 By Tom ParkinAugust 21st, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Young worker unemployment is up. But it’s not them, it’s the economy (stupid).
As the national unemployment rate has climbed, many news reports have focused on a specific group of victims: young workers.
Unemployment is most sharply up in Ontario, with now 700,000 joblessness. Ontario’s unemployment rate has increased from 0.1 percentage point below the national rate in April 2023 to a full point above in July 2025.
Within Ontario, unemployment is highest in the manufacturing cities of Windsor and Oshawa, at 10.2 and 9.7 per cent. Unaffordable Toronto, the recent ground-zero of a housing inflation and market explosion, is third at 9.0 per cent.
But there’s an alternate view on unemployment, one that shifts the focus from Ontario’s economic problem in manufacturing and affordability to the victims. That narrative shift has real dangers. Or opportunity.
A focus on economic problems can lead to economic analysis, public pressure and hopefully economic solutions.
A focus on who is unemployed can easily divert people into moralizing, helping a politician dodge responsibility for lousy economic management. And it doesn’t take much work to divert people onto age-old moralizing about what’s wrong with young people today.
Aiding dodgy politicians are systemic reasons news media prefers the youth employment narrative rather than focusing on economic problems.
It’s a simpler story. Explaining that soaring housing costs crushed affordability, in turn crushing consumer spending, in turn crushing jobs means maintaining public attention on the bouncing ball. That’s hard. Victim stories are simple. The interviews and pictures are more compelling.
And youth unemployment is a story for a national audience. For almost any news reporter, there is a bias toward crafting a story interesting to a bigger audience. The economic problems of Ontario manufacturing and Toronto unaffordability that are driving national unemployment (including among young workers) are not national stories.
There are some great reporters who take their local or topic beats seriously. But business and economics reporters are full up with Trump tariff stories. Those reporting on Ontario politics are overwhelmed by Ford’s “flood the zone” approach.
At press conferences, Ford yarbles from flights of fantasy to threats of action not in his jurisdiction. Some of those words deserve a mention at the end of a news story. But in a celebrity-focused media space, this inanity gets top space. In the gossipy style of the Toronto Star, inanity doesn’t just lead, it headlines.
Do we need to remind business reporters that Canada can’t fight Trump with 700,000 Ontario workers’ hands tied behind their backs? Or tell certain Queen’s Park reporters to leave gossip, celebrity and inanity to the National Inquirer, 700,000 Ontarians don’t have a job?
Those reminders bring us back to young workers.
It’s always those least integrated into the labour market who suffer most from unemployment.
As hiring slows, finding a job is tougher — and toughest for those with short resumes. And because they are just starting out, more young people are job hunting. So when unemployment rises, young people are the canaries in the coal mine.
Ontario’s 700,000 unemployed workers are a massive waste of economic potential and a massive social cost. Ontario cannot beat back Trump’s attacks when 700,000 workers are sidelined from the fight.
Politicians can try to divert attention onto victims and away from causes, using systemic media biases to help them. But actually helping unemployed young workers requires a reminder that full employment and households with paycheques is how we best protect a strong and independent Canada.
 By Tom Parkin
August 19th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The right to bargain and strike is Charter-protected in Canada. But when Air Canada wanted Mark Carney to break the law for them, he did.
Almost 20 years ago the Supreme Court confirmed the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of association protects collective bargaining. And 10 years ago, the court agreed collective bargaining rights includes the right to strike.
It’s not absolute. That freedom isn’t protected if it would threaten the life, safety or health of another person. Police, fire fighters, paramedics, many hospital workers and others can’t strike. But flight attendants sure can. In theory.
 Prime Minister aboard an Air Canada flight in better days: As Prime Minister, he has access to a government-owned jet. Air Canada asked Carney to violate Charter and he did
Yet on the weekend, Liberals, who like to boast about their commitment to a rules-based order, committed some flagrant rules-breaking.
The current Air Canada dispute has its roots in the years when the company was struggling financially. Flight attendants, among others, took major pay concessions. In 2015 they signed an unprecedented 10 year collective agreement to give stability to the airline. Then the inflation surge of 2021-22 added to the concessions they’d already given.
 Michael Rousseau, Air Canada CEO, pockets a “grotesque $12 million last year.” But that 10 years deal is now up. Last year Air Canada earned $3.9 billion. With company executives paying themselves millions — including a grotesque $12 million last year for CEO Michael Rousseau — employees are looking to use collective bargaining to win back the concessions they took.
 Patty Hajdu “unaware of the practice” Flight attendants also hope to end the practice of receiving no pay for ground hours worked. Unbelievably, Minister Patty Hajdu late today on Twitter implied she was unaware of the practice, which she called “allegations.”
Determined to repay their helpful employees with disdain equal to that they regularly inflict on paying passengers, Air Canada executives asked Prime Minister Mark Carney to issue orders taking away flight attendants’ collective bargaining rights. And Carney did.
Carney used an obscure section of the Canada Labour Code the government says gives them the authority to take away the rights to bargain and to strike. It doesn’t.
Canada Labour Code section 107 says the Minister can direct the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to “do such things as the Minister deems necessary.” But the section isn’t exempt from the Charter. It doesn’t invoke the notwithstanding clause. Section 107 itself may not be illegal, but the way it has been used by Carney certainly is.
NDP rediscovers purpose as Poilievre goes silent
Politically, Carney’s attack on worker rights has restored a sense of purpose among NDP MPs dispirited by their epic routing in this spring’s election. NDP leader Don Davies, formerly a staff lawyer for the Teamsters Union, has spoken at picket lines strongly denouncing Carney’s attack on workers’ Charter rights.
In contrast, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has remained silent, offering no public comment, perhaps because his party pioneered use of section 107.
 Lisa Raittwhen she was Minister of Transportation . She knew what she could do with Section 107 of the Labour code. Section 107 was added to the Canada Labour Code in 1984. But it was never used until 2011 when Lisa Raitt, Stephen Harper’s Transport Minister, first used it against flight attendants.
After that, the section went unused for over 10 years. During that time Liberals, with Conservative help, reverted to using special-purpose legislation to take away the right to bargain and right to strike:
- November 2018 — Liberals and Conservatives voted in support of bill C-89, taking away the bargaining and strike rights of postal workers after three days of rotating strikes. NDP and BQ MPs voted against. CUPW took the law to court but four years later, in June 2024, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed CUPW’s case, arguing the case was moot because there was nothing left to remedy. CUPW is appealing the decision.
- April 2021 — Liberals again team up with Conservatives to pass bill C-29, taking away negotiating and strike rights from workers at the Port of Montreal. The NDP and BQ opposed the bill. CUPE is fighting the legislation in court.
Liberals’ Charter violations leaves labour stuck in court
Then suddenly in mid-2024, the Liberals rediscovered section 107 and have since used it rapid-fire, at least six times:
- June 2024 — Liberals take away the bargaining and strike rights of mechanics employed by WestJet
- July 2024 — Liberals take away the bargaining and strike rights of longshore workers at the Port of Vancouver
- August 2024 — Liberals take away bargaining and strike rights of railway workers at the request of railway companies CN Rail and Canadian Pacific Kansas City; Teamsters launch a court challenge
- December 2024 — Liberals take away bargaining and strike rights of postal workers; CUPW launch a court challenge
- May 2025 — Liberals take away the bargaining and strike rights of workers at the Port of Quebec. The order came after an 89 day lock-out during which the employer used replacement workers.
- August 2025 — the current orders against flight attendants.
It’s standard advice for union members to “obey now, grieve later.” And pursuing legal appeals of section 107 orders has been the path the labour movement has followed, up to now.
 Airline strikers defy federal back-to-work order. Their Union leader said he was prepared to go to jail over the issue. He just might. But when court cases drag on for years, later never comes. Meanwhile the hits keep coming. So flight attendants aren’t waiting for later, instead refusing to obey illegal orders now. This is historic stuff.
How this strike plays out will have historic importance to the labour movement and in deciding what kind of Canada we will become.
Hopefully it becomes a searing lesson to Mark Carney.
 By Mark Gillies
January 15, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington is using the month of August to celebrate local history. Sometime ago the Gazette published a series of articles by Mark Gillies, a lifelong Burlingtonian. It is appropriate to re-publish the stories about the people who built this city. This is part two of the Spencer Smith story.
Spencer Smith got to Canada as part of the immigration of British children into Canada and Australia. The children were shipped from England by well meaning people but there were some horrific abuses and I believe it is necessary to expand the Spencer Smith story and learn more about how these boys who, without their consent became indentured servants. They were referred to as “Home Children”.
The poem Spencer Smith wrote, it was included in part 1, aches with the longings of a man who missed so much of a natural childhood.
 Home children on a dock in St. John NB – waiting for trains to take them east. The concept of Home Children started with honourable intentions; with good people trying to salvage young children from a parent-less home, or incredible poverty. Relocate them to a better life in Canada or Australia, that’s all they had to do. What’s the problem with that?
