Is it not time that we as a people began to draw the lines in the sand?

I think that Muslim who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should be told to get out of Canada!

And as far as that goes any immigrant that wants to live here, should learn to respect our beliefs and lifestyle choices.

They must adapt to us, take or leave it. I am sick and tired of worrying about whether or not I am going to offend someone because of their religion or culture.

Most of us,  as Canadians we believe in God. We are for the most part Christians and our country was founded on the Christian ideals. Simple put if God offends you as an immigrant, I recommend that you go back home! God and Christianity are part of our make up and culture. If you cannot accept that, then get out.

We allow new Canadians every opportunity to enjoy our land and home. We for the most part accept just about anything provided you don’t shove it down our throats. Give us the same respect.

If you want to whine bitch and moan about our flag, our  beliefs, our way of life then I ask that you take advantage of our Canadian custom and freedom to leave. It is your right, exercise it our shut the hell up.

Now only if we get some politicians with enough balls to express these thoughts, we might just be able to have a Country that will survive the years to come, failing which we as Canadians might just as well accept Allah as you saviour and divine leader!




This posting is a letter published in the Owen Sound Sun Times by Councilor Kerr of South Bruce Peninsula. 

He has confused himself by using  the very title!  

Because a majority can win a vote under majority rule, it has been commonly argued that majority rule can lead to a “tyranny of the majority“. Supermajoritarian rules, such as the three-fifths supermajority rule required to end a filibuster in the United States Senate, have been proposed as preventative measures of this problem. Other experts argue that this solution is questionable. Supermajoritarian rules do not guarantee that it is a minority that will be protected by the supermajority rule; they only establish that one of two alternatives is the status quo, privileging it against being overturned by a mere majority. To use the example of the US Senate, if a majority votes against cloture, then the filibuster will continue, even though a minority supports it. Some argue that when there are multiple minorities and one is protected (or privileged) by the supermajoritarian rule, there is no guarantee that the protected minority won’t be one that is already privileged, and if nothing else it will be the one that has the privilege of being aligned with the status quo.[1] 

Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to guarantee certain rights. Who gets to vote and a definition of inalienable rights which cannot be transgressed by a majority, can be decided beforehand as a separate act[5], by charter or constitution. Thereafter, any decision that unfairly targets a minority’s right could be said to be majoritarian, but would not be a legitimate example of a majority decision because it would violate the requirement for equal rights. In response to this advocates of unfettered majority rule argue that because the procedure that privileges constitutional rights is generally some sort of supermajoritarian rule, this solution inherits whatever problems this rule would have. They also add the following: First, constitutional rights, being words on paper, cannot by themselves offer protection. Second, under some circumstances the rights of one person cannot be guaranteed without making an imposition on someone else; as Anthony McGann wrote, “one man’s right to property in the antebellum South was another man’s slavery.” Finally, as Amartya Sen stated when presenting the liberal paradox, a proliferation of rights may make everyone worse off.[6] 

Councilor Kerr’s Letter 

Majority rules is a fundamental democratic principle, or is it?


Recently our council has faced some challenges in leadership and a recent editorial by Michael Den Tandt suggested that we learn to be nice to each other which I agree with but suggest does not get to the bottom of the concerns this council faces.  The council recently had sessions with Nigel Bellchamber and Fred Dean, recognized experts in the field of Municipal Affairs. Recently we met with representatives of Municipal Affairs in London at the Ontario West Municipal Conference and both reiterated, that in all municipalities in this province, when an issue comes forward to council, everyone gets to interject their feelings and position on the issue and a vote is taken. The majority vote of council decides the result of the issue. In Canada we have a name for this — It’s called democracy.  “Majority Rules” is a fundamental democratic principle. All councils operate this way. No one person can call the shots and that includes the mayor. Mayors in Ontario have only one vote and no specific authority to act independently. Their job is to show leadership. That role requires showing a positive example to council and to the community. 

 Experienced councilor’s recommend that when you lose a vote, move on to the next issue. 

 Our current council has more than 100 years of municipal experience. Any member who threatens the team when they can’t get his/her way quickly loses the respect of their fellow councilors. 

