 By Pepper Parr
November 24th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
Creating the organizational structure needed to run an election – and win – requires a network.
 To the winner go the spoils. Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and her husband Pete were out for dinner with Dianne and Nick Leblovitch at Jakes earlier in the month.
 Was this the first meeting of the Mayor Meed Ward 2022 re-election team? Meed Ward had a solid team during 2018. Pete Ward is a fine strategic thinker and knew what his wife needed in the way of emotional support as well as some sound strategic thinking.
Pete delivered on both levels.
The Leblovics were part of the 2018 team and, based on the information we have, they are the only two who are hold overs from the 2018 election.
That is unusual and has resulted in several noses being out of joint.
Nick Leblovic is a long time political junkie and loves being around people who are close to the seat of government.
Wife Dianne has a well honed political sense that goes all the way back to when Cam Jackson was Mayor.
There was a time when, as publisher of the Gazette, there would be long Saturday morning calls from Nick who was looking for updates, reaction, and as much political gossip as you could feed him.
At the time, Leblovic was the Chair of the Waterfront Advisory committee that ran into a sunset decision which brought a fast close to his career as an Advisory Committee Chair.
When he was told that the committee would cease to exist at the end of the year Nick; said he was blind-sided.
The chummy relationship with Nick came to an end soon after when he sued me and the Gazette for a million – which I didn’t realize I had.
The Libel action didn’t go anywhere. Leblovic chose to be his own lawyer and either lost interest or forgot how to practice law.
Can the Diane Leblovic political savvy, Pete Ward’s strategic ability, and the support Meed Ward has from her tribe result in another win?
Time will tell but get ready for a rough and tumble election. Recall what was done to Meed Ward when she ran in 2018.
Related news stories:
Life of the Waterfront Advisory Committee comes to an end.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Ray Rivers
November 19th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
After 26 annual conferences of the parties the world community is no closer to halting or even decreasing global warming. The COP spectacle is one of delegates gathering with false hopes and promises of reducing our global carbon footprint, even as that footprint continues to expand without a foreseeable end. After a quarter of a century of trying to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) it may be time to admit that it’s not going to happen without a miracle, and that our’s is indeed a dystopian future.
 The Prime Minister attended – did Canada make an impact? COP has become another one of those events where everyone wants to be – youth, indigenous peoples, disappearing Pacific islanders, government bureaucrats and mandarins, environmental organizations, and even the oil companies. It’s another venue to claim everything and get nothing and a chance to get a grant from the rich countries. These extravaganzas have become little more than an annual reunion for the attendees – see you all same time again next year.
I’ve attended a few of these COP meetings, once representing Pollution Probe back in 1998 and caucusing among the environmental groups. There had been a lot of enthusiasm back then. The Kyoto protocol had just been negotiated and the USA, the world largest historical greenhouse gas emitter, was leading the effort. Bill Clinton and Al Gore had helped craft a Kyoto protocol calling for enforceable emission targets with significant financial penalties for those signatory nations who found themselves out of compliance. It was a significant first step.
But by 2003, when I represented Clean Air Canada as part of the business community, that enthusiasm had been replaced by pessimism. GW Bush added to his legacy as America’s worst president ever, and his violations of human rights, by pulling the US out of Kyoto.
American delegates were seen disrupting the proceedings and the halls of the conference were cluttered with oil company representatives making their pitches that climate change was just another hoax.
 COP26 had more lobbyists taking part than registered delegates. The people who are going to have to live with a climate that is not going to be kind were out in force. Were they heard? Once the Americans scuttled the Kyoto deal there was little appetite for the rest of the world to continue, though Europe and even Canada did for a time. Stephen Harper, whose earlier views on global warming had placed him firmly in the denial camp, pulled Canada out of the treaty once he had gained a majority. And he did this, ironically, just as Canada came close to meeting its Kyoto commitment thanks to Ontario’s phase-out of coal.
COP 26 in Glasgow last week was an almost abject failure on so many counts. Despite pleas for climate action by host Boris Johnson, the world’s leaders have settled for business as usual. And that means greenhouse gas emissions are increasing globally instead of declining and will reach their second highest level this year, despite the pandemic.
Fossil fuels are the main culprit and emissions from burning coal the most egregious insult to our climate. India and China came to the rescue of the nasty coal – refusing to allow the term ‘phase out’ to be used in the final communique. China plans to peak its coal use somewhere around 2030 and India sometime later.
Coal still provides almost 40% of the world’s electricity. Yet 40 nations, including Canada, have committed to entirely phase out coal for electricity by 2030. But China, Japan, India, and the United States, which together account of over 75 percent of global coal use have refused to commit to that goal.
 We continue to fail them – how might they react in the years ahead? Some 20 countries and institutions are promising to end direct international public finance for unabated coal, oil, and gas and to prioritize financing for clean energy by the end of 2022. In addition to international financing, Canada provides the highest subsidies for fossil fuel development among all G7 nations. A group calling itself the ‘Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance’ (BOGA) including Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Greenland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, and the Canadian province (nation) of Quebec committed to taking “concrete steps” to reduce oil and gas extraction.
Perhaps the biggest sign of failure was when the US and China (whose leader hadn’t even bothered attending), announced that they would take the conversation on emission reduction off-line. Gas lighting, double speak, or just an excuse to get out of the room, that bilateral approach is unlikely to amount to anything. China and the USA have to get over unfair trade practices, industrial espionage and Taiwan before they could have a civil discussion on climate change. And China, with the second largest global economy still maintains the façade of calling itself an undeveloped nation.
COP 26 wasn’t a complete waste of time, there were locally sourced ‘sustainable’ sandwiches for the delegates, despite the three hour hybrid/gas guzzler delivery drive from Aberdeen. But this COP will not help the planet keep its temperature rising beyond what scientists have identified as the critical 1.5 degree C temperature increase over the pre-industrial period.
Global net GHG emissions from human activity would have to decline by about 45% from 2010 levels to 2030 in order for us to meet that goal.
Canada’s new climate plan comes close to that goal, but after all, it’s just another plan. This year’s heat dome and the river of rain climate-bomb, which knocked British Columbians into climate reality, occurred when the global temperature was only 1.1 degree C above pre-industrial levels. And the science community tells us that these kinds of climatic effects will only get worse – Ontario may be next.
If not COP, then what can we do? Concerned individuals could always help by consuming less red meat; making their next car an EV (electric vehicle) and converting their appliances to electricity, but the heavy lifting has to come from governments with their regulatory powers.
For example the federal government has committed to banning the sale of new gasoline powered automobiles by 2035, it has mandated the carbon tax, provides incentives to buy an EV, promised new caps on gas emissions and the phase out of coal for electricity by at least 2030. The previous Ontario government phased-out coal and started a program of renewable energy.
The world’s leaders once hoped that the Montreal Protocol, which saw a mostly successful cooperative global effort to eliminate ozone depleting substances, would serve as a model for action on global warming. They created the IPCC (international Panel on Climate Change) which has done a truly amazing job identifying the crisis and what we need to do about it. But none of that matters if the political leaders at those COPs won’t step up and do the right things for the sake of humanity.
 Coal is used to generate whatever it is the facility produces. Some politicians have mused that it may be time to reform global trade rules in favour of protecting the planet’s climate. I recall having a conversation with US officials, back in 1997, who were proposing tariffs on imports from nations with lower environmental standards than the US – sort of levelling the playing field. Conservative leader Erin O’Toole seemed to want to open the door to that kind of thing in his last election platform.
A massive boycott of Chinese-manufactured exports, for example, might help bring President Xi to his senses. We simply can’t wait till 2030 to begin phasing out coal. If the diplomacy of COP doesn’t work, then maybe it is time for a more forceful approach.
Political journalist Rex Murphy, who is as close to a climate change denier as they come, suggested in a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece that maybe it’s time for net zero COP meetings. In fact, looking at the failure of the COP process to reduce, let alone stabilize our carbon footprint, he may have a point.
 Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
What is COP – Greta Has Spoken – COP 26 Text –
Harper’s Climate Denying History – Ford Lower Gas Prices –
Rex Murphy –
By Pepper Parr
November 17th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
We now know a little bit more about the developments that have been grandfathered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and will proceed through the Ontario Land Tribunal process. If past appeals are any example, they will be approved at that level.
Five years from now Burlington will be a much different city.
A closer look at what has been grandfathered and what they want to build is now possible even though city hall and the Office of the Mayor haven’t had much to say.
 It is a different skyline. The degree to which it will change the small, local feel that many people have of Burlington is something that will work itself out if these two towers go up. The Waterfront Hotel site, even though not yet at the application stage has been grandfathered.
The Core Development that runs from one side of the football to the other – from Lakeshore Road on the north to Old Lakeshore Road on the south has been grandfathered.
The development planned for the eastern end of the football, one of the Carriage Gate developments has also been grandfathered.
 This is the structure that will sit right next to Joe Dogs. How that hospitality operation will operate is something that they are certainly thinking really hard about. The development that would be next to Joe Dogs on Brant street – put forward as a 30 storey building has been grandfather as has 407 Martha – a building that is very close to Rambo Creek where part of the retaining wall has been described as not all that safe.
2085 Pine, a property that has changed hands a number of times and been before council with different suggestions on just how much height there could be and at the same time preserve a heritage building at the front of the property – that, too, is at the OLT.
The land between Old Lakeshore Road and Lakeshore Road, known as the football because of its shape was at one time described by former Toronto Mayor David Crombie as a jewel we should not let get away on us.
It became a jewel that developers realized needed a bit of polishing up and then sold off as a very desirable high end property that would never have a building put up between it and the lake.
Somewhere in the last ten years the city was never able to come up with a plan that would secure that land and make it more public space.
 The CORE Development takes up all the land between Old Lakeshore Road and Lakeshore Road in the centre of the football area. The plan is to keep the popular but expensive restaurant that has been on the site for a long time.  The Carriage Gate people see this development as the eastern gateway into the city. Old Lakeshore Road is to the left with Lakeshore Road to the right. With the grandfathering in place all the planners are left with is the south side of Old Lakeshore Road: Top of bank rules limit what can be done on that land. The heritage designation Emma’s Back Porch has, will limit what can be done with that property.
Once we are out of the pandemic we can expect someone to lease Emma’s and get it back into operation. Not sure how pleasant a local it will be with all the construction that will be taking place.
 The triangle shaped property will be where Carriage Gate puts up their 25+ tower – they see it as the eastern gateway to the city. The property to the immediate left is where the CORE development will be built. To the left of that is parking across from Emma’s Back Porch which is owned by 2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd. They also own the small parking lot to the east of Emma’s. On the western tip of the football the property is owned by a trust – we’ve yet to learn who the beneficiary is of that trust. What does all this leave the city with? Is there nothing more in the way of options?
The pandemic has changed the way citizens can communicate with the elected leadership and that elected leadership hasn’t done all that much to find ways to hear what citizens have to say.
The Office of the Mayor has seen this as an opportunity to put her spin on what has taken place.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
November 13th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
In the world of politics – getting the right people in the right room at the right time is an art.
Our Mayor may have missed some of those art classes.
 Mayor Meed Ward invited all the members of the OBCM – Ontario Big City Mayors to hold their October 15th meeting in Burlington at the Pearle Hotel and Spa.
The Gazette didn’t have a lot of information on how that meeting was put together. Neither the Mayor or her staff talk to us. We’ve not been BFF for sometime. But that is another story that will unfold in the fullness of time.
All we knew was that there was a lot for the Mayor to brag about – the locale of the Pearle and its stunning grand stairway and the wide open space overlooking the lake and the Pier would be the envy of any Mayor.
Parts of the meeting were held via Zoom.
Mayor Meed Ward has needed a one-on-one conversation with Steve Clarke, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for some time. The OBCM event was a perfect opportunity.
The Minister is reported to have said publicly on June 15th of this year that he was on for having the Urban Growth Boundary moved from the location that was agreed upon by the 2014-2018 City Council to something further north and closer to the Burlington GO station.
Meed Ward argued strenuously during the 2018 election that the boundary should have been much closer to the Burlington GO Station to begin with.
Once she was elected as Mayor the first thing she did was fire the City Manager and then began the process of revising the city’s Official Plan that had the Urban Growth Centre moved north.
 Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clarke: Mayor hasn’t been able to connect with the Minister – maybe the Minister doesn’t want to talk to her. One of the problems was that there were a number of significant developments that were banking on being part of the UGC – should that be moved they would lose part of their development argument.
All that was needed to make the City and Regional decisions real was the signature from Minister Clarke.
But that signature wasn’t forth coming.
The press conference at which the Minister is reported to have said he was on side for moving the boundary was seriously questioned by a member of the Ontario Land Tribunal who would not accept it into evidence.
One would have thought that a political operative of Meed Ward’s stature would have found a way to set up a one-on-one with Minister Clarke. The OBCM event taking place in Burlington with the group meeting at the spanking new Pearle Hotel and Spa (it is understood that some of the Mayors taking part stayed over at the Hotel) was a perfect place for a conversation.
Having Minister Clarke taking part in the meetings was a natural thing for him to do. He is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and all the biggie municipal Mayors were either attending personally or taking part via Zoom.
But Minister Steve Clarke did not make it to the city on October 15th.
One has to wonder – why a connection wasn’t made. Is Burlington too small for the Minster to pay attention to or is the Mayor just too small a fish for the Minister to make time for?
Or did the Minister realize that there were serious problems with his Ministry and the City and it was better to step around that one. His political advisers would have advised him on that one.
The public is in the dark on just what is going to happen next. Other than blowing off some steam the Mayor didn’t really say all that much. “This is a devastating and shocking decision imposed on our community, which completely disregards the vision of residents, council and staff for this area.
She might have been a little contrite and admit that she really blew this one.
She did add that “Council will be examining all of our options for a review of this OLT decision.
 Transparency was a big word when she was a candidate – it didn’t make it into her bag of tricks when she was elected Mayor. How come? Mayor Meed Ward speaks frequently about her experience as a journalist. This would be a good time for her to make herself available to media and be both transparent and accountable and lay all the facts on the table.
Mayor Meed Ward gets in front of the Cogeco cameras as well as the CHCH cameras on a regular basis. They are seen by the Mayor as friendly folk – not the kind of people who ask her tough questions.
Ahmed Hussen, Federal Minister for Housing and Diversity was able to attend Ontario Big City Mayors event.
Why not Minister Clarke?
Related news stories:
The Minister is reputed to have said something about the UGC but there doesn’t appear to be anything in writing
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Pepper Parr
November 11th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
 Later today Burlingtonians will watch a live streamed video of the Remembrance Day service and remember the fallen and those who served in the wars we have fought – all in the name of the democracy we cherish but don’t always observe or respect.
The bugles will sound out the Last Post. Reveille will be played and the troops march away. We leave the Cenotaph in a reflective mood.
In a play Trevor Copp wrote a number of years ago, there was a scene in which two soldiers were talking about the things they had done when they were in the trenches during WW1.
The experienced was horrific for both and horrific for the men who were there in 1917. There are very few of those WW1 veterans left – those that are salute at a Cenotaph on Remembrance Day. The lines on their faces and the look in their eyes tell much of the story.
The script drills down:
YOUNG HERMAN:
Then on to the next trench. The next. They kept us going for miles. It worked again and again. We were taking ground that had been held for months. Turning the tide for the whole region. No bullets; we just used the bayonets over and over. But sometimes they would stick in the ribs, then the man you’d just run through would wrap his arms around you. Hold you in, like he wanted to pray with you, you had to pry them off. It took too long. We were almost all the way through; but the light was breaking and we were getting too slow.
Then one of ours dropped his bayonet and picked up a shovel for digging trench. They were heavy and sharp. At the next trench he wheeled it back and cut one of them in half. One swing.
It looked quicker.
It didn’t stick. Everyone dropped the guns and took shovels.
I found a muddy one in the next field.
It looked quicker.
LEO:
I understand Herman.
YOUNG HERMAN:
We reached the last trench just at first light.
It was faster.
I used a shovel Leo.
God forgive me, I did it with a shovel.
War will become obsolete when it is socially unacceptable
By Pepper Parr
November 8th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
A reader sent in the following: It was in regard to the Heritage Advisory Committee and the recommendations it makes.
Sad to see the usual suspects piling on in this case.
As a person who has served on a number of voluntary community boards, I can only ask: would you not expect and welcome people with an interest in art to be on an art gallery board?
Or people with attachment to gathering artifacts to join a museum board? I could go on.
All governments depend on usually unpaid citizen groups to perform such roles, since the alternative is inexpert and uncommitted paid staff.
So it’s a win-win, as long as conflict of interest principles are well defined and managed, which seems to be the case here. Searches for absolute purity after the fact by self-appointed nitpickers will only discourage others from sharing their expertise.
The piling on is part of the way some people choose to express themselves. It happens.
Here is where I think the problem exists. It is my firm view that when people choose to serve they are there to serve the public not themselves.
And that, in my opinion is what has happened.
The people who serve on a heritage committee are advocates for protecting as much heritage as possible.
The people who are passionate about heritage tend to share a mind set: Alan Harrington is fierce when it comes to fighting for the preservation of our history. Rick Wilson brought to light a more complete story about the Burlington Races, a name used to tell part of the War of 1812 story. His efforts resulted in a plaque being erected, and hopefully in the fullness of time, a plaque being corrected.
It would be difficult for these two men, for whom I have the greatest of respect, to not recommend a grant for a house that is a superb example of what the city wants to ensure isn’t replaced by some ugly monster house.
What the Heritage Advisory Committee does not have is a clear set of guidelines or rules that prevent self serving.
The practice in Burlington is to have a member of Council sitting on each Advisory Committee: one would hope that Councillor would have a deeper understanding of what good governance is all about and explain it to the Committee members.
 This is what you don’t want happening at any level of city business. The thing you don’t want is a situation where there is a lot of wink, wink; nod, nod taking place when decisions are being made. That is not the case with the Barker recommendations.
That kind of behaviour is the first step to the slippery slope that lets corruption take place.
It is not about “absolute purity after the fact by self-appointed nitpickers.” It is about consistent good governance.
It is not enough to be on the right side of the rules; it is the spirit of the rules that matters.
It is clear to me that the rules need some tightening up. What perplexes me is that Council chose to let it pass. Staff advised the city that a previous grant had been given – that should have raised a red flag.
I recall a discussion taking place at Council when James Ridge was the City Manager and they were discussing what a Council member could accept in the way of a gift or a benefit. Ridge at the time said all you had to do was document everything: if someone else paid for your coffee, note it. At the time we had a member of council who saw someone one else paying for a golf game or a ticket to an event as quite acceptable. It wasn’t and it isn’t.
The rules need to be tightened.
Related news story:
An example of what strong advocacy can do.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Pepper Parr
November 6th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The message asked: “Please don’t use my name because I have friends at all these institutions and look forward to going back to them one day.”
The request had to do with a piece we published on the services the city provides and what the delivery cost is. Our reader writes:
Unfortunately, I have been unable to use any of their fine services or enter their buildings for a year and a half.
However – all these institutions have been CLOSED SHUT or severely reduced in their operations for the past 20 months.
1) If they provide no service – why do they cost so much?
2) If we can survive without them – is there a way to do them for less?
3) I think each of them have a very strong volunteer support staff in place – so it isn’t staffing costs?
and if it WAS staff – then why were people not laid off and put on the CERB (or whatever is the right thing to do).
And the charts should show what each group earns (takes in) as revenue. This of course is during non-covid times.
Like …
 Riders cover the costs – if not don’t operate a transit service Parking, Transit, cemeteries should be self funded. Court services should be self supporting through fines they issue.
If we earn $100 from parking fees but spend $125 to collect it? Wouldn’t it be wiser to make parking free – or charge 25% for parking?
If these groups are not self sufficient – that falls on the management for that group to figure out how to make it work.
 Also as far as “dipping into reserves for a rainy day” 😮 – we have suffered 500 COVID rainy days running now.
This is the worst crisis since WWII. This IS the rainy day. 🌧🌂☔
It isn’t easy doing up a budget. Especially for government services at union dollar rates.
I am very happy with the things in our beautiful city of Burlington and hate to see services and amenities taken away.
When they started charging for parking to go to the waterfront – I just stopped going to the waterfront.
I say let the people in other towns (who pay lower taxes and therefore have more money to spend) come and pay for parking here and fund our revenue stream.
The story that resulted in the comment
By Pepper Parr
November 2nd, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Taxes are about politics – good government service comes after that.
 The four year average amounts to 4.14% – nothing to brag about but with inflation hitting that level – might it be acceptable? You get elected when you lower taxes and fake the delivering of service as best you can.
Burlington changed the way and frequency that it collects leaves and then citizens fight like crazy with those who want to cut down the trees so they don’t have to rake them up or they want to put in a swimming pool.
In the fourth year of a term of office the practice is to lower taxes just enough to show that you care and add a service or two that doesn’t cost all that much,
Some will argue that COVID19 changed those practices.
When the public sees just how much money the city got from the federal and provincial governments they will wonder why taxes are predicted to increase by 5.45% over last year.
The four year tax run for the current council is not encouraging. Is this a tax and spend government?
Too early to tell.
 Sharman will experience some indigestion … Mayor in waiting Paul Sharman will tell you, even if you don’t ask, that during his first year as a member of Council he pushed for a 0% increase – and got it.
Sharman will experience some indigestion over the Mayor in Waiting title; he’s not modest – just strategic.
How the rest of council are going to explain the increase will be interesting to watch.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward. was seen as unbeatable when she ran for Mayor the first time – has the music changed? Will a budget be her undoing? The Mayor has already staked out her position – the budget they will be looking at on Wednesday is a “staff wish list” – that’s what the Mayor is reported to have said during her CMHL 15 minutes of fame bit last week.
During this four-year period, the city’s budget included the 1.25% infrastructure levy to direct towards the growing infrastructure funding gap while at the same time provided significant investments in Transit, By-law Enforcement and Forestry.
Add to the mix interest former Mayor Rick Goldring has shown in matters civic. This could be very interesting.
By Ray Rivers
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
Jason Kenny asked Albertans whether they think Canada’s regional equalization program should continue to exist. He did this through a divisive referendum no less sneaky than Quebec’s René Lévesque had crafted when he mislabelled his plan for independence ‘sovereignty association’.
Kenny admitted the referendum was purely a political ploy, since even after the public responded as he had wanted them to (62%), Alberta has no authority to change the equalization program. Equalization is entrenched in Canada’s constitution and administered by the federal government.
 Jason Kenny: Will he be the Premier come the next election? Of course this is all partisan theatrics. Mr. Kenny had been an influential senior minister in the Harper government. Why didn’t he lobby his party leader for change when he was actually in a position to do so.? And Kenny is alone, no other province shares his zeal to remove this pan-national program that has helped to glue the country together for more than half a decade.
Kenny complains that Albertans pay 15 billion dollars a year more in income and other taxes to the federal government than the province receives back from the feds. Of that amount Kenny tells us that $3 billion gets allocated towards the 20 billion dollar equalization fund, which the federal government administers based on the program’s eligibility criterion.
But Mr. Kenny has somehow forgotten that Ottawa has been subsidizing the fossil fuel industry for over forty years, most of it centered in Alberta, and much of it to expand oil sands operations. Some of the subsidies are direct payments for technology and infrastructure. Some are tax credits, wage subsidies and write offs of one form or another. And some are required to clean up the mess, the myriad of environmental legacies of orphan wells and tailing ponds.
The feds dole out somewhere between 3 and 18 billion dollars, depending on who you ask. So by any measure Alberta has been doing pretty well from that pig trough they like to call federal government. Kenny may not be receiving equalization payments, because as the wealthiest jurisdiction in the country Alberta is not eligible, but Alberta’s corporate interests have certainly been well fed by Ottawa.
That has to change if Canada is to meet its bold greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets of 40-45% by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Coal, oil and gas have to be phased out and shut down for any of that to happen, since those are the major sources of GHG in the country. And make no mistake Canada, being one of the worst global polluters has committed to this.
So, having recently renewed his mandate with an almost majority of seat in Parliament the PM has decided on action ahead of rhetoric. Former Quebec Greenpeace activist, Steven Gilbeault, who had once been arrested for scaling the CN Tower, is Canada’s newest Environment Minister. And the first order of business at the upcoming COP 26 Climate Change conference will be to announce that Canada will eliminate all subsidies to the fossil fuel sector by 2023, actually 2 years ahead of most other nations.
 Steven Gilbeault, the man on the right is now the Minister of the Environment This is not the first time we’ve seen that kind of promise. Mr. Trudeau said he’d do that back when he ran in 2015…. but he didn’t. In fact he ended up buying an oil pipeline for Alberta instead. And it’s not just the Liberals who can’t seen to cut the cash flow, because Mr. Harper also promised to end the subsidies way back in 2009… but he didn’t either.
Shutting off the subsidy taps sounds easy but it’s really pretty complicated. For one thing there is the regional political situation. Still Canadians have clearly demonstrated over the last two elections that they want to see action on climate change. And even voting Albertans and the petroleum sector are coming to that position.
Oil and gas contributes less than 10% to the country’s GDP. But that sector is a critical source of income and employment for at least four provinces. And most of us still drive gasoline powered cars and rely on fossil fuelled transportation for our goods and services. So phasing out will require substantial adjustment and retraining.
And not everyone agrees on the definition of a subsidy. In 2019 the Prime Minister requested his then-finance minister Bill Morneau to prepare a list of Canada’s fossil fuel financial supports. By March 2021 that report was still “a work in progress”. But they know where the low hanging subsidy fruit lies.
Subsidies, serve to lower the price of a commodity, since governments pick up some of the costs of production. That is the exact opposite of what the national carbon tax is all about. Why would we charge consumers more at the pump, for gasoline, and then help the oil companies reduce their costs and thus prices? The last federal budget projected $18 billion spending over the next 5 years on climate actions. Yet we gave the oil and gas sector as much as $18 B last year in subsidies.
 The Prime Minister bought the pipeline to show the people of Alberta that he cared. Mr. Trudeau purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline against his better judgement to show Alberta some love. But he got no thanks in return. By appointing long time climate activist Steven Gilbeault as Canada’s new environment minister, he is sending Mr. Kenny a message. No more Mr. Nice Guy. The Empire is striking back – Canada will be turning off its carbon rich taps, starting with the money that feeds the fossil fuel industry.
As for the troublesome Mr. Kenny, the most unpopular premier in Canada, one can only hope the voters in Alberta look long and hard at just what an asset he is for them and the province’s longer term economic health. It is time to embrace the future.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Trudeau’s – the Alberta Memo – Alberta’s Claim – $18 Billion Subsidy –
Canada’s Carbon Tax – Environment Minister –
By Pepper Parr
October 25th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The cat is out of the bag.
 Ouch! Financial people are expected to put forward a budget asking for a 5.45% increase over last year.
That didn’t come as a big surprise.
In the media release from city hall they explained that “This represents a 5.45% increase to the City’s portion of the tax bill.”
The statement is totally true.
In the beginning she was all about transparency and accountability. Something changed. The media release also said: “When combined with the estimated regional and education tax levies, the overall projected tax increase for a Burlington homeowner in 2022 is 3.18% or $24.76 per $100,000 of assessment. For example, homeowners with a home assessed at $500,000 would pay an additional $123.80 per year or $2.38 per week.
That statement is totally true as well. The point that never gets made is this: The city collects taxes for the education sector and the Regional government but has absolutely no impact on the amount taxes levied by the Boards of Education and a minimal impact on the Regional taxes levied. Burlington has just 7 of the 24 votes at the Regional level.
The combined tax level tends to make the Burlington 5.45 % look better, the reality is that the city is taxing its citizens at a level well above inflation. Two percent increases are not going to be seen for a long time.
 Citizens looking over a budget document that they have next to no chance of changing. Better that they be given a piece of cake. As for the public having any impact – the numbers are all but cast in stone well before the public gets to see them. For Mayor Meed Ward to say she wants the public to “ assist City Council in the budget process” and “to share their input and tell us what services are important to them.”
To what end? Adding insult to injury this Mayor does not appear to be doing anything to find ways to let tax payers meet in a live setting and express their views. She would rather have you “join in the conversation at the November 22 virtual town hall that she will be hosting.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
October 20th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
To get some sense as to where your ship is going – you want to know something about the person at the wheel and the decisions they make.
Same rule applies to the Mayor of Burlington.
There have been some very good decisions. The decision to have the Urban Growth Centre moved north was a good decision.
 A smart lawyer and a planning department that didn’t understand just what the concept of Mobility Hubs (now called MTSA’s) was all about. The Mayor was dead on about the bus station that was declared a Major Transit Service Area – as soon as she had all the information she saw the obvious.
The disturbing part of that was that the council that served from 2010 to 2018 neither knew or weren’t told by the planning department that the designation given that bus station was an error. Instead they left it in place and the result is the 26 storey Nautique that is now under construction.
Someone in Planning should be wearing that one.
Meed Ward understood the mood of the electorate and chose limiting development and making sure that the development that was coming was the right kind in the right place.
She basically chased the developers out of the downtown core.
Admittedly there are a number (about four with several pieces of land within the football that have not been dealt with) of development along Lakeshore Road and within the football that are a problem.
 Mayor Meed Ward does not appear to be ready to take a position on the re-development of the Waterfront Hotel site. Is this one of those “right things in the right place”? And of course there is the Waterfront Hotel development that could take the growth of the city as we know it today in a much different direction.
Perhaps it is time to think in terms of how Burlington could adapt to the change and make it work for them. We don’t see the city planning department getting in front of issues and being proactive.
The decisions in front of the Mayor now that are a concern are:
The Holiday market, which is now a done deal that got through Council under the shadiest of circumstances;
The park within the Molinaro development at Brant & Ghent;
The Waterfront Hotel site and the redevelopment of that property; and
her enthusiasm for the Holiday market scheduled for December 9th to 12. The Mayor buys into the claim that 1000 people will take part. What that market will do to the merchants in the downtown core who are struggling to stay above water is something they Mayor doesn’t seem prepared to take into account.
Very recently the Molinaro Group took part in a Statutory meeting in which they revealed their plans for a half acre park that would be created at the east end of the development at Brant and Ghent.
 Traffic for the towers on either side of Brant would exit and enter via Ghent. The half acre park is shown on the far right. Title to the land would be registered with the Condominium Corporation . The plan was to create the park, then turn it over to the condominium corporation that would eventually be set up to represent the interests of the condominium unit owners.
The idea that the unit owners will go along with their owning and maintaining a park that would be open to the public is a real stretch.
Anyone who has served on a condominium board would tell you that this is one of the craziest things they have ever heard of.
 This is described as a half acre part which was described as bringing some of Spencer Smith Park north The Mayor seems to think that the city would get another park at no cost and residents of a condominium will cover the costs of keeping it operational.
 Renderings on what a park could look like. Will the information about the park for which unit buyers will have to be clearly set out in the sales literature? Will it be clearly set out in the condominium agreement – those things run to several hundred pages which only the lawyers read.
The Mayor does not appear to have taken a position on the proposed redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel site. One has to ask: Where is the claim that this Mayor wants the right development in the right place ?
There was a time when Meed Ward was all about Truth to Power – now that she has the power Truth seems to have been mislaid. Growing from a really ballsy ward councillor who brought about some significant changes to the way the city operates, we appear to have a Mayor who has lost the wind she used to have in her sails.
She has pulled together a large part of her re-election team and she is in campaign mode.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman – considering his options? And at this point there doesn’t appear to be anyone willing to run against her – except for Councillor Sharman who is probably considering his option.
