Craig’s Commentary

Volume 1 Number 17 

 Mayor calls blog a “plague” and a “blight”; convicts bloggers of criminal actions, destruction of community.  Is there any truth to it?

 When the trigger finger’s faster than the hand on the gun,

The toes go missing one by one.

(unknown poet)

 On May 24th, TSBP Mayr John Close issued a press release labeling as “criminal” all those who had criticized TSBP staff on a popular blog.  The blog, which he called a plague and a blight on society, was not named.  But from the context it is clear that the site mentioned is

 The “criminal” label was carried in an Owen Sound Sun Times Article, and in an Owen Sound Radio News interview.

 No blog contributors were named, but since I have had material posted on the blog that criticizes the actions of CAO Rhonda Cook and other staff, it is clear to me that I am one (of many) who have been accused, tried, and convicted of a criminal offense by Mr. Close, all completely outside of the judicial system.

 The fact that no one will recognize the conviction as legitimate is not relevant.  Mr. Close has put the weight of his office and the weight of council into his libelous lies, and with this offence he has shown his complete lack of integrity and complete lack of understanding of his responsibilities and limitations as mayor.

 In the press release and interviews there is barely a word of truth.  Some of the misrepresentations are as follows:

 Mr. Close says Bill 168 is law.  Actually it is not.  A bill is a motion put forward for consideration and discussion.  All bills are numbered.  The numbering restarts in every new session of the Ontario legislature.  So there have been many bill 168’s.  When a bill (motion) is passed into law it becomes and statute, or Act, at which point it is given a new statute number and is no longer a bill.  The law being incorrectly referred to as bill 198 is the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace), 2009, which became the workplace harassment provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA).

 Mr. Close says OHSA prohibits workplace harassment.  Actually it does not.  The OHSA requires that employers have systems to prevent and deal with workplace harassment, but it does not govern harassment.  Other instruments do prohibit harassment.   The criminal code covers criminal harassment (stalking), and the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) gives employees the right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.   But neither OHSA nor the criminal harassment provisions of the criminal code nor the workplace harassment provisions of the OHRC apply to comments on “the blog”.  So threats of “gonna get them for bill 168 violations” is nothing but ridiculous bluster.

 Mr. Close says Contravention of OHSA is a criminal offense.  Nonsense.  Contravention of a provision of OHSA is a provincial offense, with conviction potentially resulting in fines, and even jail terms.  But there is no section of OHSA for which contravention constitutes a criminal offense.  None.

 Mr. Close says harassment of staff by the public is a bill 198 offense.  Nope.  The workplace harassment provisions of OHSA do not put any prohibitions on the public whatsoever.

 Mr. Close acts as if a mayor can identify and convict criminals.   We have a constitution including a charter of freedoms and rights, which gives anyone who is formally accused of a crime the right to face their accusers and to defend themselves before a competent tribunal.  There may have been a time and place where a small town mayor was also the decider of guilt and the adjudicator of justice, but that would have been over 500 years ago and was in a different country.  The mayor of TSBP is delusional if he really believes that in 2011 he has the guilt-deciding and justice-dispensing roles and powers of a tribunal. His delusions of omnipotence are sad.

 Mr. Close vows to take action against the criminals before they escalate into more serious acts of violence.  John, Rhonda, please help me for I am addicted to criticizing. And if someone doesn’t help me stop criticizing you, I am very much afraid that I may no longer be satisfied with merely criticizing, and I will “escalate” to more serious violent acts… ….maybe throwing paper airplanes at you, or please give me the strength to resist, shooting spitballs in a council meeting.  Who knows, I might even escalate to the ultimate act of violence, silently wishing you an evening with the Martian.  So never mind the cost, these acts of violence must be prevented.  Rhonda must call the police immediately, make (false) allegations of violent behavior, and have me carted off to jail, with all internet privileges forfeited!