 Council has tolerated unpleasant treatment long enough. When someone keeps disrespecting you, it is only a matter of time before you try to limit his/her ability to strike out at you. 

 We have a unique situation here with a member of our council sending threatening letters from his/her attorney to council, making complaints to the ombudsmen, refusing to follow procedural rules, even calling the police, against staff and council when he/she does not get his/her way.  

 We have been forced to authorize a specific attorney to defend and respond to these threats. Staff and council complaints to Municipal Affairs has finally brought results as we received a letter on Friday that Minister Jim Watson will arrange a facilitator to help resolve the strained relationship between council and staff. 

 I am a councillor and therefore part of the problem but I pledge that I will not send letters from my attorney threatening council or staff, I will not call the police against staff or council, I will not make complaints to the Ombudsmen and I commit to supporting majority decisions of this council. 

Mr. Kerr in his wisdom, has missed the point,  Mayor Gwen Gilbert was not elected to be nice. She was elected to make change!The Voters made this clear! 

Today  Mayor Gwen Gilbert has as much say in Council meeting as Wiarton Willie! 

When Mayor Gwen Gilbert is challenged by folks who disregard the fundamental rules of procedure, she turns to tools that are available like, the Police, lawyers, the Ombudsman and or Municipal Afairs to counter the Tyranny displayed. 

Members of Council such as Kerr, Lamont, Hoath, Hall and Vukovic are living definitions of Tryanny! 



“God keep our land, glorious and free”

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears at Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.”

This important piece of legislation was approved and endorsed by Canada in 1944. It was meant to be a template for each member Country to adopt as their own Charter of rights.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (also known as The Charter of Rights and Freedoms or simply the Charter,  is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all levels of government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17 1982 (along with the rest of the Act).

The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was enacted in 1960. However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document. As a federal statute, it was limited in scope, was easily amendable by Parliament, and it had no application to provincial laws. The Supreme Court of Canada also narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights and the Court was reluctant to declare laws inoperative.[1] The relative ineffectiveness of the Canadian Bill of Rights motivated many to improve rights protections in Canada. The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2] The British Parliament formally enacted the Charter as a part of the Canada Act 1982 at the request of the Parliament of Canada in 1982, the result of the efforts of the Government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. However, the Charter granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada’s mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter only applies to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity.

The good points are there to be read, however, the bad points are not. The biggest fraud in this document is that in order to exercise your rights you need about a million dollars to get before the Supreme Court should you want to test the charter.Should the Supreme Court rule against what ever is happening the Civil service puts forward amendments to the legislation ruled against pursuant to the order of the Court, to change the legislation and make their actions legal.

 The first and foremost concern is that of Section  17 of our Charter:

Section 17: the right to use either official language in Parliament or the New Brunswick legislature.

compared to the Universal Declaration of Rights:

Article 17.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Now all of you good tax paying Canadians that think they own their homes, farms,cottages cars, snow mobile, ATVs, furniture, RRSP’s, businesses, and or any thing material, have to give your head a shake!

The cold hard reality is you have no ownership rights to anything. The word  “property”  is define as:

property n. anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: “real property” which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and “personal property” (sometimes called “personalty”) which is everything else. “Common property” is ownership by more than one person of the same possession. “Community property” is a form of joint ownership between husband and wife recognized in several states. “Separate property” is property owned by one spouse only in a community property state, or a married woman’s sole ownership in some states. “Public property,” refers to ownership by a governmental body such as the federal, state, county or city governments or their agencies (e.g. school or redevelopment districts).

 The Charter says we have no property rights period. What we have is the right of  “utility” the right to use, however, the right to use is in itself a form of property, so a fine line says that we do not even own those rights as this is not contained in our Charter.

Our elected Representatives and or Governments can change, contingent on the political climate.

If for example , the general climate of the masses are persuaded, to think that oh say the planet is dieing and we have to create environmentally protected areas to preserve the planet, well the civil servants  then write regulations without input from the people who pay for everything, implement laws to prevent the development and or conversion of that property. Done.