What made the idea work, was that farmers in Canada and Australia faced a severe labour shortage. They had recently immigrated themselves from Europe, cleared their fields, and grew their crops. Only problem was, who was going to do the harvesting, tend to the fields, feed the animals, and everything else that farmers do in this difficult labour intensive profession?
They didn’t have anybody to help. Governments were perplexed as well; those in Canada and Australia were more than happy to bring in immigrants to open up land and create farms. Sometimes they even gave them free land and supplies, but governments overlooked one part of the equation. Who is going work these large farms? They desperately needed a solution, and quickly.
 No doubt about it, everyone at the time believed this was a “WIN-WIN” situation. Spencer Smith’s story was a perfect example of one that seemed to have a happy ending.
Featherstone Martindale & Spencer Smith.
Spencer Smith’s sponsor was Featherstone Martindale from Caledonia. If you have ever been to Caledonia, it seems that about every third person you meet has the last name Martindale. They are a fantastic local family and they show up everywhere in Caledonia. Featherstone was born in 1848 in Haldimand County. Featherstone must not have been impressed by his first name, because he always went by the name Fred. He was a good honest man and a hardworking farmer who desperately needed help on his farm. Fred over the years became a father of 8 children and had married 3 times.
The Farmer’s Wife in Spencer’s Poem
In Spencer’s poem, he speaks of the farmer’s wife who influenced him. Spencer was referring to Eliza Mary Shult, who was Fred’s second wife. His first wife Eliza Jane Anderson died in 1881 after giving birth to a daughter named Ann. Fred married Eliza Mary Shult on January 8, 1883, and the new couple proceeded to have 7 children, the first born was Frederick who died in early 1884. Then another son named Featherstone was born in late 1884, and another 5 children were born between 1886 and 1895. In 2 quick years from 1883 to 1885 Eliza had married, and brought along her own small son named Wilfred McBride who was 5 years old from her previous marriage, when her first husband John McBride died from tuberculosis in 1879.
Spencer arrived on the farm May 21st, 1885 when Eliza Mary was just 28 years old. She was quite a busy young lady herself by the time he stepped down from the carriage. This young lady seems quite remarkable to me, since she still had some extra maternal time to still dote on young Spencer, something that helped shape his life.
 Eliza Mary Shult, the second wife of Featherstone Martindale had a huge influence on Spencer Smith, and he fondly recalls about her in his poem written in 1911. I’m sure old Fred would be quite crusty at times, and probably scared the lads half to death many more times, but Spencer’s poem has a softer edge to it, especially towards Eliza Mary. Eliza Mary died in 1895 from complications of the birth with her last child George Martindale. By this time, young Spencer had already left the Martindale farm. If Spencer actually stayed the full 3 years until he was 18, his servitude would come to an end in January 1888. After the death of Eliza Mary, Fred married a spinster named Margaret Anna Peart in 1907.
The Peart family in Caledonia, which is very large in number, just like the Martindale’s is somehow linked to the Peart family in Burlington, my guess is they are probably cousins. It’s only speculation, but the Jacob Peart farm in Burlington is on the land now occupied by Fortinos, Sears and Ikea, so maybe there was a connection for Spencer Smith to come to Burlington, especially if it was initiated through the Peart families in Caledonia and Burlington. The Peart farm was located directly across Plains Road from the Bell homestead. We’ll never know for sure, but we can at least think about it.
Spencer Smith was quite fortunate and did not face some of the severe hardships that other Home Children experienced. Far too many faced a certain hell of an existence.
The Truth about the British Home Children in Canada
Here’s what really happened to most of the British Home Children.
 This became an economic issue more than anything else. It was strictly a case of supply and demand. Most of these organizations were faced with a huge demand. They had great difficulty in meeting the demand by farmers and governments in Canada and Australia. It was stated at one time that there were 10 applications for every child. So what were they going to do? The answer was simple. Start rounding up any child who potentially was wayward and lived in the area that was to be scoured for recruits. Overly simplified, absolutely, but not by much.
The fact remains, that the original concept was for orphaned children. The reality was that only 2% were orphans. The rest were children in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s true that during these times some parents had great economic problems, perhaps they were unemployed or seriously ill, and they had no choice but to hand over their children to a workhouse, or some other care facility until they could get back on their feet and then bring their children home. The truth is, these organizations to help meet the demand, decided to ship them overseas without their parents’ consent. Most of these children had no idea what was happening to them. The parents did not know either. The children never realized that they would never see their family again.
 Dr. Thomas Barnardo was a very controversial character, and was responsible for exporting thousands and thousands of British children out of England and relocating them mainly in Australia and Canada. Here he is in 1905 leading the Founder’s Day Parade shortly before his death that same year. The largest organization was run under the management of its controversial founder Dr. Thomas Barnardo. He somehow convinced the Canadian and Australian Governments to take these children. Once that was established, then other organizations like the Shaftesbury Homes, the Salvation Army, churches, and others also jumped on the bandwagon. Probably, none of these add on organizations realized that down the road, this program was going to spiral way out of control, and thousands and thousands of small children were going to be totally exploited in this moneymaking scheme to supply cheap child labour to Canadian and Australian farmers. You can dress it up any way you want, citing testimonial cases that turned out good, reminding people that they were paid a small amount, some orphans were adopted by loving families, but in my opinion, the bare bones reality was: Canada, Australia and England were totally involved in a repulsive child slavery program.
Whatever happened to the other 32 boys who made the trip to Hamilton?
When I researched for information on the other 32 boys that made the trip to Canada with Spencer Smith, only about 2 boys continued to surface on available records. The Flamborough Historical Society has documented one of these Home Children. That boy went on to marriage, become a father and worked as a market garden farmer in Aldershot. He turned out okay.
Spencer Smith turned out okay. The others, they completely disappeared. We know some could have been adopted and had their surnames changed. As an outsider, it is basically impossible to track them. We already know that conditions for some children were so severe that they continually ran away from the farms they were working on, and many were beaten to a pulp when they were caught and returned. We know with documentation as proof that over two thirds of all the British Home children were beaten severely. We know that many of these children were not allowed to become part of the family that was caring for them.  They were forced to live in exclusion on the farmer’s property, and not interact with the farmer’s own children or have any friends of their own. They were not loved or nurtured in any way. We know that they were constantly tormented and bullied by other children at local schools, and even adults participated in this human degradation of these children. We know that many just eventually disappeared. Where you ask?
My guess is some were probably murdered when they were beaten so severely by the farmers, and when authorities came around they just claimed that they ran away. Some children because of horrific living conditions probably became so ill, that they died on the farm, and were quietly buried on the property so as not to draw any suspicion. Others may have committed suicide, and became nothing more than John or Jane Does stashed away in a local morgue, waiting for no one to identify them. Whatever the reason, they’re gone, and we don’t know have explanations. Have a look at this story that appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper on April 23, 1930 about a young British Home Child boy named Arthur Godsall who was savagely beaten on a farm in Campbellford by farmer William Albert Hay, age 37.
 Albert had just arrived from England with many other British Home children and they all disembarked at Halifax from the ship Albertic on March 17, 1930.
Albert made his way to the Hay’s farm in Campbellford, and less than a month after he arrived he endured this beating and was finally rescued. That’s just one tragic story, there were thousands of stories just like this. One boy was forced to live outside in the dog house with the farm dog. The farmer fed the dog table scraps, and if the dog was full and if by chance there was any dog food left over, it was for the boy to scavenge. Not to mention that this same farmer viciously beat the boy almost daily. Eventually, he was removed from the farm, and as far as I know this farmer did not face any charges. This is unbelievable, but true. This happened in Canada. If you do some basic internet research, you will find these stories and many more.
What’s really disturbing is just how low profile this tragic event in human history was, and just how little we know of it now. But, it is becoming more widely known, and just recently as victims have finally come forward. In Australia for example, the Australian Government were finally brought to their knees by a public outcry after the public learned the truth from these victims, and the government brought forth an apology for their involvement in this hair-brained scheme. Also, the British Government were totally embarrassed by previous governments’ involvement in this tragic situation also came forth with an apology offered by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. And what about the Canadian Government?
 Where do we stand? Sadly, and unfortunately, the Canadian Government has essentially taken the position that this isn’t really a big deal, and no apology is warranted or forthcoming, even though they backed and encouraged this form of child slavery and abuse under the guise of helping disadvantaged children. Personally, I think that Jason Kenney the Cabinet Minister responsible for these remarks was not that well informed on the situation when confronted with the apology question, and consequently brushed it off as unimportant. I encourage you to contact Burlington’s local Federal Member of Parliament, Mr. Mike Wallace, who is a very decent man, and please voice your concern. I would like to think that Mike can champion this cause and help us get this apology from the Canadian Government. It’s long overdue, and it’s the right thing to do.
