F'n Ontario nanny state!

Discussion in 'Canada' started by Drif10, Oct 28, 2008.

  1. 2Trider

    2Trider Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Oddometer:
    275
    Location:
    Hazelton BC
    Well heard back from City of Kawartha Lakes....seems they have no reply and are looking into this...if anything by the wording it REALLY affects this Municipality as it was formed beginning in '01 with amalgamation of all townships and County into one "City"..so no townships for start of '03
    Yikes
    So not hearing anything definitive is worrisome...am I now on a 50kph road as of now:eek1
    Should have a definitive answer by end of next week

    Nice of the Liberals to update the City on the change:rofl

    Sneeky B......ds
  2. 2Trider

    2Trider Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Oddometer:
    275
    Location:
    Hazelton BC
    So it is Oct 8th and no one in government is able to return me a answer....YET:rofl
    I believe everything has been shuffled to the MTO desk and of course no one there has a definitive answer.
    Is this another case of no one knows what the h...l is going on:lol3
    geez and all I wanted to know is the speed limit on my road as per the HTA

    unreal

    Oh heard a good one on the news
    A trucker was fined $300 for smoking in his cab:huh .....seems the cab of a commercial vehicle is considered a "work place"
    And who elected these mothers
    Glad I not smoke:rofl
  3. JimmieA

    JimmieA Long timer Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Oddometer:
    1,635
    Location:
    Eastern Canada
  4. 2Trider

    2Trider Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Oddometer:
    275
    Location:
    Hazelton BC
    :rofl :rofl :rofl

    It just keeps on getting better, doesn't it.

    Maybe better to lock this province up for the nazi nanny greens...then boot them all out of the other provinces and stuff them into Ontario:evil

    Then I can be Free from this crap as I move outta here

    What scares me is watching BC go down this same McGuinty nanny road:eek1 :cry
  5. Oddbawl

    Oddbawl Born Ok the first time.

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Oddometer:
    1,112
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Betchya more than half the folks on here voted him in with a majority.
  6. Defconfunk

    Defconfunk I need to get out more

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Oddometer:
    245
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I voted for him back when he promised lower insurance rates, and lower tuition. What happened in his first year? Both my tuition and insurance rates went up.

    He won't be getting my vote again.
  7. Schmittenhymer

    Schmittenhymer Northern Gravelholic

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Oddometer:
    847
    Location:
    Kagawong, Ontario
    Not me, not ever. He's slimier than pond scum.
  8. Forseti

    Forseti Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Oddometer:
    1,413
    Location:
    Rogues' Hollow Ontario
    What kills me is that people actually believe 'em when they spew crap on wheat they are going to do and what the others will do come election time.

    Elections are all about buying peoples votes either by telling then what they want to hear weather it makes sense or not... or just outright lies about the other people/ parties. It seems most people vote for the lesser evil as opposed to actually demanding politicians do what was campaigned on.

    But it is the Canadian way.. vote and then complain but vote the same way again the next time around.
  9. JimmieA

    JimmieA Long timer Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Oddometer:
    1,635
    Location:
    Eastern Canada
    Just saw this new item again in the National Post News Paper. I just cut and pasted a few of the good bits:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2132958

    Ontario's ever-expanding deficit projection is now forecast at a whopping $25-billion, Liberal Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said on Thursday, as he announced spending increases even as the province's tax revenues take a sharp dive. At the same time, the government will hike spending by more than $4.8-billion.

    Since taking power in 2003 on a promise to restore public services, the McGuinty Liberals chose to spend their rapidly increasing revenues rather than running surpluses.

    Over their time in office, the McGuinty-led government has increased government spending by nearly 60%.

    At the same time, the government will hike spending by more than $4.8-billion.

    The Conservatives say the median provincial household income has increased by only 0.5% since 2003. Over the same period, they say, a typical dual-income household has seen an 18% increase in taxes and fees."

