Mayor John (Cod Liver) Close Responds to Questions!


 

 Thank you Mayor Close!
Better late than Never!
Out of all the answers received to date, this is by far more better! Direct and positive albeit not as far as I would like!

John Close

12:30 PM (45 minutes ago)

to me
Good Questions Bruce!
 
As mayor for the past four years I have fallen into the habit of letting others reply before I speak. I apologize if my reply is late.
1)Are you prepared to sign and honour the Oath of office and the Oath of Allegiance
 Yes to the Oath. I believe that this is required to show the public that I am accountable.
2)Is it your position that Provincial Regulations pertaining to property use are binding on Private Property?
The courts are upholding the Building Code, Planning Act and other provincial legislation. Until the courts rule otherwise provincial regulations are enforceable.
3)Is it your position that Municipal By-Laws are enforceable on private Property?
There are two types of by-laws that may come into play on this question. First there are general by-laws that are enacted for the general health and safety of a community. These by-laws shall only be enforceable if they relate to a Federal Act and/or a Provincial Act. Other by-laws would apply to public space only. A municipality can ban smoking from a park but they cannot ban you from smoking in or on your property.
4)What is your economic Recovery Plan for this Community?
My economic recovery plan is lengthy but not complicated. If we had a manufacture in our town that employed a hundred people we would never treat them the way we treat our small business, tourism, quarries and agricultural business. Land use planning has a place to allow all people to develop a business or live without the fear of a dynamite plant opening next to your home. Having said that our municipality needs to know what we have and actively search for those types of business that we are missing.
In order to grow into the future we need ultra-high speed fiber optic internet. We have no idea as to the jobs our youth will create in the future but it will be based on high speed connections, the likes we have not yet seen. We need the infrastructure, such as high speed internet, to open up our doors for business to incubate the jobs of the future.
Yes there are other items to install and correct but the driver for our economy shall be the internet, and the first community in will see the fastest growth.
5)Has any compensation been paid to anyone including the TSBP for the expropriation of Highway #6 in 1965?
Compensation for Highway 6? Only when they widened the Hwy. north of Wiarton in the late 50s or early 60s.
6) How do you intend to reunite the Communities within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula?
Unity
Unity is a major issue in our community, an issue that will take years to deal with. We have tax payers in our smaller neighbourhoods that feel left out, that see no improvements. This is one area for a public committee to be established to search for the core problem and find some solutions. 
Amalgamation came with no instructions and many communities continue to struggle with community unity. We need to define who we are and build pride from the ground up.   
The best so far!
Would that be with Property Rights and a positive stance against Provincial intervention? HMMMMM!
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Bruce
Advertisements

Time to Review and Score The Answers Provided By Candidates TWSBP! Part 1


Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

 

Now remember I am not a lawyer! I am just a schmuck from the Bruce Peninsula that wonders, so this article is merely my opinion! I have just witnessed 8 years of wasted time and effort and the erosion of our rights as a people.

I find it amusing that the people that are running for election in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, with the exception of the few, are all hot to trot to get your vote, but not interested in answering any questions.

Now, I may be an opinionated, old redneck, only interested in myself, as some have said, but I have to think, that if I were running for office, I would take advantage of every opportunity to get my message out!

Apparently it is a good thing I am not running as I would be wrong according to the responses, to the questions I posted.

Let us discuss and review the questions asked and answers given to question 1 and 2:

1. Are you prepared to sign and honour the Oath of office and the Oath of Allegiance?

It is mandatory for someone elected to sign the oath of office, which in turn provides an allegiance to Her Majesty. If in fact you swear the oath and allegiance, your are stating you will uphold the honour of the Crown ahead of all else, amongst other things.

I note that every single Candidate that answered the questions said yes to question 1,  with the exception of Craig Gammie! Mr. Gammie said it was “a silly question” implying that it was not worth answering! HMMMM!

Our laws are based on British Common Law, whose foundation is that of the Magna Carta.The Magna Carta was brought into being by the Land Barons, to control the Crown, who at the time, was taxing the people to the extreme, amongst other things negative to property ownership. The Crown had input on this document and it was amended many times by way of agreement between the people and the Crown.

Now this gives rise to question #2:

2. Is it your position that Provincial Regulations pertaining to property use are binding on Private Property?

The wealth and prosperity of this country was built on Property. All the natural resources are part of the land. Agriculture would not be if there was no land to farm nor would there be a forestry industry if there were not rights to the timber growing on the land. By the same token water, minerals, oil and gas etc. are all part of the land. Without Real Property we have nothing but the right to pay taxes!

Canada was built by people coming here to get land ownership. This was encouraged and promoted by the Crown, who provided Land Patents to entice  people to emigrate here. Land ownership was the motivation! Ownership provided security and opportunity. To own land meant you had a future. Most could not even dream of owning property in the old country so they came here for that chance. We have all been lead to believe that ownership was and is security.

In 1792 The Constitution Act was created to divide Canada into 2 separate Provinces, Upper and Lower Canada, which introduced English Law pertaining to “property and Civil Rights”.

“(18)  …..and to introduce English Law as the Rule of Decision in all matters of Controversy, Relative to Property and Civil Rights”

It also supported the Granted and patented private property rights, under section 9:

“(IX) Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed, to any lands that have been granted by his Majesty, or shall hereafter be granted by his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be holden in free and common socage.”

The British North American Act, 1867

The Preamble of the BNA it expresses that our constitution and our country is to have a constitution “similar in Principal to that of the United Kingdom”.

The BNA Section 12 “All Powers, Authorities and functions which under any Act of Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in…
The concept of the Union or amalgamation under one superior corporate entity is in fact expressed in the preamble of the BNA.

Since the Provinces is in reality a corporation, created by letters patent, one must look to the meaning of provincial property.

Section 109. All lands, mines, minerals and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the union and all sums then due or payable for such lands , mines minerals or Royalties, shall belong to the several Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any Trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the Province in the same.

Section 109 clearly states that the Provinces own the revenue that can be created from public/Crown lands being sold or used to create revenue from the mines and minerals that are reserved in the land patents. Private property is addressed under “subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the Province in the same.”

The Draft BNA was created at the Quebec Conference in 1864. In the draft was the instruction and the intent of section 109.

56. All lands, mines, minerals and Royalties vested in Her Majesty in the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Price Edward Island, for the use of such Provinces, shall belong to the Local Government of the Territory in which the same are situate; subject to any trusts that may exist in respect to any of such lands or to any interest other of other persons of the same.

This in fact means that the Province cannot interfere with any other persons “interest” and/or any ”trusts” not of the Province.

“The Queen in right of Ontario has no right, title or interest in and to lands described” (Ontario (Attorney General) v Roundtree Beach Assn., 1994). The Queen/Crown has removed the crown domain through letters patent, ergo there is no authority to be transferred to the Province.

Section 117 “The several provinces shall retain all their respective Public Property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject to the Right of Canada to assume any lands or Public Property required for Fortifications or for the Defense of the Country.”

In the case of A.G. v. DeKeyer’s Royal Hotel, 1920, p. 28 it is stated “ Since the Magna Carta the estate of a subject in lands or buildings has been protected against the prerogative of the Crown.”There were provisions that “private Property” could only be used or regulated with fair compensation being paid, even during times of war.”

Since Section 125 of the Act says that Federal property and Provincial property are exempt from taxation, it stands to reason that if we pay taxes on the land we must be owners of the land ergo we must be owners of private property.

The BNA Section 12 “All Powers, Authorities and functions which under any Act of Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in…

So now we have Candidates that have agreed to sign their Oaths of Office and Allegiance to the Crown, if they are elected, in doing so they have stated that they will,  in essence, Honour the will of the Crown!

The Crown, has willed in the legislation above, that Private Property is outside the Jurisdictional control of the Province. Therefore if the Candidates intends to honour their oaths then they must answer question 2 with a Definite NO, failing which they are not honouring their oath’s.

To allow the Province to impose regulations that restrict the right of utility of property owners within the Municipality, abrogates their responsibility that they pledged to uphold.

