Muir - This new OP is not complete. Let the planners do their job.

opinionandcommentBy Tom Muir

April 24th, 2018



I have a number of comments and concerns, based on some of my experience for the last several years, regarding the staff bring forward of this new OP with recommendation for adoption.

1. This new OP is not complete, and not good planning practice to adopt at this time with piecemeal structure and many loose ends. It is lacking in accuracy, details, and clarity.

There are 3 Mobility Hubs Plans that are an inherent part of this OP, that are incomplete. These will not be reviewed publicly and given Planning Act due diligence process until possibly early 2019.

The PPS/Planning Act specifies the need for a transportation systems plan, freight support plan, a transit support plan, and an active transportation plan. There are none of these complete and available to inform council, the public and decision-makers.

All those thousands of unaccounted for vehicles are not going to disappear because the planners refuse to recognize they exist.

There are other components of the proposed plan needing publicly settled that are incomplete.

The truth is the important planning pieces that are needed are data and facts, not all kinds of assumptions and fact-less assertions.

Taken collectively, the assertions, assumptions, and conclusions, made in support of recommending adoption of the proposed OP, are not substantiated by an evidence-based research design that can predict the future, and are professionally frowned on statements that overreach the research design.

growbold-847x254I cannot say, or agree, with the ability of the City and staff to deal with this lack of key information, and failure to implement the Planning Act/PPS, and yet they still recommend adopting an incomplete OP that has demonstrated such a lot of public opposition and continues to demonstrate this opposition tonight.

Again, I say this is not good planning, and this should be obvious, and seems to be to ordinary citizens.
You owe it to us all that you pretty much need to know, and be able to tell us on facts, that this Plan is going to work as you say. But you don’t know that.

However, what people do know is that walk, bike, and bus is not going to work for people, not in Burlington for a lot of practical reasons, so open your eyes and see.

With your focus on intensification, everything else is assumed to fit, when you should be doing the planning to make it fit.

Residents want you to be able to make the intensification fit so the Plan can fly. Plan it to work, now.
Right now, for numerous current applications – Plains Rd, Brant St, Downtown etc.- the density asked for simply has to be based on reduced standards of everything in order to squeeze it in, and if that has to be done then it doesn’t meet the PPS and needs of the existing OP and by-laws.


Pigs don’t fly?

This won’t work because the parts don’t fit together. Pigs don’t fly.

2. Over the last few years, I have delegated severally on this OP over the process, and on a significant number of specific applications in Ward 1 Aldershot, Ward 2 Downtown, and issues related to transportation, transit, and the biking plan.

So I know what I have seen and heard, repeatedly, about what needed information is really missing and how some at the City insist that this missing information does not matter, and the city must move ahead without this key business information, and it must be done right now.

I don’t think this is anywhere good enough.

No matter when the proposed OP is approved by Council, and becomes “informative” only, not “in force”, the Mobility Hubs and the other missing plans I mentioned, are still not informative or in force until first approved by City Council, then the Region, which means it does not exist until then.

So then the Planning Act/PPS says the existing OP is required to be used, must be framed in this OP framed local context, and most important, this OP is to implement the PPS.

What is not to be considered is the language of a non-existent OP, and non-existent Mobility Hubs, and non-existent plans for transportation, transit, active transportation, and so on.

I must ask how all this that does not exist yet, is to be complied with in good faith, in such a situation where developers, not to mention the politicians and managers, are steadily trying to indoctrinate the planning staff, (ongoing in time with the proposed OP development), to encourage and approve density and form of a non-existent, not in force, and not policy relevant OP, or planning concepts and ideas?

In my observation and experience in this, I simply have to question how the Planning staff are supposed to retain their professional objectivity, and serve the public interest, when they are bombarded with this language from developers, and more so, in my view, badgered and cajoled by some insistent members of Council, and some City managers, to adopt and to act out the same directions?

With all this shoving and encouraging density and form at them, how can the planners be objective?

I’m telling you to let the planners do their job. I have seen myself some of you just not do that, but interject in questions to planners at meetings.

I have seen, and been told enough, not to think that they are not being unduly influenced about what to do.

We all know there can be a fine scary line between professional integrity and having a job.

I provide here one section from the OPPI Professional Code of Practice for your information.


1.0 The Planner’s Responsibility to the Public Interest

Members have a primary responsibility to define and serve the interests of the public. This requires the use of theories and techniques of planning that inform and structure debate, facilitate communication. and foster understanding. Accordingly, a Member shall:

1.1 practice in a manner that respects the diversity, needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters;

1.2 provide full, clear and accurate information on planning matters to decision makers and members of the public, while recognizing both the client’s right to confidentiality and the importance of timely recommendations;

1.3 acknowledge the inter-related nature of planning decisions and their consequences for individuals, the natural and built environment, and the broader public interest; and

1.4 identify and promote opportunities for meaningful participation in the planning process to all interested parties.

I don’t have the time here to explain these, however, I have said what I mean and I say again, let them do their professional and objective duty.

And give the residents and Council the critical information needed to inform us all before things get decided, and to keep the faith.

muir-delegatingTom Muir is an Aldershot resident who has been delegating for more than 30 years. He understands the process better than many of the members of council. He is blunt, direct and usually exceptionally well informed. He is a ward Councillors worst dream. And he loves what he does,

Return to the Front page

Now we know why: Jim Young goes on record - Grow Bold, Urban Growth Centres, Downtown Mobility Hubs and Special Development Precincts have simply been a smoke screen.

opinionandcommentBy Jim Young

April 24th, 2018



For years now everybody has known that the OMB was a very developer friendly organization.

Its decisions usually favoured developer’s amendments over official plans and that in any fight for increased density or increased height the developer would win and the citizens would lose.

Jim Young with Kell in background

Jim Young – delegating to city council.

That changed recently. The new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal LPAT will be much more cognizant of city official plans and will apparently favour Official Plans in effect at the time of any appeal.

The current Official Plan is the plan that would have to be considered by LPAT. That’s the plan that has low to medium heights all the way up Brant St. and limits intensification and height to around the go stations.

So if a developer were to take the city to LPAT today, LPAT would probably rule in favour of the heights laid out in the existing plan.

For years developers have bought up land on Brant street, the core and along Plains Rd knowing that the city Official Plan limits would be easily over ruled at the old OMB. City council accepted some drastic amendments knowing that the OMB would do just that.

Now there is a good chance that a similar appeal to the LPAT would result in the present heights in the present official plan being upheld.

That would be good news for citizens but bad news for Developers.

On TV recently Councillor Sharman defended a council position that since developers investments cannot break even until their building plans exceed 16/17 storeys, it is incumbent upon city council to help them achieve this. He repeated this statement at a meeting I attended with ECoB, City Planning and Himself. This philosophy seems to be shared by a majority on council.

So if developers need at least 16 storeys to break even and current city plans limit heights to between 4 and 12 storeys downtown where can a developer go?

They can’t go to LPAT, because LPAT may well favour the current city official Plan Heights and rule in favour of the lower heights.

The only alternative was to go to a developer friendly city council and ask for a New Official Plan that would permit higher buildings in the downtown core making any future appeal to LPAT more plan friendly and therefore more developer friendly.

And that is exactly what our New Official Plan has become. A permit for Developers to build higher while avoiding the risk of losing arguments at the New LPAT.

All the talk of Grow Bold, Urban Growth Centres, Downtown Mobility Hubs and Special Development Precincts have simply been a smoke screen to cloak a very developer friendly plan in a veneer of planning respectability.

That also explains the rush to get the plan on to the books. The longer the old plan remains in effect the longer the developers are left holding properties they cannot turn into profits. This is a serious cash flow and business problem for them.

So from a somewhat banal project to review the official plan starting seven years ago, suddenly as the OMB LPAT differences became obvious last year, the push was on to get this done.

The only delays that were allowed were to help council to be clearer on exactly what was being proposed, to give staff the time to tweak the plan to ensure that the “Special Development Precincts” were exactly where the developers owned property, while dressing it up as “Public Consultation”. We are now at the 3rd or 4th rewrite I believe of this Official Plan.

Jim Young

Jim Young

As I recall the original plan was to have it adopted by council and submitted to the region by November last year. It has now been delayed three or four times, once for council, once for staff once to allow a regional agricultural mapping inclusion. It seems it can be delayed for just about anybody or anything except the people it most impacts. The people of Burlington.

At least one member of council, a large number of private delegations, delegations on behalf of various citizen advocacy groups asked time and time again if this process might be delayed to allow the people of Burlington greater input and real engagement in the process and then put the plan to them in the upcoming election. Every attempt to delay that process to allow greater citizen engagement or input was rejected by council.

Now we know why.

It seems we can delay the adoption of this extremely unpopular official plan for Councillors, for city staff, for developers and even for the region. Yet when your citizens, your constituents, your voters suggest it be delayed we are told NO!

Now we know why.

We are told that the Official Plan is way too important to delay it and allow the final say by the very people it is supposed to be written for, The Citizens of Burlington, Rural, Urban and Downtown who will have to live with it for the next several decades.

Now we know why.

Now that the citizens of Burlington are becoming aware of the reasons for rushing this flawed and developer friendly plan through council, very much against their wishes, they are mobilising to defeat it in the upcoming election.

Across the city from Alton to Aldershot and in every area in between groups are looking for candidates who will oppose and overturn this Official Plan. Candidates who will rewrite it with real input from citizens whose views have been so ignored and overlooked in this truly terrible Official Plan Process. Candidates who will fight to make citizen engagement a reality in Burlington.