If the Government decides that, oh say that all the gold in the country must be allocated to the retirement of the public debt, then poof it is now the property of the machine to retire public debt. If you said no, this is my gold or my property and I will defend what is mine, you are branded as a criminal and subject to what ever laws they decide, which may mean prison  but will definitely mean you are publicly condemned as a non conformist, selfish etc. regardless they end up with what is yours.

Now the majority will say that will never happen , the courts won’t allow it. Well the only Court with any power is the Supreme Court of Canada, and by the way, anti up your million to get there to find that the Court is Bound  by the Charter.

Besides they are already doing it, look at the Wet Lands on Ontario as governed by the Planning Act, the Niagara Escarpment , the Green Belts.

Understand what has happened to the Landlords of the Province of Ontario over the last 25 years. The biggest slumlord in the Country is the Social Housing owned and  operated by the Province and or the Municipalities.

Look at what Hitler did when he got to power, with the creation of A New World Order.

Oh yes you can have your home etc until it becomes necessary for the common good. Then, you may still use it and pay taxes on it and the mortgage on it, but at the end of the day if they need it or want it for what ever reason they will take it.

We as a people must stop this and insist on property rights in our legislation. We must stop the implementation of laws by regulation.

What is mine is mine to do with as I choose. Not theirs for the taking.

The Americans are a lot of things but at the very least they have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and their property.

Say what you will but it is our national theme is “Government of the People by the few”, where it should be “Government by the People for  the People”.


Bruce County Blunders Broadband

Talk about Corporate Welfare!

Our illustrious Council has given Bell Aliant $1,00,000.00, to provide Broadband in the County!

This stroke of genius was at the recommendation of the IT Staff, which certainly indicates their vision and intelligence level.

This is the same IT staff that haven’t been able to put Wireless into the Bruce County Museum for $30,000.00 after it was offered to the County  free by a local service provider. Free is too expensive don’t you know! $30,000 for $300.00 worth of Radios. My God what are they thinking. They actually turned down a donation.

The reality of the situation is that, the Province, through OMFRA (Ministry of Agriculture), has provided $1,000,000 in .30 cent dollars to deploy internet service to underserved areas. The program,which is intended to service rural communities and buy McDinky some votes is great idea gone wrong.

The Bruce County IT Staff, identified Sauble Beach, Colpoy’s Bay,  Red Bay and the Walkerton area, as under serviced areas.

Now I may be a hick from the sticks, but at last count there are upwards to 7 service providers in each of these areas.

To make matters worse, our attentive, well paid professionals , in the IT department,  hired a consultant for $5,000.00 to review the three tenders submitted. Why are we paying staff , if we have to hire outsiders to do the staff’s job?

The consultant, a Telus reseller, (Telus being a stakeholder in Bell Aliant) gave a biased Bell commercial, as a report to the Human Resource committee in November, recommending Bell as the proponent of choice. Imagine that!

The Consultant, Compu-Solve of Barrie, Ontario, choose to ignore the local contenders in his report.

Now let me see, Bell in conjunction with Tellus and Rogers, have deployed a cellular solution in Bruce  County, using their cell sites to transmit internet, telephone and television in a complete package. They planned it, deployed it, without government funding , but instead with shareholder funds.

It should be noted that the price for this service is high, it has throughput limitations and it just doesn’t work in most of the county. That is not to say that it won’t improve with time, but $1,000,000.00 for a product that doesn’t work??? But what the hell we don’t have enough unemployed in this county, we can use more. The little guys will find something else to do or maybe they can go on welfare after they lay off their employees.

Keep in mind that in 2000, Bell was given $9,000,000 by the Feds to deliver internet to remote communities, of which Bruce saw nothing.

It was the little guys that took the bull by the horn and deployed wireless internet to the remote areas of Bruce County, no help from the Feds, the Province or the local government. These guys went and did it for anyone that wanted it ,when Bell and the rest of their gang laughed and said there was no market.

It is interesting to note that Gwen Gilbert, Charlie Bagnato and Larry Kraemer voted against the recommendation, citing that they wanted more time to review the tenders submitted and understand why the local service providers were not approved.

Think about this for a minute, Bell gets a million large, to do what they were going to do anyway and bonus they get to stomp out their local competitors, all with the support of our elected representatives.