Go for it Paul!
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Staff
October 18th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington has embarked on a huge city building project.
When completed the city will have three distinct neighbourhoods; the eastern part of the city will have a new neighbourhood centered on the Aldershot GO station.
 This is the western boundary of the Station West Development built by the ADI Group. A significant part of the community building has already taken place in Aldershot. The Station West development by the Adi Group is well underway with three more towers to be built on the south west corner of the property that edges onto Masonry Road.
The other two new neighbourhoods will be centered on the Burlington and Appleby GO stations.
The city Planning Department is now working to get feedback from the people who will be impacted by these very significant changes.
A public meeting was held to explain what is planned. To get feedback from the public the Planners have devised a WORKBOOK that they say will take 30 to 45 minutes to complete.
Completing the WORKBOOK is voluntary and the information people provide is confidential (even to city staff).
The Planners recommend you complete the workbook on a laptop, tablet or PC to view the images in a larger format and keep a copy of the Preliminary Preferred Precinct Plan open in another tab or browser window to assist you in answering the questions and as a point of reference.
The link to the WORKBOOK is HERE. It is a little complicated. Just scroll through the pages, click on the images and then return to the page. There is enough instruction to get you through it.
The workbook is available in other languages. To request, e-mail getinvolved@burlington.ca. You may also use the “Select Language” translate button found on the project page to translate both the page and workbook.
An MTSA (Major Transit Service Area) is the area within 500 to 800-metres of a higher order transit station (these are the three GO stations) that are expected to be about a 10-minute walk from the GO station.
These are seen as the three most critical locations within the urban area expected to accommodate the majority of the City’s forecasted growth to 2031 and beyond.
Through the preparation of the new Official Plan, new policies were developed to guide development and change in the Downtown and Uptown (at Appleby Line and Upper Middle Road). The MTSAs are now the remaining priority locations for which detailed planning must be completed to establish the vision for growth, to guide development, investments in transit, infrastructure and public service facilities, including parks, and to support significant future population and employment growth.
To some this project may feel familiar. From 2017 to 2019 the City worked on developing area-specific plans (ASPs) for the three GO Station areas, then called the Mobility Hubs Study. The MTSA ASP project will build upon, and advance, the work done through the Mobility Hubs Study.
The objective of this project is to plan to accommodate new residents and jobs by setting a vision for three unique, complete communities that are centered around the City’s three GO Stations along the Lakeshore West rail line. These communities will be environmentally friendly, infrastructure-efficient, walkable, bikeable, and will support local and regional transit with a diverse mix of employment, housing, recreation, and shopping features.
What have we heard so far?
Engagement was a key element of the previous Mobility Hub Study work. From the feedback received through 2017 and 2018, a number of key themes emerged to provide guidance in planning for these areas:
Increase, Improve and Support…
Public spaces by supporting existing and new open spaces, parks and other community spaces that are safe, usable, inclusive and interactive, and incorporate public art, landscape features etc. to enhance placemaking.
Community amenities by encouraging an increased scale and mix of commercial/retail uses at grade, including grocery stores, coffee shops, community and recreational space etc.
Mobility by designing a well-connected, safe and accessible public realm with active animated streets and robust cycling and pedestrian networks, focused on direct connections to and from GO Stations.
Housing options by planning for a diverse range of different and affordable housing choices to cater to all ages and abilities.
Private Spaces by encouraging sustainable design and variety of architectural styles to create distinct buildings and enhance neighbourhood character, and by reinforcing midrise corridors.
Public engagement by providing residents with enough time to engage and increase resident engagement and clearly explaining the required growth targets for Burlington.
Parkland by planning for park and public spaces that consider the needs of the entire area including developing fair approaches to meet that objective.
Traffic congestion by supporting the public transportation network and investing in additional facilities for walking and cycling.
 Solid Gold site as it exists today. Building height and transition concerns by clearly explaining planning rationale for where height is being located, ensuring and explaining how height will be regulated, and by reducing losses of sunlight and privacy through appropriate building height transitions.
 Speaking of height limitations – this rendering represents what the owners of Solid Gold want to build on a site that currently has a single story structure. Protect…
Established residential neighbourhoods by ensuring built form, height and transition support and respect existing character, and providing clear policies for heritage protection.
The planners learned that:
Beyond the broad themes highlighted above, a number of key themes specific to the Aldershot GO MTSA also emerged, including the consideration of:
– opportunities for new bike paths, including through Aldershot Park;
– opportunities for amenities to support residents and employees;
– opportunities for complete streets, including Cooke Boulevard;
– ways to manage the impacts of increased traffic along Plains Road;
– opportunities to incorporate mid-rise development along Plains Road and Waterdown Road; and
– excluding the low-density residential properties located on Clearview Avenue and a portion of St. Matthew’s Avenue.
 A little more detail on what might go where Now the planners need your feedback. The input you provide may inform:
– Refinements to the vision (i.e. land uses, building heights, urban design considerations etc.);
– Precinct changes (i.e. policy directions, boundaries, built form directions, etc.);
– The preparation of the area-specific plans or the development of policy.
There are more specific details about all of the work that has informed the preliminary preferred precinct plan, including technical studies, can be found at getinvolvedburlington.ca/mtsa.
 By Ray Rivers
October 13th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
 City Council passed resolutions to phase out natural gas Burlington is one of over 30 municipalities, comprising 60% of Ontario’s population, which have passed resolutions for Ontario to phase out natural gas electrical production by 2030. They get it. Fires, floods, droughts, insects, storms – climate change will affect us all. This week, Canada has been accused of being one of the top 10 countries by most responsible for bringing climate destruction upon the world. On a per capita basis, we rank No. 1.
Nature Climate Change, has published a new scientific report examining 100,000 events and concluding that 80% of our global land mass and 85% of the world’s population has already been affected by global climate change. The World Health Organization, the UN and health care practitioners have pointed out that air pollution from burning fossil fuels, which also drives climate change, is causing more than seven million premature deaths each year, that’s 13 deaths every minute – and almost twice what we have seen with the COVID pandemic.
Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to ban burning coal for electricity production, in part to clear the air of smog pollution, but also to reduce the province’s carbon footprint. By 2014, the government had shuttered the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) point source on the continent, reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the province by the equivalent of removing seven million cars off the road.
To replace coal, the province began the process of developing wind and solar energy projects to complement its nuclear and hydro resources. Gas powered electricity was included only as a transitional source while the province fully developed its renewable sources, and to assist with peak power demands
 He marches to his own drummer – to a tune that sounds out of key. That all came to a stop with the election of a new government to Queen’s Park in 2018. Premier Ford did everything he could to reverse Ontario’s transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. He fought the imposition of a federal carbon tax; shut down Ontario’s emissions trading system at a cost of billions; more recently he has acquired new gas plants at a cost of $3 billion; and he has expanded natural gas infrastructure committing thousands more to the continued use of that fossil fuel.
Almost on day one Ford killed every single new renewable project he could, and even stopped those in process – some 700 in total at a cost of hundreds of millions to Ontario ratepayers. His intention was clearly to cripple the province’s renewable energy systems so that when the nukes go down, as they eventually will, natural gas powered electricity will be the only way to keep the lights on.
Natural gas is misnomer. Methane, its real name, is just another fossil fuel, and no more natural than coal or oil. However coal or oil don’t impact our climate unless they are burned. Methane, is a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG) on it’s own, as much as 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide. And methane is released at all stages of its lifecycle, from the well head to the home consumer.
As this is being written Canada is joining other nations in promising to reduce domestic methane emissions by 30%. But what are the chances of that if gas consumption is increased? Ontario will fail to meet the premier’s 30% emissions reduction target if fossil fuel use is expanded. And that would imperil’s Canada’s Paris commitment of a 40% GHG emissions reduction.
 When the lights went out. So when all those municipal resolutions requesting the province phase out gas production started arriving on his desk, Mr. Ford turned to the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages the overall provincial supply of electricity. However the IESO is not as independent as their name implies and answered the premier’s call with the exact answer he was looking for. They scribbled two phrases on the back of their provincial pay packets. Phasing out gas by 2030 might mean power shortages and it might mean higher costs.