The issue you tried to hide from the electorate will be front and centre in that campaign and you will be reminded of the folly of ignoring your citizens when the votes are counted in October.

If you choose to be the candidates who still, after all these delegations, after all these raised protest voices are still not listening, still not getting it, the electorate have the right to ask: “Are you with the citizens or the developers?”

You cannot continue to ignore us and claim you are with both.

Ballot going in box

The choice will be ours.

It is not too late. You can still delay this, still fulfill the wishes of your citizens. Or you can go ahead and adopt it. The choice is yours and in a democracy that is as it should be.

Just remember – come October, the choice will be ours and in a democracy that too, is as it should be.


Return to the Front page

Kearns sets out where the city got it wrong wth the community benefits that were given to the 421 Brant - 23 storey high rise.

opinionandcommentBy Lisa Kearns

April 24th, 2018



This delegation sets out my position on item PB 33-18 – Community Benefits 421-431 Brant St. as Jim Young has delegated on behalf of ECoB this evening.

Section 37Aaron A. Moore, Phd and expert on urban politics and public policy penned the IMFG Paper on Municipal Finance and Governance said the most common rationales used to invoke and justify the use of Section 37, more broadly know as density bonusing are:

• funding related infrastructure upgrades
• sharing the wealth created by development
• compensating those negatively affected by the development

In review of the 421 Brant St. Inc. report, there are few indirect infrastructure supporting benefits. With the longer vision of pedestrian-oriented flex street and the impending anchor mobility hub provisions the closest benefits are:

421 Brant• $150K in streetscape improvements coupled with $250K in setbacks/widened view corridors.

In my analysis, much of this can be takes as part of the 5% parkland dedication and the initiative to broaden the streetscape could have been reviewed by increasing Schedule O in the Draft Official Plan to widen Brant Street from Lakeshore Rd. to Caroline Ave greater than the current 18m in order to satisfy the Main Street function of: Table 1 Transportation Facilities. 2.4. Main Streets:

Serve the Downtown Urban Centre and the urban corridor that connects the Downtown Mobility Hub to the Burlington GO Mobility Hub;

Support mixed use places that contain a pedestrian-oriented public realm and street-oriented buildings;

Accommodate high levels of pedestrian and cycling activity and transit service, and moderate levels of vehicular traffic, typically within narrower rights of way;

Accommodate a moderate to high degree of people-moving capacity.

One way this could be interpreted is that the negotiators of this Report PB-33-18 have in part, bought benefits they didn’t necessarily have to and could have drafted the benefits the City finds favourable into the draft official plan, which this application is required to be in compliance of, when this was perhaps a missed opportunity, in part and adds up to nearly a quarter of the value of the total benefits.

Did we negotiate too specific and too early?

Not limited to direct funding for infrastructure upgrades, cost avoidance for future pressures on infrastructure can fall in this same category. This is where I will allocate the provision of green technology and sustainable architecture. At an indirect community benefit of $300K, LEED certification standards and/or compliance with the City’s Sustainable Building and Development Guidelines have been negotiated.

Appendix E in report PB-62-17 draws in the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee which has recognition under the current OP provides that “to the greatest extent possible, proposed development shall be consistent with the goals of sustainable development”. While the general concept of this building is acceptable, there is no evidence of stewardship initiatives in the plans to use LEED at a certified level although a willingness was verbally indicated. Why include this benefit at the application phase when it can be advantageous at the bonusing stage, perhaps the weight should have been greater in the public comments to prevent this crossroads.

Sharing the wealth created by development. There is no doubt that there is a financial consideration in a project this large, we know that from the Altus Group Economic Report and the uptick in development revenues in the City budget, not to mention the on going tax base increase. But just how much is the increased height really worth and how should this be spread out amongst the indirect parties. While not nearly enough to purchase even one unit in this property, $300K in cash is better than the single option negotiated in the 4853 Thomas Alton Blvd. report PB-16-16 which requires commitment from a housing provider to deliver affordable housing on a long term basis.

Nick Carnacelli

Kearns wants Carriage Gate developer Nick Carnacelli to think in terms of the opportunity for the applicant to help drive value out of being in a position of power for the community.

Where I do take exception is to the Applicants’s previous delegation in such an absolute statement that “the Region of Halton does not have an affordable housing plan and the City does not have a program”, that is not to say that this excuses or discounts the real need and concern for housing affordability. In fact this is where an opportunity for the applicant to help drive value out of being in a position of power for the community by spearheading inclusivity through the Section 37 provisions.

A hard look should be taken on if this was the best we could get. Going beyond shouldn’t be just going beyond height, it should be going beyond basic requirements and setting the foundation to create a demographic mix that contributes to our vibrant downtown.

Toronto Star columnist Andrew Keenan muses that the purpose of Section 37 in the Planning act is to offset the problems caused by changes to a neighbourhood when different kinds of developments are added to it, such as to compensate for increased traffic, population, or changes to the streetscape new developments bring. We would deduce that the bigger the problems, the bigger the benefits.

The list of problems with this application have been captured through online comments, delegations, written submissions, coffee shop talks, emails and a current of anxiety and unease through the community. One resident’s submission on May 15, 2017 summed it up concisely, her excerpt reads“…insufficient parking for residents, only 2 elevators, no parking for visitiors, no parking for commercial tenants, change to the individual shops along Brant with a design that is completely out of context visually with the neighbourhood, shadows and traffic…this proposal does not belong in this location”.

421 James street rendering

What will the impact of the 421 Brant development be on city hall – not just the physical impact but the impact on the way the city is going to grow.

Alas, the Section 37 Benefits – a hefty $400K in privately accessible visitor parking, a quarter of the benefits to keep visitors out of the already contentious parking needs of the downtown. This could be viewed as a benefit, however, does it address parking for the 900 square meters of retail space? At minimum the recommendation for retail store stand alone is 1.5 spaces per 100 GFA that’s a minimum of 13 spaces, but we have 8. The comparison is easy to make that other stand alone retail doesn’t offer on site parking, however, if we are afforded a chance to improve this at the foundational level, does 8 private spaces address the spaces lost with no net benefit?

This provision is meant to compensate residents for the real or perceived effects of development by providing for new amenities in the neighbourhood. Public art, a covered promenade, and the remaining benefits do little to offset the anger that has swelled in the community around this application. There are no open community amenities, no greenspace compensation for more trees, nothing. These negotiations do not even come close to anointing the damage the neighbourhood perceives and feels.

The delegation, deferred from the last meeting, was to ask Committee to simply afford the public the same opportunity that the applicant was given to have an opportunity to openly delegate and tell this committee if they have succeeded in negotiating Section 37 benefits that truly align with building an engaging city, good governance and community building.

We know our City could have done better to Grow Smart, not just Bold.

Kerns - head slantedLisa Kerns is a downtown Burlington resident and an active member of ECoB – Engaged Citizens of Burlington.  She is also a self admitted policy wonk – she digs and figures out just what much of the baffle-gab means.

Return to the Front page

The movement of oil has somehow become a constitutional issue - Alberta and British Columbia are slugging it out.

Rivers 100x100By Ray Rivers

April 22, 2018



Today Canada is in the midst of another constitutional crisis as British Columbia and Alberta slug it out over the twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the delivery of bitumen from the Alberta oil sands to ports in B.C. The pipeline is one of three which were recently approved by the federal government given its constitutional authority over inter-provincial matters.

Today’s global oil prices mean that Alberta desperately needs the efficiency of pipeline transport for its export-destined bitumen to be competitive on world markets. The pipeline in question involves a twinning of an existing pipe being developed by Texas based oil industry giant Kinder Morgan. This should be straightforward, a done deal, and it would be, except for the politics.

john Horgan BC

John Horgan, the NDP Premier of British Columbia and kept in office by a couple of Green Party members is battling out the twinning of an existing pipeline with the NDP Premier of Alberta.

B.C. NDP premier Horgan feels that if he doesn’t at least try to stop the pipeline, his fragile coalition with the B.C. Greens, who vehemently oppose all ‘tar sands’ development, will collapse ending his brief spell as government. So he’s chosen to tilt at windmills, challenge the pipeline on shaky environmental safety grounds, where the province may claim some authority.

Rivers 23 Notley fingers pointing

Rachel Notley, NDP Premier of Alberta explaining that when her oil can go to BC their wine can come into Alberta

There is a lot of politics on all sides. Rachel Notley’s NDP government is facing an election next year and she has to be seen defending Alberta with her life, which she is doing in spades. Her success here will be the key to her getting re-elected, despite the polls which confirm Albertan’s perennial preference for the Tories and their new leader, Jason Kenny.

And Kenny’s biggest ally is Kinder Morgan which is exploiting this B.C. opposition by halting construction and threatening to withdraw from the pipeline project entirely. There are a few protesters at the work sites, mainly environmental groups since most indigenous communities have signed on to the project. But halting construction has panicked Albertans who are understandably fed up with waiting and watching one pipeline proposal after another bite the dust.

Liberal MP and leadership candidate Justin Trudeau attends a Remembrance Day ceremony in Montreal, Sunday, November 11, 2012. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes.

Justin Trudeau believes the federal government has the power and the right to approve the twinning of the pipeline but he doesn’t appear to be sure how he can get shovels into the ground.

