By Pepper Parr
March 24th, 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith told BurlingtonToday that he intends to run for City Council again. It will be his third term if he is re-elected, which is almost a certainty. He might even be acclaimed,
Galbraith also serves as Deputy Mayor for Business and Red Tape Reduction.
Gailbraith is a small businessman who operated a gymnasium and began accumulating pieces of land close to the gym before he found himself selected as the candidate for ward 1 in a nomination meeting that had 13 candidates.
He entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Emshi Developments Inc., a Burlington based firm specializing in commercial plazas and residential buildings. Notable projects in their portfolio include the Fairview Medical Arts Centre, Brantview Plaza, and the Burloak Common developments. Emshi owns a small plaza to the west of the Galbraith properties.
Galbraith owns A, C and D. Emshi owns A. B is a garage that may or may not be part of the MOU.
That property ownership puts him in a Conflict of Interest which Galbraith declares each time developments close to his holdings are on an agenda.
Declaring the conflict and not taking part in the voting is all Galbraith has to do. He doesn’t take part in the discussions related to property that is close to his holdings.
Galbraith has done nothing illegal.
However, when there are developments that do require a Council member to speak up for the residents in the ward, they, in effect have no representation.
That is the issue before Galbraith. He will say that he can represent the views of the residents of the ward on all the issues.
That just isn’t true. Nor is it what the democratic process is all about.
Galbraith owns the two lots south of the land Indwell is expected to develop. He also owns the gymnasium (the white graphic in the center)
The public has every right to know what Galbraith thinks about the Indwell development that is going to be developed on three lots to the immediate north of the two lots Galbraith owns on Waterdown Road. At this point the development isn’t controversial – it is certainly different and a welcome addition to the very affordable housing the city needs.
Should, and I say this very delicately because I have no reason to suspect there will be any issues with the Indwell development, but if there are Galbraith can’t talk about what is being done.
Galbraith in effect, has a hobble on what he can say. A council member who is limited on what he can say on an issue in the ward he represents should not be a member of Council.
Kelven Galbraith is a decent person; personable and honest; he once said he thought he would like to be Mayor.
I had lunch with Galbraith (he picked up the bill), and I asked if he had given any serious thought to running for Mayor this time around. His response was that he was comfortable with Mayor Meed Ward and would not run against her.
Galbraith has voted with the Mayor on just about every issue.
The list of candidates was very long – Ward 1 citizens went for Kelven Galbraith – few outside the ward knew who he was.
There are some people in Ward 1 who are not that keen on the Councillor, but one would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people who don’t want him as their Council member.
This is the issue the residents of Ward 1 face. It is something they have to deal with. The 13 people who sought the nomination in 2018 proved the interest is there. Now is the time for it to come to the surface.
Mary, with respect, what you’re describing isn’t representation — it’s improvisation.
No one is suggesting the other councillors are incapable. The point is they are not accountable to Ward 1 residents. They weren’t elected to carry that voice, and they don’t answer to those voters at election time. That distinction matters.
As for asking another councillor to step in, that’s not a democratic solution — that’s an admission the system is breaking down. Residents shouldn’t have to shop around City Hall to find someone willing to speak for them on issues that directly affect their own ward.
And the editor’s point actually reinforces the concern. If councillors don’t speak on behalf of other wards, then Ward 1 loses its voice entirely when its own councillor is conflicted out. That’s not theoretical — that’s exactly the gap being highlighted.
This isn’t about whether conflicts are declared — of course they should be. It’s about frequency and impact. When conflicts become routine on key local matters, representation becomes inconsistent at best, absent at worst.
Voters being “aware” of a problem doesn’t make the problem acceptable. It just normalizes it.
And when reduced representation becomes something we’re told to work around instead of fix, that’s when it really does start to smell.
And if this is being dismissed as “sleepy” voter behaviour, that says more about the expectations being set than the people being represented. Residents deserve full representation — not explanations for why they aren’t getting it.
