Time to Review and Score The Answers Provided By Candidates TWSBP! Part 2


 

 Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

 

To carry on from yesterday, we will deal with questions 3 though 6!

Again we have had limited response from the Candidates on the first round of questions.

The following have responded:

Candidate                                                                         Bruce Rating Scale of 1-10 10 Being Good

John (Cod Liver) Close                                                                                            5

Janice Jackson                                                                                                          2

Craig Gammie (Sort of)                                                                                         -4

Jay Kirkland                                                                                                              4

Jim Turner                                                                                                                 6

Karen Klages                                                                                                             5

Paul McKenzie                                                                                                          6

Marilyn Bowman                                                                                                      4.5

Out of 16 in the running we got answers from 8, so about 50% rose to the challenge, so they all got points for responding!  I have posted each response so you can rate them according to your thoughts.

3)  Is it your position that Municipal By-Laws are enforceable on private Property?

“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.

Each of the respondents answering have said that yes by-laws were enforceable on private property. subject to a Court decision. Interestingly enough I provided a Supreme Court Decision which they all chose to ignore in providing their answers.

The 1994 Decision (Ontario (Attorney General) v Roundtree Beach Assn., 1994). is paramount as the Justice decision listed make’s it perfectly clear that there is no authority given to the Province, the Feds or the Municipality to enforce by-laws or Provincial Regulations on Private Property, where there is a Patent involved! Subject to the terms contained in the Patent. All of the Bruce Peninsula was in fact Patented land. The land itself was owned by the Chippewa’s of Nawash, pursuant to the Royal Proclamation of 1736, the Royal Declaration of 1851 and the surrender Treaty of 1855. Further to that, the Feds and the Province and the Crown acknowledged the fact in the Union Act  (1851) and the British North American Act 1867. The Patents issued were issued for the most part by Indian Affairs on behalf of the Crown albeit, the Aboriginals never saw a dime of the monies paid, contrary to the Surrender agreement of 1855.

Now I am not advocating that the By-Laws are in all respects wrong, what I am saying is that we are required to live to the letter of the Law or pay the penalties,  however my position is that the Feds, the Province and the Municipalities as well as the Crown, should be held to the same standard. There are no shortcuts!

Having said that, it is my position that the people we elect to office, as they have or intend to swear the oath, are in fact obligated to protect our rights of ownership by challenging the Feds and the Province where they clearly overstep their legal authority. One has to remember, the purpose of our Municipal government is to act in the best interest of the community not in the best interest of the Bureaucrats that are to operate under the direction of those we elect.

Yet again the candidates have all stated that we are bound by the By-Laws on our property regardless of the historic legislation and case law provided to them.

Some have said that they are not lawyers and could not give an opinion.  Guys you are taking on a job, don’t you think you should do your homework and get the information first that makes you cognisant of the job you are applying for? It is kinda sorta like saying you are an engineer but in fact you never graduated.

Fact is some of the Candidates did hint that they would honour the law if proven by a Court. I did provide them with the Court decision, but I guess I am not a lawyer either.

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

This question was to get an idea as to whether or not they are thinking or have a plan at all. Close, Turner, McKenzie, Bowman and Kirkland indicate that they have a plan of some sort. Interesting to note they indicated that they felt we are over governed but were not specific as to the first step. Cod Liver Close did in fact indicate that high speed internet was a priority and an a major factor in his plan. Four years ago the County awarded one million dollars towards that objective and ended up disregarding the local contender and giving the money to Bell as they were going to lite up the whole area and here we are! Interesting to note that Gwen Gilbert supported the local contender on that tender as did Kramer for Kincardine but all the old boys voted against the local company and that was that!

There may be a shot this time around with Close being Warden, but I doubt it. You cannot be a profit in your own back yard!

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

(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.”)

Section 117  BNA “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.”

This is a great one! The Town is broke, so they tell us! Highway 6 runs through the main Street of Town right down to Hepworth, part of this town.

The Province Expropriated highway 6 in 1965. No one got paid a dime!

