 By Ray Rivers
May 28, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
It is easy to become complacent on a sunny spring day in Burlington. It is easy to ignore the cumulative effect that our lifestyle is having on the planet’s climate. But the TV news tell us about the destruction from increasing levels of tornado, storm and flash floods, as we saw recently in B.C. Then there is California experiencing its worst drought ever. It’s all so depressing that you just want to change the channel.
 Developing economies use coal because it is available and it is relatively cheap – we eventually all pay the price. Blame China, Korea and India for their dirty industrialization policies, using cheap dirty coal to fire their economies and take them out of the dark ages and perhaps into a new one. It is ironic and sad that they started burning coal in a big way just as we learned how bad these carbon emission can be for the atmosphere. Of course we in North America, Australia and even Europe still burn coal (though Ontario has eliminated coal power plants). And you can change the channel but that TV was probably made in Korea.
In the last federal budget, Mr. Harper’s election budget, as every other one of his budgets, has ignored our ever increasing contribution to climate change. And we’re not alone. US presidential contenders, Australia’s dinosauric leader and even the leader of once progressive New Zealand have allowed the global commons to slip almost completely off the political page, as they pursue today’s issues without any consideration of tomorrow..
There are people who still think there is a debate about whether climate change is real, a phenomenon psychologists call being in an echo chamber. They have pre-conceived notions that the environment is a conspiracy, constructed by a ’60’s hippie crowd, to take away their freedom… to pollute – so they just listen to themselves. Why shouldn’t we live the way we always did? These folks are watching the ‘Leave it to Beaver’ channel or something on 100 Huntley Street.
 Making a point; speaking for Canadians – is he saying what we want him to say? Canada’s environment minister pulled some imaginary emissions targets out of the air. But without a hint of a roadmap there is no hope of getting there – though perhaps that is the idea? Just like a New Year’s resolution, they’re soon to be forgotten the next day. So why even bother? And besides, these new numbers pale in comparison to the imaginary numbers the Americans and Europeans have generated.
The 21st annual United Nations Climate Change Conference takes place in Paris this coming December. But you can tune out because all expectations are that we’re looking at another failed conference. The only meaningful attempt at global climate cooperation, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, was critically wounded when GW Bush took the US, it’s chief architect and player, out of the deal only a couple of years later. After all, he has oil in his blood. And Canada’s own wanna-be-oil-man, our PM, whited-out Canada’s signature on Kyoto as soon as he had nailed his majority government.
So this year’s meeting is featuring something called ‘intended nationally determined contributions’ (INDC). These virtually meaningless theoretical voluntary commitments will be offered up by many of the 194 nations in the global climate change game. But since the national targets will be internationally unenforcible, no party will be held to account. So this meeting in the City of Love will not have much to do with love for the environment, or for our children’s children.
It is the ‘tragedy of the commons’ that brings all these nations together once a year, to keep alive the process that requires nothing short of re-genesis. Whether a common pasture, the oceans’ fisheries or the planet’s atmosphere, the ‘tragedy’ can only be abated or avoided through more governance, not less. And that was what Kyoto was all about. Today we have ISIS and an errant Russia gone rogue to add to the mix, so don’t expect any re-runs this year.
Canada’s excuse is that, despite being one of the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting nations per capita, we are still a relatively small part of the global GHG contribution. That is our echo chamber and we’re sticking to it. Canada rationalizes that doing almost nothing is just OK. Inertia has become our climate change strategy. And business as usual, despite occasional lip service to the contrary, prevails, at least at the federal level.
In fairness, the previous Liberal government did little more than sign onto Kyoto with its ambitious targets, which even they would have had trouble to attain – though the Ontario and Quebec governments did. So maybe targets are important. I’ve always believed that it is better to shoot for a high goal and fail, than to have never shot at all. I mean what kind of hockey player goes out on the ice without the prospect of scoring a slap shot on his/her mind?
 But Canada’s hockey-author, our PM, is just not into the game when it comes to protecting the atmosphere. He was an ardent climate change denier in his opposition days. And his government has stayed pretty true to form on that count. So even if individual Canadians wanted to contribute to the fight against climate change they are leaderless.
If your national leader is missing in action on this matter, how does a nation mobilize? My New Zealand friend refers to sic critical lost years. We in Canada will have recorded a lost decade, perhaps it is time to change to change the channel.
Background links:
Climate Change Canada
World’s natural Disasters More Disasters Climate Change Echo More Echo
100 Huntley Street Conference Tragedy of the Commons New Zealand
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
 By Pepper Parr
May 24, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The Gazette got a telephone call from a reader who had made a comment a number of months ago and wanted to know if we could delete the comment.
 We asked why. The caller explained that the person was looking for a job and was worried that someone would do an online search and come across the comment and that it would reflect negatively on that person.
We agreed to delete the comment and did so. Here is the comment that was made.
This article confirms that the current leadership has failed to acknowledge and identify that there is a real problem facing not only the business owners/operators in the downtown area but to residents as well.
The optics of the current situation downtown and leadership model are certainly troubling and the statistics all but confirm, in my opinion, that the current leadership is not up to the task. The failure to adapt has put the future and potential of the downtown area on a disturbing path.
The size of the problem and the associated failure of leadership is extraordinary. I can only hope that those who vote can identify this and make the right decision.
As mentioned before this is my opinion.
 When the leadership of a community invokes this kind of fear – the whole community is in trouble. Leading is best done by consent.
 By Mark Gillies
May 23, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington has the enviable distinction of being located right in the centre of the area known at one time as “the Garden of Canada”. The Village of Burlington at the turn of the 20th century was producing agricultural products that were shipped across Canada and around the world.
 Burlington, and especially the village of Freeman was a very busy place at the turn of the 20th century. Market gardeners used the Grand Trunk Railway to ship their fruit and vegetables out of the area, bound for destinations across Canada and around the world. Market gardeners would line up alongside the tracks at the very busy Burlington Junction train station in Freeman waiting their turn to load their produce on to the boxcars. Today, the historic Freeman train station has been relocated to Fairview Street and is undergoing restoration. Our local farmers were referred to as market gardeners. Most major varieties of fruit and vegetables were grown locally. This agricultural base provided great wealth to the local economy. So, how did Burlington evolve into this status of providing food for the tables of families right around the world?
The answer goes back to this historic date in time, December 16, 1773. On this day, a civil act of disobedience changed the course of history, an event that affected the world right to this day. What happened has become known as the Boston Tea Party, where Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships in the Boston Harbor and threw 342 chests of tea overboard, in protest to British rule and taxation.
This resulted in the passage of the punitive Coercive Acts in 1774 and pushed the two sides closer to war. This was the catalyst for the American Revolutionary War which saw approximately one third of the 13 colonies population remain loyal to Britain and the monarchy. During and after the war, Loyalists were seriously harassed, forcing many to leave their homes. Some went to Africa, and founded Sierra Leone, others went to the Bahamas, some families went back to England, while many relocated to Upper and Lower Canada. They were known as United Empire Loyalists.
 This single act of protest escalated into the American Revolutionary War in I775. Citizens of the 13 colonies were divided between independence or choosing loyalty to Britain. Many loyalists left for Upper and Lower Canada to start over. Burlington and the surrounding areas were major destinations for some of these United Empire Loyalists. So how does this have anything to do with Burlington? Actually, it has everything to do with how Burlington emerged into the city that we enjoy today.
Let’s start with William Alexander Davis who was born in 1741 in Baltimore, Maryland. He married Hannah Phillipse and they owned a plantation in Franklin, Orange, North Carolina. William Davis became quite wealthy and was a loyal British subject. Their neighbours on another plantation were the Gant family.
During the Revolutionary War, General Cornwallis and 2,000 British soldiers marched into North Carolina. The General set up headquarters on the Gant plantation, and the soldiers were sheltered and fed at the Davis plantation. To compensate the Davis family, General Cornwallis issued a “Due Bill” for 10,000 pounds. Among the British soldiers that stayed with the Davis family was a young man by the name of John Graves Simcoe, a soldier with the Queen’s Rangers. A lasting friendship began, which was to have a huge influence on William Davis several years down the road after the war terminated in 1783.
Over the next several years, the Davis family could not properly re-establish their plantation due to continued harassment by the rebels, and the punishing tax system that was enacted on Loyalists. They decided to leave for Upper Canada, where John Graves Simcoe was now the Lieutenant Governor.
 John Graves Simcoe was born in 1752 and died in 1806. He served as Lieutenant Governor from 1791 to 1796. Simcoe was a personal friend of William Alexander Davis, and was instrumental in relocating the Davis and Ghent families to the Stoney Creek area of Upper Canada. The family walked and drove several wagons the entire 800 mile distance from North Carolina to Upper Canada. Included in the entourage were William & Hannah’s seven children. Their one daughter Elizabeth had already married Thomas Ghent, and he also made the trip. (The Ghent name was originally Gant, and it may have been Thomas who initiated the spelling change).
Their trip ended at the Genesee River in Rochester where they stayed over the winter, and in the spring Governor Simcoe upon hearing of their plight, sent a gunboat to pick up the family and their belongings. They were relocated in the Stoney Creek area where Albion Falls eventually became the sight for William Davis’ two mills. The area became known as Albion Mills. This land was the compensation for the Due Bill..