Mr. Close says the blog is “a very bad blight on our community“, the blog is “there to destroy our community”, “The town has been plagued by a blog site”.  All nonsense.  The town is the inhabitants, organized as a corporation to provide municipal services. Blog contributors have criticized the actions of the mayor, the CAO, and other bloggers/ contributors, but no one has “plagued” the inhabitants.  The descriptors “bad blight”, “plagued”, and “destroy community” may be John’s view, but they are certainly not the view of the inhabitants.  Many read the blog because it informs them of shenanigans like the Mayor calling those who disagree with him or with Rhonda “criminals”.  For the inhabitants who read the blog, this information is useful, not destructive/blight/plague.   (As an aside, I think the most criticized person on the blog may actually be not Rhonda, but rather me.  Many of the criticisms directed at me are valid.  I learn from them and appreciate them.  But even with the unfair, invalid criticisms, I could never say I’ve been “plagued” by the blog.  And if I felt that I had been defamed, I might consider a civil suit, but I would never cry “criminal harassment” or “violation of bill 168”).

 Mr. Close says the OPP and Ministry of labour are investigating the case under bill 168.  Nonsense. Ministry of Labour inspectors will investigate a complaint of a violation of OHSA, but there has been no valid complaint to investigate.   And it would be very unusual for police to investigate an OHSA complaint.  (I will check with OPP whether they are investigating anything under bill 168.)

 Close says “As of July 2010, Ontario Bill 168 makes it a criminal offence to harass or use violent and abusive language in a place of work.  This is an outright lie.  I challenge John Close to name the section of the OHSA that makes harassment or abusive language or anything else a criminal offense.

 Mr. Close says that “Persons, qualified in this area of abuse, have stated that this harassment is not about facts and figures or issues; it’s all about power by degrading and humiliating individuals”.  Rubbish.  If some experts really looked at the blog posts and declared that the posts were all about power and not about facts and figures or issues, then John Close should be able to produce the names of those “qualified persons”, and also their written assessments.  Anyone who has read my posts can see that they are indeed about facts, figures, and issues, even the ones critical of actions of Rhonda Cook.  Anyone who knows me knows that none of my posts are about power.  As far as I can see, any criticism posted on the blog is all about informing the public, in the pursuit of good governance, and in the hope of making things a little better.  Democracy is, after all, about participation.

 In his declaration of office, John Closed promised to “truly, faithfully and impartially exercise this office to the best of my knowledge and ability”.

 The press release is in my view an exercise in extreme deceit, hardly a true and faithful exercise of the office of mayor.  If John Close wrote the press release, then he should be ashamed of himself for trying to deceive the public.   Calling constituents “criminal” without grounds is unacceptable for anyone, but for a mayor it is also a breach of all of “truly, faithfully and impartially “and as such is an egregious abuse of  the power of his office.  If the extreme deceit and abuse of power are the “best of my knowledge and ability”, then John Close is not fit for office and should resign.  If Rhonda Cook wrote the press release she should be ashamed of herself, and should resign.   Also, if Rhonda Cook wrote the press release, John Close should be ashamed of himself for not questioning its veracity, and should resign.

 I cannot believe that anyone could actually get it so very, very wrong.  I believe it was a malicious act, and a deliberate attempt to scam the public.

 It appears to me that they must think the people of the town are stupid enough to buy it. 

 Please let them know just how big a mistake they have made.

 Write directly to John Close at:

 Or log in to “the blog” at and leave your comments.

 My advice to bloggers is this:  Focus on facts and arguments, not on the person.  Do not be cowed by the press release – John Close has no case.  And keep on posting – our successful democracy depends on your participation.



“The Worst Kept Secret!”

For the benefit of Mr. Close:


 /ˈsikrɪt/ Show Spelled[see-krit] Show IPA



done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others: secret negotiations.

kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged: a secret password.

faithful or cautious in keeping confidential matters confidential; close-mouthed; reticent.



designed or working to escape notice, knowledge, or observation: a secret drawer; the secret police.

secluded, sheltered, or withdrawn: a secret hiding place.

beyond ordinary human understanding; esoteric.

(of information, a document, etc.)


bearing the classification secret.

limited to persons authorized to use information documents, etc., so classified.


something that is or is kept secret, hidden, or concealed.

a mystery: the secrets of nature.

a reason or explanation not immediately or generally apparent.

a method, formula, plan, etc., known only to the initiated or the few: the secret of happiness; a trade secret.

a classification assigned to information, a document, etc., considered less vital to security than top-secret but more vital than confidential, and limiting its use to persons who have been cleared, as by various government agencies, as trustworthy to handle such material. Compare classification ( def. 5 ) .