What are these guys, our elected representatives, smoking??

I am advised by a local ISP, that they submitted a 650 page tender complete with engineering and never received any questions or interviews for clarification of their submission. The IT Staff and the consultant must really know their stuff if they can go through a document of that volume and understand it all so well, that they don’t need any clarification. Wow are we ever lucky. Not!

Think about this, the consultant was hired on October 15, 2009, he went through all three tenders in 30 days and managed to eliminate all but Bell without any questions. Isn’t this amazing! I wonder if he can walk on water every couple of thousand years.

It should be noted, that one of the Proponents, was made up of four local companies, that made a joint submission. These are the same guys that deployed, using their own money over the last ten years, in an area that the big boys had no interest in, even though they accepted a government handout to the tune of $9,000,000 some 9 years ago to do exactly what they are doing now.

I reviewed the Bruce County Communications Corp. submission and had more questions than carter has pills after reading the first 20 pages. Yet the consultant and the IT Department had no questions at all.

On December 3, 2009, Council voted to enter into an agreement with Bell on a go forward plan, over the objections of Gwen Gilbert, Charlie Bagnato and Larry Kraemer. The vote was carried 4 to 3 in favour.

Gwen Gilbert, brought forward a motion to delay for 30 days so that Council could review the tenders and understand why the locals were not acceptable. This was seconded by Charlie Bagnato. This motion was defeated by recorded vote of 4 to 3.  But ,  not before, the CAO cautioned Council, that they could be sued if they supported the motion to review the committee report.  (This guy must be the keeper of what ever they were smoking). Lets think about that for a minute, Council could be sued for delaying a decision for 30 days because they wanted to review a committee recommendation, before they handed out $1,000,000.00 tax dollars to a billion dollar company. Get serious!

They should to be ashamed of themselves. I would be surprised if most of those that voted for this travesty, can spell internet let alone understand the submissions made.

It is a sorry day in Bruce County, when our Coucil of elected representatives, vote in favour of putting the local business out of business by giving tax dollars to a Publicly traded company.

They should be giving a medal to the the little guys that provided  internet to the area ,with their own money time and energy, not slapping them in the face as a reward for their efforts.

Thank God there is an election coming and these clowns can face the music.

Remember, come election day, Bill Goetz, Mike Smith, Milt McIver, Ron Oswald and Mich Twolan support the ideals of corporate welfare and using your money to destroy local business. God Bless these fools, cause I am sure nobody else will!


Council actions ‘a shock to me’

This posting is a copy of Coucilor Art Kings letter to the editor of the Owen Sound Sun Times published December 22, 2009.

It tells a story which outlines the reality of the the situation in Wiarton, as well as giving us a some insight as to where the real problem is with the Council of South Bruce Penensula.


This is an open letter to the ratepayers of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula:

As some of you may have noticed during the three years I have been a councilor in the town I have to this point not written a letter to the editor, however, a recent page of letters to the editor in The Sun Times from Councilor Kerr and Councilor Wunderlich should not go unchallenged.

As we are all aware there are two sides to every argument and/or situation, and I will try to place before you a true version of what is actually taking place.

I am one of the members of South Bruce Peninsula council who returned to Wiarton from the Good Roads Convention that stormy wind blown night that Councilor Wunderlich speaks of. There was no attempt to hide the fact that we believed we needed to return to the town and vote on the motion regarding the $84,000,000 plus water line from Wiarton to Sauble Beach.

There is no question that this motion could and would determine not only the future of the area but would place a debenture on this town that would restrict it’s ability to debenture or raise funds for many years to come.

Mayor Gwen Gilbert and myself returned from Toronto, on our own time and our own mileage and after the council meeting returned back to Toronto before the meetings there the next day. Councilor Wunderlich suggests that council adjourned the meeting, the fact is that councilor. Harron wrote a note on a piece of paper which I observed her pass to Councilor Kerr,  who also added something to the note. Councilor Kerr then walked around the table showing the note to selected council members and then left it with Councilor Lamont, who was seated beside me.

I leaned back and read the note and it said, “we will leave at intermission”, then in someone else’s handwriting it said, “they will not have a quorum” Councilor Lamont kept the note. At the break in council, Councilor Harron, followed by Councilor Kerr, Councilor Hoath and Councilor Lamont stood up, gathered their council notes and left the meeting. Not one of them spoke with the exception of Councilor Lamont, who said, “your Worship, I have to leave for Hamilton now”. As I previously mentioned it was a snowy, stormy night and in fact Councilor Lamont then left and drove over the north hill of Wiarton, in the direction of Red Bay and the opposite direction to Hamilton.

It is interesting that Councilor Wunderlich should mention this happening because that in my opinion was the turning point in council’s relationship with  Mayor Gwen Gilbert.

Shortly after this is when some “good old boys” insisted that the mayor’s election expenses be audited. Council voted in favor of this thereby costing the rate payers thousands of dollars for an audit which showed that she was completely cleared and all expenses charged by Mayor Gwen Gilbert  were legal.

When this council first met we all agreed that this would be a, “transparent and open council” however, it soon became apparent this was not to be so, and it is a shock to me to find that this council spends more time in “closed session” than in sessions that are open to the public. It is also of interest that the Municipal Act clearly states, when members of council meet together, and form a quorum or more by doing so, they must have a clerk or a person appointed by the clerk to keep minutes.

Many of our ratepayers will no doubt have noticed that on an ongoing basis after a council meeting a quorum or more of this council hold “secret meetings” in the far corner of the local coffee shop and as they all come from different walks of life it is hard to convince the ratepayers that they are not discussing and/or planning council business.

Councilor Wunderlich mentioned in his letter to the editor of the loss of many of our department heads and I agree with him that it is a sad state of affairs. Let us examine the firing of the most recent CAO, as an example. We started out with a committee composed of Mayor Gwen Gilbert, Councilor Lamont, and Councilor Hall. Now because the CAO’s contract was up for renewal and there were certain items in that contract that a previous council had agreed to we were attempting to negotiate a contract that would be more acceptable to the town. We were of the understanding that headway had been made in this regard when suddenly at a “closed session” which the mayor was unable to attend, Councilor Lamont brought forward a motion that Mayor Gwen Gilbert be removed from this committee. The only discussion that was held was when I pointed out we would be in violation of our own Procedural Bylaw if they did this, as the mayor is, because of the bylaw, automatically a member of every committee of council. A vote was called for and I requested a recorded vote, and as you may guess the results were, 7 to 1.

They then moved on to instruct their new committee that along with the clerk they meet with our solicitor and have a letter drawn up firing the CAO. Unbelievable as it sounds they could not find a reason that justified this firing so they advised him in writing that he was fired, “without cause”.

Although I cannot divulge the actual sum paid to our previous CAO, I believe I can tell you it is somewhere in the neighborhood of five times what our average ratepayer would earn on an annual basis.

As I mentioned previously the clerk was present during this “closed session”, and offered no warning or indication to the council they were in violation of their own Procedural Bylaw. The clerk then attended with the committee of two at the solicitors office where they instructed the solicitor to write up a letter of dismissal to the CAO. A short time later council in their wisdom appointed this same clerk to be the acting CAO. At a “closed session”, these same councilors agreed to pay thousands of dollars per month on top of the clerks regular salary for the position of acting CAO. They have also agreed to form a committee to negotiate with the clerk/acting CAO regarding the staggering hours of overtime that are apparently owed to the Acting CAO.

These same councilors also in their wisdom and on the advice of the acting CAO approved the paying of thousands of ratepayers’ dollars in bonuses to members of the staff as selected and approved by the acting CAO. Now I am not suggesting that these members of staff should not be recognized for their dedication and hard work, however, there are many other ways to recognize this, i. e. a special performance review on their personal file, a luncheon with the mayor and acting CAO, and/or a recognition of their commitment at an open council meeting. And as I know these staff members I truly believe, they did not request this bonus and would have been pleased with any of the recognition I have suggested.

