Latest news with #JohnMcEwen
Hamilton Spectator
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Anmore group threatens legal action against village over Anmore South development
The Village of Anmore has been threatened with a legal action over its handling of the contentious Anmore South development, with the Anmore Neighbours Community Association (ANCA) alleging procedural and constitutional violations. In a May 15 letter addressed to Mayor John McEwen and council, ANCA's lawyers accuses the village of bias, democratic suppression, and violations of free expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The letter warns that unless the Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment process is halted and corrected, ANCA will petition the B.C. Supreme Court to quash any resulting decision. 'If the village chooses to ignore (these complaints) and forge ahead with the OCP amendment, it can expect a legal proceeding brought by ANCA, and perhaps others, to set the decision aside,' ANCA's lawyers stated. The Anmore South project, proposed by Icona Properties, aims to transform 151-acres on the municipality's southwest border into a mixed-use development with approximately 2,200 units, commercial space, a community centre, parks, and a connection to Metro Vancouver's wastewater system. Anmore's population could nearly triple over the next 25 years if council were to approve an amendment to its official community plan changing the designation of the lands from rural to urban. The Village of Anmore did not respond to a request for comment by press time. Accusations of bias ANCA claimed three of the five Anmore councillors – Mayor John McEwen and Couns. Polly Krier, and Kim Trowbridge – have 'prejudged' their decision on the OCP amendment by publicly endorsing the proposed 'preferred plan' before a public hearing has occurred. Several statements from the councillors are provided. ANCA argued that those statements show their 'minds are made up' regarding the OCP amendment. 'The public hearing itself is pointless – the mayor and these councillors will sit and listen to suggestions, but not whether to vote 'yes' or 'no' on the amendment, which is the vote that will come before them,' the letter stated. Earlier this year, McEwen said it would be a loss if only single-family homes were built in the area. 'I think the key thing that we have to remember is, this land is going to be developed at some point,' McEwen said at a February meeting. 'I've said very publicly, I certainly don't want it to go RS-1 the way some areas of the other village have.' Council has discussed development of the Anmore South site since it was designated as a special study area in 2007. More recently, council discussed three visions for the land, including one pitch for approximately 3,500 units. ANCA cited several Supreme Court of Canada decisions, arguing the legal standard for disqualifying a member of council from participating in a decision is if they are no longer capable of being persuaded. It further claims the councillors have shown to prejudge the amendment decision by rushing the process through despite late completion of a consultant reports, an incomplete neighbourhood plan, and treating the first and second reading of the bylaw as routine 'housekeeping' steps. The letter urged all three representatives to recuse themselves from further deliberations, warning that if they do not, any vote on the OCP amendment will be legally tainted. Because this recusal would leave council without quorum, ANCA suggested the village seek direction from the court to allow the decision to proceed with a modified quorum. ANCA stated it would expect Mayor McEwen's participation to be conditional on a court order requiring him to consider public input 'with as open a mind as possible.' Accusations of Charter breaches The municipality is also being accused of suppressing political dissent regarding Anmore South by unreasonably limiting free expression at council meetings and through local signage restrictions. ANCA highlighted recent changes to the village's procedure bylaw , which bar comments on any topic that may be the subject of a future public hearing. They state this 'broadly drafted' clause is unconstitutional because it stifles political expression on pending issues before they are formally up for debate. The bylaw was invoked during the May 6 council meeting, when residents were barred from raising questions about Anmore South during question period, while the developer and two opposing delegations were permitted to speak about the project during the same meeting. ANCA contended this inconsistent application shows the bylaw is being enforced in a discriminatory manner and suppressing community opposition while giving the developer a platform. Icona CEO Greg Moore defended the consultation process, noting that 28 public engagement events have been held since 2021. The ANCA letter also raised concerns about a zoning bylaw which restricts residential signage to only certain types such as real estate or home business signs. Political signage is not permitted, even on private property. While the bylaw is in place to limit visual pollution, ANCA claimed it is being used as a way to prohibit 'political expression on a matter of fundamental importance to the community.' According to the letter, ANCA has received reports that village staff have removed signs opposing Anmore South, while leaving up other signs that also contravene the bylaw. ANCA argued this suggests 'discretionary unfairness' and points to an active effort by the village to suppress opposition to Anmore South. The letter is calling on council to delay the public hearing and OCP amendment decision by 'at minimum several months' until both the procedure bylaw and zoning bylaw are amended to comply with Charter protections. Only after residents are given a 'reasonable period' for unrestricted political expression, should the amendment return to council for a vote, ANCA stated. The letter follows several months of escalating tension around the Anmore South proposal, with groups like ANCA and the Anmore Residents Association describing the process as 'developer-dominated,' and calling for a referendum to decide the project's fate.