    In my opinion this is amazingly bad goverment. The people should be able to have a recall vote and throw them out of office. This sounds like the Bob Ray Liberals of old all over again. When you guys have a bad goverment you don't piss around. I read somewhere else your auto insurace rates are on the rise, lovely!

    JimmieA.
    Sorry had to edit out a error I made.
  10. Oddbawl

    Oddbawl Born Ok the first time.

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Oddometer:
    1,112
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Be careful what you wish for. In the context of this particular thread, Frank Klees is on board with whatsherface, so too has earned a place of honour on my special list known as the "Those Who can Gargle My Balls Gazette" -unfortunately an exponentially expanding work in progress.

    The barbarians are constantly at the gates, no matter what the party line.
  11. RumRunner

    RumRunner Sit there, turn that

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Oddometer:
    7,870
    Location:
    Great White North
    I've come to the same conclusions Oddbawl, one cluster fuck after another. However, this current Gobberment has taken it to a new level and we the people are helpless to influence their actions, direction or policy making.

    And..., it (the self serving) permeates all levels - Provincial>Municipal/Regional>Township.

    I was looking at a rural property a few weeks ago. The property owners had the 80 acre parcel in their family since the mid 1800's. They have the deed, paid taxes and worked the land. The province expropriated 50 of the 80 acres for the Hwy26 bypass leading into Collingwood. The MOT dug up a submitted plan of subdivision from the Township dating from the late 1800's. A plan that was never put into place. However the Province's lawyers argued that the plan took president over the deed, and thus they did not have to compensate the rightful land owner for the expropriation. Seven years of court battles by the land owners costing them $55k ends up at the Ontario Municipal Board. In one of the rare instances of David vrs Goliath, the land owners won:eek1 The ruling chastises the Province for mean spirited, unlawful, uncaring actions and awarded the land owners the fair market value for the 50 acres plus all legal costs. Unfortunately, they are spent, tired and just want the hell out and as such are selling the farm. As icing on the cake the Province rezones a part of the remaining 30 acres along a seasonal creek bed as EP (Environmental Protected). Guess what, the farmer can no longer let his grass grazed Angus cattle drink water in the EP. Utter bullshit on part of the Province.

    This cycle of leaching off of the general populous is only going to get worse. Past actions will dictate future direction. We are a nation of sub-servants. Our population is so internationaly diverse that we have a large percentage of voters who come from hell holes and are willing to put up with the bullshit as it is much better here than from where they came. The only solution is to stake a claim on a hunk of land that is somewhat outside the direct sights of the gobberment, cut ties to the mainstream blood sucking establishment and enjoy a simpler, healthier lifestyle.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    DW
  12. RumRunner

    RumRunner Sit there, turn that

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Oddometer:
    7,870
    Location:
    Great White North
    It's long, but a good read...

    “This land is our land. Back off government.” The big red and white signs have been sprouting up in fields and on roadsides in my little corner of the country for two years now but, this past winter, when the tractor convoys began launching demonstrations on Ontario’s highways, the message was still a novel one to nonfarm people. With commuter traffic disrupted by tractorcades of angry farmers, the farm crisis finally made it—however briefly—into the headlines of the mainstream press.

    It’s not that farmer activism or the issues involved are anything new. Creative protest has a noble history in the farm community, going back to the United Farmers of Ontario, which actually governed the province in the early 1920s, and the Ontario Farmers’ Union, whose progressive and strategic militancy led to many important changes for farmers 40 years later. As for the issues, the current unrest in rural Ontario reflects a deep-rooted economic and social crisis that’s been building for years right across this country. What’s new—and potentially dangerous— about this self-styled “rural revolution” is the way legitimate discontent is being manipulated for purposes that seriously undermine the common good of farmers and everyone else.

    A demagogic landowner leadership is gathering a litany of rural grievances, laying the blame on urban politicians and environmentalists, and reducing the whole thing to a single simplistic demand for entrenched private property rights. While that may sound like a great way for the hewers of wood and drawers of water to get some of their own back from an intrusive government, it does nothing to address the root cause of the ongoing crisis—our flawed economic system’s exploitation of humans and the environment, particularly in the hinterland. By falsely defining the basic problem, these supposed revolutionaries are blocking off possible paths to genuine solutions and leading people down a trail far to the right, toward yet another dead end.

    How has this happened? Overall, it has been a combination of personalities and circumstances, government and organizational ineptitude, ever-present corporate power and a chronic lack of clear political analysis at the level of the general public, both rural and urban. A closer look reveals an ongoing story full of paradoxes and puzzles, embodying a challenge that is national in scope, and pointing to the risks we run as a society if we ignore that challenge.

    Like so many others, this particular revolution started out small and local. Its self-appointed vanguard, the Lanark Landowners Association (LLA), had its origins two and a half years ago when a handful of men met in the office of Scott Reid, Conservative MP for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, just west of Ottawa. Reid, whose family owns the Giant Tiger discount department store chain, is a savvy and ambitious young politician with a nose for the burning issues in his largely rural riding. His new agricultural advisory group included two angry farmers and one pissed-off electrician, ready to raise hell about all sorts of festering rural grievances. Within two months they saw the potential for a public, non-partisan voice for fed-up landowners, and on April 28, 2003, they emerged from their political incubator to form the LLA.

    “We had to do something,” says LLA co-founder Merle Bowes, an organic vegetable farmer who is one of the group’s three main spokesmen. He explains how he had been trying for years through all the proper channels to deal with an overpopulation of nuisance deer decimating his crops, but he kept running up against bureaucratic brick walls that kept him from shooting them. Next, new provincial nutrient-management legislation, aimed at controlling potentially polluting substances like manure, imposed rigid and expensive requirements for handling the wash water from his organic vegetables. Meanwhile, his municipality had prohibited him from building on part of his land, declaring it a buffer zone because an adjoining property might one day become a gravel pit. And when he went to clean out a drainage ditch, he found he had to get permission from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans because there were minnows in the water.

    For Bowes and his neighbours it had all gone too far. “We don’t have rights on our own property,” he says. “The established farm organizations weren’t fighting—or at least they weren’t fighting hard enough. We sure all have other things to do, but nobody was representing us.” So they formed the LLA.

    The new association wasted no time in making itself known. In June 2003, members staged a well-publicized deer hunt, out of season and without permits, and claimed credit when some of the rules covering nuisance deer were later loosened. Their signs were soon dotting the countryside, the defiant slogan giving voice to widespread and growing rural resentment.

    With their provocative rhetoric and can-do style, the LLA struck a chord with many rural people, and the organization grew apace. By the spring of 2004, members were ready to roll through Eastern Ontario with a series of tractor demonstrations that drew in people of widely differing political persuasions, motivated by shared frustration and the conviction that it was time to act.

    It’s that willingness to take bold action that has distinguished the LLA from other players on the farm scene. As Bruce Dodds, a rural organizer and researcher who works with and studies farm organizations, points out, “You wouldn’t expect the Ontario Federation of Agriculture or the Christian Farmers Federation to take militant action; they rarely ever do. But the Ontario Farmers’ Union pioneered mass demonstrations and tractorcades in the 1960s, and the National Farmers Union continued that tradition for some time. If the NFU had responded to the rumblings of discontent three years ago with real on-the-ground leadership and action, we could have had progressive ideas leading this movement today instead of reactionary ones.”

    *

    Organizational might-have-beens aside, the reality now is that more and more Ontario farmers are determined to not go gently into that good night. So while many of them have their doubts about the particular policies the LLA is advocating, the comment you invariably hear is: “Well, at least they’re doing something!”

    They are indeed, but to what end? The LLA’s proposed cure for what ails our rural communities is breathtakingly simple: Strengthen the rights of property owners and ensure “full, fair and timely compensation” for any limits on those rights. Just how that is supposed to bolster farm incomes or reverse migration to the cities is a real head-scratcher, but when disenfranchised people are faced with massive and complex issues, simple solutions can look awfully tempting. Even more so if those supposed solutions come packaged as justice and empowerment—and the Lanark Landowners are very good at packaging.