Gentlemen
That’s exactly how representation works. The view that you’re putting out is that if an item comes up that is in Ward 1 and Councilor Galbraith is conflicted then residents of Ward 1 have no representation whatsoever.
So effectively you’re saying that the other six councilors would not, do not speak up and present their views on a Ward 1 matter.
Knowing that he is going to be conflicted, there is nothing to stop Councilor Galbraith you suggesting to his constituents they can seek to have their voices heard by asking another counselor to raise their issues. And then of course should they wish residents can delegate to the Committee of the Whole and/or City Council.
You both are talking as if the residents of Ward 1 are totally ignorant of Councilor Galbraith’s potential for conflict of interest when they vote for him.
Let’s see if he gets re-elected come October.
Editor’s note: I don’t recall a Councillor EVER speaking on behalf of another Councilor about matters in that other Councillor’s ward. That just doesn’t happen in Burlington. I think by the way thet Galbraith might well be acclaimed – that’s how sleepy thing are in Aldershot.
Editor. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Maybe I didn’t explain myself well enough here.
I did not mean to suggest one councilor might speak on behalf of another conflicted counselor. I meant a councilor of another ward might advocate the position of a resident of the ward of the conflicted councilor. Councilor Kearns will I am sure have an opinion on any development that Councilor Galbraith might be conflicted from.
If Councilor Galbraith wins in October it does not necessarily indicate those in Ward 1 are sleepy. They may be very content! Or they may be completely discontented and disillusioned. None of us can know for sure.
Mary, respectfully, that’s not how representation works.
Residents in Ward 1 didn’t elect ‘six other councillors’ to speak for them — they elected their councillor. If that councillor is repeatedly conflicted out of key discussions, then those residents are, in fact, left without a voice when it matters most.
Declaring a conflict is the minimum standard — not the solution. The real issue is how often that conflict arises and what it means for consistent representation.
And suggesting voters should simply accept reduced representation because ‘they knew’ ignores the responsibility that comes with the role. Transparency and full participation aren’t optional — they’re expected.
Calling it ‘the way democracy works’ doesn’t make it right — because when your councillor can’t speak on the issues that matter most, democracy isn’t working for those residents at all.
If it has to be explained this much, it probably “smells”.
I want to make sure sure it is entirely clear and certain about the ownership and conflict declaration, that Councilor Galbraith owns the 3 properties that appear in the story figure – A, D, and C. Emshih does not own D. He owns E.
In my eyes, the problem is that Galbraith doe not specify exactly the extent of his declaration of interest in a completely unambiguous manner. He writes;
“Committee of the Whole
Committee of the Whole
Agenda Item: Real estate matter declaring intent to lease Waterdown Road properties (LLS-16-26)
Member in Conflict: Galbraith, Kelvin
Reason:
The Councillor owns property within close proximity to the land being discussed.
The real estate facts are that he owns several properties in proximity”
As the story notes, he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Emshi developments lopments Inc., a Burlington based firm specializing in commercial plazas. Emshi owns a small plaza – E – to the west of the Galbraith properties. This puts the Councilor in further conflict.
My issue is he fails to provide any real context and extent of his interest. In City discussions of this project the Councilor implied his only interest is the 2 smaller properties – D and C – on Waterdown Rd. This is a large future interest.
So Mary Hill, this is not BS. As Wayne said, the way it is put “smells”.
If the electorate in Ward 1 elect Galbraith as their councilor then so be it. His connection with development in the Plains Road area is well known. He also very properly declares a conflict of interest when one arises. If he declares a conflict of interest and cannot speak on a particular subject being discussed at Council, that is the way democracy works. Just the same as if an item comes up for discussion close to where a councilor lives. But that does not mean his electorate are left without a voice. There are six other councilors who, in addition to representing their wards, represent the city as a whole. Please knock off this BS.