( initial capital letter ) Liturgy . a variable prayer in the Roman and other Latin liturgies, said inaudibly by the celebrant after the offertory and immediately before the preface.
It is fact that there is no secret about Bruce on the Bruce! All relevent facts relating to this blog were made public on the post of February 2, 2011 The Truth Will Set You Free.
So you see Mr. Close there is no secret let alone “the worst kept secret.”
Being you are the master of keeping secrets, the fact that all facts relating to this blog were made public, I would suggest you don’t know what a secret is any more so I hope this helps you!
I have reviewed Bill 168 and believe that you are wasting tax dollars and time pursuing this matter. It would not  be a stretch to say the least,  that any further action down this road would be like “pissing in the wind!”.  Further, your comments made publicly show your ignorance of the facts,  the law and amplifies the breach of your fiduciary responsibilities as Mayor in protecting the interest of the community and its resources.
Leaders lead , they don’t point fingers and waste tax dollars chasing issues that are not issues to anyone other than self serving opportunists pretending to do a job they are incapable of handling.
Your job is to lead the community Mr. Mayor, not to be conducting witch hunts with tax dollars diverting the publics attention from the real business at hand and attempting suppress the rights of people granted under the Charter.

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.

 I don’t see witch hunting anywhere in this definition!
With respect to your rant to the press about this blog, it seems to me that you are the only one committing slander and harassing people with verbal diarrhea instead of doing the job you were elected to do.
It is  clearly evident to me and many of my readers, that you seem intent on attacking anyone that does not agree with you or your ideals.
If indeed there has been a breach of law here, I suggest you look in a mirror to see the source of the breech!
For the record Bill 168 has no criminal ramifications attached to it. What it does say is that you have an obligation to develop a policy to address harrassment in the work place.
The “Blight” of this community appears to be in the leadership and the dictator methods of  certain people in positions of power in this community. Try to focus on your job Mr. Mayor! Your attempts to subdue public opinion with veiled finger pointing only indicates your inability to control your staff and the direction of this community.
Congratulations Mr. Mayor in my opinion, you have managed to do nothing since you were elected except to prove your inabilities and that certain members of staff are really in charge!
I award you this years “Big Bruce Moon” the first one to a Mayor of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula!
Bruce “the Blight”

Blogger Investigation

Blogger Investigation

There is audio for this story.
MP3 - click to open click to open MP3 version 
or click the play button to listen now.

South Bruce
by Manny Paiva    
“It’s the worst kept secret.”

South Bruce Peninsula Mayor John Close says they know who is behind an online blog harassing municipal employees, but now it’s a matter of proving it.

Close says the OPP and the Ministry of Labour are investigating the case under Bill-168.

The bill makes it a criminal offence to harass people in the workplace — and Close says that includes both staff against staff, and the public against staff.

He says they are mandated to follow this investigation through to its conclusion.

Close calls the blog a “blight” on the community because it’s not dealing with issues, money, or facts.

He says it’s simply about degrading other people and it is destroying the community.

Close says they’re also calling on the community to bring forward any information, and to help put a stop to these type of actions.

He’s hoping the police investigation moves ahead quickly, but adds he understands that police services are stretched right now.

Source: Copyright 2010 Blogger Investigation

And What exactly is there to investigate?????

It seems our Mayor, has in the opinion of this writer, the spine of a jelly fish! The staff, more particularly, one individual who in the opinion of this writer, believes she is driving the bus! 

The very fact that  a member of staff can force the Council to address a blog in such a manner, is proof that member of staff is in fact in charge.

It seems that Mayor Close is slandering this blog saying it is trying to “destroy the community and degrade other human beings! ”      Who is slandering who???  To make a statement like that is definitely slanderous and a deformation of the character of this medium.

I am offended! This statement paints every reader and poster on this site with the same brush!

I think it only right that we all send an email to Mr. Close and tell him  we think of him calling all of us destroyers of this community!






I had the displeasure of dealing with the Family Responsibility Office on behalf of a client this past year.

Now please understand that I do in fact believe that people are responsible for their offspring, financially and morally. However, in Ontario the appointment of arbitrary bullies that intimidate, harasses and over steps all boundaries of ethical professionalism goes against all things right and just.

Now there are some women that are abused and there are some fathers that are low life deadbeats, but the system has become so driven on making every male responsible for the few is overwhelming.

It is a fact that the majority of men when faced with separation from their wife , their children and their home, go a little nuts for a while and may womanizer and drink to overcome their grief. I am not saying that this is right, I am just saying that it happens.

The fact is that all a women needs to do is call the cops with an allegation and all hell breaks loose and he is toted off to jail and his world heads south really fast from there.

In the case of my client, he vented his frustration by smashing a coffee table, after his wife in a rage, threw a pot of soup at him. It seems he went for some beers with his buddies after work earlier that night. She then yelling and screaming scratched the hell out of his face and arms with her fingernails. She called the cops he was charged with mischief and taken to the OPP Station booked and put in a cell for the night. He was released the next day after spending the night in the hooscow with no food or even a blanket. She was taken to the women’s shelter fed and watered.

The following morning he was released without even a coffee nor a ride to town from the OPP station in Wiarton. You may say he should not of broken the coffee table and I say better the coffee table than her!

This woman has had a history of violence and the relationship was a disaster from the get go however that was never taken into consideration. He was guilty of being male!

The following day his employment was terminated as the company didn’t want any association with a woman abuser.

Since then his drivers licence was suspended for failure to pay child support and his passport revoked. Now I may be a little stupid but how can a guy who is unemployed because he is a woman abuser pay support of $900.00 per month when welfare pays him $525.00 monthly. She gets $1,400.00 monthly for her and their two children from social assistance.

She gets subsidised housing, he lives in a boarding house. He is going to jail for contempt because he failed to pay his support. She went to Florida for Christmas with her new boy friend. He got the kids for a week while she was away.

The monkeys at FRO enforce orders issued by the Court at the request of over paid lawyers to destroy the man without due process. I think it is appalling!

Ain’t life grand!!!



Who’s Who in The Zoo????

  I keeps gittin emails from folks wantin ta know who be apostin on dis har blog. The reality is I don’t know who is who!

Contrair ta wat folks think. I don’t rightly know whose a postin what from where. The best I can do is the IP Address of the ISP that the poster is usin.

Hell the town and dere lawyers, don’t seem ta be havin much luck in gittin ta Old Bruce here. I even gave dem my real address.

The fact of the matter is that as far as I am concerned the Martian is a short fat bald guy with bulgin eyes an a ray gun on his hip! Who he is ain’t none of my business. I do know dat he has a sense of humor more than what I can say for sum! Not to mention any names of the  female  “Man with a bow! ” 🙂

Taint no one can trace who a poster really is without some really slick gear none of which I own!

So some folks can huff and puff but there ain’t no way in hell any normal person can trace who posts what on this blog.If they say they have proof of who someone is then they’s “blowin smoke” out the business end of a horse!

This here blog provides semi true stories, believe it or not, some of it made up and some I forgot. The truth of the story is held by he who reads, the way he see it is not up to me!

To the grave I will go with the identities found here, they will never know of this,  there is no fear!

So post what you want

I ain’t gonna tell

If you are offended

Then  just go to…



Craig’s Commentary

Volume 1 Number 15

May 18, 2011

Citizen’s “Defamatory” Letter Blocked – Just What Are The TSBP Clerk, Mayor, And CAO Trying To Conceal?

 On February 2nd, 2011 I sent a letter to council of TSBP and to the clerk with my comments regarding the “Sauble Beach Growth Study” report that was generated for the town in June 2010 by Cuesta Consultants, and regarding the July public meeting on the same report.  I also requested that my letter be placed on schedule “B” of the February 8 Council agenda package.

 My concerns were:

  1. The study was inappropriately switched from a core area study to a Sauble-wide study,
  2. The recommended growth plan was for developers and tourism operators, with no concern for residents,
  3. Public comments were rudely dismissed.