Expropriations Act

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER E.26

Compensation

13.  (1)  Where land is expropriated, the expropriating authority shall pay the owner such compensation as is determined in accordance with this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, s. 13 (1).

Idem

(2)  Where the land of an owner is expropriated, the compensation payable to the owner shall be based upon,

(a) the market value of the land;

(b) the damages attributable to disturbance;

(c) damages for injurious affection; and

(d) any special difficulties in relocation,

but, where the market value is based upon a use of the land other than the existing use, no compensation shall be paid under clause (b) for damages attributable to disturbance that would have been incurred by the owner in using the land for such other use. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, s. 13 (2).

Market value

14.  (1)  The market value of land expropriated is the amount that the land might be expected to realize if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, s. 14 (1).

Idem

(2)  Where the land expropriated is devoted to a purpose of such a nature that there is no general demand or market for land for that purpose, and the owner genuinely intends to relocate in similar premises, the market value shall be deemed to be the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, s. 14 (2).

Idem

(3)  Where only part of the land of an owner is taken and such part is of a size, shape or nature for which there is no general demand or market, the market value and the injurious affection caused by the taking may be determined by determining the market value of the whole of the owner’s land and deducting therefrom the market value of the owner’s land after the taking. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, s. 14 (3).

Idem

(4)  In determining the market value of land, no account shall be taken of,

(a) the special use to which the expropriating authority will put the land;

(b) any increase or decrease in the value of the land resulting from the development or the imminence of the development in respect of which the expropriation is made or from any expropriation or imminent prospect of expropriation; or

(c) any increase in the value of the land resulting from the land being put to a use that could be restrained by any court or is contrary to law or is detrimental to the health of the occupants of the land or to the public health. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, s. 14 (4).

Highway 6 started as a bush trail and then evolved into a wide path, then to a dirt road and then to a gravel road then to a paved road then to a Highway. It was maintained first by the settlers then by the Townships. Today by the Province through the Federally collected Excise Tax Transfers.

The Patent holders were never compensated for the land used for Highway 6. The Town never got a dime. In 1965 the Province was to expropriate the Highway from the owners, the Patent Holders, and they were never advised and you will note if you do a Title Search that the Expropriation never appears on title. In 1965 Amabel challenged the Expropriation as did the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. the Municipality didn’t say boo! The Province has stolen the land and came back three years ago and declared a Control Zone equating to 1/2 mile strip up the whole peninsula.

In the treaty of 1855, the Feds were to take the money received from the sale of the Aboriginal land, that the Government held in trust for their benefit, and give it to them. They didn’t do that either.

The Patent holders were given title to the land by the Crown the Crown was to give that money to the Natives, opp’s they didn’t do that. Now the Province takes the right of utility by way of regulation without compensation, and eliminates all the zoning implemented by the Municipality. That equates to Expropriation without compensation. An illegal transaction.

Fact of the matter is that the First Nations rights were extinguished by the Patents granted by the Crown, Amabel cut some kind of deal that no one wants to talk about. MTO, on behalf of the Province, refuses to discuss the topic.

The Town is entitled to compensation but never asked for it. Guess those member of Council then, were not as broke as they are now. Fact of the matter is that legally the Expropriation never happened as no payment was made. Pretty valuable chunk of dirt at this point in time. MTO by way of regulation has declared 400 meters on each side of the yellow line as their “Control Zone”. But wait they do not own it as no consideration was paid! If they don’t own it how could they stop Canadian Tie or Giant Tiger?? To say I have no knowledge is not an answer!

Makes you wonder about our contract with the OPP. A couple of million a year to Police our town,  so the Province can collect 7 to 8 million a year in fines! HMMMMMMMMM??

All Candidates declare they have no knowledge of the matter. You think they might look into it or maybe use it as leverage???

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

They all came out with a Ra Ra yea team response but not one has offered a strategy to implement.

The British, internationally used a divide and conquer program that worked very well. Was this the Provinces strategy when they merged the communities? HMMM! It appears to be working.

I think that the rating listed above is a fair assessment for the responses to the last four questions. The Candidates that didn’t respond are starting in a negative position at this point!

There are three types of people in this community, Those that make things happen, those that watch things happen and those that wonder what the hell happened!

Where do you think our candidates fit in that equation?

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Time to Review and Score The Answers Provided By Candidates TWSBP! Part 2

  1. cgammie says:

    Bruce/John:

    It was clear to me that at least some of your questions to candidates were self-serving. You asked if candidates were willing to swear the oath for the sole purpose of setting yourself up to “conclude” that they were agreeing to swear to fight the Ontario and Federal government regarding private property rights, and especially yours. You were setting yourself up to “conclude” that candidates were agreeing to swear to fight your very private battles. Shame on you.

    You say “it is my position that the people we elect to office, as they have or intend to swear the oath, are in fact obligated to protect our rights of ownership by challenging the Feds and the Province where they clearly overstep their legal authority.”

    Poppycock. The oath says:

    “I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being).”

    This is an innocuous little piece of ceremony, and nothing more.

    It does not suggest, imply, or mean that it is a role of council or council members to fight the feds or the province regarding private property rights, or anything else. It implies nothing about fighting the federal or Ontario governments.

    Municipalities are creatures of the provincial government. What municipalities and councils can do, are required to do and are prohibited from doing are clearly spelled out in provincial legislation, principally the Municipal Act. Fighting the Ontario and Federal government regarding private property rights is not included as a duty or role of the municipality or of council.

    If you have an issue with the Ontario or federal government, the proper route to express that issue is through our MP or MPP.

    Council members have enough on their plates taking care of legitimate municipal issues like municipal taxes and municipal services.

    If elected, I will of course take the oath, including:

    “I will truly, faithfully and impartially exercise this office to the best of my knowledge and ability.”

    That means I will have sworn, in effect, to focus on the legitimate duties of the office, and that I will have sworn not to be distracted from those duties by some resident’s private battle with the Ontario government.

    Bill walker is at: bill.walker@pc.ola.org

    Larry Miller is at: larry.miller.c1@parl.gc.ca

    John, I wish you good luck in your quest for justice .

    Craig Gammie

    • Craig you are wrong! All my questions were self serving!
      The municipality is in fact Created by Letters of Patent authorized and granted by the Crown not the Province or the Feds! (The Union Act 1851).
      IT was the Crown that issued the Letters Patent on the land in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.
      It is the Province that is fighting the Federal Government on the Land Claims.
      The British North American Act clearly spells out the responsibilities and limitations of all levels of Government.
      Municipalities are created by the people for the benefit of the people and not provincial “Interest”.
      The statement that the municipal corporations are “creatures of the Province” means that the province has the authority to dissolve the municipal corporations at the petition of the freehold property owners, but does not have the authority to dictate, as the municipal corporations are to listen to their shareholders, being the residents.
      Private property.
      Section 92(16)Generally all Maters of a merely local or private nature in the Province.
      Private property is not “in” or does it belong to the municipality or the province. To truly understand how this works you should review section 12 of the BNA act.
      By swearing the oath you are compelled to honour the wishes of Her Majesty. The land patents granted are the her wishes.
      If you are elected your responsibilities are first to the Crown then to the shareholders, the residents.
      “the legitimate duties of the office” are in fact to protect the residents from wrongful actions contrary to the interests of the municipality and or its residents.
      If in fact the Province and or the Feds wrongfully act in interests contrary to the Crown or the Residents it will be your responsibility to challenge such actions and protect those that you represent.
      It is clear Craig that you are confused and perhaps misguided. Maybe you cannot see the forest for the trees!
      If you do not know or understand the origins of Municipal Law how can you even suggest that you can represent its residents?
      Suffice it to say there is only to be common law between the citizens and the government, therefor the federal government is to be the supreme legislator whereas the provinces are to legislate for only what belongs to it. I have not challenged the Fed’s I have challenged the Province. It is the Province that is trying to micro mange and control all facets of the municipality and that of private property.
      What they cannot achieve directly the Province cannot achieve indirectly.
      I strongly suggest Craig that you read Property Rights 101 by Liz Marshall as has Mr. Turner and Karen Klages and John Close. Lead by example not by perception!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s