 But this impact assessment, as they called it, is a sham. Real experts, people like Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, considered the world’s leading climate technology expert, tells us that gas power plants now cost twice as much as solar power. He should know, his team of engineering scientists and PhDs have been advising governments on renewable energy in over 140 countries, including the White House. And Canada’s ever increasing carbon tax will make the gas alternative even less competitive by 2030.
This is not the first time an arm of government, even one which calls itself independent, has let the government politicos hold the pen. And scary stories of lights flickering out and hydro bills leaving us without bread on the table could never be more timely with Halloween just around the corner. But this is very much a trick and no treat.
 Wind farm in Eastern Ontario 2030 is only about a decade away. According to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, more wind energy had been built in Canada between 2009 and 2019 than any other form of electricity generation. Over that period wind energy alone went from scratch to meeting the needs of over three million Canadian homes. Does anyone really believe that only gas can keep the lights on? And the cost of wind energy has fallen 70 per cent in the last nine years,
That this IESO report lacks vision is undeniable. And it is shameful that the body which manages energy supply in Canada’s largest province could produce such a rubbish projection. That is what’s really scary – that the folks in charge of our energy supply haven’t a clue about all the technological progress occurring in renewable sources of energy and energy storage systems. And that the IESO has apparently never heard of global warming.
And even when they decide – or are told to – proclaim gas as Ontario’s future energy source, the IESO picked the wrong gas. They barely mention hydrogen gas, particularly for energy storage to back up wind and solar when the weather is uncooperative. The federal government and the oil and gas industry is pouring vast sums of research money into developing green, and even blue, hydrogen resources. And work is progressing on how to adapt existing pipelines for its safe transmission.
 Smog Burlington and the other municipalities deserve better than the slam dunk, shut down they have been handed by the IESO and the premier. Under the IESO plan, methane to produce electricity will skyrocket from 7% to 30% by 2030. The City of Ottawa has rejected the IESO report and demanded they go back to the drawing board. This will also impact the air quality of people living everywhere in the province, since methane burning also yields significant amounts of smog pollution.
What is really scary about this IESO report is that while most countries are trying to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, the Ontario government is planning a major expansion of its carbon footprint – possibly expanding GHG pollution from the gas plants by more than 300% by 2030.
Even as global leaders sit down to discuss how they can further reduce GHG emissions, Ontario’s premier is thumbing his nose at those efforts. He is swimming against the tide to defy world opinion and federal climate policies. And he is ignoring the will of all the people he claims to represent in this province who, who unlike him, seem to care about the future of this planet.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Ontario Coal Phase Out – Methane Emissions – IESO Study –
Ontario Energy Policies – Wind Power Cost – Australia Battery Storage –
Climate Change Impacts – Canada Methane Commitment – 7 Million Deaths –
 By Staff
October 4th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
How many perspectives should be included in a brief news piece? When are letters considered an appropriate remedy to showing another side of an issue? These are questions that reporters and editors face every day as they exercise their editorial judgment to determine the angle of the story, the people interviewed, and the evidence used to provide an accurate account of events for readers.
The National NewsMedia Council recently reviewed a reader’s concerns about accuracy and lack of opportunity to present another perspective in a story about local pesticide use.
 Exchanging different points of view – respectfully. The article, published in an Ontario-based community paper, reported on residents’ reactions to a recent application of fungicide, via helicopter, to a cornfield in the area. The article featured comments from local residents expressing concern with the noise disturbance and proximity of the helicopter to their houses.
An individual in the agricultural industry expressed concern with the lack of perspective from farmers and other members of the agricultural community. In particular, the individual argued that the article suggested that the fungicide was “sprayed liberally on the native ecosystem around the field boundaries,” rather than used correctly by trained professionals.
In reviewing the article, the NNC observed that the comments were clearly the perspective of some residents and were attributed accordingly. The NNC found no evidence to support the claim that the article implied that the product was used incorrectly or outside the intended area.
 The brief article offered a summary of the concerns raised by residents about the application of the fungicide near their houses. All statements were attributed accordingly to the individuals quoted in the story.
That said, we understand that the individual’s primary concern in this case was not being able to provide a different perspective and relevant information in response to the concerns raised by residents quoted in the article.
A subsequent edition of the local newspaper dedicated a section of its pages to reader reactions to the brief article.
In one article, the publisher alerted readers to the different—and often strong—perspectives on the published piece and other issues at hand. The edition included a published response from the complainant as well as several letters to the editor and other comments in response to the story.
In this case, the NNC considered the news organization’s decision to publish responses to the article to be consistent with best practices in addressing reader concerns, and found the issue resolved. The significant attention devoted to reader responses provided opportunity to show a range of opinions in the community, from farmers and those outside the agricultural industry.
Letters to the editor offer opportunities to clarify or provide different perspectives on information and opinions presented in articles. In this way, they can often serve as a remedy to concerns raised by readers, and showcase the breadth of opinions held by members of a community.
The Gazette has taken a slightly different approach with its comments section. On many stories there are close to a dozen comments – some very well informed, others not as well informed as they could be.
In the past six months we have found that some commenters ride an issue pressing their view again and again. We no longer approve those comments.
We are also finding that people are writing a comment without identifying themselves and using a phony email address.
Then there are others that are rude and uncivil.
We have in the past told commenters that they need a break and suspend the privilege they have for a period of time. We have had to completely suspend one commenter.
Going forward we will stiffen the requirement for people to comment.
Behind all this is a belief that informed citizens can make informed decisions and that no matter what the leadership in Burlington do they must be both accountable and transparent.
 By Vince Fiorito
October 2, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Regarding the “choice” between the environment versus the economy Vince Fiorito explains that this is a false dichotomy. We can also have both or neither.
Another way to describe the “environment” is the “global life support system”.
 Would an astronaut on the International Space Station (ISS) be forced to choose between his job and the ISS’s life support system?
Would we even give an astronaut a task that would make the ISS uninhabitable?
If the life support system fails on the ISS, the repercussions would be immediate. Any task that would adversely affect the ISS’s life support system would not likely be attempted. That’s because humans react to immediate problems pretty well.
What we aren’t that good at, is reacting to and managing long term problems, like climate change, the biodiversity crisis, environmental toxification and potable water shortages. These human created problems impact the “global life support system” and must be solved immediately and simultaneously.
Unfortunately, most of the environmental protest industry has focused on climate change; neglecting, for the most part the others.
These groups have held protests during elections that interfere with political environmentalist efforts to identify and get out the environmental vote.
Effectively the environmental protest industry has increasingly become an obstacle to positive progressive political change. Since these groups must protest to recruit volunteers, fundraise and grow their movements, their relationship with status quo governments they help greenwash during elections and then protest afterwards, is mutually beneficial. Most environmental groups seem uninterested in helping to elect governments that solve environmental problems. Without status quo governments that increase our economic dependence on converting fossil carbon into GHG emissions, who would they protest? How would they grow their movements?
Many of them are dependent on the status quo governments for grants and other funding. Why would these organizations bite the hands that feed them?
Another part of the problem is that during an election, political opportunists will say anything to win the environmental vote including nonsense like “balancing the environment with the economy” as if improving the economy always comes at the expense of creating environmental problems… or solving environmental problems always comes with an economic cost. The truth is that solving environmental problems would create economic growth and new jobs.
 The cost of solar has now dropped to the point where it is cheaper than all other energy sources. Monthly payments on a loan to install a solar power system to go off grid would be cheaper for most homes and businesses, than their current monthly electricity bill. After the upgrade is paid off, the cost of electricity would be near zero, whereas the monthly electricity bill would continue to increase.
This change to a distributed network of micro energy producers and consumers would create more jobs that pay better than those that would be lost due when the nuclear power plants and gas turbines become stranded assets.
I understand why people who have invested in the status quo would oppose this change, but why electrical unions and the construction industry haven’t embraced this change remains a mystery to me.
Probably the biggest opportunity to grow the economy and save the planet at the same time is through energy conservation. Most homes and businesses can be made more energy efficient, reducing costs. The monthly savings would pay off the upgrades in a relatively short time. Why the housing construction industry hasn’t embraced this change is also a mystery to me.
 The energy industry is lying to us, for the same reasons why the tobacco industry lied in the past. I believe we have been manipulated by wealthy people who profit from the status quo of laying waste to the earth’s biosphere for short term profits and union jobs. These people refuse to embrace change. The energy industry is lying to us, for the same reasons why the tobacco industry lied in the past.
I used to believe that people could be convinced to make better decisions if they were presented with good accurate information. I now realize that most people are overwhelmed by bad inaccurate manipulative misinformation.
Solutions exist to all our problems, but we won’t implement these solutions, not because it doesn’t make economic sense, but because the people who profit from the status quo are better at manipulating public opinion, than scientists and engineers.
 Fiorito didn’t tell me if the hare got away. For this reason, I’ve moved on to acceptance. Humanity isn’t going to make better choices to save ourselves and the earth’s biosphere. That’s why I am up north, trying to document what’s left, before its destroyed by logging companies intent on converting old growth forest into mostly toilet paper and consumer products that end up in landfills. While the rest of the species that share the Earth’s biosphere with us don’t deserve what’s coming, most of humanity does, including the environmentalists who are more interested in protesting the status quo, rather than meaningful action to change the status quo.
 Watching –  Watching – ready to pounce. Vince Fiorito now lives 300km north of Thunder Bay, near Wabakimi Park where he took the photographs.
 By Gary Scobie
October 1st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The comments section of the Gazette is heavily used. At times there is a lot of tooing and froing – so much so that one wonders just what the writer is trying to say.
However, on occasion a writer responds with statements that are painfully true.
Gary Scobie, an intelligent, retired Burlington resident who has delegated frequently before Council, responds to David Barker who asked: Are you are really saying the Mayor and our councilors pretended to work on stopping the over-development of the downtown? Because that’s what you wrote. You used the word “pretend”. If you are really saying that, your credibility is shot.
The Scobie response is too pungent, too painfully true to be left as just a comment to a reader.
David, here is the inaction that they created. They were well and often advised during 2018 that the only way to stop excessive numbers and heights of high rises in downtown Burlington was to
1) Remove the Downtown Mobility Hub that was a farce and
2) remove the Urban Growth Centre from the downtown.
 It was named as a Mobility hub which was enough for some smart lawyers to argue that it served a mobility purpose equal to that of Pearson Airport. The Mobility Hub was the easier one and Jane McKenna helped in showing how it could be done in the Official Plan. The Urban Growth Centre was going to be the harder one. Therefore it needed to be tackled as soon as the new Council convened in January 2019.
 Gary Scobie in the middle of a delegation to city council. The new Council decided to do one thing instead that would not help – bring in the Interim Control Bylaw (ICB) for one year that would delay processing applications but not stop their time-stamping. They decided to do a second thing that would just make it look like they cared about stopping excessive high rises – start out on an updated OP that reduced somewhat the zoning but still allowed a concrete jungle in the downtown that few citizens in the work groups supported.
This OP took months and months to update, months and months to sit on the Regional Council agenda before being rejected for a few issues. Even when it was given support, it took months again to get provisionally passed.
In the meantime, applications piled up and appeals were initiated at the “new” OLT (just an OMB remake). Time marched on and Council waited two years until 2021 to actually begin asking the Province to move the UGC to the Burlington GO Station.
Two years of wasted time on the most important task in saving the downtown that could have been started in early 2019. Even today it is still not in force until the province passes the legislation, if they actually do.
 Scobie maintains this Council has betrayed its citizens As I said earlier this year, it’s too late baby. The chance has been missed. You can’t go back in time and negate all of the high rise applications filed in good faith under the old OP and the UGC in the downtown. It bothers me and my like-minded friends so much. Council failed its supporters and pretended to work on it instead. We were betrayed.
 Scobie was seldom impressed with the responses he got from members of Council. There’s your timeline. Oh and by the way, the Interim Control Bylaw – it’s still huffing and puffing along after two and a half years of applications piling up for downtown high rises. It won’t go away until every appeal is dealt with at the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).
Some legacy.
By Pepper Parr
September 24th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward once said that fireworks were something she heard about from residents almost as much as parking.
Parking – where do the people driving put their cars when they want to shop, or visit or dine?
Back up a bit and ask – where are all the cars coming from?
Back up a bit more – when a development application is filed with the Planning Department one of the reports that must be included is a traffic study.
Look at any number of those studies and they will all say that the number of cars that might be added to the flow of traffic in the city is “acceptable”, or words along those lines.
The people who write these reports are seen to be professionals who know their craft very well and their evidence is accepted as true.
The traffic reports get an OK from the planners.
And – the OK for that single traffic study might be very valid.
But there is a bigger picture that has to be looked at – and at this point no one is looking or asking the question.
 All the traffic from the underground garage will exist on to Elizabeth, shown on the left. To the left of the development is the site for whatever the Waterfront hotels site ends up looking like for the site The hundreds of cars coming out of the Bridgewater Development will exit the development onto Elizabeth street and then can continue north or go right or left on Lakeshore Road.
The hundreds of cars that are expected to come out of the proposed redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel site also empty onto Elizabeth Street and then can continue north or go right or left on Lakeshore Road.
While this is, at this point in time, a Ward 2 concern it will become an issue elsewhere when the large developments along Fairview and in the east end of the city come online.
We challenge Councillor Kearns to look for a way to require traffic studies to focus on the impact the single development will have (they are already required to do that) AND to provide a report that sets out the impact their development will have on new developments already approved within a 120 metre radius.
The planners can work out the specifics; the objective is to have information that sheds light on that bigger picture.
It is the bigger picture – everything happening within a specific radius that isn’t being looked at.
The city planners don’t ask – they aren’t required to.
We don’t quite why Heather MacDonald, Chief Planner doesn’t go before council and point out that they are not asked to report on the bigger picture – and ask Council to give them a Staff Direction to do just that.
At some point someone has to get ahead of the problem and ask the bigger question.
If we don’t the phrase in the Official Plan that has Burlington as a “City that Moves” will have to add – moves very very VERY slowly.
To Lisa Kearns and Heather MacDonald – the ball is in your court.
Looking forward to listening to what you put before Council on this one.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
September 21st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
On the evening of September 8th, there was a virtual pre-application presentation given by Bousfields, planners for Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Inc. , which is the company expected to make the application.
It was the first look at what the property owners had in mind for the re-development of the Waterfront Hotel site.
Two things about the images shown below – we were able to show a bit of what the developers have in mind last week.
I think the design is superb.
But I don’t think that design is what the people of Burlington want. It is some distance from the slightly quaint look of the downtown core, which isn’t all that big. It is my belief that there isn’t all that much vibrancy to it. But that’s my personal view.
The decision that gets made about this development is to be made by the people of Burlington.
Unfortunately the people of Burlington didn’t get to see the presentation.
There were just over 100 people participating in the virtual presentation – of which at least a dozen were city staff.
During the Q&A part of the presentation the Gazette asked how we could get a link to the presentation which was recorded.
No one had an answer so on September 11th, I reached out to the Director of Communications Kwab Ako-adjei with the following:
Greetings
I think you will have taken in all of the pre-application virtual meeting on Wednesday.
Quite a show.
As you know it was recorded and the developer didn’t raise any objection on it being made public – what wasn’t clear was –
Thomas Walker (I erred and used the wrong last name – it is Douglas) was asked and didn’t seem to know where it would be located nor did he leave me with the sense that it would actually be put on the city web site.
Would you follow this up for us please.
I address this to you because we intend to follow how the request is handled and want to be on record as having reached out to the head of the Communications department.
Stay well
I later got a reply from Carla Marshal, who is one of the Communications Advisers with the city.
Good morning, Pepper.
