 By Staff
March 27, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
On Wednesday March 26th shortly before 11:00 am, a citizen reported seeing a suspicious white truck and a male going door-to-door along Teal Drive in Burlington.
Police converged on the area and located a residence which had been broken into and a laptop was stolen. A search of the area failed to turn up the white truck or suspect however the stolen laptop was located and appears to have been discarded by the suspect on Tanager Avenue.
Several witnesses reported seeing the male running through numerous backyards and into the passenger seat of the white truck on Partridge Drive which then took off at a high rate of speed.
No description was obtained for the driver of the white truck however the suspect in the entry is described as a white male in his 20’s wearing a hat, navy blue and black puffy knee-length jacket, black pants and white running shoes.
Police are seeking assistance from area residents who may have information and/or surveillance cameras which might assist in identifying the suspect and/or the suspect vehicle and its’ driver.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Detective Constable Mark Urie of the 3 District Criminal Investigations Bureau, Residential Crime Team at 905 825-4747 ext 2338.
Alternatively, anyone with information on this or any other crime can anonymously call Crime Stoppers at 1 800 222-TIPS(8477), through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.com or by texting ‘Tip201’ with your message to 274637(crimes).
Burlington is clearly a city with citizens who notice suspicious behaviour and report it to the police quickly.
 By Ray Rivers
March 26, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Canada is held up as a model for how to run elections – we are recognized as having the best electoral system anywhere – and 85% of Canadians also thought our last federal election was perfectly fair. So why has the government introduced their so-called ‘Fair Elections Act’? And why is this Bill getting panned/dumped on by just about everybody, including a national newspaper and some 150 political scientists around the world?
 Raid on Conservative Party offices” Elections Canada wanted data. For one thing the process is flawed. Everyone knows that the PM has been engaging in a war with Elections Canada – ever since they nailed him on his party’s in-and-out funding scandal. Why would anyone expect him to be impartial? Shouldn’t something as important as changing our electoral process be managed by an independent body, rather than at the whim of one of the political parties? Why were there no consultations prior to introducing the Bill – not with the other political parties, not with the public and not even with Elections Canada, who might know a thing or two about elections?
Elections Canada’s mandate currently includes encouraging more people to vote. We understand that democracy works best when more citizens are involved. But this Bill would diminish that objective and further suppress voting by removing ‘vouching’, which was used without issue by thousands of voters in the last election. The government claims ‘vouching’is problematic, and there may be better ways to assist those without adequate ID to secure their right to the ballot box. But just excluding voters without adequate identification is throwing out the baby with the bath water. And, critics say the minister proposing this change is wrong – hasn’t done his homework.
 Not terrible numbers – but they should be higher – 70% across the country. Some nations, like Australia, legally require their citizens to vote; why would we want to do anything to suppress voting, to discourage people from exercising their franchise? If one wants to vote in Australia and isn’t carrying the right identification they can just swear an oath and declare their right to get a ballot. Further, shouldn’t we be finding more inclusive ways of voting, like internet voting to facilitate and enable more of our youth to participate in the democratic process? We do internet banking don’t we? Surely, we can manage the process of issuing secure ‘pin’numbers.
For a number of years Canada’s official political parties received direct public funding, the amount dependent on how well they had performed in the previous election. This reduced the influence of money, and the power of wealthy contributors, in shaping government policy. Germany, Sweden, Israel, Australia, Austria and Spain are among the growing number of countries with public funding, now representing over half of those with elected democracies. US presidential candidates may elect for public finding. And just to be clear, note that we subsidize political parties with the public purse anyway – through tax-deductible donations.
Mr. Harper, when leading his minority government, eliminated corporate and union funding and reduced the individual contribution limits to $1000, keeping his earlier election promise. And it was relatively easy for him since the Conservatives are more effective at attracting individual donations than the other parties. Then, after gaining his majority, he cancelled the public funding program to solidify his private funding advantage. And the new Bill would raise that individual donation limit by a whacking 50%. The Bill, for some bizarre reason the government has difficulty explaining, also exempts political parties from spending limits for fund-raising activities.
 The report had to be one of the most embarrassing for a democracy For something labelled Fair Elections Act, the Bill fails to improve fairness in any meaningful way, such as giving Elections Canada the power to investigate political parties and compel testimony of those suspected of committing transgressions. This limitation came to light with the Robocalls scandal, in which the Tories were also implicated. To make it even more difficult for irregularities to be uncovered and those guilty penalized, the Bill shifts that responsibility to a partisan minister (attorney general), and muzzles the politically impartial Elections Canada which reports to Parliament as a whole.
And wouldn’t something called Fair Elections deal with the unfairness of the first-past-the-post (FPP) system in our problematic multi-party environment – one that enables a PM winning less than 40% of the popular vote to rule the country at his/her pleasure for a full unfettered four years. New Zealand, Germany and a host of other nations use a proportional electoral system, where some of the MPs are chosen FPP and the others appointed by the relevant political parties based on their share of the popular vote. The results for these nations have been generally positive with less violent swings in public policy.
 The Green Party and NDP are big supporters of proportional representation. The Liberals are promoting a preferential system that would ensure future governments are elected by at least half the voters. Toronto city voters may use a similar system in this year’s mayoral election. Voters would rank candidates, and the second and third choices of the lowest scoring candidates would get added to the highest scoring candidates’tallies – until one has emerged with over 50% support.
 It is about one person, one vote by an informed voter. In the end, democracy is about representing the public will. It is unfair to be subjected to the ideological whims of a political party, be it right or left-wing, which came to power with the support of less than half of the electors, let alone 38%. Fixing that irregularly would be a worthwhile endeavour. Otherwise, calling this Bill the ‘Fair Elections Act’is a huge misnomer. It is nothing more than a crude attempt to break and handicap what seems to be working just fine.
Background links:
Fair Elections Act Elections Canada Implications More Implications Ranked Voting Conservatives Muzzling
Elections Act Critics NDP Tour on Elections Act Kill This Bill Government Strikes Back Voter Fraud Real Problems
 By Staff
March 25, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
You will soon no longer have to call your council member to complain about pot holes on your street.
 New city service: located on the city website. The city is currently testing a software application that will be on the city’s web site that will allow you to report a pot hole, get a confirmation that the report was received and then get a notice telling you the pot hole has been fixed.
AND you will be able to go to a map and see all the pot hole reports that have been submitted and what their status is. That should be a very busy map.
Deb Caughlin, E-GOV project manager sat before the city’s Development and Infrastructure committee and explained how this website application (they call it a widget) was going to work – and then made the mistake of trying to go live on-line and show council members how cool this was.
The demo had clearly not been fully tested – it didn’t work but Caughlin assured council that the thing did work – it was currently in the testing phase.
 Form you use on-line to report a pot hole. Pretty simple. When testing is complete you will be able to see the report you made on a map as well as get a notice that your report was received and then a report when it has been fixed. City reports that there have been 440 reports of pot holes made so far – all by telephone or email. Burlington has made a significant commitment to pushing as much as possible in the way of city hall interaction on-line. It is easier for the public and requires next to nothing in terms of day-to-day staff time. The initiative is one the city bought – $16,000 for the initial year – less for following years.
The service can be modified to be used to report sign problems, street lights and traffic lights.
 This is the report you get back just as soon as you send in your pot hole report. What if a bunch of high school students decide they want to flood the system with prank reports – the system is designed to spot when excessive traffic is coming from a single computer – which will make it difficult for that senior who has nothing better to do than pester city hall while they do their civic thing.
There will be glitches – but it’s a neat idea. Right now you can go to the graphic on the home page of the city website – click on the image and you get taken to the widget.
At this point all you can do is report a pot hole. Staff expects to have the testing and staff training done by the end of the first week in April and go live shortly after that.
You are asked for an email address – if you don’t give one – you can’t get a notice that the pot hole has been fixed.
 This is a sample of the kind of map that you can log into to see how your pot hole is being taken care of and also just how many there are being fixed and their status. Users will be able to zoom in and zoom out of the map. Playing with this should keep some people up very late. We will let you know when the service is fully operational – meanwhile you can report pot holes now.
