Property Rights is again in jeopardy in the hallowed halls of Queen’s Park by Tom Black

Published January 1, 2016
Tom-Black-Ontario-Landowners-Association

Tom Black

I hope all is well with you and yours as we head into the New Year, 2016

Property Rights is again in jeopardy in the hallowed halls of Queen’s Park. Bill 118, the Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage ACT was presented as a private members bill in 2015 by Niagara MPP, Wayne Gates, the NDP member for that riding. The bill has passed second reading and now has gone to committee for early 2016. The bill will grant the right of passage for walkers and un-motorized vehicles between the homeowner’s house and the water’s edge. The properties that will be affected are all the properties along the shores of all the Great Lakes, the St. Laurence River as well as all the properties along the rivers flowing into those waterways. In other words, most communities in Ontario will have some properties affected by this bill. This should set off thunderous alarms in every property owners head, with the recognition that, if this passes, then no private property in Ontario is safe from the intrusive whims of those who see their neighbours property and lust to have it for their own, and if they can’t have it, they lobby certain politicians, (who themselves believe that government should control all property), to pass laws removing the private control of that property a little at a time.

People who live far away from the water’s edge should not feel safe, because removal of property rights for one is removal of property rights for all. This is the thin edge of the wedge and it is the proof that the NDP and the Liberals presently in power in Toronto, have no respect for property rights or for the letter of the law that has been passed down to us, from the Magna Carta. Now the lobby for walking trails and bike trails around the province will have open season on all private property. Watch your back yard, folks, you could soon have a trail across it, because if your neighbours with waterfronts don’t have rights, neither do you.
Adam Smith, Scottish author and moral philosophy, explained the role of government when he said, “the first and chief design of every system of government is to maintain justice; to prevent the members of society from encroaching on one another’s property, or seizing what is not their own. The design here is to give each one the secure and peaceable possession of his own property”.

Now instead of the government standing up to defend property rights, it is the one instigating the removal of said property rights, led by an NDP member that fails to recognize how the removal of property rights has worked in the rest of the world. He should take a long look in the mirror and hopefully recognize that this will eventually destroy this country and then do the right thing and withdraw Bill 118.

If you have any opinions to pass on to this MPP regarding this Bill, you can reach him by phone at 905-357-0681 and leave a message or write to him at:

MPP Wayne Gates
Unit 1, 6746 Morrison Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6Z8

Make sure you copy your own MPP on this matter.

Happy New Year,
Tom Black

13 Responses to “Property Rights is again in jeopardy in the hallowed halls of Queen’s Park by Tom Black”

  1. William Harrington January 1, 2016

    MPP (IDIOT ) Gates:
    What the hell is wrong with your pea brain.
    Landowners worked hard for what they have, just to have a idiot like you take it away from them.
    Get off my property, you Communist A–H–e.

  2. Woody January 1, 2016

    HI,
    Thanks Tom for bringing this to my/our attention. I am at a loss for words. I feel this cannot stand up against our constitutional rights should enough people in Queens Park lose their minds and pass such an unacceptable law in a democratic society. Then it will take money out of citizens pockets, that in itself is a crime, to have courts reverse this decision.

    I thought politicians were elected to serve the citizens by helping with current events. This is going into the past to change our basic land owner rights that the crown gave up when people bought or came into possession of said lands for various reasons. I also thought politicians were supposed to have some knowledge regarding law. This clearly is not the case, with the money thrown away by the current Liberals in gas plant scandals etc. and an NDP elected representative trying to takeaway land owner rights. Ontario is in a desperate situation for change. Who is going to inforce the law when people start walking through other people’s land and littering, noise issues, violence, theft, etc.? I have to say Wayne Gates (NDP) needs to lose his seat as he is clearly not knowledgeable, nor cares for land owner rights, or the fact that this goes against our charter of rights and freedoms, and for obvious other reasons does not deserve to sit in the house, and be paid. This bill will cause so many problems to the citizens of this province, law enforcement, and money out of pocket to fight it.

    Search the song by Woody Hamel called “Right to Nature” on YouTube to see other land owner rights’ issues. We all need to stand strong and not allow the government to turn this democratic society into a dictatorship. The government can change for the future and enact such terrible policies, but they cannot turn back the clock and change things to suit them or their friends. I see a lot of people rolling up to the politicians waterfront and seeing how they like this policy, oh I forgot they will probably be exempt. Out with Kathleen Wynn and unfortunately out with the NDP if this is also how they govern. I think I will be running independent as there are no good choices. But just because there are no good choices does not mean we have to take it. How about the government combat climate change and leave people’s land owner rights to the people.

    Woody Hamel

  3. leonard January 2, 2016

    Once every body realizes that we are the Crown (every man and woman – not persons), change of power will take place.
    If you are a citizen of a nation you have no rights, you don’t
    own ANYTHING, period. If you are a citizen of a country then you can achieve what needs to be done , take the power back.
    As for climate change, hell this earth is older than all the ages of the inhabitants combined. We are in a cycle phase that gov. scientist don’t want to realize, money is the goal.

  4. bill gallagher January 4, 2016

    i choose to become a canadian citizen because of rights and freedoms offered by canada similar to what i left in scotland you do not have the right to take any of these freedomsaway including land rights granted by crown land patent. by passing your bill 118 so please reconsider billg

  5. Preston Haskell January 5, 2016

    Rights that can be legislated away are not rights

    Response #1:
    In a civilized society it is customary to pay market price to acquire someone’s property when expropriating for valid reason. It is never appropriate to steal a property or a right.

    Response #2:
    For some people theft of property or theft of right is okay as long as it is someone else’s property without compensation or someone else’s right that is being stolen!

    But how would they feel if it were their property that was being stolen without compensation? How would they feel if it was their right being removed by legislation?

    In the case of NDP, MPP, and Union Leader Wayne Gate it creates a question as to how Mr. Gates would feel if union rights were stolen such as the ‘right to strike’?

    If government can simply legislate away one right, it stands to reason that they can legislate away every right leaving citizens with no rights at all!

  6. Jean January 5, 2016

    Thanks again to the OLA for bringing these issues to wider attention. It makes one wonder how often underhanded dealings are accomplished in this province because too few people knew about them.

    We all need to contact this MPP asap, and let him know this is an outrage to all property owners, or anyone even considering becoming a property owner in this province, not to mention completely ludicrous as far as practicality is concerned (enforcement? Good luck with that). As Tom Black says, make sure to copy your own MPP on this matter.

    MPP Wayne Gates
    Unit 1, 6746 Morrison Street
    Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6Z8

  7. Jean January 5, 2016

    I sent him my comments and asked him to rethink this bill.

    Wayne Gates email:
    wgates-qp@ndp.on.ca

    I also sent them to our MPP Toby Barrett and MP Diane Finley for Haldimand-Norfolk.

    Just now from Mr. Barrett’s office:

    Thank you for your input on this bill. We are just starting to get input on it. I will pass it on to Mr. Barrett

    Thanks

    Jeff
    Office of MPP Toby Barrett

    Let’s hope this thing stalls out on the table. I am so angry with this proposal, when our family has not been able to do ANYTHING with our land for 40 years, and now total strangers will have the same rights as us.

  8. JohnPaul Adamovsky January 7, 2016

    Ironically, the people who are most avid about walking up and down the shorelines of the Great Lakes are shoreline property owners. Now, that cynical old reclusive weirdo, who puts chain link fences around everything cannot prevent you from enjoying a walk along the beach in front of your own cottage.

    Bill 118 is just formalizing the common-sense interpretation that the word “beach” and the word “property” are not the same word.

    Neighbours and tourists walking by the front of your luxury retirement home does NOT violate your intrinsic human rights.

    Shoreline land which is seasonally covered by water during wind storms is already under the control and authority of the Ontario government, under the Ontario Public Lands Act. This is land upon which old-growth terrestrial-vegetation cannot take root.

    The correct response of lakeside property owners should be a relief that they are explicitly NOT liable for any personal injuries incurred by neighbours and tourists who want to blame somebody else for their own mistakes.

    It will be time to celebrate soon, when Bill 118 becomes law.

  9. Charles Ficner January 12, 2016

    Tom

    Excellent article!

    I would differ on one point of substance. This is not the thin edge of the wedge. The property-rights-thieves have already taken us far beyond the thin edge.

    I would also make a point about the particular case.

    As the ill-informed comments provided by JohnPaul Adamovsky (above) demonstrate, this particular example (involving what are seen as valuable waterfront properties) is easily miscast as “a necessary correction” for the past abuses by the “undeserving rich”.

    Such arguments have wide appeal among those who do not know the actual facts – and the wider implications.

    Those who fail to understand the importance of property rights (or who are determined to undermine them) relish cases that can be cast as a fight of the poor against the undeserving rich.

    By making their distorted arguments, they manage to draw attention AWAY from the fact that the property-rights-thieves have done immense damage to persons in all income and wealth groups – including to many of the rural AND THE URBAN poor.

    The property rights of people who live in cities are routinely being undermined – day after day – by policies that encourage over-intensification – and by greedy developers who are more than willing to exploit the willingness of municipal officials to empower them to trespass on and to do damage to the properties of those who live next door.

    Planning and zoning decisions taken by municipal governments result in hundreds of millions (and probably billions) of dollars being “invented” every year – and those millions or billions of dollars are easier to make when the property rights of adjacent owners are undermined.

    Municipal officials have exploited this for years – and they have reinforced refined the instruments of theft and abuse to a fine art.

    I have had occasion, recently, to deal with one of many such instances in the City of Ottawa.

    In the particular case, the City approved a development that could not be built without trespassing on and doing damage to a neighbouring lot. What the City did allowed the developer to pour all of the water from that lot onto the property of the neighbour – thus causing real and quantifiable damage.

    Throughout a long struggle by the property owner to protect his property, the City consistently acted in ways that undermined the rights of the damaged home-owner and that had the effect of encouraging and empowering the developer’s sense that he was in the right.

    City Officials routinely ignored their own rules. They ignored improper surveys. They allowed the developer to trespass on and to do damage to property that the City knew and that even the developer admitted was not his own.

    The developer raised and regraded his property so that his run off would flood the neighbour’s land. He even added fill on the neighbour’s property so that the water would go directly to the neighbour’s basement wall. Neither he nor the City would do anything. Municipal officials, absurdly, insisted that the regrading was required by the building code.

    I could go on.

    Given such claims and actions by officials, it is not surprising that the developer also claimed the right to use the neighbour’s property to do his construction.

    The City did nothing and as a result, the owner tried to protect his property. The problem escalated.

    Eventually, the police were brought in to deal with the issues of trespass, damage and threat by the developer and his workers.

    The particular contractor who was involved at the time when the police were called effectively argued with the police that they had no jurisdiction, and that the developer had an ongoing right to trespass because the work was being done with the approval of and under the supervision of the City.

    The sense of empowerment by the City has become typical among such developers.

    Fortunately, the police told the contractor that it was a matter of trespass, that the City’s officials are “useless” even in their own field of claimed competence – and that since he was clearly committing a trespass, he had to remove his scaffolding from the neighbour’s property.

    The contractor then accused the neighbour of doing damage to the economy, of imposing restrictions that would harm the income of contractors and, ultimately, deny people jobs. Similar arguments are made by the City officials who approve such abuse.

    The police reiterated the fact that this was a matter of trespass and insisted that the scaffolding be removed.

    … and then the police went further.

    They said that they routinely receive such complaints, and they left no doubt that they saw the City’s pro-developer bias – and its lack of consideration of the rights of neighbouring property owners – as being to blame.

    The result of such institutionalized acts by municipal officials is that many urban people are being seriously harmed by the municipal-government-sponsored abuse of their property rights.

    The conclusion that I draw is that the protection of property rights matter immensely to urban people as well – even if they might not know it – and even if they be inclined to agree with the seriously misleading rhetoric of the likes of Mr. Adamovsky.

    If we are to make progress in protecting our property rights, we need to go much further than reacting to the carefully-chosen thefts done against those who can be misleadingly and deceptively cast as the “undeserving rich”.

    We need to put more emphasis on the rights of the urban poor who own older houses in urban areas – rights that routinely under attack by municipal politicians and municipal officials who think that their job is to maximize tax revenues – and to use the might and the power of municipal government to trample on those ordinary people whose property rights stand in the way.

    Those individuals need to understand that their feeling of grievance is supported by a long-tradition of formal legal property rights – and that their peace and security depends on the promotion, reinstatement and reinforcement of those long-standing rights – against the ever-increasing abuse that is being being perpetrated by the greedy public and private advocates of over-development and over-intensification.

    Far beyond this particular case, the number of persons who are affected is large – and I believe that their frustration and feeling of hopelessness is growing.

    OLA can and should be positioning itself as their champion – not least to counter the misleading rhetoric of the likes of JohnPaul Adamovsky – and his thieving heroes at Queen’s Park.

  10. Brian Doty February 7, 2016

    I have been researching the issue of property rights for many years now off and on…the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that property rights are secured under the common law, but because property rights are not stipulated in our country’s Charter of Rights an Freedoms, the Charter cannot save property rights.

    this is what I think:

    Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, and privacy. The right to Life is not not merely the right to live, that is, to remain of breath and thought. It is not just the right not to be killed. It will include the freedom in acquisition and use of material goods to secure life; that is, property, or it is no right to life at all.
    It is obtuse to think that life might continue without this corollaric freedom to create and use property such as tools, or a wagon, or a garden plot, or a clarinet, or a wheel, or shelter, and to harness agents of power where we might find them so that we may employ their energy.
    The Right to Liberty is not just the right not to be detained, nor is it licence to do whatever you please; it is the freedom to peaceable enjoyment of life and fruits of labour, to move about, to work, to create, to fashion tools to accomplish all all other things our nature impels us towards.
    A right is meaningless without the freedom to realize the right and without the power to defend it.
    A threat to one’s property is a threat to his ability to continue his life; to deny that the protection of life does not also mean protection of one’s undestroyable freedom in the acquisition or creation of the means to preserve life, and the Liberty thereby to use one’s property to one’s own profit and advantage, is not Right to Life, not Right to Liberty.
    Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage,

    protection by law,

    freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.

    we possess a right to protection by law
    let’s look at the Criminal Code re property ownership

    PART IX

    Offences Against Rights of Property

    (b) a person who acquired title to or a right of possession of the property from a person referred to in paragraph (a)

    under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the title or right was transferred from that person

    for the purpose of avoiding the forfeiture of the property.

    (2) A person commits forcible detainer when, being in actual possession of real property without colour of right, he

    detains it in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the

    peace, against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
    Marginal note:Questions of law

    (3) The questions whether a person is in actual and peaceable possession or is in actual possession without colour of

    right are questions of law.

    Intimidation

    423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five

    years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the

    purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do

    anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

    must get these bureaucrats charged, and convicted of theft…

  11. Raymond Beaudry February 11, 2016

    The wind industry and Green Energy Act has already expropriated lands and woodlots by allowing the totally inadequate 550 m noise setback to cross neighbouring non participants fence lines. Not to mention taking the rights away from municipalities in decision making in regards to these projects and forcing them into road use agreements.

  12. Brian Doty February 14, 2016

    “Now instead of the government standing up to defend property rights, it is the one instigating the removal of said property rights….
    If you have any opinions to pass on to this MPP regarding this Bill, you can reach him by phone at 905-357-0681 and leave a message or write to him at:
    MPP Wayne Gates
    Unit 1, 6746 Morrison Street
    Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6Z8″
    Make sure you copy your own MPP on this matter.”

    Opining will get you nowhere.
    The fight you have on your hands is that ‘property rights’ are not addressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    But the fact that we do have them is implicit in the Criminal Code of Canada
    and the fact that we do have them is within the common law, whch still has weight in all our courts
    and the fact that we do have them is implicit in the very fact that expropriation acts exist, across the country
    and the fact that we do have them is in the Parliamentary Statute:
    Canadian Bill of Rights ( S.C. 1960, c. 44)

    If Ontarions are going to defeat this attempt on the part of their elected representatives to ‘legislate’ around the protections within the Criminal Code and the expropriation act, then Ontarians are going to have to do a lot more than ‘opine’; you are going to have to get active. Pro-active.
    you need to put together a class action ….you need to broadcast your concerns to the entire population of Ontario…not hard to do in the age of the internet…you need to raise some funds to hire a competent lawyer….start a crowdfund campaign…just realize how much money could you accumulate if even 100,000 Ontario Residents donated an average of $10
    $1,000,000 retainer would attract a lot of interest to a lawyer.

    There is an Ontario Expropriation Act.
    There is an Ontario Expropration Association…just enter a search for it
    there is an expropriations flow chart that is enlightening

    your opining must include a reminder, citing a possibility of criminal action against this attempt at legislation to subvert the laws of the country, to your elected representatives that attempts to legislate them out of existence is a criminal act …that is…the very attempt is criminal…just introducing the Bill is a criminal act on the part of MPP Wayne Gates. He has invited the Ontario Legislators into a conspiracy.
    It is an act of attempted theft…and if the act were to pass, and if people try to defend against the theft by any lawful means, you know they will bring in armed personel to enforce the theft. It them becomes a robbery.
    That the Bill has been discussed and now sent to ‘committee’ makes the entire effort a conspiracy in which each participating person in the attempt can be named as co-conpirator.
    Get the knowledge, act on it.
    Criminal Code
    “PART IX
    Offences Against Rights of Property
    Theft
    322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
    (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it
    Secrecy
    (3) A taking or conversion of anything may be fraudulent notwithstanding that it is effected without secrecy or attempt at concealment.
    Punishment for theft
    334 Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft
    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, where the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen exceeds five thousand dollars;
    Robbery and Extortion
    343 Every one commits robbery who
    (a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;
    (b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person;
    (c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or
    (d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
    344 (1) Every person who commits robbery is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
    (i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
    (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
    (a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
    (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.”

    To cap..you are right that it is the government’s duty is to protect the people in their person and property…this attempt is a criminal breach of trust and duty on the part of your servants..

  13. Brian Doty February 14, 2016

    I realized that last message was getting waaayy to long…so check these out in the Criminal Code for yourself…

    False Pretences
    Fraud
    Mischief
    Attempts — Conspiracies — Accessories
    Defence of Property


Leave a Comment
 
 


Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.