Here’s how to reach Mike Wallace, Member of Parliament: Burlington Mall Office, 777 Guelph Line, Suite 209, Burlington, Ont. L7R 3N2. T: 905-639-5757 or F: 905-639-6031
House of Commons, East Block, Suite: 115, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6
T: (613) 995-0881; F: (613) 995-1091 or email, mike.wallace@parl.gc.ca
There is an incredible website on the British Home Children. https://canadianbritishhomechildren.weebly.com/
It tells the whole story of the plight of these exploited children. It will break your heart to read and watch some of the videos made by former Home Children, these men and women who are now elderly, who have finally broken their silence to tell the real story of what happened to them. The website also has a form that can be signed. It is a petition to persuade the Canadian Government to offer an apology to these unfortunate people, many still alive in Canada, and still suffering mental anguish.
Add the website to your “Favourites”. It is quite large and takes a fair bit of time to go through it properly, so you will likely have to go back several times. The website also is constantly updated with more unbelievable stories about this shameful part of our Canadian past.
 By Ray Rivers
August 2nd, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
“Time to grow up! Batten down the hatches and expand to new markets. Trade east west. Remove restrictions in our own country…Refine our own oil! Buy nothing from USA. Thank you Trump for a new tomorrow!” (Mississauga Mayor Carolyn Parrish)
There are a number of Canadians still in denial, including Premiers Ford and Moe and federal Conservative leader Poilievre They think that Mr. Trump will relent and drop the tariffs he’s introduced, and we’ll get back to business as per 2024. They believe they can change Mr. Trump’s mind by bending a knee, like Mexico’s president has done, or playing hard ball with punitive counter-tariffs to hurt American consumers.
Mayor Parrish clearly doesn’t see it that way. Trump is not going to change. He’s been talking tariffs for decades and with a compliant Congress and subservient Supreme Court – he does whatever he wants. Besides, he’s convinced that America’s economy is booming thanks to those tariffs. So, unless we are prepared to accept the deal he dictates, confronting or appeasing him is pretty much a humiliating waste of breath.
 We have already paid a high price for thinking we can trust America as a reliable economic partner. Mulroney’s experiment on North American economic integration is over. Canada’s future lies in our own hands, not across the border. We should never have let down our guard and trusted the elephant next door the way we did. We have already paid a high price for thinking we can trust America as a reliable economic partner.
A 2001 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass.,found that jobs fell by 15 percent, from 1989 to 1996, within Canadian industries affected by the biggest tariff cuts. And during that same time, imports from the United States of products previously blocked by high tariffs soared by 70 percent. The Americans were the real beneficiaries of Mulroney’s deal.
There is no question that there will be some dislocation in a higher tariff trading future, particularly for those engaged in lumbering, raw metals, autos and possibly agriculture. But Mayor Parrish insists that Trump has done us Canadians a favour in the long run by forcing us to look after ourselves.
If I read the mayor right, when CUSMA/USMCA expires next year we should just let it lapse. Trump is unlikely to renew it in any case, given his present state of mind. In the meantime, it has thankfully provided a cushion from the shock of the inevitable. But that agreement probably will be gone come mid 2026. So Canada’s future rests on using many of the tools of the past; for example, stricter Canadian broadcast content rules; greater control over foreign investment; and more of the kinds of moderate and reasonable protectionist tariffs Mr Carney has introduced for the steel sector.
 Donald Trump: A more global response might have tempered the power crazy old fellow. It is unfortunate that only Canada and China appear to have confronted the Donald with counter-tariffs, over his tariff escapade, while other nations have just put up their hands and capitulated. A more global response might have tempered the power crazy old fellow, particularly since some of these tariffs have little to do with trading per se.
Good examples of this include: Trump imposing a 50% blanket tariff on Brazil, a nation where America has a large and growing trade surplus, to punish them for prosecuting the insurrectionist former president for plotting a coup. Also, Trump levied a slightly lower fentanyl-related tariff on Mexico than Canada. Yet it is the Mexican border, not the Canadian one, where Americans get almost all of their fentanyl. But when did facts ever matter to this president?
 Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Parrish – Mulroney – Canada’s Tariffs
By Tom Parkin
July 29th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Canadian car travel from United States into BC, Quebec and New Brunswick more than 40 per cent down but a lot less in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The number of Canadian-plated cars crossing into Canada from the United States is down everywhere, but not evenly, according to data from Statistics Canada released July 23.
The largest drop has been in BC where Canadian-plated cars crossing into Canada was down 45 per cent between May 2024 and May 2025, falling from 390,320 to 230,795 crossings.
The smallest drop has been at Ontario border crossings, where 26 per cent fewer Canadian-plated vehicles crossing into Canada in May 2025 than May 2024, falling from with 919,454 to 728,685 crossings.
Canadian-plated cars crossing into Quebec and New Brunswick, both declined 42 per cent. Crossings at Manitoba border points fell 32 per cent. Crossings at Alberta and Saskatchewan border points dropped 27 per cent.
Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador do not have any land crossing points with the United States.
The change in truck transborder traffic shows a generally similar trend, though with a much muted effect compared to cars, presumably because a large portion of truck traffic is based on commercial arrangement rather than personal choices.
Among Canada’s five busiest airport, the change in travel to the United States has also been uneven.
Flights to or from the United States from Toronto’s Island airport was down 32 in May 2025 from May 2024. Flights from or to Toronto or Montreal international airports was down mildly. Traffic from Vancouver International Airport was down the most.
The number of flights between Calgary International Airport and the United States bucked the anti-Trump trend, increasing by 12 per cent in May 2025 compared to one year earlier.
 By Pepper Parr
July 28th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
There are five working days before Curt Benson takes on the role of Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Burlington.
 Curt Benson: Commissioner of Development and Growth Management He will hold that title and all the work that goes with it until the day before the new council is sworn in October of 2026
The new council, the one that gets elected in October of 2026 will decide who the next CAO will be.
Benson will continue to be the Commissioner of Development and Growth Management – the most important of the three Commissioners the city has.
Curt Benson is a decent human being. He served as the head of planning at the Regional level. When Regional planning devolved to the municipalities. Burlington was fortunate enough to hire Benson.
He does a superb job – it’s a big job – major developments are in various stages of development; funding from the federal and provincial levels has to be managed – no small task, I might add.
The work load Benson has been handed (Yes, he did accept it) will be brutal. The time to think through the decisions just may not be available to the man. He is fortunate in that he has some grade A people in the planning department.
We wish Benson well and hope that he manages to get some personal time.
There has been no explanation from City Hall on why appointing a CAO for a short period of time was chosen – rather than begin the process of advertising and selecting a new CAO.
Is one of the reasons that the city might have a problem attracting someone with the experience and skills that are needed? There aren’t that many really good administrators out there and Burlington’s reputation as a great place to work isn’t what it was when Hassaan Basit was hired.
 Hassaan Basit I personally don’t understand why a professional enters into a five-year contract and walks away from it 16 months later because a nicer job came along. The reasons given don’t pass my smell test. Personal, family or health matters would justify a decision like that.
During Basit’s final council meeting July 15th, Basit and Mayor Meed Ward couldn’t say enough about how much they enjoyed working with each other.
The current Council is so tight-lipped that none of them chose to make comments about their working relationship with the outgoing CAO.
Not healthy signs.
 By Jim Portside
July 23rd, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The July 23, 2025, edition of the Hamilton Spectator contained the following Letter to the Editor from Rory Nisan.
I had to read it twice to understand the letter. Nisan, as a Burlington City Councillor, is an insider. I’ve added some comments – in italics – to help outsiders understand this letter.
 Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan; lives in ward 2 Oped missed budget realities
Re: Another big Burlington tax hike?
In her recent oped, Joan Little flexed her creative writing muscles, fantasizing about an election a year away. As a result, she missed some important dialogue on next year’s budget.
The next municipal election will take place on October 26, 2026.
First, I brought a motion to ensure the budget increase is included with the target overall tax rate, so residents have all the numbers.
The city, based on the recommendations of the full-time staffers at City Hall, is planning to increase the city budget by 5.8%. Inflation is under 2%. In dollar terms, a 5.8% increase equates to an addition $15 million being transferred from taxpayers’ pockets to city coffers.
When Burlington’s increase is watered down by a much lower increase from the Region of Halton and no increase in education taxes, the total tax bill increase will be 4.4%.
The press release from the City of Burlington states: “the City of Burlington share of taxes being less than 3 per cent.”
https://www.burlington.ca/en/news/city-launches-2026-budget-process-with-a-focus-on-limiting-tax-impacts.aspx
Nisan’s motion falls far short of what is required. A motion is required to end staff and council’s practice of talking about the overall impact of the Burlington tax hike. There are only two numbers that are important: the budget increase and the overall tax bill increase.