    The most visible part of the package is LLA President Randy Hillier. The 47-year-old electrician’s good-ol’-boy style, complete with catchy one-liners, barnyard allusions and barbecue invitations, seems to validate the down-to-earth rural culture and the “ordinary people” he claims to represent. Over the past year Hillier has been elevated to star status in much of the farm press, with front-page colour features on “Lanark’s rabblerousing philosopher” and extensive coverage of his provocative statements and actions.

    He is, admittedly, good copy. While his group is staging creative protests such as penning cattle on a well-travelled roadway near Ottawa, staging blockades at provincial government offices with hay bales, conducting outdoor mock trials of officious bureaucrats and defiantly advertising uninspected meat for sale, Hillier provides a running commentary on his vision of democracy, rights and the need to “kick government’s butt.” “The LLA can wait no longer for bureaucratic inaction to inch toward an imaginary solution as our farmers step closer to insolvency,” he told reporters before the illegal deer cull of 2003. He appeals to the press and the crowds with populist language and an attitude of self-righteous defiance. “We are saying no to government,” he announced at an early tractor demonstration. “In a democracy, governments don’t have rights; people have rights and governments have duties. These are our rights.” And at another meeting: “Ours is a class action of action. We stand up together and tell the government what they will do, not what we will do for them.”

    In a December 2004 article on the libertarian website Le Québécois Libre, Hillier upped the rhetoric, expounding on the “legislated death” of rural Ontario by invoking one of his favourite images—that of a hangman’s noose: “The hands of the well-financed urban environmentalists with an academic mindset, and the unaccountable bureaucracy, legislated by urban politicians, all pull on the rope…. The means to tighten the noose comes with every new policy statement, regulation, interpretation or legislative act.” From an improvised stage on a flat-bed trailer at an LLA rally at the Ontario legislature in March, he laid out his organization’s approach to government in the plain, bold terms he knew his listeners would go for. “We tell them what the problem is, what the solution is, and what the consequences will be if they don’t act.”

    Simple, right? And so seductive. There’s also something subliminal going on between Hillier and the crowds. One farmer I spoke with called it his “thug appeal.” In the siege mentality that the farm crisis has fostered in the countryside, a Sylvester Stallone-type defender of rights can attract many followers. It must feel like a long-overdue vindication for them to have this macho tough guy in a T-shirt and red suspenders taking on the government juggernaut, supposedly on their behalf.

    However, as a woman standing in the throng listening to him at the Toronto rally, I sensed another aspect to that thug appeal. Just what it was I couldn’t quite place, until someone told me about a news item on the radio that morning. Some months before, Hillier had emailed photos of a dead deer with bullet holes in its belly to Ontario Environment Minister Leona Dombrowsky. In the accompanying press release about the deer problem, he stated: “The attached pictures are the direct consequence of government injustice, and when individuals no longer fear the tyranny of legislated abuse and intimidation. In keeping with tradition, all nuisance animals are consecutively named, enclosed are pictures of ‘Leona.’”

    Hillier knew very well, and repeated in his press release, that it isn’t Dombrowsky’s environment ministry in charge of deer policy at all, it’s the ministry of natural resources. That’s headed up by a man, David Ramsay. Was the dead deer dubbed Dave? No way. In fact, while Dombrowsky got the gory photos, Ramsay and two other male politicians were “welcomed and invited” in the same press release “to join their constituents to discuss the severe problems, learn of our resolve, and correct the injustice they are imposing on their rural constituents.”

    When the CBC broke the dead deer story, Hillier tried to pass the whole thing off as “a different sense of humour.” That’s an old trick, but it doesn’t wash. Too many women know what it’s like to have various forms of abuse excused as “humour.” Too many people know that put-downs and threats, however indirect, are the very opposite of funny.

    *

    Whatever one may think of Randy Hillier or his tactics, the issues that galvanized the formation of the LLA are real and troubling: The near impossibility of earning a living from a family farm or rural business, the massive burden of red tape imposed on those still trying to do that, the blanket application of urban one-size-fits-all standards to rural institutions, municipal amalgamations that swallow small communities and neutralize rural voices, the withdrawal of rural services and the closing of schools and hospitals, and the overall marginalizing of rural people in an overwhelmingly urbanized society. These interlocking problems dominate conversations at the feed store, fill the pages of rural weeklies and trigger distress calls to The Farm Line. And they provide the ongoing basis for the angry resentment that fuels the LLA.

    Rolling all this up into a single big property-rights package was a strategic decision the LLA made early on. Years of talk and sporadic single-issue campaigns hadn’t worked, and members saw rural Ontario going nowhere fast. “There’s a pile of problems,” Merle Bowes explains. “We purposely got away from each specific issue into a broader framework.” Property rights covered a multitude of grievances, from the nuisance deer to the gun registry, from sawdust disposal restrictions to containment of manure. Without requiring of its adherents a great deal of thought, the property-rights approach offered them government as a popular scapegoat for their frustrations, and gave them an illusion of control. The rural revolution gathered steam.

    Watching uneasily from the sidelines was the National Farmers Union, a progressive voice in farm country. While it may be short on militant action these days, the NFU still offers what the LLA emphatically does not: an informed, intelligent, radical analysis of the ever-deepening crisis in rural communities. That crisis is reflected in the most recent census data: Canada had a total of only 246,923 farms in 2001—down 11 percent from 1996—and a shocking 80 percent of them were supported at least in part by off-farm income. Almost half of farms with less than $25,000 in revenue disappeared over that five-year period. NFU research points to plunging net farm income (sometimes actually less than zero), and documents the ever-growing profits of the corporate suppliers, processors, distributors and retailers, who divvy up the consumer dollars among themselves and leave the farmer with next to nothing.

    “That’s the crisis,” says Ken Marisett, a long-time NFUer and former Ontario Farmers’ Union member who farms near Picton. “With farm gate prices at all-time lows, many farmers can’t afford their own costs of production, let alone the costs involved in environmental stewardship. Let’s organize to change that, not go off on a wild goose chase after property rights.” A lot of the government intrusions on property rights that the LLA so vehemently denounces are actually clumsy attempts to patch up (or appear to patch up) gaping holes in an environment ravaged by decades of corporate-driven economic growth.

    Recent drinking water regulations, greenbelt zoning, nutrient management and endangered species legislation, for example, are all responses to current or imminent crises brought about by the greed and short-sightedness of a society whose priorities are essentially set in the boardrooms of big corporations. After all, it’s the big meat packers that are endangering our air and water with their factory-style intensive livestock operations and lagoons full of chemical-laden manure. It’s the big urban developers that are gobbling up farmland around our cities and towns, while mining, timber and oil companies threaten the remaining wilderness habitat. Now, with disasters like the drinking water tragedy in Walkerton, Ontario, a few years ago and the increasingly obvious threats of pollution and climate change, public pressure has forced our elected representatives into these rearguard actions.

    But intentionally or otherwise, many of these government measures are of dubious effectiveness. Too often, as the LLA points out, they are more hype and paperwork than substance, and they too often catch the little fish while letting the big ones swim away. Moreover, as growing numbers of politicians and bureaucrats turn into mere lackeys for big business, the institution of government itself risks becoming indistinguishable from its corporate masters. Progressive Canadians thus face the daunting double task of defending government against its detractors as our best hope for the common good while trying to reclaim our democracy from the clutches of the millionaire CEOs.

    The LLA, however, either misses this larger analysis or deliberately rejects it. In private conversations and even in the occasional flight of rhetoric, members will say they’re against big corporations, but their public complaints and protests consistently target government, not corporate power.

    Like the authorities they despise, the LLA lets the big fish get away. Worse, members don’t seem to realize that the property- based solutions they propose actually represent a welcome gift to those very corporations. Deregulation and enhanced private property rights are strategies that could have—and quite possibly did—come straight out of right-wing think tanks or political party war rooms. In any case, such schemes are an integral part of the overall corporate agenda of privatization and the undermining of government. The rural revolution’s current groundswell of vocal support for these policy directions is a major achievement that the suits must be celebrating.

    *

    The LLA’s political patron, Conservative MP Scott Reid, is on a roll. In Parliament, his party recently named him chief opposition critic for democratic reform, while at home in his riding he seems to be increasingly popular. Part of it is the way he and Randy Hillier seem to play off each other. It’s a classic good cop/ bad cop scenario, with Reid as the slick respectable guy in the suit and Hillier as his alter ego. A cartoon on the LLA website shows a masked man in a cowboy hat on the back of a rearing horse, wearing a cape bearing the name “Randy Hillier” and making great sweeping gestures with a sword. From the branch of a nearby tree swings the familiar hangman’s noose, the ground beneath it littered with the scattered remnants of various restrictive laws. In the background are Ontario’s legislative building and the Canadian flag. The cartoon illustrates the undercurrent of potential violence that can be felt in a lot of LLA activities. The threat to Leona Dombrowsky was not unique, not a one-time mistake or the ill-considered firing of some loose cannon. It’s part of a larger pattern, an organizing approach framed by aggressive rhetoric and filled with broad hints of vigilante-style justice.

    On April 11, 2005, Augusta Township in Eastern Ontario’s Leeds and Grenville County passed a motion requiring the landowner’s prior written consent for any zoning change, with exceptions permitted only “for the public good, with fair, just and timely compensation.” Sound familiar? Jacqueline Fennell, president of the Leeds and Grenville Landowners Association (LGLA), described in a press release how it came about: “At a public meeting on March 30, the LGLA first proposed this preamble to the council. We explained that within 30 days this must be added, or we would take action on Augusta Township. We are very happy that council heeded the advice of its residents, and no action will be required at this time.”

    What kind of action? It varies, but the common thread is clear. For example, only days earlier Hillier had issued an email alert summoning people to the aid of an LLA member facing possible confiscation of several animals by animal welfare society officials. “Members of the Lanark Landowners Association will confront them,” Hillier wrote, “and the resolve and determination of the landowners will check this abuse of power.” Alerted to the picket and the accompanying media, the officer apparently neglected to show up. Enforcement of environmental regulations like those keeping cattle out of waterways has also reportedly slackened. One concerned farmer told me: “The minute they put a Landowner sign up, the ministry stays away.”

    Merle Bowes insists that the LLA is neither violent nor anarchistic. “We’re just ordinary people trying to preserve our way of life,” he says. “You get called ‘militant’ as soon as you’re ready to stand for a cause. We do things to create awareness. But all our demonstrations have been peaceful, and done in cooperation with the police. And we don’t make any sneak attacks.” Asked about the aggressive rhetoric, he says that sometimes “you have to go to the extreme to negotiate. We know we’ve gained the attention of government.”

    “We’re not against regulation as such,” he explains, “we’re against stupid regulation. There’s so much red tape that does nobody any good at all. You should have the right to do what you want on your own property, so long as it doesn’t harm the environment or your neighbours.” Fine. But how do you—or your neighbours—enforce the “so long as” part if you’ve told government to back off and made private property rights paramount over everything else? It’s rather like asking for boiling ice.

    Few would deny that misguided or unfair government regulation can be a problem, often a maddeningly frustrating one. A really stupid regulation can be the last straw for a beleaguered farm family struggling to stay on the land. But the basic causes of the farm crisis are economic, not regulatory, and the LLA’s heavy focus on property rights leaves that entire sphere largely unaddressed.

    “The landowners are looking for simple solutions to very complex problems,” says Ken Marisett, who several years ago made the transition to organic farming. “They’re not addressing the real problems at all, including what’s happening to the Earth. We really do have to look at the way we’re farming and make changes. It’s not sustainable. I have no problem with regulations; we should comply. There just has to be a way to ensure we make enough money to pay for it.”

    Bruce Dodds agrees. “There are lots of urgent problems in agriculture,” he says, “but none of them can be solved without addressing farm income. The areas of farming that have remained profitable have done so through government-mediated marketing programs, most notably supply management. The LLA seems to have rejected that approach. In their eagerness to get government to back off, they’ve ignored existing marketing legislation and its potential for increasing farm income and loosening the stranglehold of global agribusiness. Government interference and private-property rights are red herrings that circumvent any challenge to the real power brokers.”

    *

    Although city people are generally sympathetic to farmers, they often feel far removed from the crisis in the country. Yet rural problems—and any attempts at solving them—profoundly affect us all. This is most obvious with regard to things like air and water quality, the safety and security of our food supply, the maintenance of wild spaces and biodiversity. But in addition, many issues not generally seen as rural concerns—jobs, poverty, migration and homelessness, and the whole question of sovereignty over energy and natural resources—are also closely linked to the fate of Canada’s struggling rural communities. The way Canadians respond to the current rural crisis will have a huge influence on our survival as a society, perhaps even on whether we survive at all. So for country and city people alike, solid analysis of both the problems and the proposed solutions is essential.

    Complexities and contradictions don’t seem to deter Reid and his Conservative colleagues from pursuing their propertyrights agenda, so happily linked to the votes of their landowner constituents. In the past year, they have introduced two measures in the House of Commons—a private members’s bill and a motion—that closely reflect LLA demands. Both are simplistic, sweeping in scope, and so sloppily drafted as to be virtually unenforceable. Examining a similar initiative by Ontario’s Conservative government several years ago, the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) found the proposed legislation would have effectively tied the hands of police and judiciary; it was eventually stopped in committee.

    Reid’s recent private member’s bill is similarly flawed; among other things, it would entitle anyone deprived of the use of their property, even if so deprived by due process of law, to “full, just and timely compensation.” Thus, if a convicted criminal lost the use of his summer cottage due to incarceration, he could seek compensation from the government. Not the intention, surely, but certainly the result of the text as written. But even tidied up, these proposals would wreak havoc with public policy by effectively expanding the definition of expropriation to include practically any restriction on current or future use of property. In the words of CELA’s executive director, Paul Muldoon, this would “turn the law on its head.” Moreover, since property includes not only real estate but also vehicles, stocks and bonds, artwork, patents, you name it, the possibilities for chaos—and ultimately government bankruptcy—are mind-boggling.

    Like NAFTA’s infamous Chapter 11, entrenched property rights could put a chill on necessary public initiatives and legislation through the threat of huge compensation costs. The impact would be catastrophic for urban and regional planning, pollution or endangered species legislation, limits to urban sprawl or factory farming, even social measures like rent control or worker health and safety. This has in fact been the story in the United States, where right-wing interests have used similar “takings” laws to hamper, delay, prevent or even reverse environmental and other regulatory action. So far here in Canada, efforts to entrench an American model of constitutionally guaranteed property rights have met with rejection, but the Conservatives and the rural revolution are giving the idea new life. In March, the Conservative convention in Montreal adopted the essence of the flawed bill and motion as official party policy.

    *

    Meanwhile back at the ranch, the crisis continues unabated. In Lanark County and across Canada, rural people watch their children leave and their communities wither away while the giant transnational meatpackers and grain companies, banks and retail chains continue raking in the profits. The tractors are off the highways now and back on the land, and the corn is growing up around the red and white signs. But the rural revolution hasn’t gone away. It’s simmering.

    Many of the complaints are justified—our rural communities are indeed under siege, and the one-size-fits-all mentality of many politicians and bureaucrats makes things even worse. But enhancing property rights is not the solution. It is shameful that legitimate farmer protest is being appropriated, arguably for ideological purposes, and used to bolster the very corporate agenda that is largely responsible for the crisis in the first place.

    “It didn’t have to be this way,” says Bruce Dodds. “The landowners associations have emerged from a leadership vacuum in agriculture. When nobody is putting legs under good policy, then those with bad policy have an open field.”

    Perhaps that can change. Back in the 1960s, another generation of farm people took to the roads with their tractorcades demanding decent prices and marketing mechanisms that eventually saved many farms and led to much-needed reforms right across the country. The fact that Canadians enjoy some degree of food security, and that family farms still exist in the countryside, is thanks in no small part to them.

    Theirs was a creative militancy for progressive and practical ends, grounded in clear analysis and backed by farmer-worker solidarity. That’s the kind of rural revolution Canada needs today.


    DW
  13. Schmittenhymer

    Schmittenhymer Northern Gravelholic

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Oddometer:
    847
    Location:
    Kagawong, Ontario
    "This cycle of leaching off of the general populous is only going to get worse. Past actions will dictate future direction. We are a nation of sub-servants. Our population is so internationaly diverse that we have a large percentage of voters who come from hell holes and are willing to put up with the bullshit as it is much better here than from where they came. The only solution is to stake a claim on a hunk of land that is somewhat outside the direct sights of the gobberment, cut ties to the mainstream blood sucking establishment and enjoy a simpler, healthier lifestyle."

    Couldn't have said it better. Time to head north.
  14. 2Trider

    2Trider Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Oddometer:
    275
    Location:
    Hazelton BC
    One case of many as gov agencies roll over the commoner in the name of GREED....bottom line.
    The regs regarding landownership is just getting stupid and FAR reaching ....I'm beginning to think landownership(or at least tying up big dollars in land) is a waste. Thinking it is time to park myself on a low low cost lot and park my "cash" elsewhere.
    Besides with all the propaganda over H1N1 30% of the populous will be culled naturally and then land/housing will be worthless with no one around to buy it.:lol3

    I for one would like to quit feeding the system...not that I'm feeding much into it ever anyways:lol3

    :1drink
  15. Schmittenhymer

    Schmittenhymer Northern Gravelholic

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Oddometer:
    847
    Location:
    Kagawong, Ontario
    It's not just the govment that wants our land, so do the Greenies. A group enjoys Manitoulin Island so much, they decided they had the "right" to make a trail system, on privately-owned land, ("for all to enjoy") all the way around the island.

    Crazy.
  16. Oddbawl

    Oddbawl Born Ok the first time.

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Oddometer:
    1,112
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Won't somebody please think of the children?!!
  17. 2Trider

    2Trider Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Oddometer:
    275
    Location:
    Hazelton BC
    And don't forget bill191 and the Far North Act
    http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2205&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill

    Another lock it up -essentially- bill...but this is 40% of Ontario...yikes.....even the Natives despise this one.

    So going "north" you really need to do your homework...or at least do not tie up any cash in land......can we say SQUATTER:lol3
  18. RumRunner

    RumRunner Sit there, turn that

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Oddometer:
    7,870
    Location:
    Great White North
    Bahhaaahaaaa, I got to be the asshole heckler yesterday. The bitch Helena Jackek was riding on the back of a Vette in the local Santa Claus parade, so I yelled at her "Your private members Bill was based on erroneous and misleading data" You should have seen the look of hate she sent my way.

    DW
  19. Pig-Pen

    Pig-Pen (Formerly KTMike)

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    1,308
    Location:
    Newmarket, Ontario CANADA
    :clap:clap Nice one Rummy!!! (I sure hope she was wearing a helmet or seatbelt while riding on the back of a car like that....could be dangerous :norton)

  20. Lornce

    Lornce Lost In Place

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Oddometer:
    23,018
    Location:
    Way Out There.

    Or something like that.

    :nod