It is also of great interest to me that during all this turmoil no outside staff have been recognized for their contributions even though last winter on the weekend that the Colpoy’s Cemetery collapsed and our outside workers spent that whole week end attempting to save the resting places of our loved ones and worked waist deep in water, keeping our roads open and running pumps to stop the water from entering ratepayers residences, there was absolutely no recognition for the “over and above”, contributions that they made. On the contrary Councilor Kerr, on several occasions, has with the help of other councilors cooked a delicious lunch for the inside staff, which they are unable to refuse even if they wanted to and even if it takes away from the valuable time they would be spending on ratepayers business. Councilor Kerr has now decided along with other councilors to come into the Town Hall and serve a delicious breakfast on the ratepayers time clock. The town hall is taking on somewhat the appearance of a New Orleans Holiday, with the council leading the parade. Since the council in their wisdom has removed Mayor Gwen Gilbert from her office while taking her computer and BlackBerry I now find this has opened the door for councilors — as many as two or three — to wander the halls popping in and out of staff offices and having friendly chats and visits. I would have thought they would have restrained themselves as this only proves to me why Mayor Gwen Gilbert had an office there.

In their letters to the editor both Councilor Kerr and Councilor  Wunderlich stressed the importance of democracy and I truly believe neither Mayor Gwen Gilbert nor myself need lessons on democracy in Canada.

Many of my relatives fought in both World Wars defending democracy in this country that we love. Some of them died on the battlefield, some of them returned home only to die later of their injuries and still others came home to a shattered life that only war can bring.

Many years ago as a police officer I swore an oath to, if necessary, give my life to protect the people and the laws of Canada and therefore Mr. Kerr I do not need a lesson from you either on the price of democracy or democracy in Canada.

Several ratepayers have complained to me about mob rule on the part of the seven councilors who appear to vote in block. I defend their right and their freedom of choice to vote together if they wish, I also defend Mayor Gwen  Gilbert and my right to vote in what we believe to be the best interest of the ratepayers. Although we are continually defeated on important issues I believe that recorded votes produced at election time will allow the electorate an opportunity to make an informed decision at the polls.

Both Councilor Kerr and Councilor  Wunderlich speak of bullying tactics on the part of Mayor Gwen Gilbert.

I am of the opinion that it is hard for two people to bully seven adults.

But let us talk for a moment of bullying and who might be bullying.

So far in an effort to make her vote with the pack, council has forced an audit on Mayor Gwen Gilbert’s election expenses, taken away her office privilege at the town hall, taken away her computer rights, taken away her telephone at the town hall, taken it upon themselves to open and sensor all of her incoming mail and last but not least taken away her BlackBerry. I think the lowest trick of all was to not remove her message from her now surrendered BlackBerry, the message now reads, “You have reached Mayor Gwen Gilbert, please leave a message”, I do not know who is receiving and/or recording these messages from ratepayers but I can assure you it is not Mayor Gwen Gilbert. Therefore if you wish to reach Mayor Gwen Gilbert please do not use her previous Blackberry number.

When you look at the above list of items you may well wonder that if Mayor Gwen Gilbert is the bully on council, she is not making a very good job of it.

Councilor Kerr speaks of the fact that Mayor Gwen Gilbert found it necessary to retain a solicitor to protect her rights and there is no disagreement regarding the fact she pays for this solicitor out of her own personal funds.

It is of interest to me that the councilors have retained a solicitor to protect their personal rights however, this solicitor is being paid for by us ratepayers.

I can speak personally about bullying because at open council I have been called, “a shit head, an asshole and been told if I was any kind of a man I would step outside and settle our differences”. These comments have been made by the female portion of our council, however Councilor Lamont recently said to me at a council meeting, “I am in charge here, I will do as I please, just watch me”.

So perhaps you will understand that I feel also a complete failure as a bully.

In closing I felt it was my duty as a councilor and ratepayer to present what I believe to be a true picture of some of what is taking place.

Further to this I also feel it is my duty to warn you of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money that is being spent by this council behind “closed doors” and will no doubt be reflected in your 2010 tax bills.

I am not proud of what this council has reduced itself to and as a councilor I feel I must share some of the shame and blame, but you have my commitment to continue to serve the ratepayers of The Town of South Bruce Peninsula, to the best of my ability, until the next election, in October of 2010, that is when the electorate of the town will have their opportunity to speak, loud and clear at the polls.