This year’s talking point number of 2.98%, or less than 3%, is as meaningless as statements about the impact of the increase. A 5.8% budget increase is just that, a 5.8% budget increase. Council needs to own this number and justify it to the taxpayers, not play a shell game to pretend the increase is 2.98%
Second, council endorsed a mayoral budget direction that provided a target tax increase. I did not support providing the target tax increase because I want to see what staff can do to find efficiencies and provide affordability measures before raising taxes by the target of 4.5 per cent.
In Burlington, the civil service decides how much more money they need in terms of a budget increase and council rubber stamps the increase. Where is the input from your constituents? City surveys, petitions, and delegations are all ignored. As our representative, it is your job to decide what the community should reasonably pay as a tax increase and the staff’s job to work within that limit. Without council imposing a limit, staff will not find efficiencies.
Finally, the budget will include an increased appropriation to fund a compensation increase only for senior councillors. I do not support this compensation increase, which was approved earlier this year. I believe this additional compensation is unnecessary and not a good use of residents’ tax dollars.
 Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna  Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman The term senior councillor is being used to refer to Councillor Bentivegna and Councillor Sharman, who are both in their seventies. All councillors receive the same base pay. Senior councillors were receiving less in benefits as the city did not have to contribute to their pension plan. I agree with Councillor Nisan on this one, but the amount of money involved is minuscule. With a 5.8% Burlington only tax increase, the city will have $15,000,000 more to spend in 2026 compared to 2025.
Read more about the pension dilemma our senior councillors face here:
https://burlingtongazette.ca/the-inflation-protected-defined-benefit-pension-plan-lives-on-in-a-sector-where-competition-and-bankruptcy-dont-exist/
To have a strong fiscal foundation, Burlington needs to begin finding new sources of revenue to fund our needs and focus on building our local economy. That will pay dividends in the long run.
By Tom Parkin
July 15th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
If balancing the budget was his priority, cutting billions in revenue is funny way to go about it.
Cost of Carney tax cuts over five years (billions of dollars)
In just the first few months of his government, Mark Carney, Canada’s Bay Street businessman turned prime minister, has cut over $75 billion from public revenues over the next five years, according to an analysis by economist Angella MacEwan.
Without these significant revenue cuts of about $15 billion a year, Carney’s spending cuts, reported to be targeting $21.5 billion, would be largely unneeded.
Four major tax cuts massively adding to the deficit
If cutting the deficit is Carney’s goal, he’s going about it in a very strange way. MacEwan identifies four key tax moves by Carney that have massively added to the deficit:
- $19 billion over five years to give a tax break to investors earning more than $250,000 a year in capital gains
- $28 billion over five years for a tax break giving the maximum benefit to the highest income earners
- $6 billion over five years to big tech companies, at Donald Trump’s demand
- $22.5 billion lost over five years by agreeing to exempt U.S.-based companies from a global treaty being developed to require all companies to pay at least 15 per cent corporate tax
The total of $75.5 billion over five years is an average of about $15 billion a year.
Without his revenue cuts, Carney’s spending cuts would be largely unneeded
According to a Toronto Star report citing government sources, Carney has ordered ministers to implement a 15 per cent cut to operational expenditures over thee years, a cut of about $21.5 billion in 2028-29.
And because he also complied with Trump’s demand that Canada triple military spending, Carney’s program cuts in areas other than the military will need to be even deeper than 15 per cent.
Had Carney not reduced revenues, these cuts would be mostly unneeded.
According to MacEwan, the scale of Carney’s cuts will now be greater than those of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose seven per cent reduction resulted in 19,000 jobs lost. During the election Carney promised to cap, not cut, the public service.
The priority is cuts, not deficits
Carney has already slashed environmental reviews and, with Conservative help, passed a law allowing him to waive any law and intrude on provincial jurisdictions for a project he names. Shrinking the public sector to “unleash the private sector” has been a main economic strategy Canada and most other advanced economies for the best part of 40 years. The result has been slowing economic growth and widening class divisions.
Shrinking and weakening the public sector is a major power shift that should be concerning in a period when Canada faces a tariff war from Trump.
Loyalty to Canadian sovereignty isn’t for everyone
The top priority of CEOs will never be the defence of Canada’s sovereignty. And while there are certainly divisions in corporate responses to Trump trade war, major business lobby groups are more likely to urge compliance with Trump demands than Canadians, who’ve supported a more “elbows up” approach. For example, the MacDonald-Laurier Institute and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce opposed the digital services tax because it created a “trade irritant” — that is, Trump and his backers didn’t like it.
George Grant, the conservative public intellectual of the 1950s and 60s, argued no small nation can rely on the loyalty of its capitalist class against demands of an empire.
Mark Carney says public cuts and boosting corporate power is a defence against Trump.
In fact his strategy will strengthen political forces whose loyalty is to profit and weaken those whose loyalty is to the defence Canadian sovereignty.
 By Andrew Sniderman
July 13th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Why doesn’t equalization apply to Indian reserves? It’s right there in the Constitution: the commitment to providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
And yet, we take for granted that schools and hospitals in places like Fredericton, Whitehorse, and Charlottetown are decently funded.
This is the magic of “equalization,” which helps ensure comparable public services in parts of Canada that couldn’t otherwise afford them thanks to federal transfers to poorer provinces and territories. Equalization is the “improbable glue that holds a nation together,” as author Mary Janigan puts it.
But did you know that Indian reserves are excluded from equalization?
About 330,000 people live on reserves. That is more than the population of Prince Edward Island (157,000). And it’s more than the number of people who live in the three territories — Yukon (45,000), Northwest Territories (45,000), and Nunavut (39,000).
And yet, unlike provinces and territories, Indian reserves do not receive a legal commitment to comparable public services from the federal government.
Not coincidentally, basic services on reserves are subpar and underfunded by any provincial or territorial measure. The problem extends to policing, education, child welfare, access to clean water, fire services, and more.
The exclusion of reserves from equalization is a legal omission, all too often overlooked, that has enabled a policy problem to fester.
A little-known section of the Constitution
If you’re Canadian, you’ve heard of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter has 34 sections.
If you’re a lawyer, you’ve probably heard of Section 35, which comes right after the Charter and addresses “Aboriginal rights.”
Lawyer or not, you’ve almost certainly never heard of Section 36. This is the part that mentions equalization: “Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.”
The federal government distributes billions of tax dollars to deliver on this commitment. In 2024-25, poorer provinces received over $25 billion in unconditional transfers. For example, Manitoba received $4.4 billion (or 18 per cent of its total budget), and New Brunswick received $2.9 billion (or 23 per cent of its total provincial budget). Meanwhile, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia received nothing.
Like Indian reserves, the territories aren’t explicitly mentioned in Section 36, either. But they nonetheless receive annual transfers to ensure comparable services thanks to a federal law that makes them mandatory. Payments go to each territorial government under a program called Territorial Formula Financing.
So: equalization is the law, supreme or otherwise, for provinces and territories. But not for Indian reserves. They remain separate and unequal.
 Siksika First Nation, east of Calgary near Gleichen, Alta., in June 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh Law versus policy
Surely this is too bad to be true, you might wonder. As a matter of policy, the federal government is often committed to comparable public services on reserves.
For example, federal policy about education on reserves includes an aim that “First Nations students on reserve achieve levels of secondary education comparable to non-Indigenous students in Canada.”
Similarly, federal cabinet and Treasury Board guidelines aim for comparable water services for on-reserve communities.
This seems comforting. But lately the federal government has made a point of distinguishing between its policy commitments and its legal duties, a distinction that confirms the seriousness of the problem.
In a current lawsuit over unsafe drinking water on reserves, the federal legal argument says that “Canada supports First Nations in providing safe drinking water to First Nations members on reserve as a matter of good governance rather than as a result of a legal duty.”
The government adds: “Canada’s spending on First Nations’ water must obviously compete with the rest of its budget allocations.”
Such claims suggest that the federal government will continue to defend its wide discretion in funding services on reserves. This includes the discretion to do more. Or less.
Taxation is a red herring
You might also be wondering why Section 36 talks about comparable public services at comparable levels of taxation. How significant are these last four words, given that status Indians on reserves sometimes pay lower taxes on income and consumption than other jurisdictions?
Canadians generally overestimate the scope of these tax exemptions, as Chelsea Vowel has written. However, to the extent the exemptions exist, they could imply that worse services are consistent with less taxation.
But equalization is based on the capacity of a province or territory to generate revenue at hypothetical levels of taxation. So the question becomes: how much revenue would reserves generate with standard taxation? Usually, not much.
A federal equalization program that includes First Nations
A grand notion
First Nations water problems a crisis of Canada’s own making
New models of shared rule can secure better infrastructure in Indigenous communities
Most of these communities live below the poverty line. The difference between the tax revenue a community would raise with or without existing tax exemptions would usually be modest, if not negligible.
So differences in taxation on reserves cannot serve as an excuse to avoid comparable services.
A promise to “every citizen”
There’s another part of Section 36 that few people ever talk about. It says: “Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to…providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.”