The Liberals have been unequivocal that the pipeline is within their exclusive jurisdiction and it will be build. But that will be problematic if Kinder Morgan pulls the plug. And besides, Albertans don’t trust the Liberals and learned to hate Justin’s father for doing to them what they think he should be doing to B.C.’s Horgan right now. Why doesn’t he just invoke the War Measures Act (Emergency Act) like his Dad did and tell Horgan….”just watch me”? Wasn’t getting involved in Alberta’s energy what Pierre is still scorned for today?

We have this unique situation of two NDP premiers from neighbouring and historically best friend provinces now at each other’s throats with threats to cancel electricity contracts and cut off wine and oil and bitumen.

The new federal NDP national leader is missing in action while his political kin are heading for the OK corral. Perhaps it’s just that the federal NDP is still pondering their Leap Manifesto which prescribed shutting down all tar sands eventually.

B.C.’s claim of provincial jurisdiction over federal laws has found a resonance with the Liberal leader in Quebec – also facing an election soon, and looking to shore up those errant separatists who might be persuaded to stick with the Liberals over the PQ. After all it wasn’t that long ago that a proposed Energy East project would have driven another pipeline through Quebec en route to the Maritimes.

Alberta has offered to put up some money to soothe Kinder Morgan, and the feds are thinking of buying in and maybe even buying Kinder out. It’s not clear that Kinder Morgan wants to sell, but everything has its price and perhaps the government might sweeten the deal with a threat of nationalizing in the public interest.

Pipeline -Transmountain

The federal government says the Trans Mountain pipeline twinning will be done. Just when is the real issue.

Federal investment into the project would add a whole new dimension to the potential fight between the two levels of government. And yes everyone knows that the feds would win, but when things go to court they don’t always leave the judges’ benches the way we might expect. Take the poor fellow who thought he could bring cheap Quebec beer into New Brunswick. We live in the same country –  right?

Rivers hand to faceRay Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, 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.     Tweet @rayzrivers

Background links:

Trans Mountain –    Leap Manifesto –     Alberta Threats

Free The Beer Ruling

Return to the Front page

Saturday could become a pivotal day for transit improvement advocates - Director of Transit will be on a panel - she will be listening..

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

April 19th, 2018



The Bfast 4th Annual Transit Forum takes place on Saturday at the Seniors Centre – get there early and you can take advantage of the free Continental Breakfast.

Bfast Transit group logoBfast has been advocating for better transit for years – some of the people in the organization know more about the history of transit in Burlington better than anyone currently employed at the transit department.

They are closer to being listened to than they have in the past seven years. It has been a hard slog – the appointment of a fully qualified and respected transit executive has begun to make a difference. Sue Connor came to Burlington from Brampton where she grew that operation into one of the xxx

She will be part of a panel discussion and open for questions – this is the time for the public to let her know what they want and need and where the problems are – and there are a lot of them

The Vital Signs report produced by the Burlington Foundation highlights where some of the transit problems exist.


Getting around a

A partial snapshot of how people who live in Burlington get around or get to work

Bfast have a deep understanding of the transit business – they have been delegating to council for years and for the most part have not been listened to – to some degree due to the poor management leadership at Burlington Transit.

There is much better leadership in place now; the recently appointed Director of Transit is a recognized and respected professional.

Connor Sue

Sue Connor, Director of Transit.

The problem Sue Connor will have is getting the funds she needs to upgrade both the transit assets and money for additional staff – and then some money to do some experimenting.  Connor is probably part of the Burlington Leadership Team (City Manager James Ridge call it the BLT – not a sandwich).  The challenge for her is to get some of the money the city has marked for infrastructure updates – there is a special tax levy dedicated to road repairs.

Transit service - ridership decline

This is the picture Sue Conner got when she asked – How are things going? It wasn’t pretty.

Burlington is some distance from ever creating a special tax levy to bring the transit service up to the level the the planners keep telling the public is going to be needed as a critical part of the Grow Bold initiative that is going to put something in the order of an additional 1000 people in new homes each year between now and 2031.

The planners keep talking about the need to get people out of their cars and maybe onto bicycles and transit.  Connor is surely saying to her colleagues on the BLT – Sure – provide me with the funds I need to do just that.

There may be agreement between the transit people and the planners on what is needed – getting it through this council is another matter entirely.

Saturday is the public’s chance to make their voices and their opinions heard – but ya gotta be there to be heard.

Salt with Pepper are the musings, observations, thoughts, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette.


Return to the Front page

What they gave you with their left hand they will take away from you with their right hand.

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

April 19th, 2018



Earlier in the month the provincial government announced reductions in the cost of some GO transit services
What they are giving you with their right hand is going to be taken away with the left hand.

Premier Wynne announced last week that the cost of a trip on a GO train was going to be less.

GO train Go Bold

How you get from your house to the GO station is something you might want to re-think.

Beginning in early 2019, the province is reducing the cost of GO Transit trips to just $3 for PRESTO users who are travelling under 10 kilometres anywhere on the GO network. Ten km wouild get you from the Aldershot station to the Burlington station – no deal there.

All GO Transit and Union-Pearson Express trips anywhere within the City of Toronto will be reduced to $3

What the Minister didn’t say was that at some point in the not too distant future the free parking at GO stations was going to come to an end.

Additional parking space is going to be created at the Aldershot GO station but that, apparently, is going to be the last parking spot created at a GO station in the Burlington area.

It costs MetroLinx a reported $40,000 for every parking space they provide (no breakout on just how that cost was arrived at – but let’s take them at their word for the moment) and they just can’t afford to create parking space for that price. And the land needed isn’t really available.

The solution: They are going to dissuade people from driving to the GO stations by making people pay for a parking spot. The howling on that one when the details are announced will be louder than the public reaction to that New Street Diet.

Not to worry – don’t expect an announcement on having to pay for parking before the provincial election.

After, tighten your grip on your wallet and think about other ways to get to the GO station.

Salt with Pepper are the musings, reflections, observations and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette.

Return to the Front page

Open letter to City Council: Staff update to official plan language regarding neighbourhood protection is not acceptable.

News 100 blueBy Greg Woodruff

April 18th, 2018



Staff recently updated the language in the official plan regarding neighbourhood protection. The language as presented is not acceptable. And a proposed motion by Marianne Meed Ward does not go far enough.

Meed Ward said she is” Working on language for motion (meeting staff tomorrow) but intent will be to remove towns from low density neighborhoods. Apartments already out.

The language as proposed by staff would essentially green light semi-detached housing in all areas of Burlington. Townhouses and apartments could also be approved if they are “compatible with the surrounding area”, respectful of the “physical character” and provide an “amenity area.” This is the same subjective language that is a problem all over the city. People have to know what to expect and we have seen the planning definition of all these terms can be very far from what residents expect. This subjective language and the ability to convert houses into semi-detached needs removed from the “Residential – Low Density” definition.

Woodruff opinion visual

Part of an advertisement running on video screens in some Tim Horton’s locations in Burlington.

Secondarily the definition of “Residential – Medium density” allows all sorts of unexpected and unwanted development. The language allowing for 4 story buildings with a rooftop deck in “Residential – Medium density” areas is also unacceptable. The difference between “Residential – Medium density” and “Residential – Low density” is largely invisible to residents. I doubt anyone knows what zone they are in and you have to check the map embedded in the 600-page official plan to have any idea.

We do not need to get into a discussion of the wisdom of these changes; We need to deliver the advertised protection to residents. The city is running ads on video screens in Tim Horton’s locations explaining how your neighbourhoods will be “protected.” What many people take that to mean is “protected from significant change.” Letting loose with semi-detached and 4 story buildings next door is a significant change.

If the city advertising said; “in neighbourhoods we will be limiting development in some areas to semi-detached and other areas to small apartment buildings” – then my complaint would be blunted. However the advertisements are very clear neighbourhoods will be “protected” and will “not change”.

We are setting up years if not decades of people that will have all sorts of legitimate anger directed to the city. We can leave the fate of the neighbourhoods to future OP battles. More than enough change is generated at the moment for people to absorb.

Direct staff to:

1) Remove the reference to semi-detached from 8.3.3(1).1

2) Remove 8.3.3(1).b entirely

3) Remove “non-ground-oriented dwellings”, “back-to-back townhouses” and “low-rise” from 8.3.4(1).a

4) Remove “non-ground-oriented dwellings” “back-to-back townhouses” and “low-rise” from 8.3.4(1).b

5) Modify 8.3.4(1).c to read “the maximum building height should be comparable to the average height of the highest points of the rooflines of existing residential buildings on the immediately adjoining properties sharing lot lines with the lands under application.“

We all need to get involved! Please like, share, tweet this post or e-mail a link to friends.

Greg WoodruffGreg Woodruff is an Aldershot resident who ran for the office of Regional chair in 2014.  There are those who believe Woodruff will seek public office during the 2018 municipal election.

Return to the Front page

Changes in a transit policy that has failed residents for more than a decade could be in the wind. Bfast Forum Saturday could be where some of the needed change takes place.

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

April 17th, 2018



Stephanie Mah was completing a Master of Planning in Urban Development at Ryerson University and chose a Ride for Free program that had been initiated by Oakville Transit in Oakvlle Ontario.

In her Masters Thesis she said the “research investigated the Ride for Free Public Transportation program for seniors in Oakville, to understand their travel behaviour and  to understand their perspectives towards taking public transportation.

While 63% of seniors in Oakville said that the Ride for Free Transit Program did not impact their travel behaviour, 37% said that it increased their public transit use. The most popular reason for seniors to use public transportation was taking it by themselves.

Some interview respondents said that they used public transportation because they would not have to ask others for rides or they did not have access to a car. Seniors suggested that more education of how to use the bus and transfer could increase senior ridership. This research may aid other municipalities considering similar programs, which could help to sustain the independent mobility of seniors.

Jim Young who was a member of the Burlington Seniors Advisory Committee, a group that advises city council on matters related to seniors, took the Mah research and prepared a proposal that he then took before city council as a delegation.

He proposed putting seniors on the mostly empty buses on Monday’s as a major first step to improving life and health for seniors. “It will help the city to achieve its transit utilization goals at a cost that is much less than the revenue loss” said Young who argued that allowing seniors to ride the buses during off peak hours will have a positive effect on the economy and well-being of the entire city.

Jim Young

Jim Young delegating to city council.

In his delegation Young added: “Discussion of this topic tends to return to the issues of cost and why a program only seniors and Split Passes users in need. The cost to put seniors on off peak buses from 10.00 am to 3.00 pm is the loss of revenue from present seniors fare during those hours. It amounts to between $48,500.00 per year and $72,750.00 depending on the rate of uptake.

“This is less than the amount of one senior’s lifetime city tax contributions. It is 1/10th of 1% of all taxes paid annually by Burlington Seniors. It is ¾ of 1% of Burlington Transit operating budget.

The subsidy from federal and provincial gas taxes works out to approximately $0.69c per passenger journey for Burlington. In 2015 Burlington seniors made 191,000 journeys. If free transit for seniors caused a 50% increase in ridership the increase in gas tax funding would amount to $66,000.00 which means that the free transit plan for seniors could pay for itself if properly implemented and utilized.”

Transit - Oakville data

Data from the Oakville 13 week Free Monday transit pilot program.

In her thesis Mah reported that survey results suggest that most seniors drive to participate in day-to-day activities and only a small proportion take transit. The survey found that most seniors in Oakville relied on the automobile as their main mode of transportation with 43.5% of seniors stating that they used the car at least five times or more a week and 34.5% of seniors stating that they never used public transportation. The pattern is similar to what has been reported in other studies. A high percentage of seniors (67.8%) had access to a car as a driver, and 60.3% had access to a car as a passenger.

Oakville implemented a 13-week “Free Transit for Seniors” Pilot Program for seniors over 65 allowing for free travel at no cost on Mondays. The Pilot Program results reported that senior ridership increased by 578% or by 12,917 trips on the same Mondays in 2011 (shows the dramatic increase of senior trips over the course of 13 Mondays from 2007 to 2012 (Oakville Transit, 2012) highlighting the positive impact of free transportation on senior ridership.

Young wanted the city of Burlington to pilot the Free Monday concept. Council did not take up the idea. The debate over possible Free Monday transit took place at the same time Burlington prepared to spend more than $200,000 on a pilot project to add bike lanes on new street and reduce vehicle traffic to just two lanes.
The Road Diet pilot was as close to a municipal disaster as one could get – except for the cost of the Pier.

Transit - group in breakouit

Transit users at Breakout sessions at 3rd annual Transit Forum.

Bfast is holding their 4th Annual Transit Forum at a time when transit is getting more attention, a little more money and now has a Director of Transit who brings real transit experience and a well-earned reputation for growing transit services to meet public needs.

Hopefully the Oakville experience and the change in attitude towards transit will give the Oakville idea and the Jim Young proposal a second listen.

Salt with Pepper are the musings, thoughts, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Gazette

Return to the Front page

Resident worries that 'exceptions' in the draft Official Plan will become the rule and that single family neighbourhoods will be at risk to unwanted intensification.

opinionandcommentBy Tom Muir

April 16th, 2018



I have been wondering about what has happened to the issues and motions raised by Councillor Meed Ward about clauses in the draft Official Plan (OP) that appear to open low density, single family neighborhoods all over the city to intensification despite repeated assurances to the contrary.

This OP process, and development applications and approvals, has seemingly endless findings, not to mention actions, revealing deviations from what residents have been told will be, and not be, permitted.

The Mayor, Ward Councillors Craven, Sharman, Dennison, Taylor, Lancaster, and Meed Ward of course, Planning Director Tanner (now Deputy city manager) City Manager Ridge, have over and over, in numerous forums, assured residents that existing single family, low density residential neighborhoods are protected from intensification under the proposed new Official Plan. And that only 5% of the city would be affected.

St lukes emerald precinct 1

Residents worry that exception in the draft Official Plan might allow for a level of intensification in their community they don’t want.

I have heard this so many times that with this revelation about these clauses, and that there has been no explanation from the Planners and City about these issues, I have lost trust in this process. It seems like you can’t believe anything we are told.

Councillor Craven has told me and other residents, at his Ward 1 meetings, that low density family neighborhoods are protected more times than I can count.

Will Craven support a Meed Ward motion to strike the relevant clause(s) from the OPs?

I think that overall, clauses that permit this intensification in single family, low density neighborhoods are in both the existing and proposed OPs .At first these permissions were reported as a change and addition only in the proposed OP, compared to the existing OP.

I believe that when fact-checked, the truth of the matter was reported as pertaining to both.

How was this missed by planning in the first place? This oversight, just makes the point even more glaring.

How can this be despite all the assurances that these neighborhoods were protected – that residents have been repeatedly told this will not be allowed to happen

St lukes emerals precinct 2

What would intensification do to streets like this?

Official-Plan-Binder_ImageI am requesting that you provide answers to the following questions;

1. How many “Notwithstanding” sections, that can act as backdoor, or default, loopholes are there in the draft proposed OP, and in the existing OP? These can override the general rules and permissions, and void the OP intent.

2. How many “Site Specific – Exception” permissions, that allow for variances from permitted OP and zoning specifications are there?

I noted this concern in my last submission on the OP to Committee.

In my review of development applications, particularly for Plains Rd. in Aldershot, I see that the “Site Specific – Exception” clause has been applied several times to try and justify a number of significant variances. The most recent include the Solid Gold and the Home Hardware – Bingo site applications. There are others.
Someone needs to do a Word search of the OPs to look for these two terms.

Better yet, the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Planning Department Director, and the Mayor, as owners of what appears to me to be this inconsistency between words and actions, must direct the Planners to do this Word search and make public the extent to which these two terms of permissions exist in both OPs, and the extent that these permissions can undermine the promises of protection repeatedly made to existing single family, low density neighborhoods.

This is something I believe to be the responsibility of Planning to provide as part of their professional duties to provide the public and Council with all the information relevant to the OP debate and decision-making.

I look forward to your prompt reply, answers and explanation.

Muir with pen in handTom Muir is an Aldershot resident who has been a frequent critic of both the process and content of the draft Official Plan.

Return to the Front page

Rivers on the budget

Rivers 100x100By Ray Rivers

April 13th, 2018



After finally balancing the budget why are the Liberals now taking us back into the red? The liberal bible on economy was written by the English economist John Maynard Keynes, widely quoted as one who prescribed borrowing (run a deficit) in a recession and pay it back (run a surplus) in a boom.

Ontario was in a bad way following the 2008 market collapse, so borrowing to restart the economy was essential. And the medicine worked and today the Liberals can take pride in having delivered the lowest unemployment rate in almost two decades and a growth rate second to none among G7 economies. And they got to a balanced budget two years in a row.

ONdebt_chart 1


So what is with this projected deficit in their latest budget? And why a list of public goodies including:

1. Continued free university for students in need;
2. Full pharmacare for youth and now seniors;
3. Free preschool for two and a half year olds;
3. Money for hospitals to reduce wait times;
4 Dental and drug care for those who can’t afford it;
5. More senior places; and
6. More transportation including a high speedToronto/ Windsor link.

John Robarts - one of the best Premiers the province ever had: knew how to balance a budget.

John Robarts – one of the best Premiers the province ever had: knew how to balance a budget.

This is a huge social contract, second in history only to John Robarts introducing OHIP. And if a single payer system works for OHIP, providing low cost health care, the argument goes that pharmacare, pre-school and other social programs would work that way as well. After all you pay for these services one way or another if you or your loved ones use them.

Skeptics say the Premier is just buying votes with the voters’ own money. That would be a valid perspective for a libertarian – those who hold that government should be as small as possible, the cost of government and taxes as low as possible and everyone fend for themselves – the so-called right wing perspective.

So this upcoming provincial election will be a contest of ideologies. Doug Ford having upturned Patrick Brown’s red Tory vision and now campaigning to wind back government, slash social, health care and environmental programs… and spending. Meanwhile the Liberals and NDP will be promising to further expand the social safety net.

Most Ontario voters are modern progressives who appreciate the way our society has evolved and how we help each other, even if we occasionally grumble about getting the short end of the stick. In our first-past-the-post electoral system with two centre-left parties competing for the largest portion of the vote, the single party on the right can slip up the middle to win a majority of seats.

Tim Hudak - with flagTo avoid this from happening the Liberals have typically relied on strategic voting, whereby solid NDP supporters vote Liberal just to keep the Tories from winning. And their biggest asset is an extreme right wing leader, like Tim Hudak in the previous election – and possibly Doug Ford in this one.

Of course the strategic voting could go the other way, particularly as the Liberals have been in power for almost two decades and their leader is facing a combination of general voter fatigue and discontent over her style. She needs to outflank the NDP, and has obviously anticipated that their election platform would also encompass a package of rich election promises. Ergo the 2018/2019 budget.

It’s the same playbook Mr. Trudeau used in his last campaign. While the Tories and even the NDP had been promising restraint and perhaps a balanced budget, Trudeau promised more deficits. His rationale was that, given low interest rates, there was no time like the present to invest in the economy. The public bought his argument, Trudeau won the election and today Canada’s economy, that was tottering on recession under Harper, has been turned around.

Wynne, like Trudeau, has also meddled with income taxes, slightly increasing what the wealthy have to pay and reducing them for the lower classes.  Trudeau had hoped the result would stimulate the economy and shift more of the tax burden to those best able to pay, which it has.

But re-balancing tax points at the federal or provincial level will not pay for new government expenditures.  And as Keynes would tell you were he here, greater spending in a full employment economy carries the danger of inflation – akin to pouring gasoline on a fire.  As we know, where there is inflation, higher interest rates to carry the debt cannot be far away.  So Wynne needs to seriously consider increasing taxes to pay for her new programs.


Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne

Former PC leader Patrick Brown had proposed funding his package of goodies by applying a retail carbon tax, as Alberta and B.C. have done.  Of course that notion has now been retired to the dustbin of PC history, in  exchange for drastic program cuts.   An additional carbon tax would further stimulate Ontario’s renewable energy sector, reduce inflationary pressure and pay for the expanded social services in Wynn’s budget.

Even in an election year we need to pay the piper or suffer the consequences of an outstanding liability.  And that means raising the money now rather than just leaving more debt for our children.  Pay as you go is a gutsy move for any politician, even if it means being labelled as just another ’tax and spend Liberal’.

Rivers hand to faceRay Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, 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.     Tweet @rayzrivers


Background links:

Ontario Budget –   More Budget –    Ontario Debt

Return to the Front page

Resident takes a dim view of the community benefits proposed by the developer and agreed to by the Planning department.

opinionandcommentBy Gary Parker

April 13th, 2018



In preparing to delegate on this issue I carefully read section 1.8 of the new OP which covers Community Benefits. I could find little in that document that exactly fits the agreement you’re being asked to approve tonight.

However the verbiage in this section is vague enough to allow for a wide scope of interpretations. In fact you could interpret the wording in this section in a way that would qualify even the most obscure contribution as an indirect benefit and that appears to be what has happened here.

421 Brant

The development has been voted on – 5-2 for the 23 storey tower opposite city hall. Residents are now gulping at the benefit package to the city for all the additional height.

Despite that ambiguity the underlying concept that the benefits should be proportional to the added height or density is made very clear. It’s also clear that the monetary value assigned to indirect benefits should reflect their real contribution to the community. It is in this area that I see major faults in this proposal.

To determine a rough estimate of what should be offered to the citizens of Burlington I used Mayor Goldring’s approved amendment to the new OP that stipulates 8 additional parking spaces or 190 sq. metres of commercial space per floor of height beyond the ‘as of right’ limit – in this case 17 storeys. How that applies to this already approved development is not clear to me but a calculation based on that formula using Carriage Gate’s own estimate of a $50,000 valuation per parking space tells us that the developer should be liable to provide over 2 million dollars in public benefits.

No exact dollar figure is available for the alternative of commercial space but based on land economics and the per storey formula, the value associated with that option is certainly close to a million dollars. The package of community benefits claimed in the document to be voted on totals 1,775,000 dollars.

That amount would represent a fair compromise if all the benefits claimed were properly priced, but in my opinion, they’re not. In fact a reasonable accounting of the benefits in the listing amounts to only $500,000, more than a million dollars less than what’s being claimed. So let’s look at what our planning department has agreed to for this benefit package:

To assist with affordable housing, a discount of $300,000 to be used against the purchase price of up to 10 dwelling units within the subject development, or an equivalent cash contribution to the city.

While we would prefer to see a real community benefit equivalent to any amount of cash, this is at least a measurable benefit assuming of course, we take the cash. Interestingly this concession by Carriage Gate represents the same amount it paid in lieu of meeting its commitments on its Berkeley development.

One (1) publicly accessible car share parking space (indirect non-cash benefit assessed at
$50,000) and a car-share vehicle for a minimum of two years (assessed at $50,000)

What possible benefit does the community at large derive from this one vehicle and its parking space? If it represents a benefit at all that benefit is being provided not for the public, but for the eventual residents of this building?   The $100,000 assessed in this category should not be recognized.

UW crowd at civic square

Civic Square

$50,000 contribution towards the future expansion of Civic Square

Is this potential expansion a reference to the next point which describes the set back at the north east corner of Brant and James? We need to be told specifically how this expansion is to happen in order to assess whether this money really qualifies as even an indirect CB.

And while on the subject of the contribution the set back and its purported enhancement of the civic square is to provide I draw to your attention to the architectural rendering of the Carriage Gate building and surrounding area. Appreciating that these renderings are by nature glorified versions of the eventual reality, this one is particularly flattering to the project.

Where’s The Traffic?
Presented as it is, it conveys the impression that our civic square extends to the local horizon at the base of the Carriage Gate tower.

Unless we’re planning to deny vehicle access to this busy intersection the reality is that there is no real  connection between these two spaces other than on the few days Brant Street is completely shut down.
◦ public access easement for lands located at the northeast corner of Brant Street and James Streets, the minimum dimensions of which are in the form of a triangle measured at 16m by 16m (128m2) (indirect community benefit assessed at $75,000)

This project was approved by city council in large part because of this very easement. Its inclusion was part of the ‘lesser evil’ rational our planning department used to recommend that approval. Now we are being asked to include it as a community benefit? The $75,000 assessed here should be removed.

Eight (8) visitor parking spaces (indirect community benefit assessed at $400,000)

The ratio for parking per unit in this building is already constrained so competition for these 8 spots will be intense. I would suggest that the approval for 23 stories would never have been granted if the developer had indicated it would not provide sufficient visitor parking spaces.

My own research indicates that, at least in the world of rental apartments, noise complaints are the most numerous followed by the issue of the building’s residents parking in already limited visitor spaces. This is to be a condominium complex but can we not expect the same scenario here?

To suggest that providing 8 visitor parking spots for 8 people from our community of over 180,000 residents that might be available if they ever chose to visit here and value that access as an indirect benefit to our community valued at $400,000 makes absolutely no sense!

Remembrance Day wreaths - dozens at cenotaph

Remembrance Day wreaths at the cenotaph.

Increased building setbacks, including widened sidewalks on Brant Street, James Street, and John Street, and view corridors on Brant Street and James Street to City Hall and the Cenotaph (indirect community benefit assessed at $250,000)

Again, these are factors that have already made their contributions in the context of why a 23 storey building was approved on this site. How many times does a developer get credit for committing to the same thing? This $250,000 of indirect benefits should be removed.

$150,000 towards the public art reserve fund to be used within the publicly accessibly privately owned easement area referred to above and/or in the future Civic Square expansion

This benefit potentially benefits both parties. Therefore only 50% of the donation should be allowed at least until we know where this piece of art will be located.

Implement green technology and sustainable architecture elements into the subject property in accordance with either LEED certification standards and/or compliance with the City’s Sustainable Building and Development guidelines (indirect community benefit assessed at $300,000)

How is being ‘in compliance’ with established standards a community benefit. Once again, the use of green technology for this building was sold to city council as part of the approval process and does not fit the definition of a community benefit. This represents another $300,000 that should be eliminated based on a true assessment of its contribution.

Implement City of Burlington Streetscape Guidelines Standards within the Brant Street, James Street, and John Street public realm areas, including the expanded building setback areas at- grade and the publicly accessible open space easement area outlined above (assessed at $150,000).

Here again we are asked to see conformance with guidelines and creating set backs that were already committed to as additions to what was expected of this development. Another $150,000 of dubious benefits to be removed.

I was in attendance the night city council approved this development. I came away from that meeting with a clear understanding that the approval granted was subject to the provision by the developer of appropriate community benefits beyond what we had been presented with in the rational for approval. In this delegation my aim is to point out to you that most of what you’re now being asked to approve was already recognized as part of the approval process.

There’s is little on offer here by way of direct community benefits and the monetary values assigned to the questionable indirect benefits are grossly inflated. These monies were obviously added in order to meet the percentage value required by the ‘uplift’ formula regardless of their merit!

I would also point out that those championing the Reserve Properties proposal that seeks approval largely based on what was accepted at 421 Brant, will be closely watching this process. If the at best dubious benefits and inflated valuations included in this document are accepted I would suggest you can expect to see them duplicated in the future.

Return to the Front page

There are direc benefits and there are indirect benefits - the most direct benefit available to voters is the ballot box.

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

April 12th, 2018



Mayor Rick Goldring used his blog to comment and explain a Staff Report on the proposed Section 37 Community Benefits for 421 Brant Street.


Mayor Rick Goldring explains the Section 37 deal the city is getting ready to give Carriage Gate.

The Mayor puts his comments in context saying: On November 13, 2017, Council approved applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, as modified by staff, to permit a mixed-use development with a height up to 23 storeys at the north-east corner of Brant and James Street across from City Hall.

He adds that he “did not support the approval as I believe the height is excessive for this location.”
Section 37 of the Planning Act is a planning tool which allows municipalities to accept “community benefits” when granting increased density and/or height through a change in zoning or official plan policy.

He then explains that there are direct and indirect community benefits. For many this will be the first time they have heard of that distinction.

A direct community benefit is a monetary contribution.

An indirect community benefit has a public interest but doesn’t involve a direct monetary contribution.

The direct benefits listed below have been negotiated under Section 37 by Planning staff. The indirect benefits were identified as part of the development proposal outlined in the November Planning report in support of the approved 23 storey development.

Here is the list of community benefits that Planning staff are recommending for approval: Three are direct and six are indirect.

Sweet! For who?  The city needs a better negotiator – and having at least something in the way of public participation in this process is a must.

A smart developer would have gone out to the community asking for ideas.

• To assist in the pursuit of long-term affordable housing, the Developer agrees to a discount of $300,000 to be used against the purchase price of up to 10 dwelling units within the subject development, or in the event that a purchase(s) is/are not to occur within the subject development, the Developer agrees to provide the City with a cash contribution of $300,000 prior to condominium registration. [Direct benefit]

• The Developer agrees to provide a direct community benefit of $150,000 towards the public art reserve fund to be used within the publicly accessible privately owned easement area referred to in subsection (v) and/or in the future Civic Square expansion area. [Direct benefit]

• The Developer agrees to provide a direct community benefit of a $50,000 contribution towards the future expansion of Civic Square. [Direct benefit]

• The Developer agrees to provide one (1) publicly accessible car share parking space (indirect community benefit assessed at $50,000) and contribute to the City’s emerging car-share network by accommodating a car-share vehicle for a minimum of two years starting from the first occupancy (indirect community benefit assessed at $50,000), or equivalent.

This might be of some benefit to the people who will live in the building – what about the rest of the people?

• The Developer agrees to provide public access by way of an easement to be registered on title for lands located at the northeast corner of Brant Street and James Streets, the minimum dimensions of which are in the form of a triangle measured at 16m by 16m (an indirect community benefit assessed at $75,000).

Opening up some space is nice – this one sounds more like a direct benefit – could perhaps be a location for an imaginative Pop Up

• The Developer agrees to provide eight (8) visitor parking spaces (indirect community benefit accessed at $400,000).

Great if you are visiting people who live in the building – great sales feature as well.

Remembered, respected

Remembered, respected

• The Developer agrees, and it is enshrined within the amending zoning by-law, that increased building setbacks, including widened sidewalks on Brant Street, James Street, and John Street, and view corridors on Brant Street and James Street to City Hall and the Cenotaph (indirect community benefit accessed at $250,000).

How did this get valued at a quarter of a million dollars?

• The Developer agrees to implement green technology and sustainable architecture elements into the subject property in accordance with either LEED certification standards and/or compliance with the City’s Sustainable Building and Development guidelines (indirect community benefit accessed at $300,000).

Nice for the environment – should be standard on every new building put up in the city.  Not a benefit – a given

• The Developer agrees to implement City of Burlington Streetscape Guidelines Standards within the Brant Street, James Street, and John Street public realm areas, including the expanded building setback areas at-grade and the publicly accessible open space easement area outlined in (v) above (an indirect community benefit accessed at $150,000).

How did the value get determined?  Doesn’t appear as if there was anyone in the room his was negotiated in to speak up for the people.

A government that speaks for the interests of the tax payers would be nice.  Ballot boxes are nicer.

Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Gazette.


Return to the Front page

Is there going to be a real election in October and not just a return of all seven incumbents.

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

April 11th, 2018



Why now?

And why in the wilds of Aldershot?

MMW speaking Ap 11

Meed Ward announcing her running for the office of Mayor.

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward announced today that she was going to run for the office of Mayor.

No surprise there – she has been working towards the job since her first successful run in ward 2 in 2010.

She said in an interview that she announced today so that anyone thinking of running for the ward 2 council seat would have some time to get their papers in order and be able to march into city hall on May 1st and file their nomination papers.

Michael Jones, a ward 2 resident, has said he would run for the seat just as soon as he was certain Meed Ward would not be running.

MMW and Leah Reynolds

Marianne Meed Ward and Leah Reynolds

Ward 1 and 2 school board trustee Leah Reynolds has been seen by some as the heir apparent for the city council seat. When asked recently what her plans were as a trustee Reynolds said she wasn’t prepared to make any comment at the time.

There is a third possible candidate that is keeping her powder dry – but the signs the Gazette is seeing suggest she will run.

There are two credible candidates for the ward 3 seat and a ‘wanna be’ that has run in at least four elections.

There are hints that incumbent John Taylor will resign.

Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison always has an eye open for an economic opportunity - sees a great one for the city: sell the golf course.

Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison

There is now a candidate ready to give ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison a good run for his money. Expect an announcement on that in a day or two.

No one yet in ward 5, a “possible” in ward 1.

Ken White has said he will run for the ward 6 seat against incumbent Blair Lancaster.

Will it be a different city council on the 23rd of October?

We thought it was going to be difference in 2014 and they all got re-elected, so we too will keep our powder dry.

Why announce in Aldershot?  Meed Ward claims an attachment to the community; her children went to elementary school in Aldershot and she said she felt that Clearview Street was a near perfect example of what is wrong with the changes that are taking place in the city.  The announcement was made on the street

There might also be some truth that she chose ward 1 to rub it in Rick Craven, the ward Councillor – no love lost between those two.

Salt with Pepper are the musings, reflections and opinions of the Gazette publisher.

Return to the Front page

There are some school board trustees who are at risk in the October municipal. election

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

April 10th, 2018



Of the eleven Halton District School Board trustees, four are elected by the public school supporters in Burlington.

Two of the four are at risk.

Trustees Andrea Grebenc and Leah Reynolds have said they were not prepared to make any comment on their election plans at this point in time.

The Gazette did not get a response from Papin.

Miller in a huddle with Grebenc

Trustee Andrea Grebenc talking to Director of Education Stuart Miller.

Grebenc, who is now chair of the school board, is not likely to be forgiven by the Pearson high school crown for her vote to close the school. She is proving to be a chair with growth potential and a much needed different level of energy.

We will find out if she has the political smarts to come to terms with some very unhappy constituents once the campaign gets underway.  She does have her work cut out out for her

Richelle Papin

Trustee Papin

Richelle Papin has not managed to win the favour of the ward 4 school parents. The fit as a trustee just wasn’t all that good. She may choose not to run again.

Reynolds was seen as the heir apparent for the ward 2 city council seat when (not if – when) Councillor Meed Ward announces she is running for the office of Mayor. The Reynolds star has dimmed recently. If she chooses to run for the city council seat when it becomes available the people in the ward may choose to reward her for the work she did to keep Central high school off the closing list.

MMW + Leah Reynolds

Ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward with Leah Reynolds at Meed Ward’s 2014 election announcement meeting. Reynolds went on to ge elected the trustee for the ward.

She would be re-elected as a school board if that is where she chose to remain – which is probably in her best interests.

There is a much stronger woman that is likely to run for the city council seat – she hasn’t declared yet – and no we are not going to say who it is other than that she could serve the people of the ward and the city rather well

The one star trustee has been Amy Collard from ward 5 – she has been a bulldog in the way she has held the Director of Education accountable. She has been acclaimed each time she ran as a school board trustee.

Collard and Miller

Ward 5 trustee Amy Collard giving the Director of Education a very hard look during the debates on closing high schools in Burlington.

She has expressed some interest in city council – she would certainly give the incumbent Paul Sharman a run for his money.

There are a couple of trustees from the other municipalities in the District that could consider retirement.

All the action isn’t at city hall.

Salt with Pepper are the musings, opinions and reflections of the publisher of the Gazette

Return to the Front page

Does a British accent increase the price of a presentation? Find out.


The readership survey will close Friday – at midnight. Takes two minutes to complete.

News 100 yellowBy Pepper Parr

April 6th, 2018



What happens when a couple of “toffs” who both have British accents talk to each other?

You have to watch these two and wonder what music can do to grown men.

Once they get past the music – Paul Copcutt, a personal brand consultant, has a really interesting conversation with James Burchill during one of those Coffee Confidential interviews that Burchill does while tootling about the city in his Smart Car.

Interesting to hear them talk about how they use their accent to leverage their presentations.

Copcutt talks about what a brand is and what it isn’t and Burchill is merciless when he describes how he evaluates the marketing efforts of some corporations. Withering – but very true.

Copcutt throws in a nice little discount for his service near the end of the interview.

Burchill has been doing these interviews for a number of months; worth tuning into.


Return to the Front page

Rivers: Don't let anyone tell you Doug Ford is stupid

Rivers 100x100By Ray Rivers

April 5th, 2018



”So, just think: a family of five will be paying $1,000 more in new taxes,” he told the news conference. “We know that they’ve increased the taxes $200,”…”Times five is $1,000”. (Doug Ford at his post budget news conference)

Yeah – maybe if Ford’s hypothetical five family members, including the children, each earned at least $130,000. Then the household income would be at least $650,000. Not your traditional 5 person family. He was clearly grasping to make a point on which he obviously hadn’t given (enough/any) thought.

Ford looking direct

Doug Ford – Progressive Conservative candidate for Premier of Ontario

We all mistakes and we could give Mr. Ford a mulligan, being the newbie running for that top provincial job. But it is worrisome for a potential premier to stumble on something so simple. We expect the CEO of Ontario Inc. to be good at thinking on his/her feet. And just as importantly to be able to sort through the weeds and grasp complex solutions to complex matters. But we haven’t seen that option yet on our latest model Ford.

So it’s not surprising that he has little patience for the sophistication and intricacies of Ontario’s cap and trade climate change program, now in its second year of operation. Of course supporting any climate change initiative requires a belief in global warming and a determination to do something about it. Ford has mused positively on the former but has shown little interest in the latter.

Ford with documents

For a man not big of documents and reports – this would have been a challenge.

In December 2016, the Government of Canada and provinces making up over 80% of the Canadian population signed onto the ‘Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change’. Under the plan, each province has to implement carbon taxes of $10 per tonne in 2018, rising by $10 each year thereafter until 2022. If a province doesn’t implement a carbon tax the federal government will do it for them, collect the revenue and return it to the province in some, as yet undefined, form.

Saskatchewan is the only province which has refused to join so far. A province can opt for an explicit carbon tax/levy as B.C. and Alberta have done, or a cap and trade program as Ontario and Quebec have undertaken. The argument for cap and trade is that it ensures the targets are met, it is more efficient and less costly for the final consumers and it is much more business friendly. But it is more complex to administer and needs a large enough allowance market to function effectively.

Large greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters have to buy annual GHG allowances – a license to release a tonne of CO2. The number of allowances provincially available depends on the national targets, established by the Harper government, back when they were in power, and adopted by the Liberals since. The number of allowances declines over the years consistent with the GHG emissions targets.

The revenue from the sale of allowances goes into a green fund which homeowners and businesses can then use to partially pay for beefing up their attic insulation, installing more efficient windows, and so on. Of course that revenue from allowance sales could be re-directed anywhere. B.C. channels revenue from its carbon tax back in reduced income tax points and Alberta does a little of both – income tax cuts and funds for more greening.

When the PC’s were led by Patrick Brown he wanted to scrap cap and trade and implement the federally prescribed and more lavish carbon tax worth about $4 billion in its first year. That was primarily because Brown planned to recycle the cash he would collect into his promised 22% income tax cuts for the middle class.

But Ford wants nothing to do with any darn carbon tax and promises to also scrap cap and trade. Further, he has threatened to sue the federal government if they even think about carbon taxing in Ontario.

Ford scowl - cropped

Doug Ford: don’t let anyone tell you he is stupid.

Of course Ford may just be playing coy. After all there isn’t a snowball’s chance in a tar pond that the three amigos on the right: Ford, Sask. premier Scott Moe, and federal Conservative leader Scheer would win such a law suit. And that means the federal government will have to implement its own carbon tax in Ontario and likely turn the money over to the province.

So Ford may not be good with numbers or stun us with quick thinking on his feet, but don’t let anyone tell you he is stupid. Quite the contrary, even after his lawsuit flunks the legal smell test, he can still claim to have resisted and fought the feds on the carbon tax. And if he plays his cards right, he’ll also have the $4 billion in cash he needs to make his promised tax cuts while almost balancing the budget.



Rivers hand to faceRay Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, 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.     Tweet @rayzrivers


Survey will close April 6th – takes two minutes to complate.

Background links:

Ford’s Fumble –    Ford – a Puzzle –     Carbon Taxes

Cap and Trade –    Green Fund

Return to the Front page

Jim Young: When was the last time you heard a Citizens Advisory Committee delegate in opposition to a Staff recommendation?

opinionandcommentBy Jim Young

April 4th, 2018



At this meeting the Committee of the Whole will receive a staff report on Citizen Engagement.

As a group who work to improve engagement with citizens, Engaged Citizens of Burlington welcome that effort and would like nothing more than to be involved on behalf of citizens in the development of that engagement effort.

Jim Young April 2018 looking

Jim Young: “city does not engage them in ways they would like to be engaged”

We are very aware that our city works hard to communicate. It devotes resources, people, time and money on that effort. Yet, our interactions with citizens suggest a widespread feeling that our city does not engage them in ways they would like to be engaged. Like ships that pass in the night we never seem to see each other and when we do, too often it is when we collide.

When that happens Council and Staff always seem disappointed, and bewildered, that this communication/engagement, despite your best intentions, fails and the city/citizen engagement gap is brought to your attention.

But the very fact that ECoB exists suggests that there is a gap between yours and our perception of communication and engagement, and that there is a wide range and significant number of citizens who feel their voices are not heard, that their fears and concerns for their city go unheeded, and this in a city which believes it is communicating so well.

Even by the standards of your own policy on “Public Participation and Engagement”, which strives to meet International Association for Public Participation standards of engagement. Those standards range from Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. On most issues you inform very well; consult or involve all too rarely and usually too late in the process to have any meaningful impact, and, at the risk of offending, we never feel that level of collaboration which might make empowerment of citizens an achievable reality.

So how can it be that a city that boasts 8 Citizen Advisory Committees, with more to come, so often gives its citizens the impression that no-one is paying attention to them?

There is a widespread feeling that much of the city’s engagement effort is geared towards ticking the “Engagement Boxes” where needed to speed regulatory processes through Staff to Council rather than real engagement and dialog with citizens. ECoB think this is reflected above in the suggestion that your efforts to inform are much more successful than any serious attempt to consult, involve, collaborate or empower.

Jim Young answering RG

Jim Young: telling city council of a “a well-meaning attempt to improve Citizen Engagement”

As an example, here we are four years into the creation of an Engagement Charter process that was started in 2013 and adopted by council in April 2014 and ECoB is lobbying for Citizen Engagement in this process. Do Council and Staff begin to see why ECoB has issues with the engagement process when a well-meaning attempt to improve Citizen Engagement is already four years in the making with little or no Citizen Engagement in that process?

The report suggests that future engagement in the process will come from Citizen Advisory Committees which in ECoB’s opinion may be part of a tired engagement model that has never really worked as well as the city might have hoped.

While well intended and filled by well-meaning citizens, the way Citizen Advisory Committees are constituted and their operating guidelines leave them too readily influenced by Council Members and Committee Staff assigned to them. With a few exceptions they have not been the engagement vehicle we would like them to be.
Among various advocacy groups in the city and even within your own Citizens Advisory Committees there is a widespread feeling that Advisory Committees have become a simple extension of the city departments rather than independent advisors to council. That when a staff recommendation is supported by its appropriate Citizens advisory committee, Council are really just receiving a well manipulated repetition of the staff recommendation echoed by The Citizen Advisory.

If Councillors are not aware of this, just ask yourselves: When was the last time you heard a Citizens Advisory Committee delegate in opposition to a Staff recommendation?

It is no coincidence that most of the Citizens Advisory Committees have parallel, non-city sponsored advocacy groups. ITAC has BfAST, BSAC has BSCInc. And the work of the various Downtown Heritage, Parking and Sustainable Development Committees is paralleled by independent citizen groups from Alton Village to Brant Hills to Tyandaga. From Appleby Village to Roselandto Downtown to Aldershot,

These advocacy groups are often made up of former members of Citizen Advisory Committees who found those citizens advisories ineffective and who now advocate for their various city wide interests where they feel they are more likely to be heard and with greater impact.

ECoB currently works with at least 11 area and ward specific groups and at least another 5 City wide advocacy groups. These 16 groups are Engaged Citizens whose voices will not be heard in the New Engagement Charter.

If Council and staff are happy with the present communication and engagement model, if you really feel you are reaching citizens and that their voices are being heard, then probably nothing can be done. Local and city wide groups will continue to be frustrated and angered and will tie up your time and effort in the kind of oppositional engagement that model creates.

Jim Young with Kell in background

Jim Young, addressing city council. Manager of Communications Donna Kell sits in the audience.

If however, you feel, as we do, that communication and engagement can be improved for the benefit of Council, Staff and Citizens, and the fact that you are receiving reports from staff on Improving engagement suggests you may actually feel that way, Engaged Citizens of Burlington has already reached out to Communication Managers with the City Manager’s Office to explore how we might close that Engagement /Communication Gap which exists more often than either of us might like.

I am here tonight on behalf of Engaged citizens of Burlington to seek Council and Staff support for the inclusion of ECoB in that engagement process. The E in ECoB is for Engagement, it is not for Enraged and certainly not for Enemy.


The readership survey closes April 6th.

Thank you council and staff for your time and your work on behalf of our city. Thank you citizens for your support and for allowing us to be you voice, Engaged Citizens of Burlington look forward to continuing, meaningful engagement with all of you.

Jim Young is one of  the Engaged Citizens of Burlington.

Return to the Front page

What happens when two English guys hang out in a Smart car and listen to Queen?

eventsblue 100x100By Pepper Parr

April 3rd, 2018



James Burchill has a style that is unique. Basically he is a communicator and has come up with a format that he calls Smart Car Coffee Confidential. He takes people out for a drive in his little Smart Car and has a conversation – stopping along the way for a cup of takeout coffee.

He has interviewed VIP’s, sports people, people who do the darndiest things for a living.

Burchill, besides being a shameless self-promoter, is a Brit – something he is quietly proud about.

Burchill + Queen

Two Brits – watch for what they do during a Coffee Confidential on Friday.

In a forthcoming Coffee Confidential he is out with Paul Coppcut, who toils away at “personal brand development”. What makes this video such a hoot is that the two of them are nutso about Queen. Not THE Queen but the musical royalty Queen.

The two of them sit in the car shaking their heads like a couple of bobble head dolls yucking it up.
Burchill asks: “What happens when two English guys hang out in a Smart car and listen to Queen?”  Then you get to see what two English guys can do when the music gets to them.

A short short clip of just what these two Brits do when the music is turned on is RIGHT HERE. The full Coffee Confidential will run on Friday.

Brighten up your day – supposed to rain later this afternoon and this evening.

Return to the Front page

Is a 'clerical' error going to turn a small downtown parking lot into a Mobility Hub?

opinionandcommentBy Pepper Parr

April 3rd, 2018



Transit is an issue that Burlington city council has difficulty with. It wasn’t always that way. Doug Brown, the best informed Burlington citizen when it comes to transit, will tell you of the time that bus service to the one GO station Burlington had was free. It was something city hall bragged about. It was so popular that the city eventually put a price on the service and that changed the usage.

Doug Brown, chair of Bfast, wants to see a bus schedule with routes that work for people and not the current bus route set up in place. It doesn't work claims Brown.

Doug Brown, one of the Bfast founders is getting ready for the 4th Annual Transit Forum.

If you get Doug going on transit, and that isn’t very hard to do, he will tell you of the days when the city’s transit service was something to be proud of.

Gary Scobie is another Burlington resident who, not unlike Doug Brown, does his homework and asks questions and digs away until he gets answers,

Scobie delegated to city Council in March to talk about transit the plans to turn a very small parking lot between Brant and John Street that has a small transit terminal siting at the edge of the lot that has been under a construction upgrade doe a number of months.

The parking lot will have fewer spaces than it had previously and it will be one of the links in what the city will come to know as the Elgin promenade that will cut right across the city and allow people to walk or ride a bike on a safe path that will be illuminated and have plenty of places where you can sit and just relax.

That promenade and transit use and the mobility hubs the city is working on as the place in the city where development is expected to take place all come together.

The city Council meeting last March was the occasion where Scobie set out to explain to the city that a mistake had been made by the province and that the city was making a decision based on the mistake. He wanted city Council to see the error.

Scobie said:

I live in Ward 3 and my Burlington includes the downtown.

I did some further research on the Downtown Mobility Hub and found out this mobility hub is based on a clerical error. Well, I may be exaggerating a bit. If you check out the screen image of the Metrolinx December 2015 Profile, note that the second paragraph begins “Downtown Burlington is identified as an Anchor Hub in the GTHA and includes the Burlington GO Station on the Lakeshore West Line.

Gary Scobie

Gary Scobie

That last phrase confused and disturbed me. How could one Mobility Hub (a junior partner Anchor Hub) include another Mobility Hub (the Burlington GO Station) that is over 2 kilometres away?

Their 800 metre catchment areas don’t even touch. I could find no other pair of Metrolinx Mobility Hubs that are close to each other in municipalities outside Toronto (ie. Hamilton, Newmarket and Mississauga) that claimed one Mobility Hub included the other one of the pair.

I contacted Metrolinx and asked “Is this a mistake?” My contact felt it must be and someone must have accidentally done a cut-and-paste error and inserted it by mistake over two years ago. Funny, no one caught it until I mentioned it. Was it a mistake, or done with some purpose in mind? The phrase did not appear in the 2012 version of the Profile.

It took about three weeks for a full Metrolinx investigation to report back to me that yes indeed it was a mistake, but that it shouldn’t change the Mobility Hub’s legitimacy.

I beg to differ – our Downtown Mobility Hub does not have Rapid transit and barely integrates with Regional Express Rail. The Bus Kiosk on John Street can barely hold 20 people, let alone an actual bus. Attaching the GO Station to it might have given it, in some eyes, the only chance at legitimacy it could ever have.

A week ago, I requested that Metrolinx do three things:

1. Notify the City that no, the Downtown Anchor Mobility Hub does not include the GO Station,

2. Remove the offending text from the 2015 Profile and

3. Make sure it doesn’t reappear in the 2018 version coming out soon.

No response yet, but I understand these things take time. I’ll wait patiently.

Site rendering

This site rendering of the upgrade being done to the downtown parking lot between Brant and John Streets tells a lot more than you might expect. Running through the middle is part of the Elgin promenade pathway – one of the smarter things the city has done

I am still waiting in anticipation to see the coming transit plan that will have to show a dedicated light rail transit line going up John Street and then bulldozed through residential neighbourhoods to the GO Station, or else the subway that will take the same route underground. Nothing short of this will legitimize the Downtown Mobility Hub.

The Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations that Council accepted in 2006 are now leading to uncontrollable intensification and height in the downtown. They contain no height limits. The OMB acceptance of the 26 storey condo at 374 Martha Street has set a precedent that will only be used again and again by developers to gain further height along Lakeshore Road and up Brant and adjacent streets.

Council’s enthusiastic acceptance of a 23 storey condo across from our City Hall, beyond its own planned height, leaves us embarrassingly with little chance of appeal of the OMB decision.

The developers’ lawyers know this and so should we. We have no case under these current designations.

downtown mobility hub

Is it a parking lot that has been given an upgrade or is it an anchor that is part of a Mobility Hub?

Our only option now to exert any future control of height and density downtown is to ask the Province to remove these designations from the downtown and place them at the three GO Stations, living up to our commitment for 2031 and coming 2041 growth targets.

Last time I made this request, I was met with stony silence. One of you on Council must bring back Councillor Meed Ward’s motion to save our downtown, not from gentle change, but from this massive change that is coming.


The readership survey will close April 6th

The practice at city Council is for a delegator to stay at the podium to answer questions that any Councillor might have. Scobie has done this before and in the past he has given the members of Council a good run for their money.

There were questions – one from Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward and two from Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison.  Scobie added in a comment he made several days after his delegation that his “new information was not what the broad Council wanted to hear.  They embrace the over-intensification of the downtown instead of questioning it.  They don’t want to hear of getting us out from under the Province’s mandate.  It remains their best and only excuse.”

Gary Scobie and Doug Brown are long time residents of Burlington who have been tireless advocates for sensible growth and a city council that hears what the voters have to say.

Return to the Front page

An Apology Too Far: there comes a point where another apology is meaningless.

Rivers 100x100By Ray Rivers

April 1st, 2018



Canadians are known throughout the universe as ‘the great apologists”. We apologize at the drop of the proverbial hat, even when we’re not at fault. And true to form our fearless leader, Mr. Trudeau, with a mighty hug befitting a grizzly bear, confessed that he was “really sorry” about something a British colonial government did seven years before British Columbia became a part of Canada, and three years before Canada even existed.

Trudea in India - clothing

A fashion show or a political statement.

It’s not like there weren’t other more relevant things he could have apologized for; like the conflict of interest around that unfortunate holiday he took with the Aga Khan, or the more recent fashion parade he gave the world while in India. And he should really have apologized to Canadians for giving a confessed and convicted child terrorist a whacking $10 million dollars just because he objected to spending quality time in the big house we call GITMO.

The trial and hanging of the six Tsilhqot’in chiefs in 1864 is a complicated matter. The band claims they were at war with Britain at the time. But does that justify killing 14 colonialists? Though one can appreciate the argument about their chiefs showing up for peace talks – to try to resolve the issues and end the war – only to get arrested, tried and become the subject of a hanging party instead.

But stuff happens and that was a long time ago. And if they were at war with the Brits was there any question who would win? To the winner goes the proceeds and all that. Spare the rod and spoil the savage. There were some countervailing claims of the other savage, the white man, spreading a smallpox contagion. And there were accusations of sexual assaults by the colonialists. But revenge, it seems, won the day.

And much of the land in question has now been returned to its original inhabitants. A 2014 Supreme Court ruling awarded over 1700 square kilometres to the 5000 member strong Tsilhqot’in nation. That’s a third of a square kilometre for every man woman and child, though the chiefs say they want more.

But that ruling has meant the B.C. government had to kiss and make up with the band. And so then it was Trudeau’s turn and here we are. Indeed our indigenous brothers are quick learners when it comes to the art of the deal.

They call themselves a nation – with the exact same powers as the federal and provincial governments. How can there be a sovereign nation within a sovereign nation? When that was happening in South Africa we called it apartheid. Isn’t that the root cause of all that bloodshed between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Will the Tsilhqot’in seek recognition from the UN next and issue their own passports as well? How will the Canadian government respond when the Tsilhqot’in nation sets up foreign diplomatic offices in Moscow and North Korea and purchases modern S-400 anti-aircraft weapons for its defence against… Canada? I thought we were all Canadian. Should we expect a ‘Tsilh-exit’ referendum someday soon?


Former Prime Minister apologizing to members of a First Nation in the House of Commons.

There have been occasions when apologies were perfectly appropriate. For example Stephen Harper’s apology for the government’s disastrous program of residential schooling for our indigenous youth. After all that was a federal program, well intentioned or not, which went truly sour.

Perhaps our PM should save his next apology for something more appropriate.

How about the outdated Indian Act which has perpetuated discrimination of first nations since it was enacted by our own government shortly after confederation? And can anyone doubt the contribution of the Indian Act to the poor living conditions on so many reserves and the infamy of our missing and murdered indigenous women.

This seems one apology too far for Mr. Trudeau. On whose authority does Mr. Trudeau claim to exonerate the six legally executed chiefs in 1864? My grandparents hadn’t even come to this country until after the 1900’s. He certainly doesn’t speak for me.

Apologizing may be good therapy and an apology is only a bunch of words. And while sticks and stones…words will never hurt me. But there comes a point where another apology becomes just another piece of meaningless garble when we do it all the time.

Rivers hand to faceRay Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, 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.     Tweet @rayzrivers

Background links:

So Sorry –    Tsilhqot’in –     Loose lips sink ships


The readership survey will close April 6th, 2018



Return to the Front page