Art King

Councilor South Bruce Peninsula

 Outstanding Art! Keep up  the great work!


The Town of South Bruce Peninsula – Mayor Gwen Gilbert

 “Rats are the first to abandon ship in a crisis!”

I have watched attentively, over the last three years, the deterioration the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Council. I am amazed by the incompetence, disrespect and outright ignorance of members of Council and certain members of staff.

The  infighting insubordination and pompous attitudes of some members, displays their total lack of respect for the taxpayers and democracy as a whole.

 A classic example of such is the letter of Mr. Wunderlich published in the Owen Sound Sun Times December 12, 2009.

 Although he writes, “ that I must make clear before I do so that this is my opinion only and does not reflect the opinions of other members of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula council,” but yet signs his letter as Councilor.

 Mayor Gwen Gilbert was elected at-large, therefore represents the interest of the community as a whole. The council is elected by ward, the very nature of which inspires thoughts of representation of specific interests.

 The Municipal Act states:

 Role of council

 224.  It is the role of council,

 (a) to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality;

 (b) to develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality;

 (c) to determine which services the municipality provides;

 (d) to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council;

 (d.1) to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality;

 (e) to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality; and

 (f) to carry out the duties of council under this or any other Act. 2001, c. 25, s. 224; 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 99.

 The indiscriminate dissemination of half truths via the media, in the opinion of the writer, certainly contravenes the very foundation of the definition above. 

 If Mr. Wunderlich were doing his job, as he so proudly declares, his self serving comments with respect to the Mayor Gwen Gilbert would not be that of criticism, which promotes discontent in itself, but that strives to show a united front, as apposed to that of  dyslectic ignorance.

 I believe that Mr. Wunderlich’s examples clearly verify  there are three sides to every story.

 His side,  the other side and the truth. I don’t want to use the words  “a pack of lies,” but that is the phrase that comes to mind when reading his drivel.

 His very bias, opinionated and self-serving narrative, indicates his lack of vision and his dedication to an ‘old boys club,’ which has held this community back for years.

 Mayor Gwen Gilbert has acted as a leader and Chief Executive Officer should in her quest, in every sense of the word, and has been hindered in her efforts by certain members of Council and staff.

 The Municipal Act states:

 Head of council as chief executive officer

 226.1  As chief executive officer of a municipality, the head of council shall,

 (a) uphold and promote the purposes of the municipality;

 (b) promote public involvement in the municipality’s activities;

 (c) act as the representative of the municipality both within and outside the municipality, and promote the municipality locally, nationally and internationally; and

 (d) participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 101.

 The actions of Councilors Hall, Wunderlich, Lamont and Kerr along with certain staff members (a certain acting CAO comes to mind) over the last year, have hindered, embarrassed and generally destroyed the sense of community and team effort. I think it would be prudent for those said individuals to review the following:

   The Municipal Act states:

 426.  (1)  No person shall hinder or obstruct, or attempt to hinder or obstruct, any person who is exercising a power or performing a duty under this Act or under a by-law passed under this Act. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.


 (4)  Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (3) is guilty of an offence. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.

 Frankly, Mr. Wunderlich, in his capacity as Councilor, through his letter,  has certainly given us a clear perspective as to his dedication to democracy and the rules associated thereto.

Hello world!

This blog is for the benefit of the beautiful Bruce Peninsula, Gods Country!

My name is Bruce and I live just spittin distance from Hoggs Corner, one section over from the big tree at Cider Hill on the edge of Kepple bordering on Wiarton.

This makes me by some estimates a hick from the sticks!

 I am semi retired wishin I was younger, albeit am pretty content as I am, cause I ain’t got no say anyway.

I can tell you that my life to date has bee a little magic, a little tragic but generally a great ride.

The great thing about aging on the Bruce is that you can do or say pretty much anything and folks generally just say you’re getting senile and look the other way . Godda love that about folks up here.

So I decided to use this blog’n thing to expand my sphere of influence and point out to the world what an old man in the middle of no  where does to entertain himself. Hopefully someone will read it and smile understanding my rambling.