Throughout the years of negotiations that led to the final wording of Section 36, the federal government argued in favour of using the federal spending power to ensure comparable public services across Canada.
As prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau emphasized our interdependence. If a particular part of Canada were to do a particularly poor job of educating students or promoting health, for example, it would invariably affect other provinces as Canadians moved around freely.
Economists have long argued that it’s more efficient for Canadians to move for economic opportunity rather than for access to better public services.
Trudeau also argued that it is essential to develop a national sense of community to bind Canadians together. One way to do so was to ensure “the provision to every citizen, wherever he lives, of adequate levels of public services — in particular of health, welfare and education services.”
Are Canadians living on reserves not included in that promise?
If our Constitution cares about inequality between provinces, surely it must have something to say about people on reserves living in those very provinces. What is true for the parts of the whole should also be true for parts of the parts.
This article is adapted from material in “Constitutional silence, Section 36 and public services on Indian reserves” recently published in the University of Toronto Law Journal.
Andrew Stobo Sniderman is a doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School and co-author of the bestselling book Valley of the Birdtail: An Indian Reserve, a White Town, and the Road to Reconciliation.
By Pepper Parr
July 10th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Editorial Opinion
At 9:00 am this morning Mayor Marianne Meed Ward will call a Special Council meeting to order and have the Clerk do a role call to ensure there is a quorum.
Will ward 1 Councillor Galbraith attend virtually or will he be in the room to be part of whatever vibe there is going to be.
Will CAO Hassaan Basit be in the room – he did not take part in the last Standing Committee or the last Special Council meeting. He walks out of City Hall on the 4th of August after just 16 months in the job.
 The understanding we have is that Council will go into a Closed Session – there is the suspicion that someone has taken legal action – Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) has said they have put their request for a Judicial Review on hold until they have a better understanding of what Council is going to do.
There is no word on what Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club (GHAC) intends to do. From a media perspective, GHAC has gone mute.
What seems to have been lost here is that the seven members of Council were elected to serve the needs of the 194,000 citizens of the city. The city has just the one swimming club that offers a program that focuses on training and sponsoring competitive events.
For reasons that have yet to be explained, City Hall decided that a Request for Proposal format was to be used to determine who would offer the swimming program. That RFP didn’t limit applicants to city based organizations.
Some feel that the city funding should be open to anyone. That would be fair, some have said.
What has fairness got to do with it? There is a Burlington organization that has delivered a service to swimmers for four decades in place and they seem to be doing a good job. If the delegations made by Katie Lebel and Pam Pitz are an accurate reflection of the quality of the club management, the city is lucky to have them.
Being fair and allowing some other organization to submit a bid that would kill the BAD organization is fair to who?
 The city administration lost sight of what was taking place: This was about sports, not which procedure was used to determine which club would provide the services to swimmers. GHAC is focused on growth – nothing wrong with that – but is organizational growth going to be what kills a swimming club that has served the city exceptionally well if the number of people who attended the Council meeting last week is any indication. Is BAD perfect – of course it isn’t.
One of the things the city could/should do is hire an independent organization (not people from the Parks and Recreation department – they should be part of the review ) to do a deep internal review on the effectiveness of BAD. Every organization needs oversight. The City Auditor could be tasked to get something like this done.
There is close to $250,000 on the table. This is taxpayer money – it should be spent on Burlington organizations and not on an organization that has programs in numerous locations in the GTHA.
 GHAC said they are not a Hamilton swimming club – then what are they?
Burlington might want to give some consideration to help funding a second swim team; the city also has to look at its inventory of swimming pools.
This egg on everyone’s face is embarrassing for everyone. We are, or we should be, better than this.
Council has to ensure that all the facts are on the table, including who did what and why.
It is clear now that the RFP approach was a mistake – who made that decision?
Everything City Hall does is political – senior people are expected to be conscious of the political impact on the decisions they make.
That does not mean what they do should be driven by a political agenda – that is what Council members are in place for.
Why the current CAO was not involved and why the treasurer wasn’t at least made aware of what was happening is something the public may never know – and that would be unfortunate.
Marianne Meed Ward turned herself into a very effective council member on the two words: accountable and transparent.
Her grip on those two words is less than it once was.
 By Joseph Gaetan
July 10th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Dear Mayor Meed Ward and Councillors,
The rejection of the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays’ (BAD) proposal appears to have occurred during the “initial screening” stage of the RFP evaluation process. This step determines whether submissions meet all mandatory requirements before they are considered further. Common mandatory elements typically include:
Proof of incorporation (non-profit or otherwise)
Signed submission forms, insurance certificates, bid bonds or securities submission by the specified deadline
Municipal procurement policies generally state that failure to meet any of these requirements results in automatic disqualification, with no discretion to reconsider. According to the City of Burlington’s Bids and Tenders website, “To be considered for evaluation,” bidders must meet three mandatory conditions, including the requirement that:
“Bids must include a current and valid certificate of incorporation as a Non-Profit or Not-for-Profit organization.”
“Bids not meeting the above mandatory requirements will be rejected.” (See Exhibit 1)
However, as per Service Ontario (Exhibits 2, 3, and 4), there is no such official designation or category issued by the province. This raises serious questions about the fairness and legal clarity of the procurement criteria used to disqualify BAD.
Beyond the legal and administrative questions lies a deeper concern: the impact on children and families. With about 400 members and more on a waiting list, BAD provides critical athletic and developmental opportunities. GHAC, by contrast, appears to be in the early stages of building a new membership base and seemingly dependent on swimmers migrating from BAD. As one councillor accurately stated, this is a zero-sum game. In this case, the children are the ones losing out—some may be left without a club, without coaching continuity, and without competitive prospects.
The City now finds itself in a difficult position. On one hand, staff have committed to an agreement with GHAC. On the other, BAD may have legitimate grounds to pursue legal remedy in Superior Court, especially if the procurement process was flawed or misunderstood. If there is a way for the City to resolve this issue proactively, more children, families, and residents will benefit than if this is left to be determined through litigation.
Some BAD families are already leaving the program due to the uncertainty, and delays in resolution only increase the harm. The City must move quickly to assess whether the current course of action can be modified in the public interest.
Key questions must still be answered, such as:
Was the process flawed in some respect in the first place?
Would awarding the contract to BAD have resulted in less disruption and harm? Will the GHAC model lead to higher costs for families?
Having reviewed this situation through the lens of the available facts, applicable case law, and the Bellamy Report’s recommendations on procurement transparency, I urge Council to:
1 Take all reasonable steps to amicably resolve the situation with BAD without resorting to litigation
2 Initiate a thorough and independent investigation into how and why this outcome occurred.
WE WOULD ADD TO THAT – KEEP THE PROCESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Staff are expected to be transparent and accountable.
The residents of Burlington—and anyone considering doing business with the City—deserve a transparent and accountable procurement process. While some may hope this controversy fades away, it is in the public interest that it does not.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Gaetan, BGS
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
By Tom Parkin
July 9th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
On average, workers have regained some ground since the 2022 inflation spike, but the good times might be short-lived without action against job loss and falling GDP.
On one hand, the data showed April average wage gains were ahead of inflation. But the data also shows unemployment rising and GDP contracting. That trend is not only bad news for workers losing an income today, it threatens other workers’ continued wage gains in the future.
The average Canadian worker’s weekly earnings increased 4.4 per cent between April 2024 and April 2025, according to a Statistics Canada survey released June 26. Earnings changes result from lower wages, fewer hours or a combination of both.
The largest gains were by workers in information and culture, real estate and rentals, and the finance and insurance sectors. But earnings increases were not even or everywhere. The average worker in utilities, retailing and wholesale trade experienced a weekly earnings drop.
Price hikes were lower than the average weekly earnings increase. Inflation data released June 26 showed a 1.7 per cent increase in the Consumers Price Index from May 2024 to May 2024, the same rate as between April 2024 and April 2025.
Big hikes in housing costs have moderated as mortgage rates, asking rent and house purchase prices decline. But housing costs in May 2025 were still up 3.0 per cent from a year ago, significantly faster than general inflation. Grocery costs, up 3.4 per cent from a year ago, also continue to run ahead of the general CPI increase, threatening household budgets.
Gasoline prices are down from a year ago reflecting the carbon tax’s demise and crude prices falling from over $80 USD in May 2024 to about $60 USD in May 2025.
The bad news for workers is rising unemployment, which hit 7.0 per cent nationally in May 2025, up from 6.3 per cent in May 2024, according to Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey released June 4.
Connected to the Ontario-centred jobs slowdown, Canada’s GDP is getting smaller. From a peak of $2.294 trillion in January, GDP fell to $2.292 trillion in April, according to Statistics Canada data released June 26. Statistics Canada has provided “advanced information” about May, expecting GDP to fall a further 0.1 per cent, or $2 billion, to $2.290 trillion.
An annual data release in early May showed in 2024 Ontario’s GDP grew second slowest among the provinces. However, monthly data releases do not include provincial information.