The service is being built to operate on Smart Phones as well. The service SEE, CLICK,FIX is being used in city’s across North America. If you are in a city that has the service you will be able to report pot holes there as well. We can’t wait to learn that Hamilton is using the service. Mains Street west is brutal.
 By Staff
March 25, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The Halton Regional Police Service is reaching out to the public to assist in identifying a suspect involved in a bank robbery.
Just after 10:30 am this morning, Tuesday March 25th, 2014, a lone male entered the CIBC Bank at 575 Brant Street and demanded cash.
No weapons were seen on the suspect or observed by bank employees. No one was injured.
The suspect was given a quantity of cash and he subsequently left the bank last seen walking northbound on Brant Street.
 Suspected bank robber at the tellers wicket. No one was injured – cash was taken. Suspect Description:
Male, white
40 to 50 years of age
Approximately 5’10” to 5’11″”
Large build, 200 lbs
Wearing blue jeans and a black hoodie underneath a plaid coat, dark sunglasses and a black ski mask with a baseball cap.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Detective John Ophoven, 3 District Criminal Investigations Bureau at 905 825-4747 ext 2343
 Bank robbery suspect captured on security camera walking towards the tellers. Anyone with information on this or any other crime is asked to call Crime Stoppers at 1 800 222-TIPS(8477), through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.com or by texting ‘Tip201’ with your message to 274637(crimes).
This is the second bank robbery in Burlington within the last three months. In January the Bank of Montreal was held up by a lone male bandit. Police dogs were brought in but the scent was gone. No arrest was made yet for that robbery.
Background links:
BMO on Brant Street robbed in January.
 By Pepper Parr
March 25, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
There was a lot of energy lost, a lot of huffing and puffing as well as a lot of sometimes silly back and forth taking place yesterday at city council.
The Official Plan review is producing document after document which some members of council are finding it hard to keep up with.
The Planning department had distributed copies of two very significant reports; one was the final Phase 2 of the Employment Lands study and the other was a Commercial Strategy Study, it came in two parts, Phase 2 and Phase 3 reports.
Consultants were on hand to take council through the documents and we will report on what they had to say in a follow up report. Several members of Council commented that “these were weighty documents” and they needed time to fully understand and appreciate what was in the documents – and the contents were significant.
The team developing the documents that the public gets to see as part of the Official Plan Review has not produced very much on their progress – they have been busy getting the documents ready for distribution.
 During the phase the planners are in they hope – and they do have their fingers crossed, to achieve the following. Expect some slippage on the schedule – which is not necessarily a bad thing.
- “Full Launch” of engagement strategy
- Implement approved workplan
- Engage on the collective vision for the city and potential directions
- Gain deeper understanding of issues, questions and opportunities
- Identify and assess emerging directions to inform policy development
 Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor is all smiles here as he waves three reports that were given to council yesterday; he wasn’t all smiles when he fumed at the overload and the time he wasn’t being given to read and absorb the content. Other council members said they too needed more time. Several council members were overwhelmed with the content and wanted more time to review the contents. The problem is that the OPR team is running up against problems with the calendar.
Council members want more time to review the documents; they also want to meet in what they call a Workshop setting where they can ask the consultants all kinds of questions and do what in the recent past has proven to be some very solid interaction where members of council learn and fully understand what is in the consultant’s reports.
- The Official Plan Review team has a huge task on their hands and they have to juggle a number of research projects at the same time and manage to find time for real public engagement. The above sets out the projects that all have to be eventually pulled together to create what will become the city’s official plan for the next five years.
Traditionally, staff transmits documents to council that are then in the public domain. The Planning department then prepares its report on the consultant’s document and then that report – the one written by the planners – is debated at a council Standing Committee meeting.
This Council wants to change that approach. They want to hold a workshop at which they discuss the consultant’s report with the consultants in an open session. The Planning staff would take part in the workshop.
Then, after getting a sense of where the members of city council are going with their thinking – planning staff would write their reports that would include recommendations that council would debate and accept or reject.
The calendar and the time schedule that the OPR team have to work with is going to make this very tight. And, there are some professional concerns. The city has a well-paid and very qualified staff (those words came from the city planner – not me) and they have to be given the time to discuss and debate as planners what will work and what will not work for Burlington. The consultants are people we hire, explained Bruce Krushelnicki and we accept or reject what they suggest.
There is a tremendous amount of work to be done and some very hard thinking as well. These two reports are critical to how the city approaches its economic development. And without a significant change in its economic development Burlington as a city has some very real problems.
While the city figures out how it wants to handle the reports the people over at Paletta, who own the biggest chunk of those employment lands know what they want to do. In a letter sent to the city WHEN they said:
Paletta International Corporation (“PIC”), the owner of approximately 120 hectares of land located west of Burloak Drive between Upper Middle Road and Mainway, known as Bronte Creek Meadows (“BCM”). BCM has a long history which is known to many Councilors and Staff.
In their letter PIC disagreed sharply with the direction the consultants reports were going and said that BCM is not “part of a strategic concentration of employment lands”.
PCI said at that time, December 21, 201, that they were continuing to review some of the more technical aspects of the Draft Study but that “even at this early stage it is clear that the draft report is premised on a fatally flawed assumption; namely, that BCM is part of a strategic concentration of employment lands. In fact, BCM has no strategic locational advantages for employment purposes. It has no access to rail, no visibility to 400 series highways and relatively poor access to 400 series highways.
The document went on to say that PCI “has cooperated with the City in marketing the site for employment purposes for many years with no success.
As such, PIC does not support the conclusions of the Draft report in respect of BCM and will oppose any attempt to impose a secondary plan for employment uses on these lands. A secondary plan would be a waste of resources as the lands are not attractive for employment uses. A secondary plan will not change that essential fact.
Also included in the information given to council was a second letter from Paletta dated March 24th, 2014 in which they said they had serious problems with the “methodology and conclusions” used by the consultants. Clearly, Paletta had read the reports and figured out very quickly where there interests were being pinched. Why is it that the Paletta people can read faster than those on city council?
 By Pepper Parr
March 23, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Point: Notices were mailed to all the people in the rural community about a meeting to consider the idea of a special cultural/heritage district, unfortunately they went out a couple of days after the event. Turnout was less than expected.
Point: The city posts all kinds of detail on its website and develops stories encouraging people to consider running for public office – but, for reasons which were never made clear, they took down that portion of the web site that had all the financial returns from the 2010 municipal election.
The financial return is the document that sets out how much money each candidate raised, who the donours were and what the funds raised were spent on. Vital information for anyone who decides they want to run against an incumbent.
The documents have since been put back up on the city website. Why were they taken down and who made that decision?
 Public input on the budget was limited to an overview and a workbook people could make comments in. Point: The city holds a public meeting on the budget the finance department has prepared. While there is just the one meeting held in the downtown core, it is well attended and staff are very attentive in answering questions. There is talk of plans for additional public meetings in 2015 in the Dundas part of town now that the Alton campus is operational.
 The city had very competent staff on hand at public sessions to answer questions – on decisions that had already been made. Vanessa Warren, one of the people who led the public reaction to the dumping of landfill on the airpark site on Appleby Line, asked why the city was coming to the public with spending that was already decided on. She wanted to know why the public wasn’t being asked how it wanted its money spent BEFORE decisions were made.
City manager Jeff Fielding, would dearly love to have feedback from the public on key issues and has devoted a significant part of the budget he has to run his office to a process that he hopes will give him almost instant access to a panel of people who can answers questions. The unfortunate part of this $100,000 + expense is that the public response has not been overwhelming – there were less than 500 people on the panel at last count.
It is a two-sided coin – the public wants information – well the more vocal part of the public wants more information, and the city is being moved in a direction where public input will be critical. Getting to a point where what the public wants and what the city would like is the challenge for the city.
Back in 2010 the late John Boich and former Mayor Walter Mulkewich authored the Shape Burlington report in which they identified an “information deficit” in the city. City hall didn’t take all that kindly to the report – a report on which they haven’t responded to all that well since its publication even though city council voted unanimously to support the document.
 Boich and Mulkewich recommend that there be a Citizens charter – a document that sets out what every citizen can expect from the city. There is such a document but you would be very hard pressed to find the thing on the web site and the “implementation plan” for that document has yet to be completed.
Would it be fair to say that the administration at city hall isn’t really behind the concept of a charter other than collecting data and then doing nothing with it?
There is a demographic divide at city hall – both within the administration and at the council level. There are people in the planning department and over at finance who genuinely want the public to know what is being done and are eager to hear what people have to say.
The city manager certainly wants public input and is delighted when he meets people who can help him determine the public will. However, getting all of his senior team onside has been and is continuing to be a challenge.
There is an item on a Standing Committee agenda somewhere in the works that will discuss the Community Engagement plans; this doesn’t appear to be a priority item but then real community engagement has never been a priority for this city.
Two of the current city council members were on the Shape Burlington committee – one would think they would be chomping at the bit regularly to get some movement on the Citizen’s charter. Both Councillors Blair Lancaster, ward 6 and Paul Sharman, ward 5 have said very little about this during their term of office.
It is going to take a city council with a younger, more committed demographic to bring about any change.
 There are a few, precious few, on council who want to hear what their constituents think and treat those people who write out their delegation and trudge over to city hall and take the time to make their point of view known. Yes, there are people whose delegations are sometimes poorly prepared and on other occasions delivered in a less than respectful manner. But there have been a number of excellent delegations that have resulted in a change.
On many occasions city council is hearing from people who are angry, mad and upset. Their council is making decisions they don’t like about the place they call home. Look at the 250+ people who were opposed to the building of a six storey apartment building on New Street – they just didn’t want to see that kind of change in their neighbourhood. They said they could live with four storey but other than Councillor Meed Ward, who asked some very pointed questions and got mushy answers, no one explained why a four storey structure couldn’t be built.
The city did nothing to educate that public. Sure, public meetings were held but there was not very much that was educational about those events. Usually a planner representing the interests of a developer is explaining what they have already decided to do.
Could the planning department not think in terms of putting in place a process whereby staff review an application and decide at that very early stage if some public education is necessary? Then assemble a team of people who would put together an outline of all the up sides and down sides of the development – cover everything and prepare a public for the change coming their way.
Ken Greenberg, a noted planner was brought to Burlington as part of the Mayor’s Inspire series. He explained how in Toronto developers first went to the community with their ideas and looked for buy in at that level before they put as much as a pencil to a piece of paper
 Greenberg told the Burlington audience that this approach gave the developers a clear sense of what the community would tolerate and gave the community an opportunity to have their ideas seriously considered before anything went too far.
What Burlington is looking for is a way to move forward with developments and at the same time find a way to effectively communicate with the tax payers. We’ve not managed to do that – so far.
But there is hope – the proposal to do something to further protect the rural part of Burlington plans on having very significant community involvement. More about that proposal later.
 By Pepper Parr
March 23, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Denise Davy, a mother who lost a son in a railway crossing accident, became a tireless advocate for change and took her concern about the lack of safety barriers at railway crossings in Burlington to city council. She managed to bring about changes – there are barriers now in a number of places where people foolishly scoot across railway tracks, including ward 4 councillor Jack Dennison who publicly set an example he showed be ashamed of – but apparently isn’t.
 There is now a sturdy fence at this rail line. Davy, a former Spectator reporter, who now runs a writing and editing business, took her cause to the Regional government; she took it to Mississauga and got invited to a Roundtable held by the Member of Parliament for Halton, and also the Minister of Transport, Lisa Raitt. Here was someone who could do something.
Davy understood that she was to be one of a number of people taking part in a discussion about safety features along the railway tracks. She was amongst some pretty important people:
Attending were: His Worship, Gordon Krantz, Mayor of Milton; Andrew Siltala, Senior Manager, Economic Development, Town of Milton; Bill Mann, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Milton; Jean Tierney, Senior Director, Corporate Safety and Security, VIA Rail Canada; Susan William, Regional General Manager, Central, VIA Rail Canada; Greg Percy, President, GO Transit; Paul Finnerty, Vice President, Operations, GO Transit; Michael Farkouh, Vice President, Safety and Sustainability, Canadian National Railway; John Orr, Vice President, Eastern Canada, Canadian National Railway; Randy Marsh, Manager, Community Relations, Canadian Pacific Railway; Andy Ash, Director, Dangerous Goods, Railway Association of Canada; Brad Davey, Executive Director, OntarioConnex; Eve Adams, Member of Parliament, Mississauga-Brampton South and a Representative from the Halton Police.
 Simple message bearing a lot of the pain that results from a needless death at a place where rail tracks were easily cross. No more at this crossing. There wasn’t a hope in hades that Denise Davy would have ever been able to pull a group of people with the kind of clout this crowd had. Davy saw herself as one of the group and was a little stunned when after a few words from Minister Raitt, she turned to Davy and gave her the floor. It wasn’t what Davy was expecting but she dove into her story, her experience and explained for the hundredth time that education alone does not work – barriers have to be put up – and if those barriers are expensive then we have to find a way to pay for them.
She worked at dispelling the myth that most of the people who lose their lives on railway tracks are suicides – the people in the rail transportation business have words to describe them: deliberates and accidentals. To Denise Davy they are all lives that were needlessly lost.
She points to the way the public safety people reacted to motorcycle people who used to drive without helmets – we passed laws requiring motorcycle people to wear helmets and we reduced deaths. We are in the process of putting in stiffer penalties in place for those who text and think they can drive at the same time. We learned she said that public education didn’t work in those situations and we know it doesn’t work to prevent rail crossing deaths. If it is going to cost money – then we have to find that money.
There weren’t a lot of concrete suggestions thrown out by others; mainly they went around the room and talked about what they’re currently doing, which included everything from public education to putting educational campaigns in the schools.
 A fence that cannot be easily climbed with a notice and a contact number for those under severe emotional stress is now in place at Drury Lane. Now for the rest of the Region and then the rest of the province and then the rest of the country. Davy said she listened and commented then said that the problem was clearly none of the things they were doing are working because people are still being killed.
Raitt proved to want to be more proactive than many expected. She made it absolutely clear according to Davy, that this is an issue for her, that she is concerned and glad that it was brought to her attention and said that it should be included with an overall review on rail safety. She is going to connect with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Rail Association of Canada and get the conversation going on the issue with them as well.
She also wants to go big with something on rail safety week which is April 28. It was mentioned a few times by various people, that the area around the GTA has the highest number of accidents in Canada.
Raitt gave Davy a printout that listed 29 accidents and incidents in Burlington, Milton and Oakville between 2009 and 2013. The total for Halton for same period was 46.
The tragedy came right to the doorstep of the Friday Roundtable in Milton. Passengers on the Lakeshore West GO line got the following message: Due to a police investigation of a trespasser fatality at Clarkson, train service on your line is suspended between Port Credit and Clarkson until further notice.
Davy had not seen the message as she was preparing to drive from Burlington to Milton for the Roundtable. “That is unreal. How many more people have to die before something is done!!! My heart is breaking reading this.” All the pain, the grief, the sorrow and the hurt came flooding back and the realization that the anniversary of her son’s loss was less than a week away.
Trooper that she is, Davy attended the meeting and left with a platform created for her by the Minister of Transport to get the message out. The matter of rail crossing safety was not on the agenda said the Minister – and added that “it is now”.
 Denise Davy rests a little easier knowing that fences like this at places where rail lines were once easily crossed might eventually get put up across the province. Raitt is planning something for the week of April 28th – Rail Safety week in Canada. The rail car disaster in Lac Megantic is the high-profile event – but Denise Davy now has a platform she can work from. She said after the Roundtable: “ I know change can’t come right away and the fact that I was given a platform to speak to such high level officials who are in a position to make change was a huge step forward.”
“The main thing” said Davy is “to watch where it goes from here. I am going to plan something for April 28 and told everyone in the room I would be open to working with any of them to do something on that date.”
Before Denise gets to April 28 – she first has to deal with March 27th.
Background links:
Single citizen get rail crossing safety improved.
Rail crossing deaths brought to attention of council.
 By Staff
March 21, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
In the early morning hours of March 21st 2014, The Halton Regional Police, Burlington Strategic Support Team (SST), concluded a drug trafficking investigation that resulted in three arrests and the execution of a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant at a Burlington residence
Seized as a result of the Investigation:
323 grams of marihuana (approximately 11.39 ounces/ 0.71 pounds),
1/2 gram of Cocaine,
The drugs have an estimated street value of $2600.00.
The following persons have been charged:
Gary DEAN (22 yrs) of Brant Street in Burlington (Held for Bail)
- Trafficking a controlled substance (marihuana)
- Possession of a controlled substance (marihuana) for the Purpose of Trafficking
- Possession of a controlled substance (Cocaine)
- Breach of Probation
- Breach of Recognizance
Colleen MCCAIG (24 yrs) of New Street in Burlington (Released on Promise to Appear in Milton Court on April 29th 2014)
- Trafficking a controlled substance (marihuana)
- Possession of a controlled substance (marihuana) for the Purpose of Trafficking
- Possession of a controlled substance (Cocaine)
James VAN VIEGEN (27 yrs) of East 42nd Street in Hamilton (Released on Promise to Appear in Milton Court on April 22nd 2014)
- Possession of a controlled substance (marihuana) under 30 grams
- Breach of Probation
Investigators remind the public to utilize Crime Stoppers to report any illegal drug, gun or gang activity at 1-800-222-TIPS(8477), through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.com or by texting “Tip201” with your message to 274637(crimes)
 By Pepper Parr
March 21, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The media release said the province was going to freeze MPP salaries until the provincial budget is balanced. Sounded reasonable – but the news release didn’t say how much MPP’s are paid now nor did it make any mention of the allowances and perks they get.
The pay freeze, if it passes, would extend the current freeze on MPP salaries until the provincial budget is balanced in 2017-18. The MPP Salary Freeze Act would not allow pay increases to take effect until April 1, 2019, after the Public Accounts confirm a balanced budget.
Compensation costs account for over half of all Ontario government spending, either paid directly through the Ontario Public Service or as part of the government’s transfer payments to universities, hospitals and other public sector partners.
The government has identified the management of public sector compensation as an important part of its plan to control costs while also maintaining public services that families rely on like health care and education.
In 2004, a salary freeze for MPPs was implemented from October 2003 until April 1, 2005.
The 2009 budget announced that MPP salaries would be frozen for one year beginning on April 1, 2009. That salary freeze was extended in the 2010 budget for two years and in the 2012 budget for an additional two years, bringing the total length of the current pay freeze to five years.
The media release makes no mention of any increase between April 2005 and 2009. It is the decision to be selective with the information that is given out that ticks off the public. The men and women who serve as MPP’s are entitled to a decent wage and a pension plan plus expenses that they incur when they do their jobs.
The Burlington MPP gets an allowance to pay for accommodation in Toronto for those evenings when the legislature runs late. It’s a 45 minute drive from Queen’s Park to Burlington – no need for the cost of an apartment to stay over. If a session runs really, really late – OK let the MPP get reimbursed for a hotel room – a moderately priced hotel room if you don’t mind.
We would love to know how often MPP Jane McKenna stays overnight in Toronto and how often members of her family use the apartment when they are in Toronto. Same goes for how often Ted Chudleigh, the Halton MPP stays in Toronto.
In 1996, the defined benefit pension plan for MPPs was wound up and members and beneficiaries were paid the value of the benefits earned to that date. MPPs now have a defined contribution pension plan.
Since 2009, Ontario has initiated compensation restraint measures for members of the Ontario public sector and broader public sector, and has indicated that compensation costs must be managed within Ontario’s existing fiscal framework.
Ontario public sector wage settlements continue to be below the average of private sector, municipal sector and federal public sector settlements.
Tax payers want a government that they see as people looking out for the interests of the public. We frequently hear people running for election say it is an honour to serve the pubic – that tends to stick in the throat when we read about the massive cost of WORD of shutting down the construction of two gas plants before the last election and then reading details of the amounts paid to consultants and law firms to handle the shut down and then learning that documents critical to an honest investigation of who did what when are no longer available – erased from hard drives on computers.
These politicians toss around the loss at more than $1 billion – a BILLION – most of us have to pause to figure out how many zeroes that is.
The current Premier seems like a decent hard-working woman; she is certainly out there working hard. But one could have, and many people said the same thing about former Premier Dalton McGuinty who resigned as Premier on really short notice.
We need government – and the people who do that work are entitled to good incomes. It is hard work and they are in the public eye almost every hour of every day.
We just want better value for the money we have to spend.
Burlington currently has its own little employee perk problem. City hall staff get free parking which comes in at about a quarter of a million a year. How many people get their parking paid for by their employer?
When ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward brought this up during the budget deliberations there wasn’t a line up of council members ready to support her position. The city manager said at the time that what Meed Ward had brought to council appeared to have merit. Jeff Fielding doesn’t use language like that lightly. Most of the Council members wanted to see a detailed report on what the city was required to do if in fact paid parking was a taxable benefit. They all voted to have a report prepared – but there was not date set as to when that report would come back to council.
An opportunity to lead was missed – by ever one of the except for Councillor Meed Ward. Councillors Craven, Taylor, Dennison, Sharma and Lancaster as well as the Mayor punted the ball back to staff – they very people who enjoy the benefit. Anyone of the six could have said: If this is a problem we need to fix it quickly. Instead they put made sure the funds to pay for that free parking came out of the tax revenue account and into the parking revenue you account where it is then used to pay for the free parking.
The city finance department should have known if the benefit was taxable or not and brought a recommendation to council.
It’s exasperating.
 By Pepper Parr
March 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Change is probably the hardest thing people find they have to do.
We like what we have and fail to realize that what we have is because someone made a change a long time ago. Normally intelligent people at times use arguments that are – well let’s see they are less than well founded – to make a point to prevent a change.
One of the more recent struggles city council faced Monday evening was the approving of the M project on New Street at Cumberland where plans for a six storey structure were approved on a 6-1 vote with Councillor Meed Ward voting against the project.
Those residents who opposed the project – and there were a lot of them; 250+ – do have the right to appeal the city’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board which is where Ward 2 council member Marianne Meed Ward would like to see this go.
She urged her council colleagues to require the developer to come back with a structure that was four storeys in height which would have conformed to the rules as she understood them.
The underlying issue was intensification – we are going to grow, people are going to come to Burlington and there has to be a place for them to live.
The Maranatha project is not an inexpensive place to live. While it does have an innovative “life lease” feature, its strong point is that it is a place for people who want to live in a particular community with a clear set of values now have a place to go. In this instance it happens to be a Christian community that has provided housing for decades.
 The developer first came to the city with an 8 storey application and later reduced that to seven storeys. The massing was just too much for the residents. Meed Ward argued for a four storey project – which would not have had to come to council. The developers wanted eight storeys originally but dropped it to seven and then to six and came back with a project that has a lot less massing that the original design.
Councillor Dennison made the point that if the project was a four storey building the foot print would be much larger with much less green space and fewer trees. The choices were – high and thin or low and fat. Council went for the height.
From time to time much of what council does is on the mundane side but on occasion the public gets to see how they think and the values they work from.
There were a number of delegations; the one from the community brought nothing new to the argument other than a statement that Roseland Height Community Organization founder Brian Heagle prepared for the spokesperson to read. One wonders why Heagle didn’t appear on his own behalf – he is not known for being shy.
Traffic congestion was brought up as a concern: Mayor Goldring told the delegation that staff reports indicate the project will add 30 cars to the morning traffic – less than a 3% increase and 50 cars to the evening traffic – less than 5% more.
At a previous meeting objectors made mention of a 40 foot sink hole – that proved to be a two foot wide hole that was the result of utility lines beneath a road.
What was bothersome was the twisting of information – the spin put on facts and the way information was not fully researched. Anup Ogale, spokesperson for the Roseland Heights Community Organization (RHCO) spoke of “opening the floodgates” for similar incompatible properties along New Street when a drive along that road reveals that there aren’t any properties left be assembled – no flood gates to be opened.
 The six storey submission from the developer was the result of intense discussion with city hall planners. That being said Ogale did make some solid points. The issue was massing – there was from the RHCO point of view, too much building for that part of town. That Burlington has to build was not their issue: where, how high and in what way: “there’s the rub” said Ogale. He added that “you’re the gate keepers, to protect and enhance what our community wants and or needs …Tough decisions.”
 “The developers” explained Ogale, “first proposed eight storeys. That wouldn’t pass. So the building was modified to 7 storey’s, now six. Start at 8 when a maximum of four is permitted. Reach a compromise at 6. With respect, this isn’t a poker game. It’s not about who will blink first; 6 storeys is not a winning hand in any event.”
Burlington has an Official Plan said Ogale, “It is not called an Official suggestion.” He added that it is vital to respect and uphold the Official Plan or people end up saying: “Why bother to fight this if Council won’t listen.”
His comments reflect a misunderstanding as to just what an Official Plan is and what it is expected to do. The document is one the city has to revise every five years – Burlington is currently undergoing such a review now – they take more than a year to complete.
The Official Plan sets out a big picture vision of what the city wants to do. The Burlington Official Plan has to comply with both the Regional Official Plan and the various Provincial Policy Statement.
An Official Plan is intended to be a dynamic document and it is subject to amendment. Developers will come along with an idea and quietly go about assembling properties and then taking an idea to the planning department.
The planning department just doesn’t put a rubber stamp on every idea that comes to them. The Maranatha project is an example of the city working with a developer to come back with a plan that has less massing and less density
There was a letter from the Sustainability Advisory Committee that had a lot of very useful information which unfortunately didn’t get to the planner for the developer in time for them to provide a response. Council members didn’t get the document until earlier in the day. The Sustainability Advisory Committee, one of the Mayor’s favourites, has been known for the quality of their work in the past.
 The Maranatha developers have been in the community for decades – they have run the “homes” project and determined the market for additional housing called for a bigger building. However, Ed Fothergill planner for the developer of the project didn’t see much merit in the comments from the Sustainability Advisory Committee. In his letter Fothergill said “he was surprised that these comments would come forward at this late date on an application which was deemed complete on December 20, 2012. Since September of 2012, there have been opportunities for input to the process either to the City or to myself or my client directly through the circulation of the application that took place in the beginning of 2013, at the public meeting that was held in June 2013, and any one of the three Open Houses that were organized by my client. During this time, we have not been contacted by the Sustainable Development Committee and only learned of their most recent submission through the offices of the Planning Department on Friday.”
Councillor Paul Sharman is the liaison person with the Sustainability Committee and he certainly knew the project was working its way through the system and that there was significant opposition to what was planned. Perhaps the Councillor missed a couple of the Sustainability meetings.
Fothergill said: “We believe this lack of participation in the planning approval process is a serious omission and not representative of the normal fair and open planning process that is enjoyed by those who routinely do business with the City of Burlington.
“In addition,” said Fothergill, “my client has gone above and beyond statutory requirements and have made themselves and members of their consulting team available to any group or individual to speak to any matter related to this project since our initial Open House of September 2012. It is disappointing to have a group such as this who have been given a very important mandate by the City to choose not to be a part of a very extensive and open process, but rather without notice to other parties, to come forward now, after the fact, when a Committee recommendation has already been made.”
“It is somewhat disrespectful of the planning process” added Fothergill who went on to say: ”We believe this process renders these comments inadmissible to any Ontario Municipal Board proceeding should the project have the misfortune of pursuing that route, and is of questionable value now to Council following a thorough review of the matter at Committee.”
 The process was not the only thing that bothered Fothergill. “We have great difficulty with many of the comments made in the submission” and added that “to be effective, it is very important that their work be focussed on the mandate provided. Once comments and positions begin to extend beyond one’s specific mandate, there are dangers in treading into areas that are best covered by others.”
It is said Fothergill “beyond the mandate of the Sustainable Development Committee, as we understand it, to speak to matters related to planning, servicing, or other technical issues where there is no specific expertise attributed to the Committee and where these matters are more appropriately dealt with by the preparation of technical support documents and the review of that material by other City departments, including the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and Traffic Department. This concern becomes evident in cases such as this where the position put forward to this Council by an advisory committee which has chosen not to be involved at all through the process, brings forward conclusions that are directly contrary to professional recommendations made by qualified staff in a variety of City departments.”
He added: “We believe that many of the comments in the letter illustrate the danger of exceeding the mandate of the Committee and of providing comments which may not have clear direction to Council. These include the following:
“The Committee provides an opinion that the proposal is out of character with the neighbourhood without undertaking the kind of comprehensive analysis that was already completed by the Planning Department who presented the Development and Infrastructure Committee with a contrary position based on their careful and thorough assessment of the proposal within the context of established Official Plan policies.
“The Sustainable Development Committee notes that the area is not a designated intensification corridor and notes that the decision on approval of the application should be made with the guidance of a completed Neighbourhood Study. These two matters are not criteria to be considered in assessing the application, are not required by the Official Plan, and were not assessed by either myself as a planner for the proponent, or by planning staff. We believe that it is inappropriate for the Sustainable Development Committee to establish criteria on their own for the assessment of the application, particularly when the criteria have no policy basis, are unknown to the proponent and the planning staff, appear after the fact, and may not be consistent from project to project.”
“It is noted in the report” said Fothergill “that “as a City we have the habit of increasing building heights without fully understanding the impact on the neighbourhood”. This is not the experience we have found in our dealings with the City of Burlington. This statement we believe diminishes the amount and significance of work that was undertaken by staff with respect to their assessment of our application as well as numerous applications reviewed by staff and approved by Council. This statement may simply reflect the fact that the Committee may be unaware that this, and every development proposal that comes forward to a public meeting, undergoes a rigorous and thorough review, not only by the Planning Department, but other departments at the City. To suggest that decisions are being made … without fully understanding the implications, we believe, is not a true reflection of the quality of work undertaken by staff and the diligent way by which Council regularly makes decisions on development applications.
 Fothergill suggests there could perhaps be “some form of filter to review comments” from Advisory Committees to ensure they are within their mandate and not contradictory to the position of staff or departments who have the mandate and expertise to deal with technical issues.”
Councillor Sharman, who could have been a filter for the Sustainable committee, pitched a handful of soft questions to Ed Fothergill, planner for the developer, and sounded a little like a defence attorney in a criminal trial leading his witness. When Sharman asked Fothergill if he was qualified and could he expand on his experience – Fothergill was a little flabbergasted – he has been in the planning business for so long that he may have forgotten when he started. It all came across as a bit of a set up.
Mayor Goldring made a telling point when he said he was absolutely certain that at least some of the 250 people who signed a petition against the project would, in the fullness of time, choose to live in the project.
 While the six storey building is not what the community wanted – of even more concern is what happens to the Brock lands at the rear of the project. There was the argument that this type of project pushes the price of housing up – which no one in Burlington is going to lose much sleep over. Meed Ward mentioned a developer who had approached her about a possible 14 story project and wanted her input and comment.
For Meed Ward to be able to say publicly that a developer had met with her to talk about a project that was going to look for more height puts a hobble on the pretty consistent comment that she is doing the city great harm and that no one wants to build in Burlington because of what she does to developers.
And she is tough on developers. She asks some pretty blunt questions and ensured that Fothergill earned his fees earlier in the week when he began to explain why his client needed the height they were seeking. Could this project not have been a four storey building se asked and when Fothergill gave her an answer she immediately shot back with “Why not?” It has been sometime since a developer in Burlington has faced that kind of questioning.
Councillor Dennison pointed to the Bonnie Place project that has 11 and 16 storey structures and is literally blocks away from the Maranatha project.
Change does not come easily to established communities and planning is a complex business. Has the community learned anything from this project? Has city council?
 By Pepper Parr
March 20, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON.
The Burlington Liberals have their candidate chosen and she has been doing regular Saturday door to door canvases the past three weekends.
The Burlington Provincial NDP will be hosting a nomination meeting Tuesday, March 25th at the Burlington Seniors’ Centre (2285 New St.) at 7:15pm.
The sitting provincial MPP, Jane McKenna’s association has not announced a date on which they are going to re-nominate their candidate.
 MPP Jane McKenna with the best job she has ever had will have to seek re-election when the expected provincial election is called in the Spring. When McKenna goes to the polls it will not be with the same organization that did her peek-a-boo campaign in 2011. There have been consistent rumblings of dis-satisfaction at the local riding level with the MPP. However her star has risen with the party at Queen’s Park where she is said to be a favourite of Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak. Other than a small stream of photo ops, Burlington hasn’t seen or heard all that much from McKenna.
The New democrats maintain: “It’s clear that in the next election Ontarians will have a choice between an entitled Liberal party that has betrayed the public trust, a Progressive Conservative party that lacks leadership and vision and a team of dedicated New Democrats who have already delivered tangible results in a minority house.” said Ryan Perera, president of the Burlington NDP.
One candidate, Jan Mowbray, has put forth her name at this time; Jan brings a wealth of experience in public administration and volunteerism in Halton.
 Jan Mowbray, former Liberal has decided to run as a New Democrat in Burlington. Mowbray, an experienced political operative, left the Liberal party “because there was no sign of change for the better. More and more scandals popping up in the news, lack of oversight – think Hydro. The vulnerable sectors of our community continue to be impacted by policies that don’t address real problems. McGuinty in 2008 promised to reduce poverty by 25% in 5 years – it was referred to as 25/5. There was hope in the social sector. Five years later we were at 30% poverty. What could we have done with $2.1 billion?!”
“I know the issues, I know the people with 25 years of experience working as a volunteer in the social sector. I have considerable legislative and electoral experience (2 terms on council; worked federal and provincial election campaigns); as my by-line states, I am committed to the community.” Said Mowbray
Mowbray was elected to the Milton town council in 2003 and then re-elected in 2006. She ran for the Regional seat that Milton has and lost to Colin Best in 2010.
Mowbray would seem to be a candidate for the Halton provincial but running against Ted Chudleigh is tantamount to suicide – Burlington was probably seen as a location where the New Democrats at least had a shot – not because the NDP is all that strong in Burlington but because Progressive Conservative McKenna is so weak.
 Liberal Eleanor McMahon has been out campaigning every weekend for the past three weeks. While the Liberals have a strong candidate in Eleanor McMahon, Mowbray will dump all over her citing the McGuinty sins. Mowbray is a shoe in for the nomination – none of the usual NDP suspects appear to be up to the challenge. Burlington might see itself with three women running for the provincial seat.
Although only members in good standing with the party are welcome to vote, any and all are welcome to come meet the Burlington NDP executive and the next provincial candidate for the NDP in Burlington.
All inquiries are welcome at burlingtonndp@hotmail.com or by contacting the riding association president, Ryan Perera at 647-402-5874.
 By Pepper Parr
March 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
It will be part of his legacy, a project he has patiently nurtured and developed for his constituents. As it nears completion attention has to be paid to what there will be in terms of public art.
 Currently undergoing a major redevelopment the Mountainside Recreation Centre is slated to have some public art on the site. John Taylor could not let the revamped Mountainside recreation Centre open without some public art. Burlington has a contract in place with Cobalt Connect, a Hamilton based arts consulting group that oversaw the selection of the Spiral Stella that is in front of the Performing Arts Centre.
Cobalt Connects wants to receive Expressions of Interest from artists. The project has a budget of $20,000 and an April 29, 2014 deadline for the Expression of Interest
Mountainside is located at 2205 Mount Forest Drive, in Burlington. This competition is open to all Canadian artists.
Built in 1969 Mountainside Arena was the City of Burlington’s 4th public arena. Over the past several years, the Mountainside Recreation Centre has been undergoing a major transformation. The grounds have received numerous improvements and the recreation centre, including the arena and pool buildings, is now being redeveloped.
ZAS Architects are leading the site redevelopment and have been heavily influenced by the incredible grounds surrounding the facility. The sense of open space, wooded lots and the embrace of nature on the site have been reflected in the architecture.
The Mountainside Recreation Centre site is multifaceted and allows for many opportunities for public art. It is the intent of the Steering Committee to allow the selected artist time to fully explore the site and its uses prior to developing an artwork concept. As such, the nature of this public art opportunity is open-ended. The commissioned artwork can be in any medium and sited in a number of different locations throughout the property (interior and exterior spaces are available).
 Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor will want to have his mitts all over who is on the committee that selects the artist chosen to do the public art for the Mountainside recreational centre. An artwork proposal is not requested at this time. Applications will be reviewed on the basis of past work, professional qualifications, and experience. Short-listed artists will be required to participate in an interview with the Selection Committee to determine the finalist.
There are additional details at: www.burlingtonpublicart.com where you can download an application form.
Expression of Interest forms are due on or before Tuesday April 29, 2014 at 4:00 PM.
The Cobalt Connects contact is Kim Selman: (905) 548-0111; Mobile: (905) 515-9334; Email: kim@cobaltconnects.ca
Website: www.burlingtonpublicart.com
 By Ray Rivers
March 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Another day, another free trade deal. Canada has landed what is being called a big one, this time with South Korea. Promoted by both Liberal and Conservative governments, these trade deals have inadvertently contributed to the de-industrialization of Canada.
Recall the sound of doors closing and windows being shuttered as the ink was drying on our first trade deal, the Canada-US FTA. Many of Ontario’s small and medium manufacturing enterprises, acting like characters in a Steinbeck novel, packed up and moved to larger markets, a warmer climate and the lower wage rates south of the border.
Former Ontario premier, David Peterson, had predicted that a quarter of a million jobs would be lost to FTA, and indeed, unemployment in Ontario more than doubled as its manufacturing sector took the hit. And then there was NAFTA. The Economic Policy Institute, a research think-tank in the US, estimated that by 2010 NAFTA had lost 700,000 US jobs to Mexico. It is worth recalling US presidential candidate Ross Perot and his famous prediction of a ‘giant sucking sound’, as American jobs rushed off to Mexico.
Free trade is just another economic theory. Hypothetical notions of absolute and comparative advantage sound logical on paper. But, the reality can be so different, particularly if the playing field is uneven, if your trading partners don’t play fair. South Korea is one of those nations which adjusts its exchange rates to make their exports competitive, and the nation employs a raft of non-tariff barriers to discourage its citizens from buying foreign goods.
 Cars being loaded on to ship for transportation to North America. with tariff removed many of those cars will come to Canada. The Korean deal is being sold as offering greater access to the Korean market for Canadian beef and pork, but even the government accepts that Canadian manufacturing, and auto making in particular will be hit by this deal. The US signed a trade deal, just last year, with South Korea (KORUS FTA) and their experience was that the US lost 40,000 jobs, and its historical trade surplus with Korea was turned into a substantial deficit.
Ford Motor Company, whose US parent had not initially objected to the KORUS FTA, pointed out this sad experience to the Canadian government just as we were putting the seal on our own trade deal. The PM’s response was a sharp rebuke to the manufacturing giant, accusing Ford of ‘duplicity’. Ford is Canada’s largest auto maker, employing about eight thousand people in Ontario and responsible for substantial spin-off employment, mainly in Ontario. Currently about a half million Canadians are employed in the auto industry, with fully a third of those in manufacturing. All Korean-made cars are imported into Canada.
Another potentially impacted auto-maker, Fiat-Chrysler, had been in discussions with the federal and provincial governments over financial support to help it expand its manufacturing operations in Ontario. Last September Ford had been awarded $140 million in a similar move to help it upgrade its plants. In fact the federal government maintains an open budget allocation just for this purpose. And jurisdictions south of the border have long used grants and loans to attract auto companies and other large employers to their states.
 Will beef actually get from Alberta to South Korea? Before either the federal or provincial governments could officially respond, Ontario’s provincial opposition leader, Tim Hudak, slammed any funding for Chrysler, calling it ‘corporate welfare’, ‘extortion’ and ‘ransom’. Both official levels of government were stunned and Chrysler immediately withdrew its request, claiming that it was not prepared to become a ‘political football’. Mr. Hudak, who is fond of complaining about Ontario losing its industrial base and jobs, needs to reflect on his behaviour and how he has shown himself to be unfit for the job of premier of this province. And his party needs to show him the door before the next provincial election, something a number of PC party members have already contemplated.
There will be winners and losers from this South Korean trade deal. While some beef and pork producers from Ontario and Quebec may see increased sales, most of the meat products will come from the west, primarily Alberta. On the other hand, Ontario auto makers Ford, Chrysler and GM, will los e sales to even cheaper Hyundai and Kia models, depressing both employment and provincial incomes.
Why would the federal government be so keen on adding more jobs into Alberta’s booming economy and driving up inflationary pressure there? And why are the feds OK with further depressing Ontario’s economy – the latest entry into the economic ‘have-not’club? It makes no economic sense, something that Ford and the Ontario government have been saying. And that is perhaps the reason this South Korean deal, which had been started a decade ago, had been left sitting on the shelf until now.
This is not only bad economic policy, it is patently unfair – unfair that a trade deal will benefit one province, one where the PM happens to reside, at the expense of another. Watching Quebec’s PQ government set the ground work for another sovereignty referendum, perhaps as early as next year, it is useful to reflect on what we tell Quebecers to expect by voting to stay in Canada. If it is not fairness, then what?
Background links:
Premier Peterson US Korean Trade Pact Free Trade and Jobs Auto Sector Worries Harper Slams Ford Harper Takes on Ford
Hudak Slams Chrysler Chrysler Backs Out
 By Pepper Parr
March 19, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
They are at it again.
The graphics on the email certainly look real enough. Anyone doing business with the CIBC might well be fooled enough to click on the link that they say you need to use to ensure that your account card is not de-activated.
 Looks official enough. But this is a total and complete hoax. It’s a hoax – we got the message – but we don’t have an account with CIBC.
There are some people who will respond to this – and they will give out personal details – that’s where the problem begins.
Are we not close to the point where there can be some form of policing to handle stuff like this?
 By Staff
March 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
St. Luke’s Church Annual Spaghetti Dinner!
 In the Parish Hall 1382 Ontario Street, on Saturday April 5 with continuous servings of the best spaghetti & meat balls in town from 5:00pm to 7:00pm.
Tickets Adults $10.00
Children 12 & under $5:00
They want you to reserve – call 905-634-4345.
Cash bar serving Wine, Beer & Soft Drinks – these ARE Anglicans!
 By Pepper Parr
March 19, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward made it official yesterday –she is running for re-election in Ward 2; that she would run again was never in doubt – what she would run for was the question on many minds.
When City Clerk Angela Morgan, who was accepting the nomination forms and filling in the document, asked: “I will just fill in Councillor here” suggesting that there may have been some doubt in the Clerk’s mind as to just what the most first term council was planning on running for this time.
 Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward signs her nomination papers With the forms filled in Meed Ward then walked across to the cashier counter and paid her $100 fee, holding hands with her husband and looking like a couple off to get their marriage license.
 It is a saucy, direct, covering all the bases re-election website Meed Ward has wanted to be Mayor from the day she first ran for the ward 2 seat. Back in 2010 the objective was to get elected so that in 2014 she could run against then Mayor Cam Jackson, who managed to lose the 2010 election.
Meed Ward then turned her sights on Rick Goldring who she does not think provides the city with the leadership it deserves. She has been acting like a Mayor at every possible occasion and frequently sounding more like a Mayor than Rick Goldring.
It is unusual for a council member to alert the media on their plans to file nomination papers; Meed Ward is an unusual council member who has in the past called for a recorded vote on an issue and had her colleagues stand up and be counted on four individual motions knowing before she started that she would be the only member of Council who was going to vote against the question.
During her first few months in office she had the administration side of city council scrambling frequently. She over spent her postal allocation in the first few months; her view was that those people who did not have internet access had a right to get city hall reports which she printed up and was prepared to mail them out. Her email box was getting so much traffic that the techies had to give her more space.
The Clerk’s office assigns a staff member as an administrative assistant to each council member; there were no volunteers for the Meed Ward assignment. The former assistant to Rick Goldring, when he was the council member for ward 5, agreed to take on the task and work with Meed Ward – they get along famously.
Meed Ward had decided from the day she was sworn in that she was going to do things differently and says today that people in Burlington now know there is “hope. She has, without a doubt, the most active community association of any other council member, and sees herself as accountable to those people and has had her chain pulled by them on more than one occasion.
Meed Ward contends that people see her as a voice and that they expect her to speak for them. As a first term council member Meed Ward believes she has changed the dialogue at a number of levels. She points to the way the city has handled Section 37 of the Planning Act (a process that allows the city to accept a cash payment for additional height and density given to a developer) and she goes to the core of what she believes the waterfront is all about when she explains on her re-election web site that the legal issues relating to the pier were handled very poorly and the decision to sell waterfront land to property owners on Lakeshore Road was a serious mistake.
The votemarianne.ca web site comes out swinging on almost every issue imaginable. This is no ward centric web site – this is city-wide covering:
Residents first
Re-inventing government
Integrity and leadership
Fund raising
Free parking for council members and city staff
Recorded votes
Accountability
Intensification
Jobs and economic development
Waterfront Access
Spending and taxes
Heritage and Culture
A vibrant downtown.
For Meed Ward Community engagement must mean more than collecting input; she wants her citizens at the table being part of the decision. And she sets out her position on every issue imaginable on her website.
 Husband Pete is very much a part of the campaign to re-elect Marianne Meed Ward to her city council seat. He designed the web site and is the principal adviser to the candidate Of the incumbent council members Meed Ward is the first to file nomination papers. Mayor Rick Goldring filed his papers in January, quietly entering the race and said at the time that he didn’t make a big deal out of registering for the fall municipal election because he thought everyone knew he was going to run again and wanted to get his registration out of the way. He added at that time that he will be running on a platform of economic development.
In n 2010 Paul Sharman filed nomination papers to run as Mayor against then Mayor Cam Jackson. When Rick Goldring filed his papers to run as Mayor, Sharman withdrew his papers to run as Mayor and opted to run for the ward 5 seat that Goldring was prepared to vacate.
When asked what it would take for her to withdraw as the council member candidate in ward 2 and run for Mayor Meed Ward responded: If the community wanted me to run for the office of Mayor I would accept that call.
The 4400 names on the Meed Ward mailing list might decide they want to send an email suggesting she do just that – accept a call. 2014 has the potential to be an interesting election year.
 By Pepper Parr
March 19, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
Mayor Goldring, talking as if the group of young boys were his own children, proudly told a city council meeting that the Burlington Eagles, part of Burlington’s City Rep Hockey League, had raised more than 38,000 pounds of food in the Gift of Giving Back food drive for 2013.
 It was thumbs up from these guys – members of the Burlington Eagles Atom AA team being recognized at city hall. The Eagles Atom AA team was honored at City Hall, certainly the first time any of them had been in the Council chamber where each of the team members was given a certificate and had a group photograph taken – the typical type of thing the Mayor does on a regular basis.
But Monday evening it was a bit different – none of the boys were relatives; just a bunch of decent kids who were in the process of becoming citizens. They played hockey and took part in projects where their time was used to help someone else.
And help they did. On November 5 & 6, 2013 the Eagles along with their community partners, collected 273,571.06 lbs of food for beneficiaries. Filling shelves was important but more important for the city’s Mayor was teaching civic responsibility and the importance of giving back.
 Daphne Jacques, part of Mayor Goldring’s administrative staff, explains to players on the Burlington Eagles Atom AA team, the drill they will follow when they are presented with their certificates by the Mayor for their incredible food drive results in 2013 Rick Goldring is a product of Burlington – everything about him has Burlington stamped on it. He takes great pride in his city and when he has occasion to celebrate what his citizen’s do – he gets almost gushy.
Monday evening he had his picture taken with the boys and he said all the obligatory things – there was just a lot more “this is what Burlington is all about” in his comments than normal.
Of all the groups involved in the food drive the Eagles raised more than anyone else and the Mayor wanted everyone to know that. He told the audience that Hockey Night In Canada had featured what the Gift of Giving Back is all about and that the tons of food was distributed to Carpenter Hospice, Halton Women’s Place, Partnership West and The Salvation Army.
Jean Longfield, the woman who started the annual drive nine years ago said “It was an incredible two days — unmatched anywhere in the nation.
Let’s not forget that the Eagle Atoms AA are heading for the Ontario Minor Hockey Association Championships as well.
 By Staff
March 18, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Tax time approaching and those who choose to steal instead of work for a living have found that they can often fool people into giving them information which they then use to take your money from you.
The Halton Regional Police are advising the public of a scam involving fraudulent communications mimicking the Canada Revenue Agency.
 The message frequently looks like this. This is not the way the government communicates with you. Ignore it – don’t even click on any of the links. You might get an email that looks like it comes from the Canada Revenue Agency telling you there has been a mistake or a reassessment and that they are owed a refund. They are then asked to provide detailed personal information telling you it is required to process the refund. They will ask for full name, address, date of birth and social insurance number. They might ask you to provide personal banking or credit card information. The moment you give them this information they can begin pretending they are you and start taking your money.
Fraudsters have gone even further, telephoning individuals directly, stating that they owe back taxes in the amount of thousands of dollars and threatening them with arrest or deportation if they are not paid immediately.
The CRA does not request personal information of any kind by email and has a formal process in place for those who owe taxes and would never demand cash payment immediately.
Halton Police encourages individuals who receive such communications to take a moment and consider the following:
Are you expecting a refund from the CRA?
Does this sound too good to be true?
Why would the CRA be asking me for personal information that they would already have on file?
Are you confident that you know who is asking for the information?
Your best protection is to avoid taking immediate action and contact the CRA directly to confirm if in fact you are owed a refund or are required to make a payment.
Anyone with information on this scam can contact Halton Police Fraud Investigators at 905-825-4747 ext. 8739 or anonymously through Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS), through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.com or by texting “Tip201” with your message to 274637 (crimes).
 By Pepper Parr
March 17, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
When we first wrote about the Conservation Heritage District we said this was going to get messy. Once people read the document the city released for discussion at a committee not yet known on a date yet to be determined all hell is going to break loose.
 The area covers basically all of the western half of the Escarpment. There are provisions in parts of the draft by-law that will forbid just about everything during the first year of the bylaws existence. At the February meeting in Kilbride city planning director Bruce Krushelnicki told the audience that what was being proposed was a bylaw that the city could pass and revoke any time they wished. The audience wasn’t convinced however, but they did go along with taking a next step which was to do a study. It seemed like a good idea at the Kilbride meeting; nothing overly complicated.
The decision to take that next step was the result of a show of hands which that evening was overwhelmingly positive even though there were a number of people who didn’t like the idea of the city butting into local affairs.
Staff went away to prepare the report that was to set out what the next step study was going to be and what the public could expect to come out of it.
During a city council meeting on the budget when the city was approving the time needed for a planner to oversee much of this work and the expense involved, Jack Dennison, councillor for ward 4 made the point that “this wasn’t something we brought to Council” and indeed the idea of creating a Conservation Heritage District did not originally come from the city planners.
It was the result of an application a group of residents had made to the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) to have as much of the Escarpment as possible protected under a some form of protection. PERL – Protect the Escarpment and Rural Lands made the application and met with the NEC planners and learned that they really weren’t going to be able to get what they wanted.
 A topographical view of the study boundaries. The Niagara Escarpment Plan which comes from the Niagara Escarpment Commission formed in 1937, has three categories of protection: Nature Areas; Protection Areas and Rural Areas. Each of these apparently has a cultural aspect or element to them which is conveyed with wording such as: “encourage the conservation of traditional cultural landscapes” – which is probably what the Aboriginal people were trying to see when the white people moved in.
 PERL fought to prevent an expansion of the existing quarry. The lower orange outline was the area where the expansion was to take place. PERL was the citizens organization that won the fight against an expansion of the Nelson Quarry. While it was the city that put forward the lead lawyer and spent $2 million in legal fees on that battle, PERL was given standing at the Joint Tribunal and had a consistent impact on the direction that Tribunal went.
 One of these was enough for the people in rural Burlington. Is a bylaw creating a Heritage Conservation District the best way to prevent any quarry application – or is there a larger objective being sought? PERL eventually pulled their application to the NEC for some form of protection for the Escarpment, particularly the Mt Nemo plateau and went to Councillor Taylor with what they felt was a better approach – do something via the Official Plan Review which was taking place.
They came up with the idea of asking if creating a Conservation Heritage District (CHD) could be part of the Official Plan review. While that review is ages from being complete and even longer from being approved – the planners seem to be moving along at what is breakneck speed in the planning world to get a bylaw in place that would make a large swath of rural Burlington a Heritage Conservation District and thereby protect the plateau.
PERL hasn’t said a word publicly. The last date of an entry on their website is November 2012. They have worked quietly with Councillor Taylor who clearly intends to make doing something substantial to protect the plateau his legacy issue; should he win the October election for his ward one would expect that to be his last term of office.
Once the public becomes fully aware of the planned bylaw there will be some “not so fast” comments as well as some OMB level mutterings. Paletta International complained in a letter to the city that they knew nothing of this initiative and asked that their lands be removed from the study area. It doesn’t quite work that way – everything gets studied or nothing gets studied.
The staff recommendation that will get to a Standing Committee at some point in the near future but perhaps as late as June, making it an election issue for some, came out of a process that started back in July of 2013. At the July 2, 2013 city council meeting Councillors Craven and Taylor brought an amendment to whatever was discussed in the CLOSED session part of the June 18th meeting.
Fast forward to what is going to go to a city Standing Committee at a yet unknown date this. Staff is asking that council:
ENDORSE the Terms of Reference for the Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan for the Mount Nemo Plateau, dated March 7, 2014; PROVIDE the Manager of Procurement Services delegated authority to award the contract(s) and issue a Purchase Order to the highest scoring Proponent(s), subject to budget limitations of $200,000; AUTHORIZE staff to commence a Heritage Conservation District Study process for the Mount Nemo Plateau; DIRECT staff to report back following the completion of the Heritage Conservation District Study process prior to the commencement of a Heritage Conservation District Plan process in accordance with s. 40 of the Ontario Heritage Act;
APPROVE an upset limit of $200,000 for the Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan to be funded from the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund; APPROVE the Mount Nemo Plateau Study By-law, which is set out in an Appendix to the staff report.
Staff wants the city to RECEIVE the draft Study Area Control By-law which may be passed in the event that a potential threat arises to the integrity or character of the study area.
Added in is a requirement that staff report back to council on the views of the public in Q2 2014 – that’s before the end of June. Given the winter we have had all the frost might not be out of the ground by then. And we will be four months away for an election which will likely turn this issue into an election question. What’s the rush?
Ward 3 councilor John Taylor said on Saturday that he intends to campaign on this issue. To Taylor’s credit he has been very diligent in working for the interests of the people north of 407 and while he lives south of Upper Middle Road much of his heart is in the rural part of Burlington.
There is more to this development which we will follow up on. The terms of reference need a look, the cost – they are talking in terms of $200,000 and the level of public participation in this initiative are all critical.
Background links:
Newsflash on the CHD meeting in Kilbride February 10th
 By Staff
March 17, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
The Regional police have both a sense of humour and a message they will be handing out this evening. Single piece of paper printed on both sides. Set out below id a preview of what they are going to distribute.
 If the message isn’t obvious – the police provide details.  Now that wasn’t hard to understand was it?
|
|