AU Financial Review
21-05-2025
- Politics
- AU Financial Review
Why Libs and Nats will get the Coalition band back together
Times may be grim and getting grimmer for the Liberal and National parties, but things could be worse. The Coalition, for example, could be living in 1967. Following the drowning of then-prime minister Harold Holt, John McEwen – the then-Country (as the Nationals were then known) party leader and deputy prime minister – vetoed deputy Liberal leader Bill McMahon from becoming leader of the party and country. 'Black Jack', who represented Victoria's manufacturing and farming interests, had reasons to dislike and distrust the Sydney solicitor, who toed Treasury's free trade line.
CBC
15-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
Metro Vancouver has 41 directors. After a governance review, will that change?
Social Sharing After a year of upheaval and reviews, Metro Vancouver directors are awaiting a report that could tweak a few parts of the biggest regional government in B.C. — or could kickstart massive reforms in the way the area from Lions Bay to Langley is overseen. "I've heard the word amalgamation," said Metro Vancouver Vce-Chair John McEwen, referring to the concept of merging some or all of the patchwork of 21 municipalities that comprise the Metro Vancouver Regional District. "I don't know how to change the governing model so that everybody still has a say. Right now, we allow a say from the mayor of Vancouver or Surrey, but also the mayor of Anmore or Port Moody." Metro Vancouver initiated an independent review of its governance by Deloitte Canada following months of media reports about the oversight, cost overruns and remuneration of its directors and senior staff. That report is expected by the end of the month. Directors have pledged to have an open mind on whatever recommendations are made. But regardless, Metro Vancouver faces a question similar to municipalities across British Columbia — whether people can disagree agreeably and move forward, or suffer potential consequences. "When you have a council that is rowing in the same direction, you can achieve some very positive things," said Brad West, the mayor of Port Coquitlam and one of the 41 board members of the Metro Vancouver board. "If you have a council that is at war with each other, and everything is political? You know what usually happens is voters say you're all gone." 'There's not the same degree of nimbleness' In advance of the governance report, CBC News interviewed four directors at the centre of debates over Metro Vancouver over the past year: West, the high-profile mayor who put forward a number of reforms to Metro Vancouver in February. Delta Coun. Dylan Kruger, who helped remove Delta Mayor George Harvie as Metro Vancouver chair a year ago. Burnaby Mayor Mike Hurley, who replaced Harvie as board chair. Anmore Mayor John McEwen, who has served as vice-chair before and after Harvie's replacement. In addition, CBC News spoke on background with another eight past and present directors across the region. Together, they paint a picture of an organization that has struggled to respond in the aftermath of the negative attention. Different municipalities took different strategies in dealing with the fallout, with the two biggest — Vancouver and Surrey — effectively boycotting different parts of the regional government. The subsequent politicization created plenty of split votes and a lack of clear direction. "It is really challenging to have 41 people around the table," said Kruger, who has pushed for Metro Vancouver to focus more clearly on the 80 per cent of its budget dedicated to water and waste. "We have to adjust our expectations. It is a different creature than a council table. And if we put the same expectations of a council table on it, I think we're going to be naturally disappointed by the result." West, whose motion ruffled some feathers with directors in several municipalities, said the sheer number of directors made it difficult to move quickly. "There's not the same degree of nimbleness that you might find in a city council in responding to issues that emerge," he said. "What you saw play out was 41 people kind of waiting for someone to do something." Many directors believed media criticism of expenses was excessive relative to Metro Vancouver's billion-dollar annual budget, or lacked comparison to other jurisdictions. "I think we certainly put a lot of materials out that weren't reported or for whatever reason … I didn't think that was fairly done," said Hurley. But at the same time, he and other directors agreed the criticisms were warranted, and a review was helpful. "I think both things can be true at the same time," said Kruger. "This is a multibillion-dollar organization that does incredibly great things every single day … but we need to get back to focusing on those fundamentals and stop getting distracted by things that just don't deliver good value for taxpayers." ' manageable' One of the reasons it's hard to compare Metro Vancouver to other regional governments is that there's nothing like it in Canada. In most big urban centres, the same mayor and council elected for the whole city are also responsible for water and sewage. There are a few exceptions where a number of municipalities oversee services, like the Montreal Agglomeration Council or the Regional Municipality of Peel, but they are dominated by one or two cities, and have around 25 directors. Metro Vancouver's 41 directors from 21 municipalities (along with a representative from the Tsawwassen First Nation and the UBC-dominated lands of Electoral Area A) is a unique creature for delivering utility services, the flip side of allowing individual areas of the Lower Mainland to retain their own local government. The question the Deloitte review will have to effectively rule on is whether it can still produce effective and concentrated oversight for utility services or if another model is needed. "It's very complex, but at the same time, if you take the time to dig in and fully understand, I think it's very manageable," said Hurley. "But we have to compromise, and we have to see everyone else's point of view. And I think it's become a challenge." If Deloitte thinks otherwise? The ultimate decision, then, would not lie with Metro Vancouver, but with the provincial government. "When it's convenient, the province really tries to divorce itself from any involvement that they have in this," said West. "All of these big issues right now around who Metro Vancouver is? At the end of the day, it's going to be the provincial government having to make a change if there's going to be a change."