Please take a look at this information, which should help to clarify the City’s role in the development application process: Understanding the Development Application Process – City of Burlington
The meeting was led by the developer so the developer owns the recording of the event. The City does not own the recording; the developer does. It is at the sole discretion of the developer, in this case, Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Inc. c/o Bousfields Inc., if and where the recording is posted; it is up to the proponent to decide whether they will post the recording online on their own website: https://bousfields.ca/
Shortly after there was a response from Suzanne Vukosavljevic, who was filling in for Marshall.. She said:
The City posts its own meeting recordings on the City site but in this specific case you are asking about, it was not a City meeting so therefore, the City is not posting the recording.
Your questions have been answered by staff below.
Thanks for your interest.
The city provided the following:
As the communications advisor for Planning, I have worked with staff to provide you with the following information:
From Thomas Douglas, Senior Planner, Community Planning:
Pre-Application Community Meetings are hosted by the proponent of a development, not the City. If/when the proponent proceeds to submit a development application to the City for their proposal, as part of their application they must provide minutes from the Pre-Application Community Meeting, a written summary of public input received at the meeting, and an explanation of how public input has been addressed and reflected in the submitted application.
In cases where a Pre-Application Community Meeting occurs virtually, this may be done using the City’s or the applicant’s teleconferencing program. When the City’s technology is used, staff will record the meeting and provide the recording to the proponent to aid them in documenting meeting minutes and public input received. The City does not post the recording on the City’s website, and it is up to the proponent to decide whether they will post the recording online on their own website.
I will inform the proponent of the 2020 Lakeshore Road development proposal that the Gazette has expressed interest in obtaining a copy of the recording.
I hope this helps!
I didn’t feel my request had been met and responded:
Actually it doesn’t help very much. I then set out more specifically what I was looking for: Carla’s responses are short – set in red.
Does the city have a copy of the event that was recorded? No
Pre-Application Community Meetings are hosted by the proponent of a development, not the City.
If not – does the city intend to obtain a copy?
No
and where will the copy be located on the city web site
The meeting recording will not be located on the City website; it is up to the proponent to decide whether they will post the recording online on their own website –
Further: whose technology was used – re: using the City’s or the applicant’s teleconferencing program. When the City’s technology is used, staff will record the meeting and provide the recording to the proponent to aid them in documenting meeting minutes and public input received.
The applicant has the recording.
Further – who would make the decision to not post the recording, should it become available on the city web site.
it is up to the proponent to decide whether they will post the recording online on their own website
I reached out to the planner Bousfields and asked where we could get a link to the presentation. And waited.
This morning there was a response from the Bousefields planner with a link to the presentation.
And later in the day there was a link from Thomas Douglas with the same link.
That’s a lot of back and forth – but we did get what we were asking for. Why the difficulty is beyond me.
There are two images below. They are of what the building will look like from Lakeshore Road and what it will look like from the Lake.
 A rendering of what the development might look like from Lakeshore Road. Commercial space will exist at grade.
A rendering of what the site will look like from the Lake. Each tower will sit on a four storey podium and then rise to 30 storeys and 26storeys. In part 2 – there is more in the way of visuals and comment on how the virtual event went and what was learned.
The developer can now submit an application.
When and if they do – they are expected to show how they responded to some of the issues and concerns that were raised.
Bousfields added: Note that the plans are not final and are subject to modifications as we move forward. No formal applications have been submitted at this time, and the public meeting was simply to gauge public interest and explain the proposed intent for the site prior to submission of formal planning applications.
By Ray Rivers
September 21st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
By law there has to be an election four years following the last one, except when there is a minority government. Mr. Trudeau had a choice. He could call an election when the polls favoured him, as Jean Chretien once did. Or he could wait until the opposition ganged up and forced an election, as happened when Jack Layton pulled the rug out from under Paul Martin.
That is what politics is all about – trying to get and keep the most seats in Parliament. Indeed Mr. Harper did exactly that in 2008, even after introducing Canada’s fixed election law. Does anyone remember the media calling that an unnecessary election?
 The lineups were long – in Toronto Fort York people waited for an hour and a half. Fewer polling stations and an upset public wanting to express their dissent. That we are in the midst of a pandemic can be a problem. Longer lines and fewer polling places can be frustrating for the voter. But mail-in ballots and advance voting had been available. And the good news is that there have been no reports of transmission or COVID outbreaks during the campaign. Indeed being in a polling station is likely as safe as a vaccination clinic, except for the long lines in some locations.
Elections cost money, this one came in at about $600 million. All that cash goes to pay for poll clerks, polling supplies, room rentals, travel by electoral officials, and communications services. Some of it will be returned to the treasury in the taxes collected from these activities.
Like CERB and the wage subsidy this is an infusion of money into the community. But unlike the wage subsidy the money flows into the community and not into the corporate director’s pockets. Of course there is always a better use for $600 million, including paying down debt.
 At this point in the election Justin Trudeau realized he was in the fight of his political life. It came very very close – even thought the Liberals are now saying it was a win. Holding an election at this time wasn’t in the Liberal’s election platform but from all the noise one would think that was all the Liberals stood for. The real issues, like climate change, mandating vaccines and passports and national child care somehow got lost in the noise.
This was a nasty campaign by comparison to all others, including violent protesters throwing stones at a sitting PM. And it was cursed with a dysfunctional English language debate. Almost from the start Mr.Trudeau became the target of just about everyone.
Despite propping up Mr. Trudeau since the last election, Mr. Singh complained that the Liberals did nothing over all that time. Ms. Paul claimed Trudeau couldn’t possibly be a feminist or respect indigenous rights since he removed his former justice minister from the Liberal caucus. And Mr. O’Toole appeared to blame Trudeau for the COVID crisis in Alberta.
 The election bill came in at $600 million – was there a value proposition in there somewhere. But the voters weren’t convinced. And election night they have returned the PM and his party pretty much where they had started out – back into a minority situation. Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party is still seatless, though he surpassed the Green Party in popular support. The Greens have actually gained a new seat and lost an old one, but are still without a leader to represent them in Parliament.
Either the Bloc or NDP will be needed to prop up the new minority government once again. But barring a successful non-confidence vote Mr. Trudeau will have another four years of government before him. And nobody should think the Liberals will go back to the people again before those four years are up – unless they can show Canadians that it is really necessary.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Harper’s Unnecessary Election – https://toronto.citynews.ca/2008/09/07/why-did-harper-force-an-election
By Pepper Parr
September 18th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Many of us have already voted – hopefully a really significant number of Canadians will turn out to cast a ballot in this very important election.
There was no reason for this election to even take place and it is our belief that we will end up with basically the same thing when all the ballots are counted: A minority Liberal government.
Justin Trudeau does not deserve to be given the majority he wants.
There is hard work to be done: Covid19, the economy, housing – do we need a list longer than that?
The current problems aside – there is still the SNC Lavalin issue and the loss of a two female members of the Liberal caucus.
 The embarrassing trip to India The embarrassing trip to India
The WE matter
Two pronouncements from the Ethics Commissioner.
 The hopes were high The hopes were high when Justin Trudeau first ran for the leadership– another Trudeau was going to lead the country – but it hasn’t worked out that way.
That happens in politics. Let Justin Trudeau work with whatever the public gives him on Monday.
Politics being the blood sport it is – the knives will be coming out and the Liberals will begin to look for a new leader – expect to see that in 18 to 24 months.
There is a shift taking place in the way different segments of society expect their political leadership to perform. The People’s Party of Canada is growing at a disturbing rate; the Greens are failing to grow at a disturbing rate and both the Liberal and Conservative party leaders are learning that they aren’t really as in touch with the members as they should be.
The Liberal Party polls higher than the leader of the Party and the Conservative leader is not able to impress upon his own membership that getting everyone vaccinated is critical if we are ever going to get ourselves from a pandemic to an endemic state with Covid19.
We will be watching closely Monday evening – we might be up very late or we might know as soon as the pools open in the Prairies.
The mess in Alberta – it’s actually a tragedy, that could have been avoided. Hundreds will die unnecessary death because of decisions Jason Kenny made.
|
|