 I wrote the February 2nd letter because I thought the residents of Sauble would be interested to know that Cuesta Consultants, contrary to the agreement between the town and Cuesta,  had switched from a growth study for only the Sauble Core area to a growth study for all of Sauble.   I also thought it was of interest that the Cuesta report ignored the wishes of residents and instead, Cuesta was pushing Sauble-wide communal sewers and big-city style development for all of Sauble.  I also thought residents who were not present at the July 2010 public meeting, where the report was presented, might be interested to know how comments from the public were rudely dismissed.   I thought residents might be intrigued by the fact that Genivar and the Grey-Bruce Health unit had inappropriately switched from a narrow core-area focus to a sauble-wide, pro-development, pro-sewers focus at the same time as Cuesta did. I find this hard to accept as coincidental.

 The Clerk responded to my letter dated February 2nd by e-mail saying that she, the Mayor, and the CAO concurred that my letter was “defamatory”. I was also informed that per procedural bylaw section 12.1, my letter could not be placed on schedule “B” for public scrutiny.  The implication was that my letter could not be discussed by staff or council and would not be responded to by staff or council.

 When I asked what definition of “defamatory” had been used to judge my letter and what specific passages were “defamatory” the clerk responded that she was not authorized to edit my letters.

 When I asked the same question again I got the same response.  When I asked a third time the clerk responded that “I have been directed to take your request to Council for their direction.” 

 To this day I have not received a response and there is no formal record of my letter ever being taken to council “for their direction”.

 The resistance to receiving my letter made me even more determined to get it out to the residents of Sauble, but I did not want to get sued for “defamatory libel”, so I sent my February 2nd document to my lawyer to identify and correct the “defamatory” passages.

 My lawyer pointed out some passages in my February 2nd letter that she considered a bit strident, and some that might be considered a tad annoying, but found no defamatory libelous passages.

 Even though the letter was not defamatory, and even though I believed that a defamation lawsuit would have no merit, and could not win, I decided to be cautious and remove the strident passages.  I spent several hours editing the February 2nd letter.

 About the same time I was following a thread on www.bruceonthebruce that had started with my letter to the editor of the Owen Sound Sun Times, in which I had indicated that threats against a blogger for defamation (the town incorrectly called it slander) was bullying.

 This put me in a bit of dilemma.  I was railing against unwarranted bullying of an anonymous blogger (by the town), and at the same time capitulating to similar bullying.

 I was never really that comfortable with capitulation, so I ripped up my sanitized version of the February 2nd “Cuesta” letter, and I have posted the original version, complete with strident passages, at:

(the letter will later move to

 So If The Letter Is Not Defamatory, Why Such An Effort To Suppress It?

 I cannot understand why my February 2nd letter needed to be suppressed.  The only possibility that I can think of is that I may have hit a nerve with this passage:

 “It is bit speculative on my part, but I believe that it is no coincidence that these three initiatives inappropriately and surreptitiously switched from core-area-only study, conclusions, and recommendations to Sauble-wide study, conclusions, and recommendations.  It is clear to me that there is an agenda out there that includes Sauble-wide sewers and city-style development, and that the three organizations, Cuesta, Genivar, and the Grey Bruce Health Unit, are all coordinated and lined up in support of this big sewers/development agenda, and in suppressing the facts, and in misinforming council and the public.

 To be clear, the paragraph above is my belief.  I have no concrete evidence of a conspiracy.  When I say “it is clear to me…” I am presenting my view, and I am not suggesting that I have proven facts.

 But I can say with certainty that the Clerk, CAO, and Mayor deeming my letter “defamatory”,  and the attempt to block the letter makes me even more convinced that there is a hidden big-sewers, big-development plan for Sauble.  And I am even more convinced that the agenda is being hidden because it is so resident-unfriendly.

 Residents are advised to continue to be vigilant, and to be very wary.

Craig Gammie

Noah Build me an Arc!!


Think of it as liquid revenue!!

Now I know how we all love to see how well our municipal employees work and take care of things for us. There are so many things to take care of and so little time.
They do such a great job! Remember they are over worked and under paid! We must not forget that there are so many things to deal with what with the park and all! Hell so what if there is a leaky tap or two!!
I have to wonder if the cemetary is on a water meter like the rest of us???
The  real question is if the tap leaks will the lake drain!! If  the tap is leaking in the cemetary does anybody hear it????
Perhaps the town workers can “Close” the tap!!! Maybe if they water the cemetary enough they can grow some new tax payers!!!

Fluid Services!


 Your tax  dollars at work!!!!