, contention and anger than why didn’t the Oxford Community Police Services (OCPS) issue an Amber Alert?
Welcome to Woodstock, the “Friendly City”. A typical quiet community of 40,000 and the epicentre of a county servicing approximately 150,000 people. Woodstock at one time had its own police force. But several years back the county amalgamated the police force into one big happy Oxford Community Police Services. This spread 84 police officers over the county to service those 150,000 people.
Now I know what a lot of you might silently be thinking. Little backwards town, the police probably don’t get much experience with this type of situation. And you would be right- we don’t. But don’t mistake that for ineptness. They aren’t perfect, but neither is any other police force.
The imperfection of the OCPS was put under the spotlight when Tori was abducted. But can we really call it an imperfection? The OCPS consulted the Amber Alert guidelines shortly after Tori disappeared, but the case did not meet them. Quoting from the RCMP web page “Amber Alert is intended only for the most serious, time critical abduction cases.” With such a grave disclaimer, one would think those guidelines should be met fully and without question before raising the alarm. And this is what OCPS was looking at when the Alert was being considered.
Days passed and the residents of Woodstock became more and more agitated with the situation. Local blogs carried comments on the police force, some particularly aimed at the Chief of Police, Ron Fraser. Many weren’t specifically aware of the Amber Alert criteria and only saw black and white: missing child = issue Amber Alert. Some demanded he step down, some called him incompetent. Jokes were made about cops eating donuts instead of doing their job.
 All the community had were pictures of an innocent child - not a single solid lead. She was just gone. Realizing they were being demonized in the public eye for their course of action, OCPS put forth their spokesperson, Constable Laurie-Anne Maitland who handles public communications for the OCPS and often fields media enquiries. Defending the collective efforts of the OCPS she spoke to the media on April 13th advising the search “has not located something that would lead us to believe foul play may be a factor. “The news was not well-received and tensions grew.
But OCPS wasn’t the only game in town. On the day Const. Maitland, of the OCPS spoke and five days into Tori’s disappearance, a unit of the Ontario Provincial Police joined the case. It was given the special task of compiling a profile of Tori’s abductor(s). This single action almost confirmed the legitimacy of questioning OCPS’ actions and undermined their place in the case in one swoop. The OPP came in to “save the day”, and OCPS was left with egg on its face.
Const. Maitland was dispatched once again offering a defense for the handling of the case. She emphasized that they did not have the criteria to issue the Amber Alert, but reiterated the case was being treated as an absolute priority. While the explanation may have been legit, the public wasn’t willing to buy it this late in the game. The reasoning was offered too late. Had this been stated in the beginning, it may have been ok. Their cards would have been on the table and we wouldn’t have had to spend so much time guessing. After all, how do you convince the public that a child is not in imminent danger when she has been missing for days?
A day after vehemently defending their actions, the police were announcing that many tips have been received but none have been compelling enough to move the investigation forward. Feeling stalemated, the community rallied once more around Tori. On April 15th, they assembled to release purple balloons skyward, carrying Tori’s picture. It was a small gesture, but it was also action, something we the community had been craving.
 All the community knew was that Tori was seen with a woman in a white puffy coat that no one knew. For many, permanent relief came a mere two days later, when the OPP announced they were taking the lead in the investigation. Inspector Bill Renton was placed in charge. His first order of business was to announce Tori’s case, moving forward, would be treated as abduction. Finally! Many of us were stunned, probably because we weren’t sure we were ever going to hear those words. We had been waiting so long for someone to admit one of our children had been snatched from the safety of our streets. It was vindication. We knew it and now so did everyone else!
With the simple acknowledgement of what we as a community already knew, hope was almost instantly renewed. But truth be told, that is the only thing the OPP were able to give us over OCPS. All future evidence and endeavours into the investigation were a joint effort of the two police forces, although the OPP retains most of the credit.
OCPS stained by a lack of communication early in the case doomed themselves to lack of recognition for the actual hard work they put into the case. Many of the police officers at OCPS worked long hours, in the search for Tori. Once the dust had settled, many of us in Woodstock were able to acknowledge the contributions they made to the case, and how it took a toll on many of them. We could finally appreciate what they did and how they contributed to the search for Tori.
With some resolution to the animosity for the handling of case out of the way, Woodstock was left with only one concern: Where was Tori? Now the focus was back where it belonged all along. On our missing little girl and why hadn’t she come home. The investigation was about to turn. Fears of what happened to Tori would begin to be played out in the media as theories. No longer would they be in our head, but in black and white and in a manner we could not hide from.
A multi part series on the murder of Tori Stafford
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 5, 2012 What did you do on the Saturday part of the weekend? For once the weather channel got it right, a little breezy but this is still early May and it did get a little warmer in the afternoon..
 It was one of those things the politicians had to be on hand for - they were the ones that made the funding possible - so Ted McMeekin, the Liberal Minister of Agriculture from a riding next to us, was on hand to tell us what the government had done for us and to thank all the volunteers who made it possible. The volunteers were the important part of the event. For a gang of people the official opening of the Community Gardens in behind the Library and the Seniors” centre at Central Park was the start of their day. Much of the cost of the garden lots was paid for by the provincial government and the city – so you know what that meant – politicians of every stripe were out there taking credit. For once no one said that the garden lots were part of what makes Burlington the 2nd best city in Canada to live in.
The real treat was to see the smile on Michelle Bennett’s face when she was given a gardening trowel – she had at least half a dozen at home, all well used, but this one was special for her. It was something that marked the end of getting the project to fruition and the beginning of making it work for the community.
People milled around and jabbered with everyone just being community.
 Art work done by Burlington public school students was displayed at city hall along with art work from Dutch students as part of the twin city program with our sister city in Apeldoorn in Holland. Shortly after the city’s Mundialization Committee held their annual appreciation for the Dutch day at Civic Square. Flags were raised, speeches given and there were loads of people in bright orange T-shirts on hand listening to Jacqueline Pitrie sing The White Cliff’s of Dover – that young lady will be a great hit if she ever gets a chance to sing at the Legion.
There were enough of those orange T-shirts at city hall to make one think that there was an NDP gathering going on but I didn’t see former Mayor Walter Mulkewich in the crowd so this wasn’t an NDP event – just the Dutch being Dutch and wearing their national colour.
 TD Bank style refreshment - a summer job for a student. Trudging along the streets of downtown Burlington was a young lady offering drinks of fresh lemonade courtesy of TD Bank. Interesting summer job.
 LaSalle Park - bring about a boat on its way to the water. A break for lunch and then it was off to LaSalle Park to watch some of the boats at the LaSalle Marina get put into the water. The visibility was great, the skyline was clear and although there was a bit of wind earlier in the day it settled down. Boat after boat got taken out of the yard where they were squeezed in like sardines. The crane crept forward so that the “sling crews”, those are the guys that get the wide straps wrapped around the hulls so the boats can be hoisted out of the yard and into the water, could do their job. Then the crane did the lift and the boats swing over the pavement to the waters edge where they are gently lowered into the water. A team of about 30, maybe forty people made it seem like an effortless process as boat after boat was put into the water every fifteen minutes. The skids that they sat on in the winter months were pulled away and stowed till the fall when they will be needed again.
 Nature photographer Thomas Vijayan, catching orioles as they nest. Just outside the boat yard Thomas Vijayan, a nature photographer, was using a massive lens to get pictures of orioles in their nests. Vijanan’s passion however is what he called “live kill” photography – which as he explained it, is when lions chase down gazelles in parts of Africa.
 First piece of summer cake at LaSalle Park In the LaSalle Park itself a large family was having a picnic with one mother tenderly feeding cake to a child. You could almost feel summer working its way towards us watching that scene.
 Girls selling lemonade on Palmer Drive One the way up the street for the last stretch of the day – there were four little cuties jumping up and down just in from the intersection of Guelph Line and Palmer Drive. They were trying to catch the attention of drivers going up the street or into the church parking lot across the street. Their lemonade stand was open and they wanted to do some business.
A sure sign that summer was indeed just around the corner.
That’s the kind of Saturday it was.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 4, 2012 Joan Ford, the woman who counts the city’s money, and is referred to as the Acting Executive Director of Finance, was standing on the sidewalk shaking her head and doing a mental count of the cost of all those people on the street – it was more than she wanted to admit. They appeared to be having fun though. All the merriment along Elgin Street Thursday noon was to promote the two car- free Sunday’s planned by the city for the summer.
 This crowd wants to see a car-free Sunday. Will Burlington take to the idea? The initiative came out of a conversation Councillors Paul Sharman and Jack Dennison had which Councillor Meed Ward joined in on after some initial hesitation. Both men are avid cyclists; Sharman gets around his part of town on his bicycle and Dennison makes recreational use of his – frequently taking part in long bicycle tours.
 Area in which cyclists can ride car-free June 10th  Area in which cyclists can ride the streets car-free July 15 Getting people out of their cars and using the streets for just bicycles has been something Mayor Goldring has wanted to see happen for some time – so Burlington is taking the plunge and closing down some streets and opening them up to cyclists and pedestrians. Will it work? Hard to tell. It will take quite a bit of promotion but it has worked and turned out to be very popular in other cities.
The people behind the idea held a press conference at City Hall’s Civic Square and then all rode their bicycles and had their pictures taken. All the “usual suspects” were there, including Robert Narejko, who had his bike with him and commented to a well-known wag on the eighth floor of city hall, that the seat on the bike was worth more than the bike itself – to which the wag responded: “Well at least we know where your values are”. It was that kind of an event.
The first car free day will be June 10th, when all lanes on Appleby from New Street to Fairview will be closed. The
South side lanes on Fairview Street from Appleby Line into Sherwood Forest Park will be closed as well.
On July 15th full lane closure on Brant Street between Blenheim Street and Lakeshore Road. The north two lanes on Lakeshore Road between Brant Street and Locust Street will be closed and the northbound lane on Locust between Lakeshore Road and Blenheim Street will be closed. Full lane closure on Blenheim Street between Locust Street and Brant Street.
Will there be traffic congestion? Some. Will there be irate motorists – yup, but whenever there is a change people get upset. Some will be “outraged” that they were not informed. Such is Burlington.
 Part 4
“There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception”. Aldous Huxley, English Novelist, 1894-1963
This series is a first person account, told by a parent who has lived through the fear and pain that rocked Woodstock when an eight year old girl was abducted on her way home from school and subsequently murdered. Elizabeth Maloney takes us through each step of the ordeal and starts with: A girl the same age as my daughter – is missing, she didn’t get home after school. The worry sets in. No longer can a parent feel reassured by the spotlight of safety once provided by broad daylight. Things are different now. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and the most gut-wrenching of all; to anyone.
By Elizabeth Maloney
WOODSTOCK,
ON May 4, 2012 Terri-Lynne McClintic had pleaded guilty to the murder of Tori Stafford and her boyfriend was now on trial for the same offence. The prosecution and the defence have rested their cases and are now into their address to the jury after which a judge will charge the jury and they will then deliberate. A murder trial that has consumed Woodstock is coming to a close. Getting to this point has taken years. Martha Maloney has been a community based observer of all this and she tells the story from her perspective. We pick up that story in the early stages of the case.
 Tori Stafford was taken from her school where she was normally picked up by her brother. Other than some grainy video film we never got to see her again. It’s human nature to want answers. And when there is a lack of it, then we humans create a theory or supposition. And in a case like the disappearance of Tori Stafford the fear of the situation, the dire need for answers, for her family and for the community, certainly fueled this basic human nature.
Suspicions about Tori’s parents’ involvement began to fly almost immediately. Within four days of Tori’s disappearance they were subjected to polygraph tests and questioning. To be a parent of a missing child is difficult enough, but to be considered suspect in your own child’s abduction is beyond comprehension. Yet that is what happened, with a heavy emphasis placed on Tori’s mother, Tara McDonald. Rodney Stafford, Tori’s father seemed to be spared further scrutiny once he had completed the polygraph.
Tara was first considered as a suspect in Tori’s disappearance early in the case. Speculation ignited over the grainy security camera footage obtained from the local high school that bordered Oliver Steven’s, Tori’s school. Similarities between the “person of interest” caught on tape and Tara were noted throughout the community. Comments turned more harsh when Tara began appearing at media conferences wearing a white coat. Many in Woodstock felt that at the very least, this was in poor taste. Ignoring the possibility that it may not have occurred as inappropriate to Tara given her state, many in the community began to paint Tara as a villain.
 All the community and the police had was this grainy piece of video footage. Then unexpectedly, late in April there was a brief reprieve from Tara’s vilification. Photos from the candlelight vigil held for Tori at the IGA plaza parking lot on April 12th started to surface. And in them a woman was sited, and she had a remarkable resemblance to the composite sketch that police had issued on April 21st. The likeness between the two was uncanny. People got excited. This woman’s picture was posted on some of the local blogs with comments hoping police were looking into this. Nothing ever evolved from this though. We can only suppose the police investigated and found nothing.
On April 28th, 2009 Tara drew attention back to herself when she came forth to the media and police with the incredulous story of a mysterious benefactor who supposedly approached Tara with an offering to fund a $50,000 reward for information on Tori’s whereabouts. The story entailed a clandestine meeting in a hotel that she was somehow chauffeured by limo to without tipping off the press surrounding her house. It was like a page torn out of a modern day action flick- except this was real life. These things just don’t happen. Maybe Tara offered this up as a means of pulling the heat of the public eye off of her, but it only served to exacerbate things. Her credibility was called into question, and it renewed gossip and rumours that she must somehow be involved.
On May 8th, Tara’s family took a further hit when it was revealed by Tara herself that police have searched the homes of Tara’s half-brother and his mother in Calgary. She also advised the media her home computers had been seized by police. While none of it was proof of anything, many of us in Woodstock, me included, were starting to think, where there is smoke, there is usually fire. And there was plenty of smoke to go around. Not only were they looking at Tara, but now members of her family. What would draw police to Calgary? Something must have got their attention.
To further incite the masses, the beginning of May brought details of Tara’s drug use and drug connections. The rumours of her usage were now fact and Tara herself admitted to the suspected habit. This shifted suspicion slightly, causing people to theorize that Tori was taken to enforce or settle an unpaid drug debt. While Tara was no longer considered “hands on” involved, she was still tied to the notion as the instigator of events – so guilt by association.
 Tori and her brother; often inseparable. So there we were, already in the middle of May and the only thing we had was a whole lot of accusation and innuendo flying around. Tori had been missing for 37 days and the only thing to report was maybe it was the Mom. There was no hard evidence and not a single trace of Tori. No single piece of hard evidence had surfaced. A grainy video was as close as we got and that, in reality, showed nothing more than someone talking to Tori. Hardly damning evidence.
Frustration levels grew in the city and I was now beginning to believe that Tori was dead. As a mother I didn’t want to lose hope but I am also a realist. Child disappears, no physical evidence, let’s face it, she was either dead or taken for the purposes of human trafficking. Either way Tori would never be seen again. I felt so guilty for thinking it, so much so that when asked of my opinion I often glazed over it. Hard for an opinionated person like me. But the city was so sensitive to the case I was afraid to offend anyone.
The police were also a sensitive topic with support falling on both sides of the fence. With no hard evidence, what did they have to offer? Did they know more than were saying? Was there as little development in this case as we the public were lead to believe? We were soon to find out….
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 2, 2012 In the world of things Heritage time is always a factor which most people take to mean the length of time it takes for a house to become “heritagically” significant.
Turns out that time from the Heritage Burlington perspective means how much time they need to get their reports completed. In a letter to the Mayor last week Heritage Burlington advised they needed to push back the date on which they were going to deliver the results of the ruminations on how to fix the problems related to things heritage.
 Community workshop drew more than 100 people but there was no sense of resolution when it was over. There were more questions than answers and the report that came out of it didn't really answer the questions. And problems there certainly are, much of which was related to the different understandings people in Burlington have about just what having a house listed on anything be it the “inventory”, which is one list, the Registry, which is another list or if you’re on the Designated list. It can be confusing and confusion there has been in Burlington for some time when it comes to Heritage matters.
The city never quite managed to come to terms with just what it wants to do with Heritage and Council isn’t of one mind on the subject either, which doesn’t help. Councillor Dennison who lives in a house that is designated would float the Joseph Brant Museum out into Lake Ontario and set it aflame if he thought he could get away with it.
Councillor Sharman seems prepared to put the rights of the property owner ahead of the rights of the community to have some link to its heritage. If someone owns a property they should be able to do whatever they want with it – if it happens to be historically significant, then the city can buy the building, is the view Sharman touts.
Oakville doesn’t look at its heritage quite the same way and Niagara on the Lake has built a community that earns a living from its heritage. Burlington tends to squabble over its heritage.
Up until very recently the membership of the Heritage Advisory committee tended to have people who would inventory or register a property if you whispered the letter H. A citizen had to fight to get their property taken off the inventory even if they were there as a C or a D property.
While the current Heritage Advisory Committee is completely focused on the report they were to get to Council this June and haven’t done much else – they have decided to recommend that everything on the C and D parts of the inventory be taken off that list. Once their report is presented to the city they will get on with the normal run of business – until then getting property off the inventory will be easier said than done. The delay is something that can be put up with while this refurbished committee gets on with its task of coming up with answers to
The process for placing and removing properties on the Municipal Register and criteria for designation
Dealing with property rights and values
Suggesting incentives and support for heritage preservation
What to do when a property owner wants to alter, demolish or restore a heritage property. What processes and procedures should be put in place?
Explain to the public clearly what Legislative responsibility the city has to meet.
Set out a clear decision making processes the public will buy into
Come up with a process for stakeholder and community engagement to be entered into by Heritage Burlington, with input from the Public Involvement Coordinator, before final recommendations are presented to CDC by Heritage Burlington.
It didn’t take the Advisory Committee very long to realize they just didn’t have enough reliable data on which to base the recommendations they were expected to make. They needed to hear what the average Burlingtonians thought and felt about heritage. Whenever heritage came up for discussion there were two clearly defined groups who were usually at loggerheads with each other.
Another problem the Advisory Committee had was when they sought opinions on matters heritage all they had were lists of people who were either very pro or very negative when it came to questions about heritage. They knew what they were going to get in the way of answers before they even asked the questions.
Getting reliable data meant going to the public and asking questions and that meant some public opinion polling for which there was no budget.
Burlington has a public opinion research organization on contract and it was suggested they see if they could scrounge up some money to do a short public opinion survey. It was suggested that the city manager had a fund they just might be able to tap to cover the cost of the research. Ask and you shall be given seemed to work. The city manager has coughed up a total of $20,000 to cover the cost of the survey.
The committee had hoped to have all this done by the middle of June – but when they took a close look at the work load and the way things work at city hall they realized it just wasn’t going to be possible – thus the letter to the Mayor asking for an extension.
With these additional resources in hand the Advisory Committee was able to go forward and produce the kind of report they wanted to deliver. There are some very professional people on this committee who are quite capable of producing the kind of report the city needs.
In their letter to the Mayor the Advisory committee explains that: “Because of unforeseen difficulties in sourcing funding and scheduling key resources, it has become apparent that the original timeline cannot be met to achieve satisfactory community engagement and ultimately a final report of the quality that this project deserves. Moreover, synchronizing our work within the policies, practices, communication patterns and staff workload at City Hall has taken more time than we anticipated.”
The Advisory Committee had bumped into “bureaucratic reality” and had to ask for more time and suggested that:
The public Open House be held May 31st instead of April 25th
Progress report to Community Development be on June 18th
Final report to Community development be September 10th instead of June 18th.
 It had certainly seen better days and when the owner wanted to sell he was told the listing on the Registry would impact on the price he could get - so the property was taken off the Registry - just like that. So much for the intgrity of the Registry. James Clemens chair of the Advisory Committee believes they can do the job they were asked to do within the new time frames. We can expect Council in committee to go along with thus – unless there are some pressing requests to have property removed from the Registry. Then things could get interesting.
In the past there have been people with an “axe to grind” or a personal interest they want to take forward and being on the Advisory Committee they can advance a personal property interest. There is at least one member of the newly constituted committee that has a vested interest and a specific goal, which is not the purpose of this committee even though the objective of the committee member is a laudable one. We are given to believe there is more than one person with what are called “ pecuniary interests” that are not declared. At city council committee meetings the chair begins by asking if there are any declarations of a pecuniary interest. That should perhaps be standard procedure at the Advisory Committee level as well. Putting personal interests first isn’t tolerated at Council and shouldn’t be tolerated at advisory committees either.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 2, 2012 The Sustainable people are taking to the road with bicycles Sunday May 6th to let people get a clearer sense of what the city has to offer cyclists and point out where some of the problems in getting around on a bicycle are located.
The event will begin at the Central Library at 2:00 pm on the Sunday and wind their way from the Library to the Centennial Trail and pedal across to Spencer Smith Park and join up with the old Grand Truck – CN rail line and out to the canal and then back to Lakeshore Road where riders will cross to the North side of the street and take either Nelson or Brock and work their way up to Caroline and travel east to Brant and South to city hall.
 Some might choose to take a break along the Spencer Smith part of the Sunday Sustainable bicycle ride. Starts at the Library - 2:00 pm The event is Burlington’s first Jane’s Walk event which is held in hundreds of communities across Canada to celebrate the life of Jane Jacobs, one of the leading urban thinkers who made significant changes to the way urban development was done in Toronto before she passed away in 2006.
The event is being sponsored by the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee with help and support from the cycling committee.
The Jane’s Walk events started out in 2007 as walking tours of urban centres but quickly grew and with suburban communities getting on this band wagon the bicycle has become the mode of transportation for many communities.
Jane Jacobs was an urbanist and activist whose writings championed a fresh, community-based approach to city building. She had no formal training as a planner, and yet her 1961 treatise, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, introduced ground-breaking ideas about how cities function, evolve and fail that now seem like common sense to generations of architects, planners, politicians and activists.
Some of that common sense has yet to work its way to Burlington but there is hope. If you are planning on taking part in the review and update of the city’s Official Plan you could certainly do much worse that reading what Jane Jacobs has written.
Jacobs saw cities as ecosystems that had their own logic and dynamism which would change over time according to how they were used. With a keen eye for detail, she wrote eloquently about sidewalks, parks, retail design and self-organization. She promoted higher density in cities, short blocks, local economies and mixed uses. Jacobs helped derail the car-centred approach to urban planning in both New York and Toronto, invigorating neighbourhood activism by helping stop the expansion of expressways and roads. She lived in Greenwich Village for decades, then moved to Toronto in 1968 where she continued her work and writing on urbanism, economies and social issues until her death in April 2006.
A firm believer in the importance of local residents having input on how their neighborhoods develop, Jacobs encouraged people to familiarize themselves with the places where they live, work and play.
On Sunday we get to play on the trails and paths in Burlington. Paul Toffoletti, Chair of the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee, has no idea how many people are going to show up, “maybe twenty” he said. Surprise Paul and let’s get 100 people out there on bicycles.
Burlington has two other bicycle centric events during the summer months.
What we don’t have is that Olympic trials event that was going to see the streets of the city and rural roadways used by cyclists wanting to qualify for the Olympics that will take place in London, England this summer
 By Mark Mattson, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
BURLINGTON, ON May 2, 2012 I remember the first time I sat around a kitchen table in a rural community giving environmental law advice. I was speaking with a farmer who was beset by pollution running across his fields and destroying his fish and hunting camp along the Rideau Canal.
The family had asked my law firm what we could do about the landfill leachate from a major Ontario city dump that was destroying habitat. No one from the City, the waste company or government had offered to help them. Now everyone in the room — his wife and mother at the wood stove, his sons and daughters and grandkids around the table — was keenly awaiting what I had to say.
I asked: Are there any fish in the fields, ditches or nearshore? The family told me the bay was once the best fishing area around and that fish still spawned in the fields and ditches every spring.
I asked: Can I get access to the water draining from the dump to sample as it runs onto your land? The family told me the exact locations where the water bubbled up on the dump walls and ran year-round onto their property.
I answered: I can help.
 Mark Mattson is the full-time President & Waterkeeper with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. A criminal lawyer by training, Mattson works tirelessly to champion due process and public access to clean waterways. As a testament to his commitment, Mattson co-founded Lake Ontario Waterkeeper in 2001. As the primary spokesperson for the charity, he gives a voice to the cares and concerns of the millions of people who live in the Lake Ontario watershed. Mattson is a committed member of the Waterkeeper movement. Mattson founded a volunteer-based effort dedicated to identifying and prosecuting environmental offenders. He has acted as counsel for environmental and public interest groups at over fifty hearings, including the Walkerton Inquiry. Mattson has been investigator and/or co-counsel on nearly every Fisheries Act private prosecution in Canada. We documented the fish in the ditches and the bay. We sampled the leachate (it was toxic). We contacted government authorities and the company, alerting them that we had evidence the dump was in contravention of the Fisheries Act. Immediately, they took action to stop the pollution. To this day, that area on the river is protected from landfill toxins.
My story is not unique. It has been played out across Canada thousands of times. When evidence of a Fisheries Act contravention was compiled, the harmful acts were almost always stopped.
Even when government or industry did not act, the Fisheries Act allowed citizens to enforce the law independently. In fact, the Fisheries Act says that, if convicted, a polluter pays half of the fine to the individual who brought the charges. This is meant to “encourage the public to participate in the protection of community resources.”
Such citizen-led actions form an important part of Canada’s environmental protection laws. In the past 16 years, I have personally been involved in investigating legal actions against the Cities of Kingston, Hamilton, Moncton, Montreal, and Toronto as well as the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Ontario Hydro, OPG, DTE and other polluters for Fisheries Act violations. That work resulted directly or indirectly in clean-ups on the Cataraqui River, Humber River, Moira River, Petitcodiac River, St. Clair River, Lake Ontario, St. Lawrence River and other waters across Canada.
All of this was possible because the Fisheries Act made it illegal to pollute or destroy fish and fish habitat in Canada. The offenses under the Act were criminal in nature, meaning enforcement was free from political interference or economic lobbying by industry. The laws protected every community, regardless of the size of the project, the abundance of fish, or the “economic value” of nature.
That is all about to be wiped out. The budget implementation bill that Parliament is considering now radically changes the Fisheries Act. Under the new law, cabinet ministers and industry will have unprecedented influence over fish and fish habitat policy.
Under the new law, decisions about which Canadian communities deserve protection will be made based on political and economic factors. There is no role for science or the rule of law.
The consequences of the changes will be felt immediately. Will Lake Ontario’s fish be protected? Or will our small commercial fishery be deemed “insignificant”? Will we see sewage treatment plant upgrades in Vancouver, Victoria, or Halifax? Or will environmental benefits be deemed “insignificant” in light of the cost? Clean-ups like the ones we saw at the dumpsite beside the farmer’s field will most certainly be things of the past.
When I read about the changes, I know that every farmer, hunter, angler, and community member who loves access to swimmable, drinkable, fishable waters will lose out.
I know that, if I was a young environmental lawyer sitting at that kitchen table today, I wouldn’t be able to offer the same help I did all those years ago to the farmer and his family. That breaks my heart.
Mark Mattison is President of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and can be reached at: https://www.waterkeeper.ca/
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 1, 2012 – It took all of 30 seconds to pass the bylaw – there wasn’t a word of debate. It authorized the city to send out tax bills in June and September.
The city collects tax money for the Region and for the school board. The 2012 tax levy bylaw reflects the results of the budget processes of both the city and the Region of Halton. The overall tax increase is 1.79 per cent or $16.96 for each $100,000 of urban residential assessment.
The assessment level for your property is determined by MPAC – Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. They figure out what they think your property is worth and the city works from that number. So if MPAC says they think your property is worth $ 358,000 your taxes will amount to 3.58 x$964.36
The 2012 tax levy includes an additional $1.2 million, for a total 2012 contribution of $2.4 million to the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital redevelopment fund. The first $1.2 million was part of the surplus from the previous fiscal year.
Included in the tax levy was $1.2 million dedicated towards the city’s local roadway resurfacing program.
For every $100,000 of property assessment the city will collect $964.36 in 2012 Here is where those tax dollars went in 2011 and 2012.
2011 2012
City – General $ 366.62 $ 375.12
City – Hospital $ 3.78 $ 7.49
Region – General + Waste $ 232.40 $ 232.92
Region – Police $ 123.60 $ 127.83
Education Purposes $ 221.00 $ 221.00
Total $ 947.40 $ 964.36
City and regional councils set the tax rates for their respective levels of government. The province sets the tax rates for education.
 This is where your tax dollars went The City of Burlington’s 2012 annual operating budget is $196.7 million of which very close to 90% is used to pay for the more than 1000 full time equivalent employees the city has on staff. .
A total of $2.4 million was placed in the holding account for the city contribution to the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital redevelopment. The city and the hospital are still dickering away on an agreement that will set out exactly what the city dollars will be used for.
The city also has a capital budget of $45.8 million.
When you open that envelop with the tax bill inside do you feel that you are getting full value for the money they expect you to pay?
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 2, 2012 City Council decided to cancel the construction of the planned wind turbine on the pier being built at the end of Brant street. Six years late, more than $5 million over the original cost, this is a project the city wants to get completed so they can move on and put an end to the withering and caustic public comment.
The city engineers report to a council committee that the Cumberland Street hydro station cannot take a feed of power from the turbine. The solution they put forward is to install a battery pack in the electrical utility room and store the power there and then use it later to light the pier up at night.
 BurlingtonGreen wants to know where the cancelled turbine is and how does Council plan to tell the public about the decision they made to kill that part of the pier project. That solution will cost $70,000 and the council committee takes a pass almost as fast as you can say “jack rabbit”. The committee report gets moved along to city council where most council members felt it would pass easily.
They didn’t factor in the BurlingtonGreen response. Amy Schnurr didn’t know about the committee decision (not reading Our Burlington regularly Amy) and wanted Council to send the report back to Committee where the decision to kill the turbine could be looked at in more detail with the benefit of BurlingtonGreen input.
City Council didn’t buy that argument and voted to not install the turbine on the pier. Done Council thought.
Not quite. BurlingtonGreen writes Mayor Goldring and releases the letter to the media. They said: (We have added some comment in bold type)
Dear Mayor Goldring,
As you would expect, BurlingtonGreen is very disappointed with the unanimous decision of Council to cancel the pier wind turbine. It would have served as an important symbol of Burlington’s commitment to innovation and economic growth as well as providing environmental benefits. We believe the decision to cancel it will send a strong signal counter to our collective goals.
This Council can live with whatever signal gets sent – what it can’t live with is the painful public response had they spent an additional $70,000
Of additional concern is Council’s unwillingness to explore creative (i.e. privately funded) solutions to support the added costs for the project and unwillingness to defer the item to allow for public awareness and an invitation for meaningful engagement. This appears to be very much at odds with this Council’s expressed commitment to do a better job at this.
Council wants anything that even hints at a problem with the pier to just go away.
Moving forward, without the benefit of a staff report our team has some questions I am hoping you can answer or direct to the appropriate staff member.
1: What are the next steps with the wind turbine unit? Who owns it? Is it available for use elsewhere in the City? Will there be any costs as a result of cancelling the turbine order and if so, what is the amount?
No one really knows quite where the turbine is these days. It is part of the law suit with the original contractor and designer. The steel beams that were stripped from the Pier just before Christmas are in storage and will stay there until the law suit is settle. If there is a turbine, and no one knows if there actually is one, the people on the other side of the law suit aren’t talking to us.
2. There were Council comments about a preference to redirect the 100k from Hydro (earmarked for the turbine) to support another, more effective renewable energy project in the City. We would like to learn more about this opportunity and what the process will include as far as specific project opportunities, the 100K funding redirection and the projected timing of this.
Interesting question. While the city wasn’t sure Burlington Hydro was going to let their $100,000 contribution stay on the table now that it is still in the hands of the city – perhaps something could be done. But is BurlingtonGreen looking to Burlington Hydro for an innovative idea? Good luck on that one.
3. We would like to know how and when the cancellation of the wind turbine will be communicated to the citizens of Burlington.
The city probably wasn’t going to say a thing – hoping it would just go away – but now that you’ve asked, the people in public affairs can get creative on the press release. Good luck on that one as well.
Thank you in advance for your attention to these inquiries and we look forward to a response.
Amy Schnurr, Executive Director, BurlingtonGreen Environmental Association
This is what happens when you have an committed, engaged community that cares about what happens to their city. They want to participate.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, on May 1, 2012 She certainly gave them a run for their money and she scored points Council members didn’t expect her to make and if this had been an academic debate she would have won hands down – but it was just a Burlington city council meeting and Amy Schnurr left the podium with a very disappointed look on her face.
The issue was the turbine that was part of the original pier design. Two weeks ago at Council committee they agreed to cancel the construction of the wind turbine that was once a key feature of the project that is now six years and $5 million over the original budget, That plus the Cumberland hydro station where the energy that was going to be created by the turbine was to go, is incapable of taking energy from outside the existing hydro grid.
City engineers apparently didn’t know this when the project went forward. No one even thought about it when the Pier was literally falling into the lake. To learn from Burlington Hydro that the Cumberland hydro station couldn’t accept energy from outside the hydro grid had some people spitting teeth but other than that there was nothing they could do. Burlington Hydro, which is owned by the city, did say they would not ask the city to give back the $100,000 contribution they had made to the construction of the Pier. But given that the gift was just moving money from one pocket to the other – that concession made little difference.
 BurlingtonGreen Ex Dir Any Schnurr told Council how Kingston had managed to merge its history and the benefits of wind turbines to the benefit of everyone. Schnurr believed Burlington has missed such an opportunity in their decision to abandon a wind turbine on the pier. When the engineers learned that the energy from the turbine had nowhere to go they came up with the idea of putting a battery pack in the electrical room and having the energy go there and be used later – at a cost of an additional $70,000 That just wasn’t on and the turbine was dropped like a hot potato. The last thing this Council wanted was anything about the Pier that might even look controversial. This was a “no brainer” as one council member put it.
Not so fast said Amy Schnurr, BurlingtonGreen’s executive director . She wanted at least a staff report that would look at what the original benefits to the pier were with the turbine and then she advanced her case that the turbine should be a part of the pier, arguing that it would become something iconic for the city; that it would appear in all the city’s promotional literature and that in time the Cumberland station would be capable of taking a hydro feed from outside the grid.
Anything that even sniffs of renewable energy is BurlingtonGreen turf. They saw the turbine as a renewable energy feature and on those grounds alone they felt it should remain. Cost – well that wasn’t something they wanted to give much consideration to. Did the city look at the pay-back cost of closing King Road when the Jefferson salamander was crossing the road? Did they look at the costs or the payback period when they put in bicycle lanes?
 Wind turbines on Wolfe Island close to Kingston, ON now dominate that city's skyline. BurlingtonGreen thinks we missed an opportunity to create an icon for our soon to be completed pier. Schnurr believed there was a rationale given to support the benefits of the turbine serving as a high profile feature and a marketing tool when the design work was done and she wanted the city to at least review that rationale. She may have been right from a policy aspect but the politics of spending anything more on the pier was just not on. The fervent hope for this Council was to get to opening day without any problems.
Schnurr said BurlingtonGreen was unaware of the plans to kill the turbine – they just stumbled across this when reviewing the webcast of the committee meeting. The story was told the day after the meeting in Our Burlington..
Schnurr had one main point to make – the missed opportunity. The turbine has been ordered. Install it and be transparent about its purpose both in the short and long term.
Take full advantage of what could become a visible profile of the city. Unfortunately Schnurr was forgetting about the 22 storey “landmark” structure that a developer has a right to build a bit more than a stone’s throw from the pier. She felt Installing the turbine would somehow push Ontario’s Power Generation to upgrade the Cumberland station – don’t think this puny little turbine is going to cause Ontario Power to do very much..
Councillor Meed Ward was the only person to take the Schnurr seriously; all the others were focused on the length of time it would take to pay back the cost of the battery pack. Meed Ward wanted to know if BurlingtonGreen was prepared to listen as well as speak. She didn’t come away convinced that BurlingtonGreen was prepared to listen and dropped her line of questioning.
 The idea of a turbine on the pier was more for the statement it would make and aesthetics than for the actual energy it would generate. It was not going to be one of those massive wind turbines. One of the things BurlingtonGreen doesn’t do very well is back away from their positions. Schnurr wanted the turbine in place because environmentally it was the right thing to do and cost she maintained should not be an issue. Only a person seriously out of touch with political reality in the city would argue for even an additional dime being spent on the Pier when it is as late as it is and as far over budget as it is. The city’s image has taken a hammering over the Pier and they don’t want to risk the gains they have made in getting the project back on track.
A point that has to be made is that the turbine originally planned for the Burlington pier was relatively small and was thought of at a time when “going green” was new and the designers thought the turbine would make a strong statement. In terms of generation capacity the turbine was very small and certainly not something that would loom out over the city.
Schnurr argued that to not include the turbine would be tantamount to saying “if you want to go green, forget about Burlington” and on that level she was pretty close to dead on. The city is not seen as a place that fully embraces the “going green” approach. That’s a battle worth continuing but it won’t be fought on the platform of the pier. BurlingtonGreen will have to find some other battlefield.
 By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON May 2, 1012 – A couple of weeks ago the Liberal Party of Ontario pulled a dirty on Jane McKenna, the Burlington member on the provincial Legislature. Jane McKenna, not one to let anyone push her around rose in the Legislature to speak on a matter of personal privilege and then proceeded to tell the speaker all about the dirty trick the Liberals had played on her. She wanted the Speaker to do something about it.
 She won the election but she didn't win a ruling from the Speaker in the Legislature. The Liberals will think again before they pull the RoboCall trick on Jane McKenna again. In a phrase the Speaker said: Not this time Lady Jane; you’re just going to have to suck it up. Here is how the issue played out in the Legislature this afternoon.
On April 24, 2012, the Member for Burlington (Mrs. McKenna) rose on a point of privilege concerning
the impact of automated telephone calls on her ability to carry out her MPP duties. The Government
House Leader (Mr. Milloy), the Member for Parkdale–High Park (Ms. DiNovo), the Member for Simcoe–
Grey (Mr. Wilson), the Member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke (Mr. Yakabuski), and the Member for
Cambridge (Mr. Leone) also spoke to this matter.
Having had an opportunity to review the Hansard for that day, the information provided in the notice, and
the relevant procedural authorities, I am now prepared to rule on the matter.
The Member’s point of privilege relates to automated telephone calls sent to thousands of constituents in
her riding. The calls, which she claims are sponsored by the Ontario Liberal party, indicate that the
Member was, at the behest of her party, planning to vote against the forthcoming Budget motion, thereby
forcing an expensive, unwanted election and jeopardizing funding for a local hospital. The calls, which
indicated that the Member needed to put families first, allowed constituents to share their concerns with
her by pressing number 3 on their telephone keypad; this action would automatically connect them to the
phone number of the Member’s office. The Member’s office was inundated with over 1,500 telephone
calls that swamped its telephone lines and voicemail system.
According to the Member, this resulted in the following:
• Some constituents could not reach the Member.
• The Member had to deal with the telephone calls generated by the automated calls, instead of
telephone calls from other constituents.
• There were service complaints that unjustly damaged her reputation with her constituents.
The Member was of the view that the automated calls obstructed and interfered with her parliamentary
duties and therefore established a prima facie case of privilege.
Before determining whether there is a prima facie case based on obstruction, let me say first that I will
not assess the veracity or tenor of the allegations and opinions made in the automated calls; it is not for
the Speaker to say that they are misleading, inaccurate, false, or inflammatory. Given the political nature
of their workplace, Members are often exposed to criticisms for their actions or intended actions. Dealing
with allegations, opinions and criticisms is part of the job of being an MPP.
That being said, there can be no doubt that obstruction of or interference with a Member in respect of his
or her parliamentary duties can be a matter of privilege. Many of the relevant authorities on the nature of
obstruction were mentioned by the Members who spoke to the matter on Tuesday, and so I will not refer
to them in this ruling. However, what needs to be said is that a Member’s constituency case work and
other constituency responsibilities, while important, are by their very nature distinct from a Member’s
parliamentary responsibilities. As Speaker Carr indicated at page 30 of the Journals for April 26, 2001:
Speakers have consistently found – supported by the procedural authorities and a multitude of
precedents – that privilege attaches only to a Member’s parliamentary duties, and not to
subsidiary duties away from Parliament.
Furthermore, citation 92 in the 6th edition of Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms states as
follows:
A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member’s
parliamentary duties and not to the work the Member does in relation to that Member’s
constituency.
The privilege that protects a Member in respect of what he or she says and does in this House and its
committees is known as “parliamentary privilege”; a privilege known as “constituency privilege” does
not exist in Ontario or any other jurisdiction that subscribes to the Westminster model of parliament. To
those who would claim that this demarcation relegates Members’ constituency responsibilities to a
courtesy or inferior status, I would say that parliamentary privilege provides Members with a set of legal
rights and exemptions that more than 13 million other Ontarians do not have. The glass is half full, not
half empty.
The Member for Burlington states that her reputation has been damaged because of the numerous servicerelated
complaints that were made after the automated calls interfered with her office’s usual routine. I
would agree with the Member that damage to a Member’s reputation can amount to obstruction if the
Member is prevented from carrying out his or her parliamentary functions. I make the following
observations about the application of this proposition to the facts in the case at hand:
First, the Member did not indicate how the remarks in and the unwelcome consequences of the
automated calls prevented her from carrying out her parliamentary duties. For example, the
Member did not claim that the automated calls prevented her from speaking in the House on the
Budget motion, or from voting on that motion. The calls only appear to have affected her nonparliamentary
duties, which (as I have already indicated) are not protected by parliamentary
privilege. The best that can be said is that the impact on the Member’s parliamentary duties has
been indirect or tangential – which is not enough to make a case for obstruction based on damage
to the Member’s reputation.
Second, many of the rulings mentioned in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice that
are authority for the proposition that damage to a Member’s reputation can amount to obstruction
deal with MPs’ use of Commons mailing privileges to send misleading information to another
MP’s constituents. In the case at hand, however, there is no indication that Assembly resources
were used to produce or disseminate the automated calls.
Third, the Member for Burlington refers to a remark made in a 1985 ruling by Speaker Bosley of
the Canadian House of Commons. That ruling is about an advertisement that identified a former
MP as an MP; this is not the situation in the case at hand.
Fourth, I have reviewed a December 13, 2011 Canadian House of Commons ruling involving an
incident where an MP’s constituents were the subject of an organized telephone campaign survey
that, in the view of the MP, negatively affected his reputation. I have also reviewed a March 6,
2012 Canadian House of Commons ruling dealing with an incident in which an MP’s office was
inundated with telephone calls, emails and faxes that, in the view of the MP, hindered him and his
staff from serving his constituents and that prevented constituents from contacting him in a timely
manner. In both cases, Speaker Scheer ruled that a prima facie case of privilege was not
established because the MP had been able to perform his parliamentary duties.
For these reasons, a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.
That being said, I have considerable sympathy for the difficult spot that the Member for Burlington found
herself in last week. Like other Members, I have no doubt that she strives to serve her constituents to the
best of her ability, regardless of how they contact her. Although I cannot prevent an outside organization
from using automated technology to facilitate constituents’ contact with their Member, I would encourage
Members and parties to disassociate themselves from any technology-based communication that is
inspired by a political calculus that detracts from civil discourse on public business, just as I would
discourage any member from crossing into another’s riding by any means for the express purpose of
discrediting that member. In other words, take the high road.
I thank the Member for Burlington, the Government Member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, and the Member for Cambridge for speaking to this matter.
And they did all this on your dime. Painfull.
|
|
