To Be or Not to Be?? That is the Question!


 

 Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

 

The MTO is in the business of providing a way for us to get from point A to point B. The problem is they think those points are the same for everyone!

They think we all live, work, shop and visit at either A or B. 

Try and get a permit to open a driveway for a business half way between A and B.

If you are one of the rare successful ones you better have money left over for a sign permit after you clear the message, illuminaqtion, location, size, font and color of the sign with the MTO. We can’t have signs distracting people getting from A to B.

 Try and get a permit for a driveway or to build a home half way between A and B.

Can’t have that! You might create a hazard with your mailbox or have kids that need the school bus to stop and that would slow down people getting from A to B.

 Now let’s consider Hepworth point A and you decide to build a home and live there.

Better not try and build on Elizabeth St. on a vacant lot! Even though it’s zoned residential and taxes are assessed as residential it’s really zoned “future development” and you can’t have a building permit.

Well why not – you are the future and your home is the development, right?

Actually no, since future development really means there is no development in the future unless you qualify by making some kind of change to the property.

OK, what change or changes are required? That’s where it gets complicated! 

The County says the property is residential and the Town says it’s future development but the County has to make the changes, but can’t even talk about it without researching why it’s future development for about 3 weeks, but “Try the Conservation Authority” in the meantime but don’t forget the property is within 1200 ft. of the highway and the MTO must be involved but you’ll probably have to go to Committee of Adjustments for change in lot size and do a Karst study and do a drainage plan and look for possible future sink holes but for God’s sake don’t mention the “Modular” parts of your new home that started life as shipping containers since the Town has a bylaw outlawing them!

Enough buts there to fill Jimmy’s ashtray! 

Oh, screw it! Let’s try and build at Wiarton as point B and drive unobstructed by school busses and mail delivery to work in Hepworth point A!

But…. There’s about five people in Wiarton who object to any new development there and they don’t even have infrastructure for a 4-plex in place yet and they object to new infrastructure and they don’t want anything to progress till they die and they’re not ready to die yet and there’s no work in Hepworth anyway and……..!

 Oh, screw it! I’m moving to Tuktoyaktuk and I’ll look for work building igloos or hunting seals until global warming turns my front yard into beachfront!

 It’s a world full of regulations people, but it’s for your own good don’t you know, to protect you from having to sue anyone later if anything should happen – and despite, or maybe because of all the permits and regulations, things happen! You already need a permit to piss and they’re working on a regulation to stop you from pissing into the wind!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

Seperation from the Province of Ontario is our only hope!


 Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

 

Yeah I said it out loud!

We as a community are being systematically raped and pillaged by the Province of Ontario!!

The Province has total control over every facet of our lives and we allow it!

The Province dictates what we can do with our land, lives and our future. This is not what our founding fathers planned with the British North American Act. It flies in the face of Confederation.

Think for a moment, Planning is dictated by Provincial Policy. Highways controlled by faceless bureaucrats in London.What we eat is controlled by people in Toronto.What we pay for electricity again controlled by people in Toronto. What is taught in schools controlled by Provincial Policy. We are regulated to death in this Province by dictators that create regulations that become law without ever seeing the floor of our legislators.

The Province is in the process of selling off our assets to fuel their addiction to spending and regulating. Bob Rae set the course by selling off our Real Estate and mortgaging our future to support his plan and it seems Katherine Wynne is planning the same with Ontario Hydro.

The Province forced the Municipalities to surrender their Crown Patented Rights as Municipal Corporations so they could control the very nature of our life styles.

They have seized control of our Schools, Planning, Parks and scared industry out of our province leaving us totally dependant on their programs for growth and development.

They have made things pro big city and so anti country that our youth must leave to earn a living. This has left us with a very shallow labour pool and little or no industry.

I don’t know about you but I don’t really give a rats ass about what is good for Toronto, I came to this part of the country to get away from city lifestyle.

The Province of Toronto , I mean Ontario, is a have not Province! Ontario was once the leader of this Country! Today we live to serve the paper gods of Toronto.

Our Lesbian Premier is nothing more than a socialist fascist. The Liberals have become the puppets for the freeloaders of this Province. The Simple serpents are driving the bus with her blessings.

Our roads are bad, our taxes too high and our services declining. The corruption is rampant the Gas affair, Ontario hydro billing fiasco, now the OPP Union is being investigated for Offshore Banking etc.

The RCMP is alleging top brass of the Ontario Provincial Police union participated in a sophisticated financial scheme involving a travel company, a consulting firm and high-risk offshore investments, “to profit and deceive” their members, putting their union in peril.

Among the alleged investments: two backside condos in the Bahamas, one valued at $1.5 million, and $100,000 in union money wired to an income fund in the Cayman Islands.

Just one example of many showing your tax dollars ar work.

The Province used deceit to create the municipal amalgamation scheme. In doing so the Province forced amalgamation on all communities creating new Provincial Corporations which are totally controlled by the Province versus what we had, that being Crown Patent Corporations having equal power with the Province. The end result being that Municipal Corporations are totally subject to Provincial Policy not local need.

The Province implemented the Master Zoning Plan for the Province by refusing to pay out Federal transfer Payments to the municipalities, if the Municipality did not conform to the Provincial planning Policy.

 I is abundantly clear that the Province through the infamous Green Energy Act is committed to Agenda 21 mandate as proclaimed by the United Nations. This is a path that is fatal to rural lifestyle.
The actions of the Province circumvent British Common Law and creates Provincial supremacy via regulation, which flies in the face of the BNA Act Section 109.

Viva Rural Ontario Liberal!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

 

Indecision May or May not Be Our Problem!


 Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

Wow!! Yet again we send a message to the Investment world that this town is not open for business!

Have you been to Foodland lately if not take a canoe! The roof is leaking so bad that you play dodge the bucket when trying to navigate the rapids in the freezer section!

Foodland has been trying for the last five years to build a new store next to Tim Hortons only to be met with objections and red tape! What is the matter with you people!!!

A thirty thousand square foot store would create jobs, tax revenue and oh yeah variety!! The new store is being cited as the cause for reduced property values as one of the major complaints! Wow there is a thought!!

The area the proposed store is in features a bunch of old houses that have long outlived their economic life in the first place. There is no value there! Your position in that regard does more to devalue property in all of the town as you are killing new investment in the community and telling the world that you are in fact a bunch of hillbillies that doesn’t give a damn about the future of this community let alone the needs of the community! It proves that your only concern is your pocket-book as you may or may not be able to sell you worn out shack to some sucker that cannot afford anything else!!

The other issue proclaimed is traffic problems!! Oh Gee I guess you have never been outside your shack in the summer. We already have traffic problems beating down the lineup at Timmy’s every morning let alone in the summer when the citiots arrive. Have you never tried to shop at Foodland in the summer? Oh wait I bet you go to Owen Sound to shop at NoFrills to save 15 cents on a loaf of bread!!!

When you succeed in pissing away yet another opportunity for growth and investment in our community and you find that you now have to go to Owen Sound for groceries you will be whining that there is no growth here.

When you see other businesses leave town because of the NYBY attitude and there are no services available because of a declining tax base which will really reduce property value who will you blame then!!

No Job, no Airport, no grocery store, no future!!! Get a grip you bunch of Hicks!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A bird in Hand is Better than two in the Bush!


Bruce the Blight!!

Bruce the Blight!!

As Forest Gump would say “Stupid is as Stupid does”

The blind leading the blind in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula maintains their incredible display of incompetence making this community look absolutely stupid in the eyes of the investment community!

The town has yet again insulted yet another investor looking to develop the Airport with a 100 million dollar investment creating over 1,000 jobs.The offer was made and the town didn’t respond!

With unemployment in this area at its highest point in history, real estate prices dropping like a stone, businesses leaving one right after the other you think they might give some thought to responding to an interested party??

 Six years ago the town failed to respond to an offer for the airport for $2,000,000 cash, six years later they don’t respond to a million dollar offer! I have a hard time believing that the elected ones are that irresponsible.

They are now seeking a new manager for the airport. The old one will not continue at $80,000.00 per year plus expenses. HMMMMM! Seems like a fair pay cheque to plow snow and pump gas.

Let me think 800 acres of prime real estate with an airport licence and you are loosing 200 grand a year on it.If we ignore everybody maybe it will go away!!! NOT!

The average house price n Toronto is 1 million dollars, maybe we could trade the airport for two houses What a score!!!

But not to worry Janice has got paid parking back!!! That will save us!! At the very least it otta scare away any tourists that were thinking of coming up this summer!!!

Just think install new ticket dispensers for parking ($18,000 each) at Sauble then hand them over to the Natives when they win the land claim!! There is vision!!!

Would the last one leaving this area please turn out the lights!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facts Are Facts or Is Fiction Reality!


 

Bruce the Blight!!

Bruce the Blight!!

 

The fact of the matter is in the Province of Ontario, a Municipality is now a Creature of the Province! This has not always been the case!

In the beginning, there was to be only one supreme legislator that being the Government of Canada, the Province and the municipalities were to govern what was within their areas, under the supreme legislator. BNA preamble Section 109.

The provinces were to rule by charter every thing it owned as was municipalities. That is to say that direct ownership of a piece of property was governed by the owner of same. There was no jurisdictional control over any thing that was not owned by the Corporation be it the town or the province.

The province and the town are Corporations owned by the shareholders (TAXPAYERS), the corporations are operated by an elected board of Directors, (members of Parliament and town Councils). The Directors appoint management, the Civil Servants, to operate the corporation in the best interests of the shareholders (taxpayers) under the direction of the Board of Directors IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SHAREHOLDERS!

As time passed and government grew and taxes grew faster than revenue, we as a people lost tract of what government was and was supposed to be.

How many times have you heard “There should be a law!” Well I got news for you, there now laws countering and conflicting each other. You cannot pass a law that does not affect you!

The Province, in its wisdom, moved to amalgamate towns in the late 90’s. They issued the newly created municipalities with new Provincial corporations, thus extinguishing the historic Royal Charters, and putting the new municipalities totally under Provincial Control.

Could someone tell me how this act was in the best interest of the shareholders of the town?

This gave the province control over any and all transfer payments from the Feds amongst other things. Those transfer payments were to be to the benefit of the shareholders, not to the benefit of the Province.

Suffice to say that if the Province wants to implement something that the municipalities don’t particularly like, the province withholds transfer payments until such time as the Municipality agrees. Sounds to me like legal extortion.

The Supreme Legislator in Canada is the Federal Government, this has not changed! However, if the Province over steps its authority it is law, until someone opposes it. Then and only then will it be challenged. The only force you have to effect a challenge  and subsequent change is the Supreme Court of Canada! Price of admission — About a Million dollars.

The Province downloads liability to the Municipality by way of regulations passed. Regulations are generated by bureaucrats that flavour anything they need or want to justify their positions and gives them more control. The regulations have never seen the light of the legislators. So our elected representatives have absolutely no say on any of the regulations passed. Sounds to me like the tail wagging the dog!

We as Canadians do have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act) Article 15 (2) states we are all equal in Law. However, in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, which encompasses Wiarton, Hope Bay, Red Bay, Sauble Beach, Hepworth and Allenford, there are two very different laws pertaining to property Rights. If you are in   have Commercial property and want to put up a sign advertising your business, you must first get permission from the Ministry of transportation whose regulation dictate size colour, location, font and message, then you must get a permit from the Town after you manage to get approval from the MTO.The same rules apply in Hepworth. If in fact you want to build a house or a business, you must have the approval of the MTO and a Building Permit from the MTO and then and only then may you apply to the Town for a building permit, without the MTO Permit the municipal permit is worthless.

If however you have a business in Wiarton, you do not require an MTO permit for anything 300 meters north of Elm Street and 300 meters south of County 13. This is funny as all are in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula but refered to as Wiarton.

Now if the Town issues a Building Permit to you in the said communities and you do not have a Permit from the MTO, the MTO will order the town to issue a Stop Work Order until you have a Permit from MTO. This in law makes obtaining a building Permit from MTO a condition precedent to obtaining a Town Building Permit. The Town cannot take your money without advising you in writing that an MTO permit is required before your Town Permit is valid. For the town to issue a permit without advising you of the MTO requirement is simply fraud!

The Municipality is obligated, since it is a creature of the Province, to follow Provincial Policy. Simply put, every bylaw, building permit etc must adhere to the Provincial Policy or the municipality will face repercussion by the Province.

The MTO has by way of regulation declared jurisdiction over all land within 400 meters on each side of the highway which has never been within or owned by the Province. Since the Province never owned it it is not Within as defined by the BNA of 1867 or the Union Act of 1851.The Province has never expropriated the land but yet controls all rights of utility by way of regulation contrary to the provisions of the BNA and the Expropriation Act.

The Municipality is paying high-five figure salaries to Department heads that are to know and understand the legislation that they are to enforce. If the CBO issues a building permit without an MTO permit in place, the Town is responsible for the error and any damages caused.

If in fact there is a Crown Patent in place with respect to the land involved, and that Patent has no restriction on it, the owner of that land is not required to follow any of the regulation imposed. When the Crown sold the Patented Land the only laws that apply are the Laws that were in place on the date of issue. You cannot sell something twice!

The Crown issued Land Patents for years after confederation. For the most part the Province ignores Patents out of choice until such time as the Supreme Court rules against them. So it is common practice for the Province to challenge everything and settle prior to a Ruling by the Supreme Court. Commonly referred to as motioning you into bankruptcy.

If our elected representatives hire an unqualified person to run a department and that unqualified person makes a mistake the town is responsible. We have errors and omissions insurance in place for just that reason.

In the alternative if a CAO of the Town conspires to implement harm to someone using or ignoring legislation to their own gain the town is liable for those actions and the CAO is liable to the town’s damages thereto.

If someone is wronged and litigates for damages we should not chastise that person we should condemn the players involved and make right the wrong done! Anything else is just wrong!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

 

 

 

My Favourite Martian Says:


and the truth shall set you free

Can anyone guess why Councillor Craig Gammie is on the outs with every other councilor at the table?

Is it the new beard he’s sporting that caused council to declare him an “island on his own”?

Is it possible he was called an “ass” and an “S.O.B” by others at the table because of his charm and wit?

Is it conceivable they got tired of him shouting “Point of Order” every time he didn’t understand the rules of procedure at the council table?

Is it because he seems to really like the sound of his own voice and council meetings now last from 1PM till past the 9:00PM curfew, sometimes as late as 11:PM?

All valid reasons but not the real one!

Seems Craig is up to his old ways less than two months after being sworn in as a councilor. On Tuesday the 27th of January he served a writ on the Town Clerk and has filed a legal action to set aside October’s election. (filed in Walkerton case #2-15)

     But wait! Not his election, not Janice Jackson’s election, not Ana or Mat’s election – he only wants Jay Kirkland thrown out! And why does he think a duly elected member of council should be removed?

Well, Craig seems to think he can read the minds of the voters who live in trailer parks and apparently believes: 1) they all voted for Jay and 2) their vote is illegal.

I can understand Craig believing he’s Kreskin The Great, but I don’t understand that he can’t believe his own eyes and ears when he sees and hears that Elections Canada and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs both agree that people who lease a trailer park space for a year count just as much as people who lease an apartment or house for a year.

I’m tempted to call him bi-polar, delusional or just plain nuts but not being a qualified psychiatrist I’ll pass on that and let you judge for yourself. While you’re thinking, ask yourself how much this will increase the Town’s legal bills and how that will help reach the 10% tax decrease Craig promised you when he asked for your vote.

Now a newspaper article claims Craig is going to withdraw the court action because someone advised him to. HUH! Don’t know who’s advising Craig but I bet it’s not Betty Hall. She’s out there telling everyone she’s going to be the new deputy mayor!

Sorry Betts – you lose again!

At the same meeting during a break Mayor Janice Jackson launched a tirade of foul language at the only member of the public who seems to have the time and will power to attend the marathon council sessions.

A question for Mayor Jackson: Is your version of open and transparent government achieved by yelling at the public “Are you out of your f***ing mind and “What were you f***ing thinking” in front of half a dozen witnesses? Could it be that if you yelled at Craig he might bring legal action against you too Miz Mayor?

With a couple of exceptions this council is a clown show!

The Martian

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.