GDP decline is not even across industries. Service-producing sectors generally continued to grow but goods-producing sectors shrank. In May 2024, manufacturing contributed $211 billion to Canadian GDP but fell to $203 billion in May 2025, a drop of 3.7 per cent. In contrast, the finance and insurance sector rose from $166 billion in May 2024 to $172 billion in May 2025, an increase of 3.7 per cent.
Certainly the economy is stalled very likely data to be released in July will likely show more GDP and job losses, in turn threatening workers’ continued wage gains revenging inflation.
Politicians, particularly the premier of Ontario, will pin blame on Trump, but that claim is neither true nor will it change the situation. Nor will Mark Carney’s pipelines ride in to save the day in the short-term or in Ontario, where the problem is worst. Doug Ford’s botched Ring of Fire scheme is on the never-neverland timetable. The Canada-Ontario EV supply chain strategy has gone silent.
Lots of data shows housing inflation is decelerating, but it is still not below the general rate of CPI increase. Strong housing construction starts could create jobs and help secure sustained lower housing prices, improving household finances and consumer confidence. But investors and governments are mostly on the sidelines, generating the pretence of concern and activity, but actually biding their time until the opportunity of crisis rebuilds.
Urgent action to build housing is not being proposed for the list of “national interest” projects and the federal government did not use its spring Commons session to implement the housing legislation on which it had campaigned. The new prime minister did not intercede when his housing minister said housing prices should not go down.
So what’s left on the table in July are interest rates. Opinion is mixed on whether, at its July 30 meeting, the Bank of Canada will hold the policy rate at 2.75 per cent or cut it 0.25 percentage points. But with inaction everywhere else, easier credit may be the only significant July economic move with any effect in mitigating job losses and supporting continued wage gains.
Short of that, we wait.
By Pam Pitz
July 8th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
At the risk of taking too much of your time and that of those copied on this email string, I felt compelled to highlight a few things that may have been missed or could use some emphasis following this morning’s council meeting. I think this is a learning experience for many including a better understanding by council members of the long term effort a swim club must make if they are to develop kids from recruitment (age 6 or 7) through to 18 years of age and overall success. The kids need stability, trust, and a sense of belonging to be the best that they can be. I am sure we all agree it isn’t about the clubs – rather, it’s about the children who need to be assured that common sense and fairness will prevail. Please be assured the overall BAD family wants the best for Burlington kids — it has been the club’s mission for decades having spoken to swimmers who have supported the club throughout its history.
1) While GHAC suggested had they not been excluded from Burlington pool allotment in 2020, they would have lost less Burlington kids, could have recruited more and, in turn, justified more Burlington pool time. They are clearly giving the impression that they had a large number of kids from Burlington in 2020, however this appears overstated. BAD has always been the club of choice in Burlington. Why? Because BAD has always represented Burlington kids with:
-
- Burlington hosted swim meets that attracts visitors to the city;
- Burlington community involvement,
- Burlington pride, signs and BAD swim gear as it travels.
- A name that speaks to its origin — BURLINGTON Aquatic Devilrays
 BAD swimmers in a training session It is clearly a Burlington identity with a long history. I might add GHAC’s creation in the first place was to respond to community needs in the Golden Horseshoe. They explained that today. Maybe these communities didn’t have the size or amenities to support a dedicated club like those that have existed for many years in Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, Milton, etc. where taxpayers pay for such benefits. Across the Province most cities have long histories with one major club representing their community – it’s the essence of community pride and competition. Further, poaching kids from Burlington, Hamilton, Oakville, etc., as a regional team is not consistent with swim team etiquette. This situation is grabbing the attention of other sports/clubs in Burlington and elsewhere – if it can happen to BAD, whose volunteers, coaches and kids have worked hard for decades to build a successful, respected club, it can happen to them.
-
 Based on their suggested numbers, the math would suggest they don’t need the pool time requested as compared to BAD’s needs. Even if one buys into the GHAC argument that they have about 28% of their swimmers from Burlington based on their suggested numbers, the math would suggest they don’t need the pool time requested as compared to BAD’s needs. BAD’s numbers are approaching 2.5 times those of GHAC when it comes to Burlington swimmers. Actually, common sense would suggest if GHAC’s Burlington swimmers wanted to swim in Burlington pools, rather then having over 400+ BAD kids move to GHAC or elsewhere, the less disruptive step would be to have GHAC Burlington swimmers move to BAD who would need a much more modest increase in pool time to accommodate them.
3) There is no policing of where swimmers come from for practices. Obviously policing the numbers is something the City cannot cost justify. GHAC wants pools, like Centennial, to run meets and to give them more pool time. Swimmers in all clubs are typically clustered around age and/or swim times with seniors allotted the better pools/facilities – like Centennial. Clustering serves to ensure the best coaching (limited) is given to them as they pursue the culmination of their competitive swimming efforts before college. It allows them to learn and feed off one another. I am sure, over time, this clustering will occur with GHAC and swimmers from other communities will be brought to practice in Burlington pools — pushing other Burlington swimmers to travel outside of Burlington or limiting the room for more Burlington recruits. Otherwise, why does GHAC need all the time they requested?
4) Please understand, even if all BAD swimmers went to GHAC, there is no benefit for BAD kids. The coaching at BAD, its reputation and successes are arguably better and the evidence shows the cost for BAD recruits is substantially lower — making it more accessible for kids with parents on limited budgets.
For the moment, let’s assume the coaching is comparable, however there are many other important points of impact :
In summary, there is NO benefit to BAD swimmers and particular to those in Intermediate and Senior levels who are focusing on the peak of their swimming careers, potential scholarships, etc.
 There are the personal relationships among the swimmers. They are supportive, feed off of each other, learn from each other, and bring healthy, well understood rivalry – often growing up together as their best friends. 5) No club can bring success in five year intervals. No kid can adjust because of regional expansion of an out-of-town association that brings unnecessary change in five year allotments. These kids are very impressionable, especially in the preteen and teen years. We all realize how experts caution parents in this regard. Kids have growth spurts, injuries, personal challenges at home, temporary distracting events, and many other factors that the coaches and club understand for each and every kid. This understanding develops over time and increases in intensity as the years pass by. They know the kids’ strengths and weaknesses by swim stroke, training habits, personalities, etc. The kids understand each coach’s disciplines, techniques and communication styles. Bonds form. Trust develops. It’s critical that the evolution of these relationships is protected and the results preserved, especially in the later years of the program. On top of this, there are the personal relationships among the swimmers. They are supportive, feed off of each other, learn from each other, and bring healthy, well understood rivalry – often growing up together as their best friends. They understand each other in terms of competitive swimming sacrifices and routines. These kids cannot be expected to embrace disruption every five years.
Fresh ideas are brought in by BAD and probably GHAC. BAD sources guests like current Olympians, sports psychologists , nutritional experts, and arranges professional land training, etc. BAD knows the importance of stability and trust and so does GHAC. That is what disappoints the most. If the number one priority is the kids then clubs like GHAC should focus on the communities they serve based on their original concept and market and stop encroaching on other proven clubs and communities. Taken to the extreme, regional expansion effectively eliminates competition except from within. That is not what underpins any competitive sport — rather, competition is nurtured through community pride and involvement.
Please consider these heartfelt, sincere and rational points of view. I am reminded of a T-shirt you often see parents wearing akin to “soccer moms”. It says something along the lines of, “Swim Mom” – 1000 hours of practice, one hour of warm-ups and 30 seconds of competition. Of course, longer races do exist but one can understand the point. In swimming, in particular, a hundredth of a second can make all the difference. That is why long term bonds, consistency and trust from the clubs and coaches is key along the development journey – it’s constantly tweaking based on the in-depth knowledge of each swimmer by the coaches. BAD has spent 40 plus years doing just that in Burlington.
 Pam Pitz There is nothing to be gained by radically diminishing or eliminating BAD in favour of a club who represents other communities and is currently operating within them. It was their choice at inception. BAD’s choice was Burlington and they enjoy the majority of Burlington competitive swimmers by far.
If this current ruling prevails it will mean a huge loss for the BAD kids and is not consistent with the “no harm” principle that was shared today.
Respectfully,
By Pepper Parr
July 7th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The impact the resignation of Haassan Basit as Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) has yet to be felt. It will turn out to be much stronger and more damaging than most people realize.
Basit had a strong working relationship with a Mayor Meed Ward when he was Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Halton Conservation Authority.
 Haassan Basit brought a new level of staff organization to the City. General Managers were named Commissioners. When the city manager position opened up (Tim Commiso decided not to renew his contract) Haassan Basit applied for the job. He was hired.
The only person a city Council hires is the City Manager. The City Manager does all the staff hiring.
The City Manager hires city staff, organizes that staff into effective operational units and prepares a budget telling Council what will be needed to keep the city running and deliver all the programs City Council decides on.
The relationship between a city manager and a Mayor is unique.
When Tim Dobbie was City Manager and Rob MacIsaac Mayor, City Hall was a very smooth operation. Dobbie knew what Council wanted better than some of the Council members; he worked very very closely with MacIsaac.
Roman Martiuk was the City Manager when Cam Jackson was Mayor
 Rick Goldring served as a two term Mayor, first elected as mayor in 2010, and then for a second term in 2014. He was a member of Council representing ward 5. Rick Goldring, who defeated Jackson, started with Roman Martiuk and ended up with James Ridge. In between Jeff Fielding served as City Manager for close to three years, then left to work with Naheed Nenshi, Mayor of Calgary
One rarely sees this kind of senior-level change in the private sector.
Which brings me around to the relationship Mayor Meed Ward had with Haassan Basit. He was her choice for the City manager that was to replace Tim Commisso.
Meed Ward had worked closely with Haassan when he was CEO of Conservation Halton (CH). Basit did some very good work at CH. The hope was that he would bring about bring some of that to Burlington.
It didn’t work out that way.
Someone said that there were 80 applications for the job of City Manager – no one ever fact checked that number.
Mayor Meed Ward had no time for James Ridge. Her very first act as Mayor, once she was sworn in, was to call a Special Meeting of Council and have them agree to fire Ridge. Most of that meeting would have been closed and the public will never know what the vote was.
With Ridge gone Meed Ward was free to look for a new City Manager. She invited Tim Commisso, who we understand she didn’t know all that well, for coffee – that led to his being named as Interim City Manager. Commisso was, for the most part easy to get along with. He can be tough, Sheila Jones and Bryn Neally learned that when they were both let go at the same time. Why were they let go? – that story has yet to come out.
 Tim Commisso texting while Mayor Meed Ward looks on – the relationship was in tatters at this point. When Meed Ward made an unfortunate remark at an Ontario Big City Mayors group (OBCM) about her dissatisfaction with Commisso – it didn’t take long for that to get back to Commisso. Despite being given a very significant salary increase weeks before, Commissio advised the Mayor that he would not be renewing his contract.
What had become clear is that Marianne Meed Ward does not have the experience or character needed to work with dedicated professionals in a way that allows them to do the job they were hired to do.
Meed Ward must have thought Hassaan Basit would work out – they had worked together at Conservation Halton where he was Chief Executive Officer
He had a very strong relationship with environmental people at Queen’s Park and had an excellent relationship with Premier Doug Ford.
 Basit wasn’t with the city long enough to determine if the direction he was taking was going to make a difference. Was Haassan Basit recruited by the province? Or had he gotten to the point where he had enough of Meed Ward and went after a new opportunity? The role he will play at Queen’s Park is one that didn’t exist before he was hired.
Hassaan leaves the city early in August. The Mayor will now look for an Interim while Council advertises and looks for a new Chief Executive Officer. Mayor Meed Ward put a nice spin on Basit leaving. Don’t expect an exit conversation to take place between those two.
The hiring of a new CAO is a process that takes as much as six months – by that time the city council members will have begun the process of getting themselves re-elected.
The size of the pool of Ontario city managers that Burlington can draw upon is very small – and they all know each other.
It is reasonable to expect that applicants will want to wait until after the municipal election to submit applications.
The administration of the city is going to be bumpy, perhaps for as much as a year. Not what Burlington needs at this point in time.
It gets worse. The city has some very talented people with significant municipal experience. Some of those may begin wondering if Burlington is the place for them to continue developing their careers. Municipalities poach talent from each other all the time.
Jamie Tellier and Nick Anastasopoulos have shown how two departments can work hand in hand with each other and produce superb results. Will those two be polishing resumes – have they had phone calls?
Chad McDonald, Chief Information Officer, who heads up Digital Services, a department that has experienced huge growth. has done some sterling work – I’d be surprised if he hasn’t already had offers – there are private sector corporations that would love to have some of this man’s talent on their team.
The resignation of CAO Hassaan Basit and the messy situation on the allocation of pool time will have an impact that might not be immediately understood. That issue should have been on his desk; no mention so far on what, if any role, Basit played in the decision that was made.
 This might be the way some people see the City of Burlington. Burlington is getting to become a bit of a joke amongst senior civic administrators across the province – not something career civic servants will want to highlight on their resumes.
Anyone thinking of applying for the CAO job will think twice about jumping in – there are greener fields elsewhere.
Municipal level gossip is big – city managers all know each other – they tend to move from city to city every five years. The Tim Dobbie city manager model worked well – these men, and they were mostly men at that time, spent decades with a Mayor. Rob MacIsaac served as the Mayor of Burlington for three consecutive terms, from 1997 to 2006; Dobbie was with him every step of the way.
That model hasn’t been seen for some time.
Senior staff begin to wonder if Burlington is the place to build a career
Their mindsets move from doing some great thinking to – is this a good place for me to grow my career?
Is this all the result of Mayor Marianne Meed Ward’s leadership?
 By Katie Lebel
July 4th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
As a follow-up to your ongoing coverage of the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD), I wanted to share some new context that will inform Monday’s Council meeting, where the club will formally delegate.
 Is the Sports Eco-system in the process of changing? While the immediate issue is pool time allocation, the broader concern emerging from this case is that the City of Burlington may be unknowingly endorsing a shift toward a privatized model of youth sport — one that prioritizes market expansion over community values. BAD’s delegation will respectfully ask Council to consider what kind of sport ecosystem they want to support going forward.
Here are four key differences between BAD’s nonprofit model and the model GHAC appears to be advancing:
1. High Fee Structure
- GHAC programs appear to cost 2–2.5x more than BAD for similar age groups and training levels.
- These higher costs do not appear to be tied to more intensive programming or superior coaching.
- Instead, they seem to reflect a market-based, pay-to-play model that could create a barrier to access for many families.
- This marks a shift away from the principle that youth sport should be accessible and publicly supported.
2. Drop-In, Multi-Pool Practice Model
- GHAC swimmers reportedly attend practices at multiple pools across the region, rather than being assigned to a single site/team.
- This disrupts traditional sport development frameworks, which emphasize peer cohesion and long-term coach-athlete relationships.
- The model seems to prioritize parental convenience and consumer flexibility — echoing for-profit gym or swim lesson models rather than club sport principles.
3. Multi-City Expansion
-
 There are more than 130 swimming clubs in Ontario GHAC operates in Hamilton, Dundas, Ancaster, Stoney Creek, and now Burlington — a region-wide, growth-first footprint more characteristic of commercial expansion than community sport.
- Centralized administration and uniform branding further reflect a franchise-style approach, rather than a municipal or community-rooted one.
4. Aggressive Recruitment / Market Capture
- GHAC has begun recruiting BAD swimmers, which is viewed by many as a market acquisition tactic, not a collaborative approach between clubs.
- This raises concerns that the City’s endorsement of GHAC is enabling market consolidation, rather than fostering a diverse, inclusive sport landscape.
 We risk losing an entire philosophy of sport. 5. The Bigger Picture:
This isn’t an isolated case. The model GHAC is advancing is not unlike the rise of private swim schools like Aqua-Tots or Goldfish Swim School — both of which have steadily eroded participation in municipal swimming lesson programs by offering high-fee, drop-in based alternatives.
While these providers fill a market niche, the concern is that public infrastructure — in this case, municipal pools — is now being allocated in ways that mirror those privatization trends.
Preserve what’s working. Why It Matters
“There could be room for both models in the sport ecosystem,” says Kimberly Calderbank. “But if the City pushes out volunteer-led, community-based clubs in favour of market-based providers, we risk losing more than just pool hours. We risk losing an entire philosophy of sport — one that values equity, inclusion, and community-building over revenue growth.”
BAD’s delegation will be rooted in gratitude, positivity, and a simple request: do no harm.
Protect access.
Preserve what’s working.
And ensure that Burlington’s public infrastructure serves all families — not just those who can afford to pay more.
Katie Lebel is a supporter of the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays.
By Pepper Parr
June 27th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
The CEO is leaving the city.
 Hassan Basit – leaving City as the CEO – joining the provincial government as a senior civil servant. It comes as no surprise.
I’ve known Hassan for a long time. First met him when he was doing communications for Conservation Halton. Had long conversations with him when he decided to go after the top job with Conservation.
They made the right decision and hired him as the top dog.
He made huge changes at CH.
I was surprised when he decided to go after the job of CEO for the City. Hassaan and Marianne Meed Ward – I personally didn’t see that as a great fit.
Hassaan didn’t have much in the way of municipal-level experience, but he did bring some new ideas to the job and made the best of what he had in the way of senior-level talent.
He has been hired as the Chief Conservation Executive for the province. In the fullness of time Hassaan Basit could well become a Deputy Minister in the provincial government.
Good luck to him
 Vacation will have to wait – the Mayor needs a new CEO City Council now has the task of finding someone to steer the ship during what is going to be a tough time.
There are two people who could serve as an Interim CEO – Scott Hamilton is probably the best choice. Curt Benson is worth a close look.
Hassaan had no term plans for being a player at the municipal level.
The city now has a problem.
 By Jessica Bell
June 16th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Donald Trump’s escalating trade war and threats to our economy should be a wake-up call for Ontario’s Conservative government to bring a robust economic plan that puts Ontario and Canada first. Doug Ford didn’t give us that.
Ontarians want to do their part and support our country and province, and we need to make it easy for them to do so. But instead of a real strategy, the Conservatives proposed to recognize the last Friday of each June as “Buy Ontario, Buy Canadian Day.”
 Jessica Bell is the MPP for University–Rosedale and the NDP’s finance critic. Every day should be “Buy Ontario, Buy Canadian Day,” not just one day. That’s why the Ontario NDP introduced a law to mandate the labelling of Canadian-made products, including food, so Ontarians can visit the supermarket and choose to buy Canadian products, supporting local businesses and local job creation. The Conservatives put politics ahead of patriotism and voted our motion down.
The moment we are in calls for unity of purpose, to take good ideas from all sides of the political spectrum, so we can put our province first.
What a missed opportunity. According to Bank of Montreal economist Robert Kavcic, even a modest shift in consumer spending toward Canadian goods could add $10 billion in value to the economy alone.
This legislative session, Ontario should have flexed its hefty purchasing muscle and made firm commitments to buy, build and invest in local projects, products and services.
Ontario is investing $200 billion in infrastructure projects, including hospitals, highways, transit, schools and child-care spots. These investments should be allocated to public agencies, and Ontario and Canadian businesses first, not foreign companies. The government should also mandate conditions to maximize these investments, such as requiring projects to use resources from our most trade-impacted sectors, such as steel, aluminum and lumber.
Ensuring more government dollars go to Canadian and Ontario businesses and workers has huge economic value. Every year, the Ontario government buys $29 billion in goods and services, but only $3 billion goes to Ontario-based businesses. That number should be much higher.
Over the past few months, trade associations, unions and businesses have been providing examples to the government on how exactly Ontario can support specific workers, public institutions and business sectors.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture recommended Ontario require institutions, like schools, hospitals and prisons, to prioritize buying locally grown food because it would help Ontario farms and strengthen local supply chains.
What the Conservatives have proposed instead is a new $35-million Ontario grape program to encourage wine producers to use Ontario-grown grapes. While support for our wine sector is welcome, our entire agricultural sector needs support to withstand the impact of the tariff war, not just the wine sector.
Canada’s largest private sector union, Unifor, joined our call for governments to harness our lumber resources and build affordable housing to fix our national housing crisis. This plan should include manufacturing housing in Ontario factories to create jobs, speed up housing construction and lower construction costs.
Unifor also called on Ontario to contract with Canadian companies to build new transit lines and increase the Canadian-content requirements for municipal and provincial purchases of streetcars, subway cars and buses, especially electric vehicles. Ontario has transit vehicle manufacturing plants in Thunder Bay and Kingston that are operating below capacity.
In Ontario, the standard requirement is that transit vehicles purchased with provincial funding must have at least 25 per cent Canadian content. The Conservatives relaxed this rule and allowed the massive Ontario Line subway project to be built by a U.S. company that was given the flexibility to meet a lower Canadian-content requirement of 10 per cent. That wasn’t a good move then, and it looks even worse now.
Ontarians want the Ontario government to have their back during this economically challenging time. Strong “buy local” and “build local” policies will help Ontario keep jobs in our province, keep small- and medium-sized businesses afloat, and help trade-impacted industries, like our manufacturing sector, weather Trump’s economic storm. What are we waiting for?
Jessica Bell is the MPP for University–Rosedale and the NDP’s finance critic.
25
By Tom Parkin
May 27th, 2025
BURLINGTON. ON
Sales at building and garden stores are falling, most sharply in Ontario, a possible index of household discretionary income.
May is when sales of building and garden supplies peak each year as Canadians get ready to plant and start summer household repair projects.
But for the past three years, Canadians have been pulling back on that spending, and regional patterns echo other data about household financial strength.
In May 2022, sales at building and garden centres hit $5.70 billion, according to Statistics Canada inflation-adjusted data. But May sales have fallen in each of the past two years, peaking at $5.34 billion in May 2023 and just $5.27 billion in May 2024.
Totals sales for 2022 were $50.1 billion, $46.6 billion in 2023 and $46.0 billion in 2024, an eight per cent fall. And the spending declines come despite Canada’s population increase from about 39 million to 41 million.
The decline may be another signal that the cost of essentials — housing, transit, food and monthly bills — are eating up a larger share of income, causing many Canadians to cut back where they can, affecting retail sales and employment.
But the latest data from Statistics Canada, released Friday, does offer a sliver of hope that more Canadians are feeling able to spend on their home environment in 2025.
 Ontarians have been pulling back on garden spending in each of the past three years. In March 2025, the latest month reporting, Canadians rang up $3.24 billion in sales at building and garden centres, slightly up from $3.22 billion in March 2024. Sales in March 2023 were $3.30 billion and in March 2022 were $3.93 billion.
While in March 2025 Manitobans spent 10 per cent more at garden and building centres than in March 2024 and Albertans spent nine per cent more, Ontarians’ March spending fell nearly four per cent from a year ago. The second largest annual decline was in Quebec, where consumers pulled back one per cent.
 Weak sales at Ontario building supply centres may help us understand why Ontario had GDP growth of just 1.2 per cent in 2024 and the second-highest rate of unemployment in April, 7.8 per cent. Ontarians have been pulling back on building and garden spending in each of the past three years with lower peaks in May and deeper troughs each February. Last week’s data release showed $1.10 billion in Ontario sales in March 2025. In March 2022, sales were $1.53 billion. While several other provinces have seen declines, Ontario’s has been the fastest.
Consumer spending is by far the largest component of GDP, about double the amount contributed by government and business spending combined.
Weak sales at Ontario garden and building centres may help us understand why Ontario had GDP growth of just 1.2 per cent in 2024 and the second-highest rate of unemployment in April, 7.8 per cent: businesses extracting wealth from households have put consumers under attack and in retreat, starving other businesses and any need to hire workers.
The data below is interactive.
By Tom Parkin
May 15th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Ontario needs a significant plan to reverse the trend in housing construction and today’s Ontario budget is unlikely to deliver it.
Only 67.6 new housing units per 100,000 population were built in the first quarter of 2025, the lowest level since the Q1 of 1996, according to Statistics Canada.
Thousands of Ontario residential construction workers are unemployed in a province where the need for housing has never been greater. Ontario unemployment now stands at 7.8 per cent with significant construction sector job losses in April. Construction unions and real builders can only remain complacent about this for so long.
Yet, the province’s most recent legislation, Bill 17, introduced Monday, offers no reason to believe it will succeed where the many earlier iterations of the same approach have so evidently failed.
The legislation continues to play with development charges and approvals processes. Streamlining approvals is fine, but off-target in a province where very few are seeking project approvals.
 Two-thirds of Canadians choose to buy their housing and many more would like to own. Construction of single-family housing, typically owner occupied, has collapsed due to a lack of demand under current unaffordable prices. The average price of a benchmark home in the Greater Toronto Area rose from $757,000 in Jun 2018 to $1,313,000 in June 2022. Prices are since down, but financing costs are up from the low levels of 2020-2022.
The result has been a market stand-off with investors holding back supply, trying to maintain price levels, and buyers unable to pay the prices being demanded.
The condominium sector is in utter collapse not because there’s a lack of housing demand but because developers built for demand from owner-investors, not owner-residents.
An investor buying a “dog crate” condo of less than 500 or 600 square feet could churn enough tenants through at high rents to pay a low finance cost mortgage. But with higher finance costs and falling asking rents, demand from owner-investors has evaporated.
Now the Toronto condo model premised on investor-ownership no longer makes financial sense. The result is a massive supply of terrible quality housing on the market at distressed prices. They make no sense an as investment and few people want to buy one for occupancy.
The result of market failures has been that perhaps the only housing sector holding up has been apartment buildings construction for corporate ownership. While Ontario needs all the housing it can get, more corporate rental units do not provide the same benefits as housing ownership, either of a house or condo.
Security of tenure, the possibility of one day living both rent- and mortgage-free, the end of dependance on unreliable maintenance — there are many good reasons two-thirds of Canadians choose to buy their housing and many more would like to own. They are not wrong.
Home ownership shouldn’t be a get-rich plan, but it should be a reasonable and attainable goal for far more people. While focusing on the rights of tenants and protecting affordable rents is critical, Ontarians want political leadership that helps them meet their dreams.
The Ford PCs and their federal Liberal allies have crushed those dreams. The NDP in Ontario and federally have mostly ignored them. Perhaps the social democrats should consider that protecting renters while rekindling the home ownership dream is not a sell-out or contradiction.
|
|