 Battlefield House Museum in Stoney Creek was the homestead of James Gage and his family. James married Mary Jane Davis, a daughter of William Alexander Davis. In 1804, Thomas Ghent purchased 200 acres of land from the estate of Joseph Brant, who had been awarded the land as compensation for Brant’s support of the British during the Revolutionary War. The land was called “Brant’s Block”, the area that is now mainly downtown Burlington. Asahel Davis, one of the sons of William Davis and brother-in-law to Thomas Ghent also decided to purchase land from Joseph Brant’s estate.
 Asahel Davis was a son of William Alexander Davis and the older brother to Mary Jane Davis who married James Gage. And now, we get to the place in our local history where we can see the humble beginnings for “the Garden of Canada”. The Davis and Ghent families had wisely brought fruit seeds from their North Carolina plantations and planted them in the Stoney Creek area where their original farms were located. The young plants were later transferred to the Thomas Ghent and Asahel Davis farms in Brant’s Block. This would officially start Burlington on its way to becoming the focal point for “the Garden of Canada”.
These two Brant’s Block farms were located in the Plains Road area, west of Brant Street, in an area which later became known as Freeman. Joshua Freeman from Nova Scotia, and his family settled in this area around Brant Street and Plains Road.
Asahel Davis built a couple of homes, and one still stands to this day, but the original house cannot really be seen. The home is called Woodland Terrace, and is located on Plains Road at the QEW. The house was rebuilt in 1883 and became much larger. It was altered by Burlington’s leading house builder of the day, George Blair, for Charles Gilbert Davis, a grandson son of Asashel Davis, and brother to Hannah Augusta Davis.
 Woodland Terrace is a beautiful large historic building on Plains Road located on the eastern side of the QEW. It is still there. Local home builder George Blair added to the original home of Asahel Davis in 1884 for Charles Gilbert Davis, a prominent local market gardener and owner of the house.  Charles Gilbert Davis was a son of Gilbert Davis. Gilbert was a son of William Alexander Davis. Charles Gilbert Davis was a very successful market gardener on Plains Road. He took his grandfather Asahel Davis’ house and had George Blair build around it to create Woodland Terrace. It was Asahel Davis who donated a corner of his property for the creation of the Union Burying Ground, which is located on Plains Road right in front of the Fortinos and Ikea stores. William Alexander Davis died at the age of 92 in 1834 and is buried in this cemetery.
 The Union Burying is an historic treasure and has been designated as a United Empire Loyalist cemetery. The property was on a corner of the original Asahel Davis market garden farm. It is located on Plains Road, in front of Fortinos and Ikea. Many of Burlington’s earliest settlers are either buried here or at St. Luke’s Cemetery. Asahel Davis had a sister Mary who married James Gage. James was responsible for setting up Wellington Square, formerly known as Brant’s Block. James Street in downtown Burlington is named after him.
Asahel Davis had a son named Gilbert Davis. One of Gilbert’s daughters was named Hannah Augusta Davis. She married Thaddeus Ghent, the son of George Ghent. One of their children was Frederick Davis Ghent, who became the second Mayor of Burlington in 1917.
 The Reverend David Ghent was a brother to George Ghent and another son of Thomas Ghent and Elizabeth Davis. Rev. Ghent was instrumental in aiding William Lyon Mackenzie’s escape to the United States. Thomas Ghent died in 1824, and his wife Elizabeth Davis died in 1841. Both are buried in the Union Burying Ground.
As a matter of local interest, Thomas Ghent had one son named David Ghent, a man of the cloth, who was responsible for hiding William Lyon Mackenzie during the 1837 rebellion.
Although Thomas Ghent’s house has not survived, one of his other children, named George, also a prominent local market gardener; bought a house on Brant Street that was called Maple “Maple Lodge”.
The home was built in 1854, and credit for the construction of the house goes to Jabez Bent who was a brick maker by trade. It’s probably more accurate to say it was the Bent family of brothers who were responsible for building this house. Jabez had a brother George, who was a mason, and another brother James Cushie Bent who was a carpenter. George most likely was responsible for the foundation, James built the framing, and Jabez manufactured and installed the bricks. As a side note, Jabez is also credited locally with building the stone wall around the Union Burying Ground around 1884. It was probably his brother George who did the work, since Jabez and his family had already moved away in the late.
 George Ghent, a son of Thomas Ghent and Elizabeth Davis was born in 1806 in Brant’s Block. One of his sons was Thaddeus Ghent, and his grandson was Frederick Davis Ghent, son of Thaddeus Ghent. Fred Ghent was the second mayor of Burlington. George and his second wife Anna Bray lived at Maple Lodge on Brant Street. George’s first wife was Catherine Bates, and she died in 1844. George was a prosperous market gardener. He died in 1883 and was buried in the Union Burying Ground. What’s so significant about the George Ghent house? It symbolizes the entire span of over 220 years as to how Burlington evolved into market gardening and “the Garden of Canada”, an industry that was created from the ravages of the American Revolution, propelling Burlington into world prominence and locally, new found wealth. The George Ghent house should be a national historical monument.
Unfortunately, in 1975 this treasured landmark, was unwisely converted into a commercial property. Mayor George Harrington and his council approved the decision at that time, despite objections from concerned citizens. The beautiful handmade red brick exterior was covered over with an unsightly dull grey paint. The backyard became a parking lot.
Much of the historical architecture internally has been removed or changed. But down deep, underneath it all, the core structure is still with us, after 161 years. This building is a very, very significant part of Burlington’s colourful past. We are so lucky to have it with us.
Would you like to see this historic structure for yourself? The house just recently has become potentially vulnerable, and its survival could be in jeopardy very soon. It doesn’t have an Ontario Heritage Act designation to save it from demolition, and it should have. This beautiful historical property can face demolition without any legal problems. There is nothing in place to protect it.
Heritage Burlington, a citizen’s advisory committee under the chairmanship of James Clemens, has not attempted to designate this house historical. They boast that Heritage Burlington’s mandate is to preserve and conserve our cultural heritage, yet some of their decisions are totally opposite to their own mandate. Heritage Burlington reports to Burlington’s City Council. From some of their controversial past recommendations, Heritage Burlington appears more concerned to see how many true historical properties can be removed from the Heritage Registry, rather than adding them to the list.
I see this as their way to clear obstacles created by heritage buildings that appear to be standing in the way of new construction by developers. Even one of the Heritage Burlington committee members actually is a developer, owns a company that specializes in demolishing old and historical buildings and replacing them with “monster” homes. It’s unbelievable, but true. Does anyone see a conflict of interest here?
Another member of this committee (but does not have a vote) is Councillor Marianne Meed Ward who represents the City of Burlington.
Don’t count on Heritage Burlington for support to protect this historical house. Don’t look to your City Council for heritage support. Our Councillors as a group have a very disappointing track record when it comes to preserving our local heritage. Prepare yourself to see another piece of our incredible history meet the fate of the wrecker’s ball.
For residents living in Burlington, you have most likely driven by this historic treasure countless times, and never gave it a second thought. You should go see it now at 795 Brant Street, located on the southeast corner of Brant and Prospect Streets, before developers attempt to knock it down; probably with the blessing of your City Councillors.
 Maple Lodge was built in 1854 by the Bent brothers, Jabez a brick maker, George a mason, and James a carpenter. George Ghent and his family lived for many years at Maple Lodge. The non-designated 161 year old historic home is in jeopardy of potential demolition, due mostly in part to the intensification policy of the Ontario Government. Maple Lodge is located at 795 Brant Street on the south east corner. This is how the home looked in 1902. Today, it is a commercial property. The Brant and Ghent Street corners are up for proposed re-development; the George Ghent house is also clearly in play with a developer assembling the land and getting ready to ask the city for a demolition permit.
This is the kind of damage caused by proposed intensification when it impacts your community. You can lose important parts of your local heritage, oh so very quickly. Once they are gone, they are gone forever!
On May 27, 2015 at the Performing Arts Centre, there will be the second of four public meetings on what the pubic is prepared to accept in the way of downtown development. There will be an opportunity to talk about plans for the Brant and Ghent corners, plus the Lakeshore area of Burlington. You should make plans to attend.
Now is your chance to be heard, and express yourself. Let them know that you don’t want your local heritage continually threatened like this. It is that important. Before you know it, we could all be living in the permanent shadows of hi-rise buildings, unless we speak up now.
Mark Gillies is a lifelong resident of Burlington, who grew up in Aldershot and developed as a local historian, researcher, master genealogist and writer who has a passionate interest and extensive knowledge of the many early pioneer families.
By Ray Rivers
May 21, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
FHRITP – This crude sexist expression has become some kind of rallying cry for the intellectually immature. And we’re not just talking about 14 year-old virgin boys frolicking in the locker room, bragging about things they can only dream about. This latest wave of stupidity appears to have been started, only last year, by an off-sound microphone, which wasn’t. And now social media is perpetuating this garbage, featuring some grey-bearded dude in a hoody, screaming this trash into female reporters’ microphones.
Last week a City News reporter, Shauna Hunt, became the latest victim while covering an FC soccer game in Toronto. As the fans were filing out she got heckled by a mob of youngish males. Deciding to fight back, she naively challenging the mindless mob to defend the use of their profanity.
 One of the louts, Shawn Simoes, sporting an Emirates shirt, took up the reporter’s challenge. His face was later recognized by his employer, Hydro One, and he was promptly given his walking papers. Of course, the firing gave this cycle of idiocy even more life, like gasoline on a fire, as Liberal and NDP leaders lowered themselves by chiming-in with their support for the firing.
We are reminded of the case of Jian Ghomeshi, released from the CBC for what initially appeared to be a transgression committed outside of his workplace. Later it was uncovered that the talk show radio-star’s violence against women had been a pattern, and criminal charges ensued. The voice and face of CBC radio, Mr. Ghomeshi’s conduct reflected negatively on his employer, the public broadcaster, and apparently violated the terms in his employment contract.
But that was hardly the case with the fired Hydro One engineer in this FHRITP escapade, though the company claimed that he violated the company’s code of conduct. But the only way anyone knew he even worked for the utility was when he had been publicly fired. It was just another imbecilic act of someone off premises, on his own free time, probably well-lubricated with alcohol and pre-charged with testosterone as a result of watching his favourite blood sport.
Sticks and stones can break your bones… but there was no physical violence, no criminal charges, just dumb and dumber language. How far do we allow an employer to control the personal conduct and life of an employee, one might well ask? And how will this engineer get another job with a resume including being fired for such an asinine act? Are we all better off with him facing a future of perpetual unemployment – or worse?
Maple Leaf Sports Events (MLSE) claims it will refuse future admittance to the numbskulls in this incident, once it figures out who they are. But perhaps they really need to also look at the kind of events they are hosting, and the impact of blood sports on the game and post-game behaviour of the spectators. Does watching male-dominated aggressive sporting events stimulate young males to socially mis-behave? My favourite spectator ice game is fight-free women’s hockey.
To be fair to the boys, it is not infrequent that one hears women criticize and insult men, even in sexual terms. It is a social sport to laugh at the other gender, providing it is done in good spirit. But FHRITP is different because it is mean and derogatory – intended to demean, as well as bait, women.
Hydro One may escape a wrongful dismissal law suit (and we the higher electricity rates that might entail). But even so, firing someone for something which is so remote from their workplace responsibilities is a problematic precedent. It implies that employers can dictate aspects in the personal lives of their employers, at least if they become public and/or go on social media.
 In the ever-closer Orwellian world to which we are gravitating, one wonders if it wouldn’t have been better – rather than canning him – to have Mr. Simoes sent for counselling – a visit to Hydro One’s ‘thought police’. But who is Hydro One to be setting moral standards for its employees anyway, given the recent review of the corporation by the Auditor General. Still, people in glass houses do throw stones – though at least this sends a powerful signal to the thoughtless and insensitive.
FHRITP. It’s crude, but it is nothing more than a description of the sex act. So it’s not like these dough-brained idiots have just figured out how to split the atom – and thus have earned a right to feel proud of themselves. Perhaps the best thing we could all do is to just ignore them and wait for this banality to go away.
Background links:
FHRITP Firing An Employment Trend
Toronto FC Soccer Hydro One Firing Reporter Confrontation
Female Reporter Challenges Man Apologizes Deserve Firing Calgary Man Fined
Banned From Sports Events Hydro One
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
 By Pepper Parr
May 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
First time authors are usually given some room from reviewers. That initial title is looked at for possible potential – maybe this is an author that has more than one story to tell.
 Janet Turpin Meyers, local author launches her first title at the end of the month. Janet Turpin Meyers published “Nightswimming” in 2013 – it was a good read; there was promise and it turned out to be a book that you would both recommend to people and give as a gift to your more discerning friends.
Then book two arrives and it is picked up with both interest and some wondering – what has she had to say this time?
“The Last Year of Confusion” is not “Nightswimming” her first title – it wasn’t supposed to be but for those who so enjoyed Meyers’ first novel there was the hope that this second book would be as pleasurable.
There aren’t as many things to identify with in this second title, at least not for this reader. I was able to identify with many of the “Nightswimming” characters and as I read through that title there was a sense of dread when I began to realize how it was going to end.
No sense of dread with Last Year of Confusion and fewer characters that I identified with – which doesn’t for a moment take away from the book.
When you find yourself with a cast of characters that includes Jesus, John Lennon, Ghandi and Elvis impersonators you know this is going to be different. There are actually two Elvis’s – but I don’t want to give the story away.
When the lead characters have names that are not exactly memorable and bring their own baggage and history to the table – it takes a little adjusting.
 Add in the aboriginal police officer with Bigcanoe as a surname and some difficulty fully comprehending the police policies and procedures and this reader settled into what was going to be a different read.
Add in the Easter Island moai and a character who both counts his blessings and write them up in scribblers he has scrounged and while writing up Blessing # 13,890 easily refers to Blessing # 232
A Time Portal and a “blue suede shoe” plus the television crew from a reality TV show – and you’ve begun to get a sense of where Meyers is going to take you.
This second title is a different read – worth the time if only because it gives you a chance to follow a growing author who is clearly going to be writing for some time.
While not yet recognized there are more books coming from Janet Turpin Meyers.
A reception celebrating the launch of The Last Year of Confusion will be held at Cedar Springs on Sunday May 24th
 By Joe Gaetan
May 16, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
By Joe Gaetan is like a dog with a bone – he just isn’t going to let it go until he has ever last bit of meat on it. Gaetan has been tracking the progress of the province’s “discussions” and Premier Kathleen Wynne’s statements on any plans to sell Hydro One.
According to a March 10, 2015 CBC report, “Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hasn’t made any final decisions yet on asset sales, but she did not dispute a report that she is planning to sell shares in Hydro One”.
 There are thousands of Ontarians who don’t think selling Hydro One is a very smart idea. The Premier appears to have already made up her mind. Have you? Fellow Ontarians, in spite of her waffling, Premier Wynne must have been planning something big, because it’s now called Bill 91, The Building Ontario Up Act (Budget Measures), 2015. It’s Current Status, “The Bill has been Ordered referred to Standing Committee pursuant to the Order of the House Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs”.
The purpose of the Act is to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various Acts. If you feel like reading the lengthy document you will come across sections such as Schedule 1 that deals with making Ontario a more beer friendly province, containing folksy language such as hectoliters, standard bottles of beer, microbrewers, beer, wine and wine coolers.
To pave the way to sell off Hydro One, Wynne apparently knew she had to change a slew of acts such as, The auditor General Act, The Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, The Co-operative Corporations Act, The Financial Accountability Officer Act, The Financial Administration Act, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, The Commodity Futures Act and most importantly The Electricity Act, 1998.
 Premier Kathleen Wynne – is she ready to say definitely where she stands on the possible sale of Hydro One? For someone who wasn’t sure on March 10, Premier Wynne sure was busy doing a lot behind the scenes in anticipation of making her final decision found in B91. The piece de resistance of B91 is, Section 48.2 subsection (5), the section that deals with Restrictions on Province’s sale, etc. and specifically where the province,” shall not sell, dispose of or otherwise divest any common shares of Hydro One Inc. if the sale, disposal or divestment would result in the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario owning a number of common shares that is less than 40 per cent of the outstanding number of common shares of Hydro One Inc.
Premier Wynne “what is it you can’t face”, maybe the truth about selling 60% of Hydro One all along?
By Ray Rivers
May 14, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
When things go off the rails who do you call? Lisa Raitt, of course. Canada’s transport minister, was the woman on the job at the annual parliamentary press gallery dinner, as she rescued Green Party leader Elizabeth May from herself.
 Fortunately MP Elizabeth May has a good government pension which she will need because she will never make a living as a stand up comic. May, suffering from lack of sleep, had been at the microphone ranting about the sorry state of the fourth (fifth?) political party in Canada. Then she experienced a Rob Ford moment, trying to make something humorous out of Canada’s mistreatment and neglect of native son Omar Khadr. She had planned to play the theme song from a ’70’s sitcom – “Welcome Back Kotter”, and was hauled off the stage while screaming that Khadr had more integrity than the whole ‘f**king’ Harper Cabinet.
It was a dumb trick – no wonder it didn’t work for her. There is absolutely no connection between the fictional teacher Kotter and our child-soldier Khadr. The names are spelled differently and they don’t even sound the same. The crowd watched in disbelief as May’s little stunt collapsed like a deflated balloon. And May then had to be ushered off the stage by fellow east-coaster and parliamentary buddy, Raitt.
The parliamentary press gallery dinners have been troublesome and ofttimes embarrassing for Canada’s leaders over the years since the 1870’s when they first started. The idea of a forum for some good fun involving self-depreciation and ‘roasting’ of political leaders is similar to the US White House Correspondence Dinner, which it pre-dates by almost half a century.
William Lyon MacKenzie King used the event to announce his resignation. Pierre Trudeau apparently hated attending the dinners. Stephen Harper used to attend while in opposition, appearing once as a convincing Darth Vader, perhaps foretelling where he planned to take the nation if elected But he is AWOL now, as PM.
Elizabeth May has had an impressive record as a champion of the environment, even before she came to lead the two-seat Green Party. A one-time advisor to Mulroney’s environment minister Tom McMillan, she was instrumental in the creation of several national parks. May was awarded the the Order of Canada in 2005 and Newsweek magazine named her “one of the world’s most influential women” in 2010.
 Minister of Transportation Lisa Raitt, got fellow MP Elizabeth May off the stage at a Press Gallery dinner where her speech stunt flopped badly. Her buddy, Lisa Raitt, on the other hand has a more mixed biography, clouded by actions during her time as head of Toronto’s Port Authority. Her tenure as natural resources minister in the Harper Cabinet was awkward, given her unfortunate outburst during the shut down of the reactor at Chalk River. As Labour Minister she is credited with causing an airport workers’ wildcat strike when she called for the RCMP to arrest the workers.
Harper moved Raitt to the transport ministry following the Lac Mégantic train disaster, to give the appearance that his government was doing something. And the government is finally doing something about banning those unsafe tank cars, knowingly used for decades for this dangerous cargo; informing communities when these oil trains pass though; and re-confirming no exemptions for minimum train crews – to help ensure that trains would be properly braked, unlike the one that broke free and crashed, causing the Lac Mégantic tragedy.
Omar Khadr, is the Canadian-born child soldier, shot and captured by American soldiers in Afghanistan, before growing up as an inmate at the US torture academy at Guantanamo Bay. His release on bail was followed by a media conference where he appeared humbled, promising Canadians he’d be a better person. He had been well primed and appeared credible, if not cuddly. Was that the welcome back moment May was championing?
 A boy of 15 on a battlefield where everyone was shooting at everyone gets charged with murder when someone was killed as the result of a grenade the 15 year old boy threw – for this the Canadian government wants to keep him in jail? This one-time child-soldier, born into a politically activist family with roots in the middle east, had spent most of his life somewhere other than Canada. I don’t know if tossing a grenade in self-defence at a gun-fight with American invaders in a lawless country like Afghanistan is much of a crime. But holding children as extra-judicial military prisoners sure is.
In retrospect he probably shouldn’t have been there (Afghanistan), but history will show that neither should the Americans who shot and then held him prisoner for as long as they did. Omar Khadr has had a tough life growing up and had been poorly treated – by the Americans and his own parents – but he is hardly a hero worthy of praise. And while he is now in the country of his birth, Canada is barely his home. No wonder May’s skit flopped.
Background links:
Elizabeth May May and Khadr Lisa Raitt Omar Khadr
Welcome Back Kotter White House Correspondents
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
 By Ray Rivers
May 8, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
They used to say that Ontario would only vote Liberal provincially if the government in Ottawa was Conservative. What does that portend for the upcoming federal election, reviewing the results of this week’s provincial elections in PEI and especially Alberta where the voters turned everything upside down.
PEI wasn’t really much of a surprise and the Liberals barely worked up a sweat, sweeping in to a third majority government in Canada’s tiny province. But Alberta, with over four decades of continuous Conservative government was a ground shaker. It seemed like only yesterday that newly anointed (former) Premier Redford held onto her majority in an election the pollsters said she would surely lose to the Wild Rose Party.
 The voters decide – and in Alberta they did so dramatically. Now to figure out what the Alberta change is going to mean to the rest of the country. So when these same pollsters started talking about the NDP winning this time, nobody believed them. But chickens do come home to roost, and partisan loyalty only lasts so long before the people have had enough. Expense scandals, failed economic policies, a deteriorating environment, cuts to health and social services, new taxes, rising unemployment, an arrogant leader (Prentice) and a miserable election campaign brought down this once unassailable dynasty. And in so doing restored our faith in the polls, the pollsters and voters of Albertans.
Nobody likes being lied to. And there was this big lie, that you can have it all. Perpetual wealth with no consequences. Albertans were told to trust their government and it would build a sustainable petroleum-based economy that was going to fuel the greatest boom in Canadian history. An impossible dream, Albertans now realize.
The rewards from all the oil extracted from the ground had been squandered. The big oil corporations and the wealthiest Albertans got theirs, alright. And the rest? Well the premier told Albertans, complaining about its dismal fiscal state, to look in the mirror if they wanted someone to blame.
There may be federal repercussions from this provincial NDP zinger. For one thing, the federal NDP can no longer be discounted as a one-hit-wonder- a flash-in-the-pan – as they show off their official opposition hat. The party with roots in Saskatchewan has held government in several provinces now. And Tom Mulcair has proven a tireless and credible political leader.
 Justin Trudeau on a tour through Burlington – will the charisma hold during the next federal election? And that could mean troubles for Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals, hoping to win a majority government this time around. Two respected parties competing for the same votes in the middle-left may be one party too many to keep Mr. Harper from coming up the middle for another Tory victory, albeit one that is unlikely to be a majority.
Trudeau has dismissed talk of a coalition with the NDP. Despite many common values between the parties there are fundamental philosophical differences, including Jack Layton’s Sherbrooke Declaration, which would allow Quebec to leave on a 51% vote. So it is not a slam-dunk should the votes come in that way. And the last time there was an agreement on a working coalition, some Canadians felt uneasy about any such marriage of convenience.
The Canadian economy is facing tough times ahead. While the federal finance minister was able to scramble together a balanced budget by fire-selling government assets and raiding the unemployment and contingency funds. He’d have trouble the next time around. The reality is that the cash-cow from Alberta has stopped milking and any future Tory budget would have to go back into the ‘red’ unless somebody reforms our tax system.
To that point Mr. Trudeau has just proposed the first significant reform of our income tax system since Brian Mulroney gutted it back in the 1980’s. The one percent (1%) of Canadians, those earning over $200,000, will see their federal rates rise by four percentage points to 33% – a significant rise, though still lower than in the immediate post war period.
This would free up an estimated $3 million of new federal revenue to be re-distributed through tax breaks for the middle class – those with incomes between $40, 000 and $90,000 a year. Re-distribution isn’t a bad word, even though it is multisyllabic and sometimes hyphenated.
 Re-distributing the way Trudeau would do it, rather than the way Harper has been doing it will mean new economic growth, driven by the middle class as opposed to being left in the Tax Free Savings Accounts of the one-per-cent crowd. And that makes us all better off. Recall US President Harry Truman’s notable saying that if you want to live like a Republican you’d better vote for a Democrat.
The upcoming federal election is still a crap shoot, but becoming more interesting every day as October draws near. Few people are expecting the NDP to pull another rabbit out the hat and actually form the national government, let alone with a majority.
But look at Alberta.
Background:
Alberta Election Issues How Albertans Felt Trudeau Tax Plan PEI Results Federal Raids
Election Background NDP Sweep Alberta Premiers A Timely Change
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
 By Pepper Parr
May 7, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has always believed that citizens should be engaged much earlier in the decision making process than the city’s current policies require.
When changes are being made many people feel that the die has been cast and the politicians just want the voters to say they like what has already been decided upon.
 Councillors Sharman and Lancaster: both part of the Shape Burlington committee who seem to have forgotten what the report was all about – civic engagement That is the style we see from Councillors Craven, Sharman and Lancaster. Councillors Taylor and Dennison tend to show some flexibility.
The Mayor tends to sit between the two groups. He gets keen on an idea and sticks with it – but when there is significant blow back – he backs away. Bicycle lanes on Lakeshore Road is perhaps his worst example – taking the wind turbine was another.
Burlington’s approach to civic engagement hasn’t gotten far beyond approving, unanimously, the Shape Burlington report and putting an “in principle” community engagement document in place but then never acting on it.
 Vanessa Warren on the right wanted to know why residents were not permitted to have real input on the creation on the city budget – she didn’t like the idea of reading through a document with decisions already made set out for her. During the public budget deliberations in 2013, Vanessa Warren, who was just beginning to come to the attention of the public, asked at a meeting at the Art Gallery, why the public wasn’t seeing the numbers when they were being put together. She objected to having to look at numbers and get to make a comment and then go home – with nothing changing.
Meed Ward wants to do it differently. Her first reference is usually to her constituents – who meet almost as community council. She listens, is frequently surprised at what she hears from her constituents and then makes changes.
Attend a ward 1 or a ward 6 community meeting and watch the flow of information and ideas – they go in just the one direction. These are the fundamental differences in how Councillors Sharman, Meed Ward and Craven see their jobs.
The older members of the population are content with leaving everything in the hands of the politicians – that was their experience and they are comfortable with that approach.
There is a younger generation that doesn’t buy into that top down approach. They are comfortable with searching out their own information and will debate with their council member.
The two groups in ward 5 who were very unhappy with the way their Council member represented them with the sewer back up problems that did serious damage to their homes made their views known frequently. They didn’t believe they were being heard and went off on their own.
Sharman for his part was very sincere in his efforts to do something for his constituents – it was a matter of very different operational styles. Sharman prefers command – the residents prefer collaboration – not Mr. Sharman’s strong point.
Meed Ward has invited residents to participate in a series of workshops that will see major downtown land owners, city staff, businesses and residents meet to discuss the future of their downtown.
 Meed Ward used up her postage budget for the year in her first three months as a Council member. Her style is to get information out to people. What Meed Ward has managed to do is pull the people who own the land into the discussion – let them hear what residents would like to see. The smarter developers listen to residents and bring them on side – it does away with loud, noisy contentious public meetings.
The Molinaro’s learned the hard way with their Brock Street condominium that it is better to work with residents than fight them. When they moved forward with their Fairview Road – five tower – Paradigm project they worked with the community and with the residents – guess what – no noisy contentious public meetings.
The ADI Development Group decided from the GetGo that they would bull their way through the city planning department and city council and get themselves before the OMB where they think they have a better chance of getting a 28 storey tower on a plot of land less than an acre in size approved. They just might be right.
Meed Ward arranged for a public meeting on the expansion and significant upgrade to Brant Square Plaza. The project met all the zoning requirements; they could have asked for more height but chose not to.
Meed Ward takes the view that all the decisions and as much information as possible should be run by the citizens. Petty power politics isn’t her game.
The workshops will allow participants to provide input into what they think the downtown should look like in the future.
The first workshop takes place on May 13 at Burlington Lion’s Club Hall beginning at 7 p.m. and will have city planners sharing information about existing city policies and what’s up for review.
Participants will also start to map out principles around design, compatibility, height, density, heritage, jobs, and more.
 Citizens at a public budget meeting – they get to comment – they don’t get to demand that changes be made. The meetings are more of a public relations exercise. “Residents want to be involved in downtown development early on,” said Meed Ward. “This approach brings together all stakeholders to collectively and collaboratively shape the future of our downtown.”
Seating is limited for the May 13 workshop. For more information and to register, please contact Georgie Gartside, Assistant to Councillors, at georgie.gartside@burlington.ca or 905-335-7600, ext. 7368.
This is an approach that most of Burlington doesn’t benefit from – with the exception of Councillor Taylor who has a long standing working relationship with his community.
By Pepper Parr
May 6, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
It’s always close to the same number – something around the 35% plus number. That being the percentage of the trucks pulled over for safety inspection.
 When more than a third of those pulled over fail the tests and 15 trucks are actually taken off the road – those roads are not safe.
 Lots of paper work when a truck gets taken off the road – money well spent. Get tougher. Yesterday the Halton Regional Police Service in partnership with Peel Regional Police, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of the Environment and the Region of Halton conducted a Commercial Vehicle Safety Initiative.
The focus of the blitz was to identify vehicles that may not be properly maintained and could pose a danger on our roads.
In total 40 commercial vehicles were inspected resulting in:
• 70 provincial offence notices issued
• 15 vehicles removed from service
• 38% failure rate
Tougher crackdown on these people – raise the stakes – impound the trucks for a week. Let the carriers unload the products they are hauling and send a warning letter and a liability notice to the company that hired the truck – make it clear – this is not going to be tolerated.
The association of police chiefs are not shy when it comes to getting their message out. Get this message out – our roads are going to be safe.
 When police catch this – take the car off the road and send the driver home in a cab. Don’t get me going on the nut cases that drive with the cell phone in their hands. $2500 fine and they have to call a taxi to get home; impound the car and if there are children in it – call Child Services.
The police want anyone who kills a police officer in jail for life – that issue is important to them. Safe roads are important to the people who drive them. Crack down
Day two of Operation Tag and Tow will take place in Oakville on May 7th, 2015.
Joe Gaetan is a Burlington resident with no political affiliation that we can find but he does have an issue with what the provincial government wants to do with Hydro One.
He wrote a letter to the editor of the Spectator and asked if we would also publish it. Given that more Burlingtonians read the Gazette than they do the Spectator we are pleased to let you hear what Mr. Gaetan thinks.
By Joe Gaetan
May 6, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
If I am not mistaken, the government of Ontario is the sole shareholder of Hydro One. In the 13 years the Liberal Party has been in power, the government has been the benefactor of $6.2 billion of income generated by Hydro One.
My problem with that is, the government could have taken less income to reduce the debt load imposed on the taxpayers and it could have provided a more reasonable cost of electricity to consumers. Our electricity cost is among the highest in North America and that is hurting our ability to attract business.
Instead, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli’s government chose to spend it otherwise. We don’t know where it all went, but it seems about $1 billion was wasted to save two Liberal seats in Mississauga and Oakville. The government has been spending more than it earns for 13 years, to the point where Ontario is $267 billion dollars in the hole. Now the government is selling a valuable asset.
Hydro One is a jewel, it is fabulous, drool-worthy, net income generator, in part thanks to the exorbitant electricity costs that have been passed on to ratepayers. Perhaps it could generate more income under a different ownership arrangement, but that’s not the point. The point is, the Liberals did not campaign on selling Hydro One and, therefore, do not have a mandate to do so.
The Rule of Law, among other things, is there to deter individuals or groups and government from assuming or exercising powers they do not legitimately possess. That is what this is about.
By Ray Rivers
May 1, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Was Dr. Benjamin Spock the father of us all? His ‘Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care,’ published simultaneously with the birth of the first postwar baby boomers, set the path for child development for my generation and, at least, for the one that followed. Spock held that sex-education, including its spiritual aspects, should be part of a broad health and moral education, from kindergarten through the end of high school, ideally carried out harmoniously by parents and teachers.
 Isn’t that exactly what the updated provincial sex-ed curriculum is trying to do? Spock has his detractors but there have been scores of pedagogical disciples who mostly followed in his footsteps and adhered to his general principles. And after a couple of generations it is hard to criticize what we have grown to know and appreciate.
Of course the ‘spare-the-rod’ clan, and those newer-Canadians who were steeped in a traditional authoritarian family cult, object to what they see as the self-actualizing child. They consider sex-education, any of it, an insult and a case of the state interfering in their personal lives. Some hold, and others worry, that what they call ‘juvenile permissiveness’ will lead to a more violent and sexually perverted society, even if the numbers don’t support that linkage.
But the elephant-in-the-room is whether sex-education encourages sex? Spock and his disciples argue that the more children learn about sexuality from authoritative sources (parents, teachers, accurate literature), the less they will feel compelled to find out for themselves. We’re talking about where they get their facts (friends, violent movies, the internet, sexting or worse).
G. W. Bush ushered in an era in US education where sex-education became nothing more than preaching abstinence. A decade later, the results have been shown to be dismal, at best. In the US there are 750,000 teen pregnancies each year, 82% unintended, and almost 60% percent of these result in children bearing children. The rest of the teen pregnancies are either aborted or were miscarried. And then there are the sexually transmitted diseases.
Obama overturned Bush’s failed initiative, and now the US only funds programs which have been proven effective at reducing teen pregnancy, delaying sexual activity, or increasing contraceptive use. Abstinence, no doubt, remains a topic of discussion within these comprehensive sex-education programs, but their primary purpose is to prevent negative sexual health outcomes.
Ontario’s new sex-education curriculum is to be implemented starting this September, which will land it just in time for the expected federal election this autumn. Some pundits have speculated that this might be a factor among voters who are unable to distinguish between federal and provincial policies and responsibilities.
 For many parents talking about sex is just not something they can do – a classroom can provide the information young people need – we cheat them if we fail to inform them. I recall canvassing, when I ran provincially in Burlington, and being accosted by voters angry over the implementation of the federal long-gun registry at that time. So that should be a consideration for the Liberal leaders. Though, the push-back on the curriculum is coming mainly from the religious-right, who identify mainly with the Conservative party anyway. And then there are the new Canadians who often find common ground with the Tories on this issue.
Of course if the parents could all be trusted to objectively teach their kids the essentials about sex, this might not even be an issue. But they don’t, do they? How many parents take the time or have the courage to discuss sex in the context of a modern diverse society – and beyond the elementary birds and bees?
Parents have no prepared curriculum and generally no training. And even if they did, the topic is likely way too personal for most of them to handle it in an objective and balanced manner. Kids find their way through the internet, on the streets or in somebody’s recreation room when the parents are still at work.
As for those angry, complaining parents who think they know better than professional educators and psychologists, the apple usually falls near the tree. Tolerance and respect for others is as important in sexuality as the lessons on anatomy, I would think – but what do I know.
I’m an economist, went to a one-room school, was raised on a farm and I got my education out behind the barn.
Background links:
Notable Quotes Dr. Spock How Dr. Spock Destroyed America
Effectiveness of Sex-Ed Programs Teen Sources of Sex Information Anti-Sex Ed Coalition
Wynne and the Federal Election Conservative Protests Canadian Pregnancies
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
By Phil Davis
April 28, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
In the discussion of the Hydro-One sale the focus has been on its impact on customer cost. There is another reason why the sale is a bad choice, flexibility for adding future technology. We are currently on the cusp of a revolution in power electronics that has the potential to reduce pollution, increase jobs, increase energy diversity and reduce cost.
 The ability to use new generation like solar and wind and new transmission technology will critically depend on the flexibility of the transmission system as an active part of the total system. The transmission system of the future will be a distributed system and have imbedded energy storage, ‘smart’ energy switching and remote load sensing and similar technology to optimize the total energy system; not the ‘top down’ system we have today.
We don’t know exactly what the future transmission system will look like and that is why it needs to be under public control, so that it will adapt as new energy sources become available.
If the transmission system is privately held there will be no incentive to invest or take the risk needed to modernize the system. It is likely the new owner of a privatized transmission system would also control generating plants and would protect their generation equipment profit by not modernizing to allow new generation equipment.
This would mean that Ontario would not only lose access to improving technology but would be locked in to higher energy prices for both ‘old’ power generation and distribution. We only need to remember the Enron debacle to see where this could go.
If electric transmission is privatized then Ontario will be stuck with a highway407 like energy infrastructure which will be optimized for the short term benefit of the few against the potential of new technology and the needs of the many. The proper approach is private generation competing to generate electricity at the lowest rate and public transmission to insure that all generation sources have access to customers.
By Ray Rivers
April 25, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Last week Canada’s premiers met to brag about each other’s achievements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta, whose increases negated everyone else’s reductions, was absent, presumably busy with a provincial election. Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall argued for business as usual, since our greenhouse gas contributions amount to a small fraction of the global total, thereby challenging Ontario’s Premier Wynne on her government’s successes.
 Climate change is real – except to those who wrote the last federal budget document. And Mr. Harper’s government with an historic legacy of denying climate change and otherwise doing squat, blamed the provinces for Canada’s crappy performance. With that outburst from the federal environment minister, and given an impending federal budget, even a pessimist might have expected something, even anything, about climate change action in the budget. Sorry pessimists!
When international oil prices tumbled, along with federal income projections, finance minister Joe Oliver panicked, delayed the budget and dumped Canada’s GM shares (bought to save GM in 2008) for a whacking loss of over $3 billion. Next, he robbed the government’s piggy bank, its fiscal reserve for as much as $2 billion, and then pulled some sleight-of-hand around future employee contract negotiations to manufacture a small surplus.
Canada’s economy is heading into recession, led by the faltering Alberta economy. So one would have expected some new measures to stimulate the economy. But there is scant discussion of economic drivers in Joe Oliver’s master plan, unless one considers new corporate tax cuts, or re-announcing the tired old federal training, innovation and infrastructure initiatives.
This budget is arguably the most ideological document to come out of Mr. Harper’s decade of governance, notably excepting Bill C-38, also called the environmental destruction act. It is a common belief among the extreme right-wing that government, itself, is the problem and smaller government is always better government. One wonders why people who believe that government is so insignificant try so hard to get elected into office.
 Harper needs the votes of the greatest democrats in the nation – the people who always turn out on voting day – the seniors. This federal budget is about buying votes in the upcoming election. Mr. Harper’s promised tax break for the highest income Canadian families through income sharing is now formalized. But to win his next election, Harper needs the votes of the greatest democrats in the nation – the people who always turn out on voting day – the seniors.
It was only a couple of years ago that Mr. Harper denied seniors their Old Age Security by raising the retirement age to 67. And by blocking provincial demands to upgrade the Canada Pension Plan he angered seniors groups. So, to make amends, he is upping the contribution limit for TFSAs (interest tax-free savings accounts) to a whopping $10,000. And the well-heeled will no doubt be appreciative.
There was another budget announced this week. Though unlike the feds, Ontario hasn’t yet balanced its budget. Ontario’s finance minister, Charles Sousa, is privatizing electricity generation, going back to the future and completing the job even Mike Harris and Ernie Eves couldn’t get done. The money from this dis-investment will be allocated to infrastructure and building transit and roads for the GTA, in particular.
The Province is finally allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, albeit with some antediluvian rules to discourage customers. And there is good reason for that since expanded provincial beer consumption might, inadvertently, put a dent in Premier Wynne’s climate change initiatives.
 Will Burlington’s Beer Fest benefit from the change in beer selling policy the provincial government put forward? Apparently global beer consumption in 2004 was 150.392 billion litres, resulting in a significant 9,354,382 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. Save the planet, drink whiskey.
These are two completely different budgets from two very different governments. Yet, Ontario could get to balance if they only increased progressive income taxes. Instead, the only provincial tax hike is a recessionary ‘buck-a-box’ for beer – likely a concession to the trans-national oligopolies controlling our Beer Stores. The benefits of the planned investments in infrastructure will be almost immediate and broadly felt. And, eventually the rest of the public will appreciate the economic benefits from faster commute times.
Joe Oliver’s budget, on the other hand, has done little but widen the spread between the haves and have-nots. It is understood that the vast majority of benefits from the family income-splitting scheme will go to the wealthiest families. And this interest tax-free account makes no economic sense. Since the average deposit into Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) was about $3000 when the limit had been $5500, who do we think will benefit when the limit goes to $10,000?
 Rivers suggests our economy is heading for a recession. Savings are essential in order to fund new investment. But without consumption there is no demand for investment. All of our income is either spent on consumption or saved. So were that new limit on TFSA’s to be actualized, there could be at least $4500 less consumption per saver per year – which is highly recessionary. And the last thing this faltering Canadian economy needs is to be pushed faster and further towards recession.
I have heard some call this federal budget a blow to generational equity – primarily by young people. Perhaps it is, but at a minimum it is a clear case of ideology trumping sound economics. I always believed the time to reward yourself (with tax breaks) is when the economy is booming – not when you are likely heading into a recession.
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
Background links:
Provincial Climate Change Federal Budget TFSA Changes Contingency Fund
A Tax on Future Generations Retirement Savings Tax Breaks GM Shares Bill C-38
Provincial Budget Provincial Budget Priorities Beer in Stores Beer and Climate Change
By Staff
April 24, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington MP Mike Wallace spoke yesterday in the House of Commons and said:
 Burlington MP Mike Wallace at a Conservative Caucus meeting in Ottawa Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member’s honesty. He was clear in his speech that his party is in favour of increased taxes to pay for a number of the programs the New Democrats have indicated they are interested in. I am actually looking forward to debating those issues at election time also.
However, I am a little confused. On one hand, in his speech he talked about corporations needing to pay their own way, and then the previous speaker from his party was taking credit for the small business tax rate going from 11% to 9%. Ninety per cent of the businesses in the country are small businesses.
Are the New Democrats for increasing taxes on business, or are they against taxes going up for business? It is a very confusing message. I do not think they know what they actually stand for. I would be interested to hear what he has to say about that.
Wallace was responding to remarks made by Jack Harris, the NDP Member for St. Johns East in Newfoundland who had said previously:
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to the Conservative budget. The budget is no pleasure, but to have a chance to talk about what is wrong with it, where it is lacking, the negative direction it is taking the country and some of the things that my party, the NDP, would do instead is something I cherish.
The Conservative budget would spend billions in handouts to the wealthiest at a time when the government should be investing in accessible child care, affordable housing and supporting seniors who are struggling to get by. Places like Newfoundland and Labrador and the people there and the Atlantic who have critical issues that need to be addressed, like regional economic development and supporting communities, issues such as the constitutional obligation of the government to support Marine Atlantic, are absent from this budget.
Absent as well are the $280 million that the government promised the government of Newfoundland and Labrador in a fishing industry development fund in response to the consequences of CETA and the request to remove its powers to expect local processing in fisheries. Where is that? All of these are absent.
Things get a little testy at time in the House of Commons. When Wallace was finished speak Harris stood again and responded with
Mr. Speaker, we have noticed over here that the hon. member is confused on many occasions. He did not actually need to tell us that.
If he had been listening, he would have known that the leader of the NDP gave a major speech several months ago in which he called for a decrease in small business tax rates down to 9%. That was very clear. He also called for an increase in the capital cost allowance for manufacturers. This is desperately needed in the member’s neck of the woods, in Ontario, because of the hollowing out of manufacturing that has happened during the government’s administration. We are trying to fix that.
We do understand what needs to be done, but we do not support the notion that major corporations, highly profitable corporations, can have tax cuts and sit on that cash for years and years and not use it to create jobs.
Both New Democrat Harris from Newfoundland and Conservative Wallace from Burlington were commenting on the federal budget that was handed down the day before. Fine men representing their constituents.
By Pepper Parr
April 22, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Later this month we will see, for the first time, a policy initiative that the Mayor has put his mark on.
During Rick Golding’s first term, much of the thinking was done during his election campaign. He produced a number of excellent position papers that we will review once we hear what the Mayor has to say on intensification.
Mayor Goldring has realized that his constituents, to a significant degree, do not fully understand what is meant by intensification and how Burlington is going to face that challenge – and for Burlington this is a challenge.
 There are parts of the city where any form of intensification is not going to get past the first sentence. The backlash in some communities will be so strong that the Mayor, and every member of this Council, will quickly move on to a subject that leaves smiles on the faces of the voters.
Ontario is changing and Burlington is going to have to change with it – it will not be an easy transition and the Mayor has decided this is a subject he can show some leadership.
During his first term of office Mayor Goldring sponsored a series of talks on subjects that he felt were important to the city. He brought in some excellent speakers, including Andre Picard one of the foremost thinkers in the country on health related policies. Goldring brought in Ken Greenberg, a noted planner who works out of Toronto for the most part and has been instrumental in changing some of the thinking on how municipalities relate to developers and how the two can work together.
This time the Mayor is going to make the presentation – it will be his show. He will pull together the content and decide how he wants to present the data he will have collected.
He will, we assume, explain the policy guidelines within which the city has to work and what he feels are some of the directions the city can take as it works to meet the population increases the province has imposed on the city.
“Intensification is an issue that has captured the interest of many Burlington residents” said the Mayor on his web site. “People want to know why our community is seeing more buildings, particularly in the form of mid-rise and high-rise structures. Hear about the federal and provincial policies that are driving intensification and how Halton and Burlington are managing these pressures. Learn where we are growing, as well as innovative ideas we are investigating.”
The event is titled: Building Burlington: Where to build in a city that is built out. Problem with the title is that the city is not built out. There are hundreds of acres of land left for residential properties and more than we need in the way of employment lands.
The free event is “sold out” ; with the room full the Mayor will be speaking to an audience that wants to hear what he has to say. One hopes there will be vigorous debate and a fulsome exchange of views – both are needed.
 By Greg Woodruff
April 21, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
On March 24th city staff held a meeting to discuss possible zoning changes to a large section of Plains Road. The area discussed was on the South side of Plains Road positioned East of Waterdown Road. Later residents discovered a developer is already advertising to sell 75 condo units at 40-58 Plains Road East in violation of current zoning character provisions.
Though it was casually mentioned the city had been “approached” by a developer; no indication was given that a specific plan was in motion.
 The public meeting was an information gathering occasion for the city planner who said he was there to listen to the community and what they wanted. He did make mention of an project that was not formal yet – the residents think the project is well along the development path. The graphic above shows the portion of Plains Rod that was under review and its proximity to the Aldershot GO station and the suggestion that the pink area could be developed as a “mobility hub” This leaves the distinct impression that this meeting was in bad faith. It seems like the purpose of the meeting was only to say the public was “consulted” on an issue staff already had a plan to change. I realize that staff may not have been in a position to mention this specific development. At minimum the staff could have indicated that if the zoning was changed they would expect to see condo buildings in the “range of 70 plus units”. Why they did not could be anything from simple lack of communication to an outright attempt to misslead the public.
I think traditionally the public has considered staff as neutral parties implementing zoning regulations and changes in a balanced way. To some it seems like staff have now been co-opted into provincial employees with “intensification” as the decisive factor in decision making. If staff failed to mention this development or the like because someone judged that residents would have a negative reaction; then they are no longer operating in a neutral way. This is unfair not only to residents and developers, but also to the staff themselves.
Some basic questions now need answering:
1) What exactly is the current function and purpose of staff in regard to planning and development?
2) Was the city made aware of this 75 unit proposal from the developer?
3) Was there any conversation among or direction to staff about hiding the nature of probable developments if the zoning was changed?
4) Did any staff indicate that they would work for the developer to get the zoning changed?
Recommendations:
1) All communication between staff and this developer on this matter needs to be made public.
2) Staff are “trading” zoning violations for attributes to buildings. “Horse trading” zoning violations needs to be made into a transparent public process.
In this area we have less trees, less businesses and more congestion.
I reject outright the suggestion that the liveability of our community needs to be sacrificed for the provincial “intensification” mandate. Intensification is designed to spur positive changes in our community; not serve as a rationalization for negative ones.
Greg Woodruff runs the Citizens for Responsible Development. He was a candidate for the office of Chair of the Region of Halton. There is more about that organization here.
The Gazette reported on that March meeting.
 By Ray Rivers
April 16, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
“A politician that has been caught mishandling public funds and who then engages in political subterfuge in an attempt to cover up the error is doing a Duffster Dive”.
It is possible that the suspended senator, Mike Duffy, will avoid going to jail on any of the 31 charges against him. But, at least in the court of public opinion, he is guilty for his ambition, arrogance, avarice – and his duffster diving.
 All on the public dime? Does it really matter that Mr. Duffy, having been appointed to represent PEI, actually parks his duff in Ontario. It is not like he was elected by real PEI residents so he is accountable to no one, except possibly the PM who appointed him. But that quaint historical rule about residency allowed him to claim expenses he shouldn’t have, since Ottawa was his home, not a temporary residence. Don’t we all wish for a job with a fat salary as well as money for the groceries?
The Senate, itself, is an historical mistake – a solution searching for a problem, and in due course becoming the problem itself. And so this trial will be as much about the Senate as it is about Duffy getting a free ride at the public trough. How can there be clear rules about what one does or doesn’t legitimately do in the absence of a clear understanding of the role and purpose of that organization?
Though he has not been called to attend yet, this trial is also very much about Stephen Harper, his judgement and his back room boys. After all, the PM appointed Duffy to the Senate, when even Duffy now must doubt the legitimacy of his appointment. And a chunk of the questionable expenses were rung-up attending those Tory events, in which Duffy had proven himself to be a heavy-weight, when it came to fundraising for the PM’s party.
 Stephen Harper and Mike Duffy – pals forever? On one hand it is hard not to feel a little sorry for Duffy. He was, presumably, only doing what he thought he could get away with. A jovial fellow who now appears to understand the error of his ways and who was happy to pay back what he’d wrongly accepted, with somebody else’s money. And he must be suffering emotionally, since those whose favour he sought so badly to obtain have now turned their backs and shun him.
On the other hand Mike Duffy isn’t a decent fellow who deserves our pity. This was apparent to anyone who witnessed the fiasco which occurred on Duffy’s political broadcast during the 2008 election. Then Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, whose first language is French, was asked an illogical, possibly trick or set-up question – “If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?”
Nobody could answer that question, though Dion tried and stumbled, asking repeatedly, for the question and the interview to be restarted. Duffy aired the entire interview, including all of the false starts, and then later editorialized his view that Dion had just demonstrated his incompetence.
Duffy was playing partisan politics. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled that Duffy had violated broadcasting codes and ethics and that the interview was not fair, balanced or even-handed and, in fact, had significantly misrepresented the interview and its participant.
Though Mike Duffy had won several awards over his lifetime in broadcasting, this sad episode was unprofessional. Worse than unprofessional, it was mean and brutally unfair to Mr. Dion, sealing his fate in the 2008 election and beyond.
 Senator Mike Duffy – currently under suspension. And, of course, the destruction of Mr. Dion as a contender helped enable Mr. Harper to win the election. Duffy, if he didn’t already have the affection of the Tory leader, sure did after this little trick. And it was shortly after the 2008 election that Mr. Harper appointed Duffy to the Senate.
Background links:
Duffy Diaries Duffy and Harper Duffy Biog Duffy Realizes His Error
Senate Oversight Crown VS Harper Broadcasting Standards Rebuke
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
By Ray Rivers
April 9, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Ontario’s finance minister, Charles Sousa, boasted that the government had beaten down its projected 2014 deficit target by $1.6 billion, and was on track to eliminate the deficit by 2018.
He was speaking at a Greater Toronto Board of Trade meeting last week, when he announced this good piece of news. And another bit of good news is that a carbon tax doesn’t appear to be in the works.
And why would it be? The McGuinty/Wynne governments already have an outstanding record in fighting climate change. While Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sky-rocketed from 1990 levels, (18% increase to 2012), Ontario’s emissions plummeted by an impressive 6%.
And besides, Ontario electricity customers are already paying a ‘de-facto’ carbon tax through our utility bills, which have increased over the years, in part to pay for the conversion of Ontario’s dated and dirty coal plants to cleaner energy.
 Ontario’s Minister of Finance Charles Sousa – watch the hands, they are quicker than the eye. So rather than hit consumers with another carbon tax, Ontario’s Premier Wynne has decided to join Quebec and California in a continent-wide carbon trading system. Also called cap-and-trade, emissions trading is actually an Ontario-born solution to pollution. A University of Toronto economics professor, Robert Dales, back in the sixties was credited with defining the concept. Ontario’s formal entry into this continental cap-and-trade block will create a market of over 60 million people encompassing almost two thirds of Canadians.
The finance minister noted in his remarks that an additional half-million new jobs have been created since the 2008 recession, and that Ontario has become the top destination for foreign direct investment among jurisdictions in Canada and the U.S.A. Lower oil prices and a falling Canadian dollar are like gifts from heaven for our manufacturers. And with two thirds of our students exercising post-secondary options, the province is leading the country in skilled labour.
So why do we still have this deficit? Ontario already has the lowest per capita spending of any jurisdiction in Canada and, with a predicted growth rate of only 0.8% per annum, it is likely to stay that way. So perhaps the government needs to be looking somewhere else for a solution to its financial predicament. Premier Wynne is apparently exploring the sale of some crown assets, such as Hydro One, which might be in the public interest to divest, and provide some much needed cash to boot.
 You see them on the streets of New York – with three walnut shells on a make shift table and asking you to bet on which one the pea is under – it’s a game of the hand being quicker than they eye – the politicians do it all the time – with your money. But sustainable financing requires more than a fire-sale of crown assets. That would involve re-engineering of the income side of the balance sheet. Alberta, has finally abandoned its ideologically driven flat-tax experiment, conceding that progressive income taxes are essential just to keep its deficit down to $5 billion dollars – a deficit greater than Ontario’s on a per capita basis. Alberta’s premier, Jim Prentice, a former minister in Mr. Harper government, has decided to increase income taxes rather than introduce a sales tax which would unduly penalize those in the middle and lower income classes.
Mr. Sousa tried to make the case that part of Ontario’s income problem lies with the federal government short-changing Ontario, by re-jigging equalization rules over the last few years. He claims that Ontario now contributes $11 million more than it receives in services from the federal government. But that is a hard argument to sell.
How does one measure the benefits Ontario derives from national defence, foreign affairs, national parks, and so on? And the equalization formula, itself, is a moving target, changing with the economic circumstances of each jurisdiction and over time. So the fairness aspect has to be tempered in the context of the leadership role Ontario has always wanted to play in confederation.
But it is true that the feds have been missing in action on a number of fronts, as former finance minister and PM, Paul Martin, noted in a recent article. He cites the neglect being accorded ‘innovation’ and science in general, and the deficit in infrastructure spending, of course. Mr. Harper had announced a $75 billion multi-year infrastructure fund back a few years ago, a program that has turned out to be more effective at advertising his government than actually delivering money for needy projects. And what is $75 billion spread across the nation when Ontario’s needs, alone, total well over a hundred billion?
 According to the great economist John Maynard Keynes, governments should run surplus budgets in good times so they can pay down the debt they need to run in the bad times. Yet the Canadian government has been running deficits ever since the recession ended in 2010 and Ontario is still three years from getting to a balance.
So the PM has determined that the federal budget, coming down in two weeks, will be accompanied by a spanking new ‘balanced budget’ law. This law, ironically, will mandate the federal government to ‘not do’ what the Harper government ‘has been doing’ for the last four years – running a deficit.
Since the early 1990s most of Canada’s provinces had also enacted balanced budget laws of one kind or another. And since then, almost all of these jurisdictions have either repealed or ignored these unworkable laws. Mike Harris introduced his balanced budget act after running deficits for over half his term in office, and McGuinty repealed the law when he came to power. But McGuinty and Harris each had about the same number of balanced budgets at the end of the day. Quebec, with the worst debt to GDP ratio in the country, has just announced a balanced budget – and this without a new law.
Managing the budget is one of the most important responsibilities for an elected government? Is our PM saying that he can’t be trusted to balance the budget without a new law requiring him to do so? Or is this just a another piece of political gimmickry which he will observe only when it suits. We should recall the ‘fixed elections date’ law which Harper also introduced a number of years ago, then broke, in 2008, when he thought it opportune to try to win an election.
Background links:
Ontario’s Upcoming Budget
Ontario GHG Targets Carbon Tax Ontario Cap and Trade Cap and Trade
Canada’s Emissions Federal Budget Expectations Fed Budget More
Paul Martin on Federal Budget Canada’s High Tech Deficit J.M. Keynes
Balanced Budgets More Balanced Budgets Even More Balanced Budgets
Election Date Law
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
By Pepper Parr
April 7, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir has been a consistent critique of many city council decisions and an advocate for his community – Aldershot.
Greg Woodruff, a generation or two behind Muir, has also been a critic and an advocate for Aldershot.
 Both had comments on some of the ideas that were floated by the Planning department at a recent community meeting in the community.
The proposed revision” revision said Muir in a note to one of the city planners, “has long been, historically, one of the biggest fears of Aldershot people – policy and wording revisions that can lead to wholesale block-busting and creeping destruction of a prime section of Aldershot character, heritage and history.
While this is technical, Muir sites a section of the Official Plan policy:
Part III. 2.2.3. h) Notwithstanding the policies of Part III, Subsection 2.2.2 d) of this Plan, the lands designated “Residential Medium Density” on the south side of Plains Road, between Cooke Boulevard and Filmandale Road, shall be subject to site-specific zoning regulations designed to protect the existing character of this portion of Plains Road and provide compatibility with the abutting neighbourhood to the south. Any exterior alteration or addition to the property shall maintain the residential appearance and character of the property.
 Recently completed retirement home improves the look of the intersection but brings nothing to the community in terms of a place to go – no public amenities “Changing this wording, and supporting zoning bylaws, so as to remove the requirements for site-specific zoning requirements – “shall” – to protect the existing character, provide compatibility with the abutting neighborhood to the south, and maintain the residential appearance and character of the property, is a sure recipe for just such a future. This is what a majority Aldershot residents have consistently expressed objections to. I live on Townsend Ave., immediately south of these lands.
“If these protections were desirable, warranted, and defensible in the present OP” asks Muir, “then what has changed that makes such protections not so in the present. These lands are certainly not realistically needed to meet any other superseding goals that I can think of. All I can see is that such revisions reward speculation and profiteering.”
“Such wholesale changes I cannot support. Notwithstanding that not all of the properties are equal, how does one choose which to protect and will that be defensible, among many judgemental factors? This is a very slippery slope.
“I think that in short order, given other redevelopments that are already underway on Plains Rd in general, this is exactly what appears will happen following such revisions. I already see signs of this, such as development/real estate companies speculating in properties in the subject section. I don’t want to see a replication of that recent redevelopment form in the subject area.
 Planters along Plains Road have given what used to be a provincial highway a much more suburban look. Hasn’t slowed traffic down enough for most people – except for those who drive through the community. “It will destroy what is left of the low density residential, with some employment or commercial uses mixed in, and with green spaces and mostly attractive streetscapes. It will be replaced by concrete, brick and asphalt right to the street.
This is not an Aldershot Village Vision, but rather a Nightmare looming. This seems to me a critical juncture in the process.
Greg Woodruff, who ran against Gary Carr for the office of Regional Chair – more to have a platform that to win the office asks the politicians to “Stop saving the greenbelt and start saving us.”
Woodruff says he is “in favour of development and smart growth – that is not what is under way in Burlington. We are embarked in the stupidest type of growth seen yet. Let’s review the last several years in Aldershot.
Does the street look slightly nicer with newer buildings – yes.
Trees – less.
Businesses that are open at 7:00 pm – less.
Places for people to work and shop – less.
Dependency on cars – more.
Congestion – more.
 Councillor Craven described the sign that was set up at the western end of his ward as “beautiful”. The result is a kind of “bimbo” street that looks slightly nicer, but is devoid of actual value to residents. This trend is growing and accelerating across Burlington.
In the past developers chewed up cheap farmland and converted it into housing. Now that farm land is off limits they are just doing the same with commercial space. The city has just identified areas that can be redeveloped at the most profit – not areas where intensification makes any sense.
Previously the suburbs spread everything out and made the car king. Now we are moving to large swaths of apartment blocks completely devoid of any local services and placed around roads that were never designed to service so many. This is a far worse situation.
 Greg Woodruff describes much of the development as giving a “kind of “bimbo” look – slightly nicer, but devoid of actual value to residents. This trend is growing and accelerating across Burlington. City planners seem to have settled on religious devotion to a single formula imposed by their provincial masters; more density is better. Seemingly now freed from servicing the wishes of actual residents and backed up with “saving the green belt”; the agenda is to slow boil residents like frogs in water.
Chipping away local greenery tree by tree. Blocking out the sun building by building. Increasing congestion day by day. This is the only future offered to existing residents – endless and perpetual construction, greying and densification. Welcome to the intensification zone.
A better end game is to end up with a much greener and localized city than we started with; that is the point of density. We want larger parks, more restaurants and things to walk to – you can’t make things greener by chopping down trees or get more businesses by putting houses where stores were. Yet that seems what city planners are pitching.
Population density doesn’t solve problems in your community if your community is merrily downgraded into endless apartment blocks. Sorry “Saving the green belt” cannot justify ever worsening living conditions for the rest of us.
Here is how we start turning the current direction around. “Smart growth” is when the increased density brings amenities into the community for the benefit of all – including existing residents.
1) Modify the zoning rules so that when redevelopment occurs the zoning stipulates that amenities come in with the development. In most areas this means high quality commercial space. 45% maximum lot coverage, 45% high quality parking, 10% green. Must have commercial venting and transport truck accesses.
2) A percentage of development fees must go into a fund for new park land – local to the area of development. This will enforce localized services and new localized greenery as redevelopment occurs.
 The only way to secure the “green belt” is to make sure that most people would prefer to live inside the “intensification zone”. This requires a focus on improving the liveability of the areas under intensification. Every development which brings in people without an obvious improvement to the community is negative.
“Dispense will the endless rationalizations presented by the city” suggests Woodruff. “If a development results in less trees, less shops, more people and more congestion – then the city is developing your area into a grey high density mess.”
The Planning department is in the process of testing ideas and listening to the residents in different communities. The Mayor is gearing up for a talk on intensification – his stab at helping people understand what is taking place.
If what Muir and Woodruff have to say is any indication on how the intensification debate is going to go – we are in for some feisty debate.
Neither of these man could be referred to as uninformed slouches.
|
|