Think about it, we lost Giant Tiger, Canadian Tire (about 100 jobs) and god knows what else when the MTO would not allow  or provide a turning lane on the south end of town on Highway 6. Regardless of what the Province says Highway 6. from Alvanley to Wiarton is within the boundaries of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. The Province signed off on that in 2004 when they approved our Master Plan. The regulations being imposed by the Province is over stepping their authority and our elected representatives surrendering to the Provinces will is an example of the failure of our elected representatives to protect our interests.

All Candidates said yes to Question 2 with the exception of Turner! So in saying yes, they are in fact telling you that they have no intention of honouring their Oaths but still want you to vote for them! Oh wait, Gammie said “the question is not relevant to a Municipal election!” Hog wash!

How can you as a voter and taxpayer allow someone to represent you when they have, before being elected, lied to you, by not adhering to the oath they have agreed to swear?

If they do not understand the law in place, they have a responsibility to educate themselves with respect to the law. If they are to blatantly disregard their commitment, by giving lip service to the Oath, then they are not capable of representing you in an honest, responsible manner!

It seems that those running in this election, generally have taken the position, that if one of us would fight their battle (their job)with respect to the Province over stepping their authority and win, then they would support the victor. The fact of the matter is that it is their responsibility as an elected official, is to protect you, not the job of the taxpayer to fight their battle, which they pledged to do, in the first place. The ultimate winner is you the taxpayer as your rights as a property owner prevail. If indeed you are happy with the Province dictating what you can or cannot do on your property then why in Gods name are we paying for a Municipal Government.

The only way the Province or the Municipality can control private property is to first purchase it, then regulate it, then sell it with the restrictions registered on title, this in fact is the law. Other than that they have no rights to the property that was not owned by the Province or the Municipality at the time of the Union Act of 1851 or the British North American Act of 1867. These Statutes were and are, the will of the Crown as it was proclaimed in the passing of the legislation.

The reality of the situation is, that if you are running for office, your first responsibility is your allegiance to the Crown, then to the Taxpayers, not the will of a Provincial body interested in protecting their interests ahead of all else. If you cannot understand this you cannot fulfill your obligations sworn too and subsequently cannot in good conscience govern!

We are expected to obey to the letter of the Law, we are entitled under the Charter 15(2) to be treated equally in Law, however how is that possible if in fact the financial costs are so high that the Province can use your tax dollars to fight you in enforcing your rights given by law.

Our Municipal representatives are to protect us with our tax dollars from economic oppression and restrictive controls by the senior levels of government. If they cannot or will not do so then we have no need for Municipal Government or ownership of “Private Property” thus making the efforts of forefathers moot!

Tomorrow I will address from my perspective, the answers of Question 3 and 4 by our Candidates.

Think before you vote!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jay Kirkland Answers Questions!


Thank you Jay!

1. Are you prepared to sign and honour the Oath of office and the Oath of Allegiance?

                I am prepared to sign the oath that we are presented with at the beginning of each term on council.

2.   Is it your position that Provincial Regulations pertaining to property use are binding on Private Property?                            

     I would be more then happy to not regulate private property as soon as a judge or a legal opinion from our town lawyer tells me that the town will   

              not be sued when  a tax  paying citizen builds something and in falls down and kills somebody. If the town is not responsible for buildings other then

              their own, then we wouldn’t need a building dept. 

  3.        Is it your position that Municipal By-Laws are enforceable on private  property?      

             I do believe we need some bylaws on public owned lands but we must be willing to enforce them.   If we can’t enforce bylaws on private property then

              why have them, but once again I’m not a lawyer. I always vote to protect the town which is the citizens and 

               payers. 

 4.    What is your economic Recovery Plan for this Community? 

    I believe we have already started the economic recovery for the town ( getting rid of paid parking, open election not ward system, planning

              advisory   committee which helps give the town views to county planners, enlarging our sewage facility)

5. Has any compensation been paid to anyone including the TSBP for the expropriation of Highway #6 in 1965?

                Not sure about compensation to the town for Hwy. 6, but maybe our compensation is a better road leading to our communities.

6. How do you intend to reunite the Communities within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula?

Reunite our communities begins with open election the voters should have the right to fire me next election if I don’t do things with the whole town in

             mind. The plumbers  theory is stuff flows down hill and it starts with council thinking about the whole town. I think this council has paved the way   

            for future councils thinking about the whole   town while making decisions.         

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce