Why Cananda Exists Today Our True Legal Roots


The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson’s Bay was incorporated on 2 May 1670, with a royal charter from King Charles II. The charter granted the company a monopoly over the region drained by all rivers and streams flowing into Hudson Bay in northern Canada. The area was called Rupert’s Land after Prince Rupert, the first governor of the company appointed by the King. This region, the drainage basin of Hudson Bay, constitutes 1.5 million square miles (3.9×10^6 km2), comprises over one-third the area of modern day Canada and stretches into the north central United States. The specific boundaries were unknown at the time. Rupert’s Land would eventually be Canada’s largest land purchase in the 1800s.

During the fall and winter, First Nations and trappers did the vast majority of the animal trapping and pelt preparation. They travelled by canoe and on foot, to the fort to sell their pelts

The early coastal factory model contrasted with the system of the French, who established an extensive system of inland posts and sent traders to live among the tribes of the region. In March 1686, the French sent a raiding party under the Chevalier des Troyes over 1,300 km (810 mi) to capture the company’s posts along James Bay. The French appointed Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, who had shown great heroism during the raids, as commander of the company’s captured posts. In 1687 an English attempt to resettle Fort Albany failed due to ruses and deceptions by d’Iberville. After 1688 England and France were officially at war. D’Iberville raided Fort Severn in 1690 but did not attempt to raid the well-defended local headquarters at York Factory. In 1693 the company recovered Fort Albany; d’Iberville captured York Factory in 1694, but the company recovered it the next year. In 1697, d’Iberville again commanded a French naval raid on York Factory. On the way to the fort, he defeated three ships of the Royal Navy in the Battle of Hudson’s Bay, the largest naval battle in the history of the North American Arctic. D’Iberville’s depleted French force captured York Factory by a ruse; they laid siege to the fort while pretending to be a much larger army, the French held all of the outposts except Fort Albany until 1713. (Fort Albany was again unsuccessfully attacked in 1709 by a small French and Indian force.) The economic consequences of the French possession to the company were significant; it did not pay any dividends for more than 20 years. See Anglo-French conflicts on Hudson Bay.

The war ended in 1713 with the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht. Among its many provisions, the Treaty required France to relinquish all claims to Hudson Bay, which again became a British possession The Kingdom of Great Britain had been established (following the union of Scotland and England in 1707). After the treaty, the company built Prince of Wales Fort, a stone star fort at the mouth of the nearby Churchill River. In 1782, during the American Revolutionary War, a French squadron under Jean-François de Galaup, comte de Lapérouse captured and demolished York Factory and Prince of Wales Fort.

A parallel may be drawn between the HBC’s control over Rupert’s Land with the trade monopoly and government functions enjoyed by the Honourable East India Company over India during roughly the same period. Viewed as a major competitor, the HBC invested £10,000 in the East India Company in 1732.

Hudson’s Bay Company’s first inland trading post was established by Samuel Hearne in 1774 in Cumberland House, Saskatchewan.

In 1779, the North West Company (NWC) was founded in Montreal as a seasonal partnership to provide more capital and to continue competing with the HBC. It became operative for the outfit of 1780 and was the first joint stock company in Canada and possibly North America. The agreement lasted one year. A second agreement established in 1780 had a three-year term. The company became a permanent entity in 1783. By 1784, the NWC had begun to have a serious impact on the HBC’s profits.

In 1821, the North West Company of Montreal and Hudson’s Bay Company were forcibly merged by intervention of the British government to put an end to often-violent competition. A total of 175 posts, 68 of them the HBC’s, were reduced to 52 for efficiency and because many were redundant as a result of the rivalry and were inherently unprofitable. Their combined territory was extended by a license to the North-Western Territory, which reached to the Arctic Ocean in the north and, with the creation of the Columbia Department in the Pacific Northwest, to the Pacific Ocean in the west. The NWC’s regional headquarters at Fort George (Fort Astoria) was relocated to Fort Vancouver, which became the HBC base of operations on the Pacific Slope.

Although the HBC maintained a monopoly on the fur trade during the early to mid-19th century there was competition from James Sinclair and Andrew McDermot (Dermott), independent traders in the Red River Colony. They shipped furs by the Red River Trails to Norman Kittsona buyer in the United States. In addition, Americans controlled the Maritime fur trade on the Northwest Coast until the 1830s.

Throughout the 1820s and 1830s, the HBC controlled nearly all trading operations in the Pacific Northwest, based at the company headquarters at Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River. Although claims to the region were by agreement in abeyance, commercial operating rights were nominally shared by the United States and Britain through the Anglo-American Convention of 1818, company policy, enforced via Chief Factor John McLoughlin of the company’s Columbia District, was to discourage U.S. settlement of the territory.

In 1869, after rejecting the American government offer of CA$10,000,000, the company approved the return of Rupert’s Land to Britain which in turn gave it to Canada and loaned the new country the £300,000 required to compensate HBC for its losses. The deal, known as The Deed of Surrender, came into force the following year. The resulting territory, now known as the Northwest Territories, was brought under Canadian jurisdiction under the terms of the Rupert’s Land Act 1868, enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Deed enabled the admission of the fifth province, Manitoba, to the Confederation on 15 July 1870, the very same day that the deed itself came into force.

The Constitution Act, 1867(originally enacted as the British North America Act, 1867, and referred to as the BNA Act), is a major part of Canada’s Constitution. The Act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. The British North America Acts, including this Act, were renamed in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution (originally enacted by the British Parliament); however, it is still known by its original name in United Kingdom records. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued October 7, 1763, by King George III following Great Britain’s acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years’ War, in which it forbade all settlers from settling past a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains. The purpose of the proclamation was to organize Great Britain’s new North American empire and to stabilize relations with Native North Americans through regulation of trade, settlement, and land purchases on the western frontier. The Royal Proclamation continues to be of legal importance to First Nations in Canada and is significant for the variation of indigenous status in the United States. It eventually ensured that British culture and laws were applied in Upper Canada after 1791, which was done to attract British settlers to the province. Its geographic location is similar to the Eastern Continental Divide’s path running northwards from Georgia to the Pennsylvania-New York State border, and north-eastwards past the drainage divide on the “St. Lawrence Divide” from there northwards through New England.

One of the biggest problems confronting the British Empire in 1763 was controlling land speculators in both Europe and the British colonies whose activities often led to frontier conflict. Some Native American peoples—primarily in the Great Lakes region—had a long and close relationship with France, and were dismayed to find that they were now under British sovereignty. Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763–66) was an unsuccessful effort by Native Americans to prevent Great Britain from occupying the land previously claimed by France. The Proclamation of 1763 had been in the works before Pontiac’s Rebellion, but the outbreak of the conflict hastened the process. British officials hoped the proclamation would reconcile Aboriginals to British rule and thus help to prevent future hostilities.

The proclamation created a boundary line (often called the proclamation line) between the British colonies on the Atlantic coast and American Indian lands (called the Indian Reserve) west of the Appalachian Mountains. The proclamation line was not intended to be a permanent boundary between white and Aboriginal lands, but rather a temporary boundary which could be extended further west in an orderly, lawful manner.  Its contour was defined by the headwaters that formed the watershed along the Appalachia—all land with rivers that flowed into the Atlantic was designated for the colonial entities while all the land with rivers that flowed into the Mississippi was reserved for the native Indian population. The proclamation outlawed private purchase of Native American land, which had often created problems in the past; instead, all future land purchases were to be made by Crown officials “at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians”. Furthermore, British colonists were forbidden to move beyond the line and settle on native lands, and colonial officials were forbidden to grant grounds or lands without royal approval. The proclamation gave the Crown a monopoly on all future land purchases from American Indians.

The Royal Proclamation continued to govern the cession of Indigenous land in British North America, especially Upper Canada and Rupert’s Land. The proclamation forms the basis of land claims of Indigenous peoples in Canada – First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is thus mentioned in section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to historian Colin Calloway, “[settler] scholars disagree on whether the proclamation recognized or undermined tribal sovereignty”.

The proclamation established the important precedent that the indigenous population had certain rights to the lands they occupied.

Some see the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as a “fundamental document” for First Nations land claims and self-government. It is “the first legal recognition by the British Crown of Aboriginal rights” and imposes a fiduciary duty of care on the Crown. The intent and promises made to the native in the Proclamation have been argued to be of a temporary nature, only meant to appease the Native peoples who were becoming increasingly resentful of “settler encroachments on their lands” and were capable of becoming a serious threat to British colonial settlement. An advice given by a merchant to the Board of Trade on August 30, 1764 expressed that:

“The Indians all know we cannot be a Match for them in the midst of an extensive woody Country…from whence I infer that if we are determined to possess Our Posts, Trade & ca securely, it cannot be done for a Century by any other means than that of purchasing the favour of the numerous Indian inhabitants.”

Some historians claim that “the British were trying to convince Native people that there was nothing to fear from the colonists, while at the same time trying to increase political and economic power relative to First Nations and other European powers.”However, the Royal Proclamation along with the subsequent Treaty of Niagara, provide for an argument that “discredits the claims of the Crown to exercise sovereignty over First Nations” and affirms Aboriginal “powers of self-determination in, among other things, allocating lands.” Further so, the Royal Proclamation outlined a policy in which to protect Aboriginal rights and in doing so, recognized these rights existed.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established the British definition of Indian Country. On these lands the Crown claimed sovereignty but it also decreed that Indian Country were to be considered the possession of the Aboriginal peoples who lived on these lands. Consequently, in order to transfer ownership of the land to the Crown through the surrendering of the land from the indigenous peoples, Great Britain began formalizing the Treaty of Fort Niagara with the First Nations on July 8, 1764, through this Treaty Council. In protest, the Ottawa of Detroit, the Wyandot of Sandusky, and the Lenape and Shawnee of the Ohio failed to come to the Treaty Council. This treaty created a new Covenant Chain between Britain and the First Nations of the western Great Lakes. During the War of 1812, Nations involved with this treaty allied themselves with the British, as the Nations believed the treaty bound them to the British cause.

Some historians argue that even though the boundary was pushed west in subsequent treaties, the British government refused to permit new colonial settlements for fear of instigating a war with Native Americans, which angered colonial land speculators. Others argue that the Royal Proclamation imposed a fiduciary duty of care on the Crown.

Suffice to say, the British via the Proclamation, conceded ownership of the land to the Native community in order to take it back one slice at time through treaties, purchases and agreements. It has been said that the British were the most honest thieves in the history of the world.

After the Seven Years’ War, a victorious Great Britain and a defeated France formalized the peace with the 1763 Treaty of Paris. Under the terms of the treaty, the Kingdom of France ceded New France to Britain, choosing instead to keep the islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique for their valuable sugar production. New France (Canada) was considered less valuable, as its only significant commercial product at the time was beaver pelts. The territory found along the St. Lawrence River, called Canada by the French, was renamed Quebec by the British, after its capital city. Non-military administration of the territories acquired by the British in the war was defined in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Under the terms of the peace treaty, Canadians who did not choose to leave became British subjects. In order for them to serve in public offices, they were required to swear an oath to the King that contained specific provisions rejecting the Catholic faith. Since many of the predominantly Roman Catholic Canadians were unwilling to take such an oath, this effectively prevented large numbers of French Canadians from participating in the local governments.

With unrest growing in the colonies to the south, which would one day grow into the American Revolution, the British were worried that the French Canadians might also support the growing rebellion. At that time, French Canadians formed the vast majority of the settler population of the province of Quebec (more than 99%) and there was little immigration from Great Britain. There was a need to compromise between the conflicting demands of the French-Canadian subjects and those of newly arrived British subjects. These efforts by the colonial governors eventually resulted in the enactment of the Quebec Act of 1774. The net result was that Quebec should be divided into two separate provinces and the laws involving property and civil rights  should be written to follow those laws of England ultimately accomplished with the Constitution Act of 1792.

The Quebec Act of 1774, formally known as the British North America (Quebec) Act 1774, was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec.

The Act’s principal components were:

  • The province’s territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.
  • Reference to the Protestant faith was removed from the oath of allegiance.
  • It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
  • It restored the use of the French civil law for matters of private law, except that in accordance with the English common law, it granted unlimited freedom of testation. It maintained English common law for matters of public law, including administrative appeals, court procedure, and criminal prosecution.
  • It restored the Catholic Church’s right to impose tithes.

The 1774 Act had wide-ranging effects, in Quebec itself, as well as in the Thirteen Colonies. In Quebec, English-speaking immigrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. French Canadians varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigniors and ecclesiastics were generally happy with its provisions although the populace resented their loss of liberties.

In the Thirteen Colonies, the Quebec Act, which had been passed in the same session of Parliament as a number of other acts designed as punishment for the Boston Tea Party and other protests, was passed along with the other Intolerable Acts, also known as the Coercive Acts. The provisions of the Quebec Act were seen by the colonists as a new model for British colonial administration, which would strip the colonies of their elected assemblies. It seemed to void the land claims of the colonies by granting most of the Ohio Country to the province of Quebec. The Americans were especially angry that the Act established Catholicism as the state religion in Quebec. The Americans had fought hard in the French and Indian War, and now they were angry that the losers (the French in Quebec) were given all the rewards including western lands claimed by the 13 colonies.

The Quebec Act was never enforced outside the traditional boundaries of Quebec. Its main significance in the Thirteen Colonies was that it angered the Patriots, and dismayed the Loyalists who supported the Crown, and helped to accelerate the confrontation that became the American Revolution (Miller 1943). The Act is listed as one of the rebels’ grievances in the Declaration of Independence as one of the “Acts of pretended Legislation …

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies”

The First Continental Congress petitioned Parliament to repeal the Intolerable Acts, which Parliament declined to do. Instead, in February 1775 Parliament passed the Conciliatory Resolution in an attempt to curry favor with the angry colonists. This was too little, too late, as the war broke out before news of its passage could reach the colonies.

In Quebec the 1774 Act was effectively superseded by the Constitutional Act of 1791, which partitioned Quebec into two new provinces, Upper and Lower Canada.

As time progressed the French and the English living in the Province of Quebec, were constantly at odds and threatened the overall success of development and growth. To counter this, the creation of the Constitution of 1792 established the Provinces of of Upper and Lower Canada.

The Constitution of 1792 was created to divide Canada into two separate provinces and introduced English Law pertaining to “property and civil rights” and attempted to resolve outstanding issues between the two races.

It also supported the already granted and patented property rights under section nine of the act:

“ IX. Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, 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 free in common soccage.”

A Definition of free and common socage:

“ Freehold tenure is without any incidents or obligations for the benefit of the Crown. All lands granted by the Crown in fee simple are granted in free and common socage – freehold tenure.

A fee simple may be transferred without licence or fine and the new owner holds from the Crown in the same manner as the previous tenant held from the Crown.”

In 1839, the Imperial Parliament chose to re-unite Upper and Lower Canada into one province under the direction of Lord Durham, in an effort to resolve the differences between the English and the French residents. The differences ranged from control of revenue and supplies etc which resulted in rebellion.

The Union Act of 1840 appointed Lord Durham as Governor-General, who was mandated to find methods to amend the Constitution and create an environment of cooperation between the two factions.

Subsequent to the passing of the Union Act a Municipal was created in 1841.

The United Province of Canada, or Province of Canada, or the United Canadas was a British colony in North America from 1841 to 1867. Its formation reflected recommendations made by John Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham in the Report on the Affairs of British North America following the Rebellions of 1837–1838.

The Act of Union 1840, passed July 23, 1840, by the British Parliament and proclaimed by the Crown on February 10, 1841, merged the two Colonies by abolishing the Parliaments of Upper and Lower Canada and replacing them with a single one with two houses, a Legislative Council as the upper chamber and the Legislative Assembly as the lower chamber. In the aftermath of the Rebellions of 1837–1838, unification of the two Canadas was driven by two factors. Firstly, Upper Canada was near bankruptcy due to a lack of stable tax revenues, and needed the resources of the more populous Lower Canada to fund its internal transportation improvements. And secondly, unification was an attempt to swamp the French vote by giving each of the former provinces the same number of parliamentary seats, despite the larger population of Lower Canada. Although Durham’s report had called for both the Union of the Canadas and Responsible Government (i.e., an independent local legislature), only the first was implemented. The new government was to be led by an appointed Governor General accountable only to the British Crown and the King’s Ministers. Responsible Government was not to be achieved until the second LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry in 1849.

The Province of Canada ceased to exist at Canadian Confederation on July 1, 1867, when it was redivided into the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. From 1791 to 1841, the territory roughly corresponding to modern-day Southern Ontario in Canada belonged to the British colony of the Upper Canada, while Labrador and the southern portion of modern-day Quebec belonged to the colony of the Province of Lower Canada (until 1809, when Labrador was transferred to the Colony of Newfoundland). Upper Canada was primarily “Anglophone” (English-speaking), whereas Lower Canada was primarily “Francophone” (French-speaking).

However, in 1848 the Earl of Elgin, the then Governor General, appointed a Cabinet nominated by the majority party of the Legislative Assembly, the Baldwin-Lafontaine coalition that had won elections in January. Lord Elgin upheld the principles of responsible government by not repealing the Rebellion Losses Bill, which was highly unpopular with some English-speaking Loyalists who favored imperial over majority rule.

As Canada East and Canada West each held 42 seats in the Legislative Assembly, there was legislative deadlock between English (mainly from Canada West) and French (mainly from Canada East). Initially, the majority of the province was French, which demanded “rep-by-pop” (representation by population), which the Anglophones opposed.

The granting of responsible government to the colony is typically attributed to reforms in 1848 (principally the effective transfer of control over patronage from the Governor to the elected ministry). These reforms resulted in the appointment of the second Baldwin-Lafontaine government that quickly removed many of the disabilities on French-Canadian political participation in the colony.

Once the English population, rapidly growing through immigration, exceeded the French, the English demanded rep-by-pop. In the end, the legislative deadlock between English and French led to a movement for a federal union which resulted in the broader Canadian Confederation in 1867.

In my next chapter we will review the British North America Act, 1867 (BNA) and discover the effect of it and the BNA 1982 Act along with the evolving legislations and how they effect your property rights.

Advertisements

Craig Gammie …Master of Half Truths!


Mr. Gammie posted the following comment in response to my posting:

Sauble Land Claim The Gift That Keeps On Giving!

Bruce:

The Saugeen Ojibway First Nation may have filed a lawsuit claiming 66 feet. But they don’t own it. Only if and when the courts say they own it will they own it.

Both SOFN claims are groundless.

Craig Gammie

It is easy to understand, given statements like his, why the Indians say “White man speak with forked tounge!

Craig, the facts are:

The Royal Proclamation of 1736 granted everything north of highway 21, (a line between the mouth of the Potawatomy to the mouth of the Saugeen river and all points north to Tobermory) to the First Nation People. Again, in 1851 the Royal Declaration declared exactly the same.

The Crown agreed to reserve the same for the First nations people.

In 1855 the Natives signed a surrender treaty wherein which the Natives agreed to surrender to the British provided that the land of the Peninsula would be held by the Crown “In Trust” to the benefit of the Natives. The Crown was to build a road from the mouth of the Saugeen to the mouth of the Potawatomy, a one mile strip of land between the two points was allocated for that purpose.

The Crown sold the land in the one mile strip and did not give the funds to the Natives. Further to that, and as part of the Surrender agreement, the road allowances were allocated subsequent to a survey of the said land. As part of that, there was a road allowance decreed encompassing a road along the shoreline around the whole of the Peninsula allowing 66 feet in from the waterline to be paid for when the roads were opened, this never happened either. Further to that the Natives were allocate an 11 kilometer stretch of water out from the shoreline around the entire peninsula. This fact is acknowledged and embrace by the BNA of 1867 and reaffirmed when Trudeau brought it home.

In the Land Claim of 1994 the Natives, have honoured all Crown Patented lands but have demanded the return of the unopened road allowances and payment for the utilized road allowances.

The Natives have take their action out in the Haig at the World Court, as they believe they will not obtain a fair Trial in the Canadian system. Something I believe to be true.

Mr. Gammie states: “Only if and when the courts say they own it will they own it.” Let me think about this for a minute…We as a Country, have agreed to do something, reaffirmed it in the BNA and in our Constitution,  pissed backwards and have said in essence… I know we said we would but you have to prove we said we would in a Court, that we pay the Judges.Oh and by the way we are going to keep all the money until you prove we said it while we argue every little point. “

There are 226 outstanding land Claims in the Province of Ontario today! The Courts and the Government have displayed outright contempt and racism towards the Natives historically. We as a people, represented by our Government have trapped the natives on reserves plundered their land, the same land that we promised to hold for them in trust, stolen any and all benefits from the trust and now we want to go to Court and make them prove that we are not all a bunch of lying thieves before Judges that we pay. Sounds fair to me!!  NOT!

Remember we as a people took two generations of the Native children, placed them in residential schools and brain washed those same children into believing that they were second class scum of the earth then sent them home to their families on reserves that were underfunded and poverty stricken and now we wonder why they are fighting back!

Yes Craig you are a true Politician! Tell everyone what they want to hear, get what you want, then deny everything until it is proven in a court, which you control, that you said it. You really have proven that you should never be elected in my opinion!!!!

Definition of TRUST in Canada

In common law legal systems, a trust is a relationship whereby property is held by one party for the benefit of another. A trust is created by a settlor, who transfers some or all of his or her property to a trustee. The trustee holds that property for the trust’s beneficiaries. Trusts have existed since Roman times and have become one of the most important innovations in property law.[1]

An owner placing property into trust turns over part of his or her bundle of rights to the trustee, separating the property’s legal ownership and control from its equitable ownership and benefits. This may be done for tax reasons or to control the property and its benefits if the settlor is absent, incapacitated, or dead. Trusts are frequently created in wills, defining how money and property will be handled for children or other beneficiaries.

The trustee is given legal title to the trust property, but is obligated to act for the good of the beneficiaries. The trustee may be compensated and have expenses reimbursed, but otherwise must turn over all profits from the trust properties. Trustees who violate this fiduciary duty are self-dealing. Courts can reverse self dealing actions, order profits returned, and impose other sanctions.

The trustee may be either an individual, a company, or a public body. There may be a single trustee or multiple co-trustees.

The trust is governed by the terms under which it was created. In most jurisdictions, this requires a contractual trust agreement or deed.

Say what you are going to do and do what you say you are going to do! Otherwise you are just the lying scum of the earth!

The oath of Office is a promise not a formality!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

Sauble Land Claim The Gift That Keeps On Giving!


Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

 

When is enough, enough??

Yabder4 raised the issue a week ago and I, at his urgings made some calls and got some info with respect to same.

What is at issue is where exactly the Saugeen Reserve ends. Is it at 6th street or at its present position?

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IS LEADING THE FIGHT AGAINST SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM!

The Native side is that they have the original Survey and Notes and the Province says they have a newer more better survey showing the opposite!

Now I could only get our costs back to 2002 as I cannot not seem to get any information on what Amabel Township has paid:

DONNELLEY AND MURPHY
2002 $12,036.03
2006 $15,280.14
2007 $11,033.49
2009 $6,974.10
2010 $4,082.44
2011 $2,050.63
2012 $7,076.59
2013 $48,230.19
2014 $50,712.54
TOTAL TO DATE $157,476.15

DONNELLEY AND MURPHY is the Law Firm acting for the Town.

The fact of the matter is we continue to pay on a Moot point!

The Royal Proclamation of 1736 and the Royal Declaration of 1851 acknowledged the whole of the Peninsula as owned by the Natives. The Surrender of 1855 acknowledge same in the treaty.

Where the Reserve ends from our standpoint is irrelevant. The Saugeen Ojibway Nation owns 66 feet in from the waters edge and 11 Km out from the waters edge. So let us for a moment assume that the Province is right. The Natives lose. They then put up a fence  66 feet from the waters edge, we have no beach! Guess we showed them!!!!

A joint management agreement as proposed by the Feds sees no fence either way!

We spent so far arguing about nothing in excess of $150,000 over 12 years, who knows what was spent before that.

We have no idea what the Feds spent nor do we know what the Province has spent! Wait a minute we are the Province and the Feds and they operate on our tax dollars.

We are fighting against ourselves!

Let us assume that the Feds and the Province spent at least the same, being grossly conservative that would equate to half a million dollars to think about what we have no right to in the first place!

Bankers, Lawyers and Thieves!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

Jim Turner Responds to yabder4’s Questions!


Dumb Like A Fox

Dumb Like A Fox

 

 

You can say a lot of things about Jim Turner, most likely a lot of those thing are not complimentary!

But Jim Turner says what he thinks and is a man of his word. I have had a lot of run ins with Jim, but he stands his ground! He is a man of integrity and I am proud to call him my friend! (Most of the time)

Jim Turner believes in this community! He has nothing but good things to say about this town and its residents with the exception of Craig Gammie.

He responded to these questions within 12 hours of them being posted without urging!

Jim Turner has wisdom and an intense passion for property rights, this town and his beliefs.

I rate his answers to these question with a 9 out of 10. Only because if I give him a 10 he would light a cigar and we don’t need more legal fees!

Jim Turner is the Vitamin C we need to supplement the cod liver oil we  require!

His Answers:

1. Some people seek political office today to pursue self-serving agendas that fail to reflect the will of the public. If you are elected, how will you avoid this pitfall and advocate for the well being of all your constituents?

(1) Four years ago I looked at the names of the people running for office in Ward 1 and decided I could not vote for any of them. I should add that Paul McKenzie had not filed papers at that time.

My reasoning was that voting “None of the above” was not an option and I had better be prepared to walk a mile in their shoes if I was unwilling to support any of them.

I had no agenda, no issue I wanted to push, no interest group to represent, nothing I wanted to do away with and a feeling I might be able to do better than those I couldn’t in good conscience vote into office.

I knew it would take time away from my business just as being a volunteer had but I really was not prepared for the volume of work and learning that confronted me to do the job properly and well.

How do you avoid the pitfall? The self serving part is easy – stick to a set of principles every time. Smaller government, fewer regulations and respect for people and property have served me well. I guess I should say respect for people who show they deserve it – there are always going to be people who don’t.

The “will of the public” is another matter. There are five sides to almost every issue. Some people want to walk their dog, others don’t like dogs. Some want to swim, some want to windsurf. Some people want a road paved while their neighbours see that turning a quiet road into a speedway. Which will of which public?

Maybe the doctors have it right ¨First do no harm¨  – then go back to your principles.

2. Many believe that Council improperly discusses issues in camera that should be aired in a public forum. If an issue arises in an in-camera meeting that you think should be discussed in open forum, what would you do?

 

(2) Many are wrong! There are strict rules as to what is discussed in a Closed Session.

It is the clerk’s job to see the rules are followed and the opinion of a council member does not override the regulations. There have been a number of occasions when the clerk stopped the discussion during a Closed Session to inform council they must reconvene to open because they had strayed from the Closed agenda.

3. Do you have any objections to being video and/or audio recorded during Council meetings?

(3) I personally have no objections but I can tell you that video streaming, and to some degree audio recording, present an opportunity to grandstand for an audience that is disruptive to getting the job done. There have also been cases reported in other municipalities that do stream where members have remained silent rather than speak their mind freely on a sensitive topic.

4. It often appears that administrative staff lead Council, rather than the other way around. Do you agree that staff and planners should function at Council’s behest since it is Council that is elected to represent the views and concerns of the community?

(4) I see why some people might take a snapshot view of a meeting and believe staff are leading. Staff react to council requests or resolutions, sometimes from a previous meeting, bring forward a report and council decides.

During my term I have seen no true evidence of staff leading council other than when staff encounters a procedural anomaly or conflict and presents a report asking for council to correct it. That isn’t leading, it’s good staff work.

In some cases staff will take initiative and bring a report to council they feel is worthy of consideration such as the need to vary from a budgeted workplan because conditions have changed but council makes the decision

Staff can not make policy since they don’t vote and anyone who feels council follows staff recommendations blindly has never watched the current council in action!

5. Do you, or any family member, have a pecuniary and/or working interest in any industrial energy project within the Municipality, outside the Municipality, outside the Province, or outside Canada? If so, please elaborate. If not, would you ever consider becoming a stakeholder in a large-scale energy project if the opportunity presented itself?

 

(5) No to part 1.

As for part 2, speculating on a future opportunity is pointless but I seriously doubt one that would interest me will present itself. Green energy is the only kind being pushed in this Province and I don’t support any energy source that requires subsidies to support purchase, installation and operation.

 

 

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a fine line……….Town of South Bruce Peninsula Election


 

 Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

 

As may of you know, I have not been a fan of John Cod Liver Close historically! Hell I have compared him to Hitler, Stalin and lately Cod Liver Oil!

I have made it known that we are not buddies!

I am a business man in this community! Business is Business! For the last eight years the bickering, back biting and bullshit that has gone on in this community is to say the least embarrassing!

I have published a fair amount of it over the four years!

We have a situation where no one wants to invest in this area because of this nonsense.

I have bitten the bullet and have decided that what we need is stability in our community. John Close has made moves over the last four years to that end. I may not like his politics or his means but things are or were beginning to show signs of stabilizing until now!

I have spoken to Janice Jackson on several occasions! I have told her that I think she has great prospects for a political future however I believe she does not have the scar tissue to survive if she were to win this election!

The biggest factor effecting the prosperity of this community is the voter against voter, area against area. Our common enemy is the Provincial Government and their intervention in the affairs of this community.

We have to live and work together to achieve our common objectives. Even if it means I have to eat a little crow!

To promote litigation challenging a vote before the vote happens is a very dangerous path to walk. To make allegations before something happens is irresponsible and an indication of desperation.

To turn one part of the community against the other on a maybe is just irresponsible!

GODS GRIST WHEEL TURNS SLOWLY!!!!!!  Be wary my friends!

From: Janice Jackson< jackson4saublebeach@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:32 PM Subject: Election Update To:

Hi everyone!

The ballots are starting to hit mailboxes today.

This has been a nasty election.

They Mayor has taken out newspaper ads accusing me of supporting things I’m totally against and of course you know he and the rest of the old boys club have gone to trailer parks and registered voters who more than likely do not qualify to vote.

At last count, they have signed up 400. That is a large number considering our Municipality is small and only 60% usually vote. The recruitment isn’t over yet as many campers come up on Thanksgiving Weekend. This number will likely change the outcome of the election. But we have further problems. As they are still recruiting campers, town hall will not furnish candidates with any further updates to the voters list. Our Electoral Officer Angie Cathrea told me a few days ago that I could call her the day before the election and if I give her the addresses of the campgrounds, she would tell me how many voters are registered at each. Just ten minutes ago she sent a letter to all candidates saying she will not give us any more information on any changes she has made to the voter’s list. We will not know the final number of trailer voters.

This is a very dangerous stand to take and I’m quite sure there will be an official appeal to the results of the Election all the way to the Attorney General’s Office. Not only do we absolutely challenge the legitimacy of the trailer voters, we challenge the way they were recruited & registered and we now face being completely cut off from the final changes to the voter’s list. We will not know the identity of everyone who has been given a ballot to vote in our town.

The old boys know they have lost this election and are scrambling to find ways to win it back. I guess if the current roster of legitimate voters won’t re-elect them, they may as well drum up new voters who will. I have seen a lot in my 4 years on Council but this completely takes the cake. It’s outrageous.

Please make sure you vote and make your vote count! Please make sure you encourage your friends, family and neighbours to vote. Democracy has been challenged.

It is my understanding a legal fund has been started to launch an appeal if the election results are clearly outrageous. I truly hope this won’t be necessary but the way this is unfolding makes it very likely.

I am extremely worried about the results of the election because in my opinion, our beach will be given to the First Nations quickly, and in a recent conversation I had with First Nations Chief Vernon Roote, he is 100% in favour of sewers in Sauble. If the old boys have just 3 votes, we don’t stand a chance.

This entire situation is horrible.

Please vote!

Janice

 

“The Mayor has taken out newspaper ads accusing me of supporting things I’m totally against and of course you know he and the rest of the old boys club have gone to trailer parks and registered voters who more than likely do not qualify to vote.”

Criminal Slander crosses the line in my book! So does fear mongering!

” there will be an official appeal to the results of the Election all the way to the Attorney General’s Office.”

If you think that the Towns legal fees were high last year just wait for this one!

“we absolutely challenge the legitimacy of the trailer voters, we challenge the way they were recruited & registered “

This is something to be said after the election not before. To threaten illegal activity before the election is a very slippery slope!

 “our beach will be given to the First Nations “

You can’t give what isn’t yours! ( Royal Proclamation 1736)

You cannot unite a community while striving to divide it!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I am full what about you??


Bruce2

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula has budgeted $424,500 for legal fees in 2013, in 2012 they budgeted $133,000 and spent $253,000, so what does that tell you?

In 2010 Joh Close and went public with an attack on this Blog and good old Bruce, he said “We shall rid ourselves of this Blight on the Community!” The the CAO sues this blog and its contributors for $750,000, with counsel passing a resolution to pay her legal fees!

Now I have been told by the majority of counsel, the exception being Turner, Kirkland and Close, that members of Council were told that if they didn’t support the motion to pay Rhonda’s legal fees they could be named personally in an action by none other than the Ministry of Labour as a result the action was brought on the towns dime.

It is interesting to note that if one reads the pleading made the vast majority of comments posted were directed at John Close not Rhonda Cook.

A short time later Counsel on a motion made by Janice Jackson, voted not to pay any more legal fees incurred by Rhonda Cook.

In an effort to defend myself and the company jointly file a Counter Claim against the town, which has been settled however Rhonda Cooks action still goes on thanks to Miller Thompson!!

When pressed, we are told that Miller Thompson, Rhonda’s lawyers, are also acting for the Town on a number of other matters. When I raised a conflict issue I was advised that Miller Thompson is acting on contingency for Rhonda Cook and therefore there was no conflict as it is a different division of Miller Thompson acting for Rhonda..

Now let’s think about this for a minute, in 2012 the town paid $253,000 in legal fees and in 2013 they budgeted a whopping $423,000 for legal fees.Now how could Miller Thompson have a conflict??? I think I would do what ever I had to appease whom ever for half a million per year!!! I play the bullshit card here!

Lets get a little deeper… Craig Gammie speaks out against members of counsel and goes so far as to bring legal action against the town, the Mayor and certain other members of Council and oh they ban him from counsel meetings!!!! Bullshit!!!

The message being sent out to you, the town, is if you don’t like what is going on “Suck it up!” or we will sue you or shut you up by banning you from public meetings!

If you have a lawyer promoting litigation, guess what, you are gonna pay legal fees!! You are now planning to pay half a million dollars this year alone! What is coming if 2012 is any indication?? Is Your mayor is driving this bus!!!

We as a community could hire a full-time lawyer for less than $150,000 per year and save the cost of the CAO!!!

Geez maybe we should get Mr. Ford to come up and run our town,  at least in Toronto they see the real way it is!!

I find it interesting that at Duffy’s we lost 20 weeks of work and delayed opening because the Town issued a Stop Work Order, when pressed the town said it was because of MTO but it was the town that issued the order!!!

The delay in  opening cost the year in sales!!! That also means that there is year delay in 50 new jobs!!!

I am still fighting battles with MTO but I have to wonder where the problem really originates!!

I have over the last 10 years invested or caused to be invested, in excess of $5,000,000 in this community! I have promoted and worked with people to entice them to invest here and Inow see my return!

The message being sent out is, go away we don’t need you or any outsiders, we like this town the way it is!!!

We the taxpayers are being screwed big time by the few! Suck it up!!! If you don’t, we will get you!! One way or another!!

Thinking of investing here, think again!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce