The Charter of Quebec Values Defiles Human Rights

Canada is a nation built by people who came here from all four corners of the world. Some came in search of prosperity, others to escape tyranny, persecution or war. Each and every one had shared the commonality of a dream for a new life. Even today this dream is seen in the eyes of the thousands of immigrants who come to our shores. As each of these individuals stand with pride to become Canadian citizens they do so in security of a belief that their basic human rights are protected by law and legislation. Have they been misled in this belief?

We did not have to endure a revolutionary war to bring together the varying provinces. Those we call the Fathers of Confederation met in mutual acknowledgement of each others' individuality yet understood the need to work together for a common goal. As the voice for cultural identity grew in Quebec, we did not see a need for civil war, where friend would be facing friend in violence and death. Once again as Canadians we saw the value in reason and the acceptance of each others' individuality rather than anger and violence.

Finally in 1982 the Constitution Act became law. It took us over a hundred years to devise a document which set out the fundamental freedoms we as Canadians expect to have protected. One of those fundamental freedoms that the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada guarantees is the “freedom of conscience and religion.”

Today Pauline Marois as the Premier of Quebec and supporter of the separatist movement, has decided to assault the very basic heart of humanity. Premier Pauline Marois has devised an 'ideal' where those employed in any state run job will have to make a devastating choice. Each individual of faith will have to choose whether they adhere to their religious beliefs or continue to hold the job they have. People in Quebec will have to decide if they continue to feed their families, keep a roof over their heads and provide a service to the community over their faith.

Premier Marois is quoted in Montreal's Le Devoir saying, “in England they're knocking each other over the head and throwing bombs because of multiculturalism and nobody knowing anymore who they are in that society.” She has in her own words identified religious signs as cultural signs, and sees the two as some obstacle that needs to be attacked.

No religion whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other teaches violence. Humanity has taken religion as an excuse to commit horrendous atrocities. In Salem, Massachusetts women were burned alive labelled as witches, sometimes simply because they refused the advances of a prominent man. A Catholic Pope formed an army to conquer and convert in the name of God. The Spanish Inquisition sought out to identify heresy by torture and murder. Adolf Hitler did his best to stamp out the Jewish faith. Stalin jailed and intimidated believers of the Russian Orthodox faith. In Northern Ireland the Catholics and the Protestants still haven't figured out what that was all about. Finally, how do we forget the mighty empire of Rome, before the Vatican got its lifetime lease in the capital city, and the entertaining coliseum playtime between Christians and lions.

All of this only scratches the surface of humanity's evolution. Still no God has asked their followers to commit any of these acts. Often it was faith that provided strength to conquer the conquerors. Now Premier Pauline Marois has decided she and her minority government will attack religion in our modern society, a society which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. Can it be that Pauline Marois sees herself mightier than the Pharaoh, Caesar, Fuhrer, or Chairman by labelling her stand as a desire to subdue divisive multiculturalism?

The Parti Quebecois government's Charter of Quebec Values according to Pauline Marois will be a uniting force for the province. Premier Marois said, “We are moving forward in the name of all the women, all the men, who choose Quebec for our culture, for our freedom, and for our diversity.” (Canadian Press August 25, 2013). A proposed ban on the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols and headwear by state employees is claimed to be done so in the name of all men and women and proving the diversity that exists in Quebec? It appears that the Church of High Hypocrisy has found a new high priest in Quebec.

State employees such as judges, prosecutors, police officers, correctional agents, public and private daycare workers, school board personnel in elementary and high school, CEGEP's and universities as well as public health and social services, will all have to face the ban on religious freedom. Government documents permit certain board of directors such as those in CEGEP's and universities or municipal councils to adopt a resolution which will allow its personnel to wear religious symbols. This authorization will be valid for a period of five years and renewable according to government documents.

Bernard Drainville, Democratic Institutions Minister said “the time has come for us to rally around clear rules and common values which will put an end to tensions and misunderstandings.” Thousands of people have taken to the street in demonstrations against this Charter of Quebec Values. Quebec Muslims for Rights and Freedoms (QMDL) had been formed to represent some 50 civil and religious Muslim organisations in protest to the charter. This group states it is against all restrictions relating to wearing all religious symbols in the workplace. Though this group fully agrees that government employees should at all times have their faces uncovered whilst performing their duties, and that everyone should remove their face veil in order to be identified.

Internationally renowned philosopher Charles Taylor, who co-presided over Quebec's 2007 commission on the accommodation of minorities and other civil-rights experts have been outraged by these proposals. Taylor said, “I challenge you to find another country in the hemisphere where we have this kind of exclusion.” (Canadian Press August 25, 2013). Charles Taylor compared Quebec's proposals to that of Russia, “In Russia, if you believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as others you cannot be open about it. It would be considered propaganda, it's a type of crime of conscience. If we look at what is proposed here, for sure it does not go as far, but it says that if you have certain convictions you are a second-class citizen because those who have such convictions cannot apply for a job in the public sector.”

Justin Trudeau was the first prominent federal politician to voice his condemnation of the Quebec proposals, and has not changed his public stand on the issue since. At times Justin Trudeau had stirred angry responses from Pauline Marois and Minister Bernard Drainville who blame Trudeau on deepening divisions.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a press conference that the PQ separatist government looks to pick fights with Ottawa. Harper said, “But that's not our business, our business is the economy. Our business is job creation for Canadians – all Canadians, including Quebecors.” (Alexander Panettta, Canadian Press August 29 2013).

A month later the Conservative government had responded in a different tone to the Quebec proposal. Employment Minister Jason Kenney said, “We are very concerned by any proposal that would limit the ability of Canadians to participate in our society and that would affect the practice of their faith.” He further said that the federal government would have lawyers review the bill if it becomes law.

Federal NDP leader Tom Mulcair had brushed off any comment in regards to the Marois proposals with the charter, though his tone changed also in the following weeks. It appears both Prime Minister Harper and the NDP leader Mulcair have bowed under the growing public opinion against the Quebec Charter of Values.

Minister Drainville, who is responsible for the Quebec Charter of Values may attempt to point to France for his inspiration. France banned the wearing of religious symbols in publicly funded primary and high schools in 2004, though the ban in France was never as wide as the proposed charter by the PQ. European countries have faced heated debate over religious symbols but often it has been on security levels as with the issue of face veils. Today the world has a genuine need to seriously look at security issues to protect its people. Kenya and the massacre of innocents is a horrific reminder of how terrorists disregard human life, only wishing to inflict fear in the name of their own sick and twisted cause.

Quebec's Charter of Values has no basis on security issues and its desire to create a division in Quebec's society is frightening. The Quebec Soccer Federation had to lift its ban on the wearing of turbans on Quebec soccer fields. World headlines ridiculed Quebec and outside pressure was loud and clear, even though Pauline Marois accused all in opposition as Quebec bashers.

Minister Bernard Drainville, the architect and lead on the proposed charter has said, “The proposals we are going to table are very balanced proposals. I think they find an appropriate balance between the respect of human rights and the respect of Quebecers' common values.” It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand what is the motivation behind the proposed charter. Pauline Marois claims it will be a uniting force in the province, Minister Drainville claims it is in respect of human rights, and the world sits back in shock at the absurdity of it all.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

Can opposition be silenced?

Both a title worthy of thought and a question requiring an answer. In a climate where censorship and corruption feed off each other opposition dwindles to a trickle. Power thrives surrounded by the silence of indifference. Often in such a scenario a lone voice standing against such corruption becomes the epitome of a 'David and Goliath' story. Still David was victorious, and that can be repeated today.

In Canada there is a belief that our rights are guaranteed. No such guarantee exists, that is the reality. Those who corrupt society will corrupt everything in the end. Their minions are cowards, their weapon of choice, intimidation and threat. On Tuesday the 10^th of September, those cowards were unleashed.

It had been reported that an investigation for breach of Code of Conduct against City of St. Catharines Councillor Jeff Burch had been filed. The Standard published the story written by Marlene Bergsma. Both the name of the councillor and the complainant had been omitted from the article by Bergsma.

The Standard has long ceased acting like a newspaper when events unfold around the city. It was Marlene Bergsma who wrote an article in 2010, intentionally lying to help cover up corruption. On that occasion Bergsma lied in print to save Mayor Brian McMullan and Councillor Jennie Stevens. At the time it was the fixing of a legal by-law fine by Brian McMullan and the infamous telephone answering machine message by Jennie Stevens. In the telephone answering machine message that Councillor Jennie Stevens left, she confirmed in her own voice that the fine had been fixed by Mayor McMullan. Marlene Bergsma lied about the by-law fine and what she claimed were facts. This time Marlene Bergsma omits any facts from the story, disregards the complainant, but does provide a quote by the very same Councillor Jennie Stevens. No not from a telephone answering machine but presumably direct to 'reporter' Bergsma. According to Marlene Bergsma Councillor Jennie Stevens “fears” that the complaint could be “frivolous or vexatious.”

Councillor Stevens indeed has fears, she fears that the facts surrounding her actions and that of fellow Councillor Jeff Burch are made public. She fears the fact that she became a conspirator in the fixing of a lawful fine by Mayor Brian McMullan. Although for the moment Councillor Jennie Stevens can cuddle in a blanket of comfort that Marlene Bergsma will not provide the people with the truth, and The Standard will not publish it. Instead Marlene Bergsma does what she does best in relation to what is the full story.

Marlene Bergsma then provided another gem of a quote, this one from the city clerk Bonnie Nistico-Dunk. The city clerk said in relation to the integrity commissioner, “she could look at the complaint and throw it out.” Here the Marlene and Bonnie tag team provide another intentional misconception with semantics. As the integrity commissioner Suzanne Craig will request that all the evidence relating to the allegations be presented by the individual who filed the complaint. She will speak with that individual, she will without doubt speak with Councillor Burch and listen to his explanations. In the end it will be up to the integrity commissioner Suzanne Craig to decide if the evidence indeed proves the allegations or not.

The eloquence of the city clerk Bonnie-Nistico Dunk does not reflect the dollar value of public money paid for her services. Still this is The Standard and the intentions were to simply provide the potential groundwork for deceit once again. As is often the case an article appears on The Standard's online edition, stcatharinesstandard.ca, first allowing comment by readers and others. Here in this arena modern society has provided a fertile ground for cowards to flourish. Each of these individuals seems to find a need to hide behind fictitious names as they add their words of wisdom.

One such individual using the name Bob Eubanks entered the arena. That name it uses is false. There is no way to know if it is a he or a she, so it will be referred to as a 'shim'. Whoever this Bob Eubanks is, it decided that lies and insult may be added to the intentional misconceptions already laid done by The Standard and Marlene Bergsma.

'Shim' Bob Eubanks takes a swipe at mayorgate.blogspot.com claiming it is “read by a handful of people.” For legal purposes a screen capture had been done of the Google statistics page of the same date as the comment. Mayorgate has grown to be read in over 16 countries, and the numbers since January 1^st 2013 have hit well over 130,000. The reason is simple, unlike mainstream media with their political alliances, we have no such debt to pay, or pander to. All the articles published on Mayorgate are documented with evidence and provided with researched fact. 

Mayor Brian McMullan is quite aware of this as he tried to threaten Mayorgate with legal action. In response Mayorgate published both his threat and the evidence against him, Mayor Brian McMullan decided to back off. There are no misconceptions, no lies in the articles published, and it is a collaboration of more than one to achieve these standards. It is also a collaboration with people, members of the community who contact us with information and leads to potential articles, confident that the information will be handled with objectiveness and honesty.

This individual goes on to lie even further when it refers to a letter to the Queen of England. Her Majesty the Queen indeed had been contacted, although not over parking tickets, that is simply a lie by a coward. The issue brought to the attention of Her Majesty related to our parliamentary democracy and the fact that the Governor-General, David Johnston had overstepped the boundaries of his responsibilities and authority. In return Buckingham Palace responded on two separate occasions proving that the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are in fact wasted on ancient ties to the Monarchy.

As far as parking tickets go which 'shim' Eubanks refers to, that is another issue all together. In Canada we have this belief that our laws are equally applicable to all Canadians. An absolute and alarming falsehood, especially when corruption at government levels take a hand, as it had in St. Catharines.

One individual by the name of John Reiter decided that the law did not apply to him, and that he could do as he pleased. John Reiter works for Metro Freightliner, he drove a white Ford van often with a trailer attached for his ride-on mowers and other equipment. He was also a personal friend of Sheila Morra and her husband Tony Morra. At the time Sheila Morra was a City of St. Catharines Councillor and lived opposite John Reiter on Glendale Avenue.

Parking tickets are a slap on the wrist to those who decide to park illegally. Most drivers obey the law although there are times when one is in a hurry or simply cannot find a parking vacancy and so a driver decides to take a risk. John Reiter decided that the law did not apply to him at all. Reiter had no care for the safety of innocent people at all. As the intersection at Almond and Glendale is not a safe one he decided to park his vehicles illegally almost every day for several years, with over 500 photographs taken. City staff were contacted, the mayor's office was contacted, the Parking Authority too were contacted, the Niagara Regional Police and Councillor Jennie Stevens also were contacted. No one did anything to enforce the law, in the case of Councillor Jennie Stevens who came and looked at the photos and then left and never to be heard of again, only questions remain. Hundreds of photographs spanning several years of intentional abuse of the law and not one single parking infringement written! Corruption at the City offices on Church Street is the only answer.

The truth matters little to a 'shim' like Bob Eubanks who hides behind a false name. He was joined by another 'shim' who went by a tag called 'city dweller'. This individual decided to identify where the complainant actually lives. In the end cowardice is a human trait seen throughout history, and presents no surprise when exhibited by the likes of Bob Eubanks or city dweller. Instead a true affront to dignity comes from The Standard and those associated with it.

Reporters Marlene Bergsma and Jeff Bolichowski are not strangers to deceit and misconception. Peter Conradi as a City Editor in 2006 at The Standard doctored photographs to suit a story rather than the truth, now he is Editor-In-Chief. Censorship takes a new twist at the hands of those who claim to present the news at The Standard.

Finally columnist Doug Herod presents his opinion on September 13^th 2013 titled, 'Code of conduct fine... until complaint received.' Doug Herod at The Standard often thinks he is clever or funny, this time he tries to stay a little more on the serious side. He says that he thought a Code of Conduct was a waste of time and that “there were already a number of existing ways to keep municipal politicians in check.” Doug Herod naturally does not mention in what ways we can keep those politicians “in check.” There is enough hard evidence that proves corruption, whether the fact that one individual was protected from the consequence of the law for several years, or the fixing of a lawful by-law fine by the mayor and city councillor. He may look at the fact that the mayor admitted to a breach of the Criminal Code without consequence, or the fact that city officials knowingly permitted a business to break the law for over five years and then attempt to cover it up. Maybe Doug Herod would have the courage to examine the facts of the deceit by the city councillor who is to be investigated. Though facts would not be something columnist Doug Herod of The Standard would entertain.

A frightening reality exists in Canada and the people have not been allowed to awaken to it. Those who elect the representatives of government have no rights once the elected take office. In a democracy that has to be frightening. Now councillors like Joe Kushner want to change the Code of Conduct, and that is no surprise. In the end, when censorship and deceit emanates from the media, corruption is enabled to take stronger roots.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Society's Checks & Balances, are they real?

This is not an easy question to answer. Freedom without any boundaries would only result in anarchy. Laws, legislation and rules are needed to guide society on a path which will sustain equality for all. Yet administering the varying rules is not an easy task and impartial adjudication an absolute necessity. Still for some reason society decides that watchdog bodies are most often comprised of those the watchdog is needed over.

Professional watchdogs administer an array of rules of conduct or codes within their own profession. Doctors diagnose issues over doctors, lawyers cross examine lawyers, police investigate police, and so on. Are these groups really impartial? In whose best interest do they really serve? After all the Criminal Code is not placed in the hands of those who break the law, to equally and fairly determine what consequences should be applied or when.

So although a cynic may find little faith in the reality of these professional watchdogs and their claims of adhering to a code, one group seems to be beyond reach of even the pseudo watchdog. Our elected members of government appear to often skirt away ethics and integrity with little to no consequence for their actions.

Our Ontario Ombudsman has no authority over Provincial Members of Parliament nor does he have any over municipal government. In fact as an example of a truly impartial body, he has no greater authority other than to release moral recommendations, regardless of the professional body he investigates. The Parliamentary Legislative Integrity Commissioner will not entertain complaints from the public, and the Auditor General equally impotent. In the end what are we really left with?

In St. Catharines, Ontario an elected City Councillor has intentionally misled fellow council members and the public. The City of St. Catharines has a published Code of Conduct for Elected Officials available on the web. This 'code' makes it clear that a written complaint outlining the alleged breach, if considered by the City to be a breach, will be passed on to an Integrity Commissioner or the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman for investigation. Mind you it is the City, no one specifically is named, who decides if the complaint really is worth investigating.

The ludicrous insanity does not stop at the front door. If the complaint indeed passes such impartial decision making it then is brought to Council who decide whether an Integrity Commissioner is selected or the Ombudsman to do the investigation. As this is government the time lapse period between the day when the written complaint is provided to the City Clerk to this mid-point is anyone's guess. Sadly it is not like a pizza delivery, 30 minutes or it's free.

Once it is in the hands of the investigator a blanket of total secrecy is dropped over the whole process. Upon completion of the investigation any recommendations and decisions are provided to Council. Now it is the City Council that decides whether or not the recommendations are actually to be applied. Council has 90 days to make this decision. There is nothing in the 15 page document made publicly available by the City of St. Catharines that outlines possible penalties, if any, if the investigation indeed proves the allegations to be real.

A test case had been prepared and delivered to the City Clerk for the City of St. Catharines. The written complaint details the breaches of 'the code' by Councillor Jeff Burch. In this case Councillor Burch had willfully and intentionally mislead fellow members of council and the public. The notion of public interest was discarded by Councillor Jeff Burch, laws and policies stained beyond recognition by dishonesty. City of St. Catharines established its Code of Conduct for the claimed purpose that it “enhances public trust.” Now it is the opportunity for the City to prove their claim.

This 'code' by the City of St. Catharines appears to be set up in a fashion where it basically guarantees that nothing will eventuate even if an investigation is carried out and the alleged offences proven. Its formula designed in such a manner that it is up to City Council to decide if any recommendations by an Integrity Commissioner or Ombudsman are even accepted or acted on. Councillor Jeff Burch's own fellow councillors would decide if any action will be taken against him!

In this specific case, each of the City of St. Catharines Councillors were fully aware of the facts and that lawyer John Willey, on behalf of his client Sam Demita, owner and operator of Sun Collision, had lied to them. Each of the members of council were aware of the official government documentation made available to them prior to the public meeting. When Councillor Jeff Burch stood upon to publicly present his deception, each of his fellow councillors knew that Burch was being dishonest before them. Can this be Councillor Jeff Burch's defense then? After all if his fellow councillors knew that he was being publicly dishonest and misleading, then he could not be misleading them. Was he, Jeff Burch, only intending to mislead the public then and not council?

Can this be a cynic's observation or simply a frightening truth? There are a number of these official bodies that administer a flood of various 'codes'. The Law Society of Upper Canada adheres to the mantra 'in the best interest of his or her client,' which is not always in the best interest of the law. Ontario's Press Council will tell one that a newspaper has the right to choose what to print, yet censorship is exactly that. Try and climb that wall of semantics. Doctors are governed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, only as in the case of Dr. Valerie Jaeger of Niagara, the College stated that she was a public official and the rules governing her as a doctor didn't apply, even though she was a practising family physician at the same time.

So where will this request for an investigation of Councillor Jeff Burch go? The evidence proving that Councillor Burch had been dishonest and intentionally misleading of fellow councillors and the public is clear. Jeff Burch cannot claim that he was serving “the public interest by upholding both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies established by the Ontario Legislature, and St. Catharines City Council.”

Here is an opportunity for a government in Canada to prove that a 'code' was meant for something more than breaking. Yet in the end it is up to Councillor Jeff Burch's fellow council members to decide if anything is done, even if an investigation is carried out. Can such a situation provide public confidence or enhance public trust in our elected officials?

Democracy is served well when the people are provided the information and facts openly. When the right to question any situation is made available, then equality thrives. Corruption in Laval, Quebec or of the Senate by Senators was made public by the media to ensure that further corrupt acts were not possible, and the truth was open. In St. Catharines both The Standard and Niagara this Week have proven that censorship of fact is their chosen road. In the end censorship and deceit become the breeding grounds for corruption.

In the final analysis little is expected as a result of this filed request for investigation of Councillor Jeff Burch under the Code of Conduct. As head of council Mayor Brian McMullan was present on April 29^th, 2013, and was fully aware of Councillor Burch's intentional deceit. Now it will be up to council to decide how far this will be taken.

Is democracy's only measuring stick the right to choose where we put our mark on a ballot paper? Can we as the people who had chosen our representatives in government be satisfied or silent as they breach ethics, dignity and honesty, and then decide themselves if they face any consequences? Only public outcry can bring forth a weapon strong enough to ensure the protection of equality in our society. The elected fear only the glare of publicity as a mythical vampire fears the sun's light.

The test case is now in play, and as patients waiting in a hospital emergency room we will have to wait for the results.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Cone of Silence Receives a Crack

Censorship in a democracy is generally considered as unthinkable. When governments are caught lying and hiding facts from the public, we hear demands for investigation and consequence. In Ontario the sitting Liberal government shakes at the mere mention of emails and their disappearing act. But what do we do as people when it is the mainstream media that is proven to intentionally censor the facts? Can we ideally sit by and allow this to happen without voicing our disgust? Are we to permit a publisher of a newspaper or its reporter and editor to decide what we have a right to know?

This has happened in St. Catharines, Ontario, not in China or some dictatorship in South America. Publishers, editors and reporters of the main newspaper The Standard and the community newspaper Niagara this Week took it upon themselves to decide what the people of St. Catharines will be permitted to know. A cone of silence, (excuse me Maxwell Smart for borrowing your term) has been placed over one individual in the community who is willing to fight for his community. It has been their decision to exclude the people of St. Catharines from knowing information and fact in order to protect members of local government, and others. Serious questions of abuse of power and possible corruption hang in the air, and local media has become the saving umbrella for trusted public officials, sheltering them from consequence.

On August 18^th 2013, at high noon the first crack in the cone of silence was permitted. It was radio host of 'The Region' Andy Petrowski on CKTB Newstalk Radio who interviewed Alexander Davidoff. Listen to the questions posed and the information provided through the interview and ask yourself is censorship to be permitted in a democracy. Thank you to the management, producers and to Andy Petrowski for their courage.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Deceit & Censorship Breed Corruption

Our democratic society is built on a foundation of equality and freedom protected by the laws of the land. As members of a democratic society we have the right to expect equality of justice, freedom of speech and the protection of our basic human rights. Laws and legislation are drawn to guide society to ensure and protect those rights and freedoms. History has shown how devastating life is when those rights and freedoms are removed. Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia and Mao Tse Tung's China are but a few examples of a human landscape where freedom was replaced by fear. Although freedom is the cornerstone of democracy rules are required as a framework for society, otherwise anarchy would bring about destruction.

In St. Catharines, Ontario the most basic expectations of democracy have come face to face with corruption. Canada has been a shining light that has drawn many people to escape tyranny for a better life. They left behind the fist of fear that silences the freedom of speech and censors all media, where law and its practitioners are simply puppets of corruption. Now our most basic ideals of democracy are being tested.

Rules of Professional Conduct as published by The Law Society of Upper Canada under section 1.03 Standards of the Legal Profession, sub-section (a) states; “a lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public, and other legal practitioners honourably and with integrity.” Tribunals are described as meaning, “courts, boards, arbitrators, mediators, administrative agencies, and bodies that resolve disputes, regardless of their function or the informality of their procedures.” These rules also clarify what professional misconduct constitutes, “it means conduct in a lawyer's professional capacity that tends to bring discredit upon the legal profession including (f) stating or implying an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.”

Here a lawyer, with full intent and purpose lied in his presentation to a municipal city Council. The mayor and two city councillors, with full personal knowledge of the facts, permitted the lie and became part of the lie. Highly paid public servants employed by the city government avoided to divulge the facts for council members and with full intent and purpose omitted information. Finally, the local press refused to report the information made public at the council meeting, intentionally censoring information from the people of St. Catharines. All of this happened in Canada, not in a land ruled by terror or tyranny.

Lawyer John Willey alleged publicly that information of investigations had been made public but not the results. John Willey then, in his official capacity as council for his client Sam Demita, lied about the results. He in fact through his allegations accused another individual of lying by omission. John Willey slandered another individual in an attempt to promote his client.

The Law Society of Upper Canada in its Rules of Professional Conduct states under Dishonesty, Fraud etc. Point (5) “A lawyer shall not (a) knowingly assist in or encourage any dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct.” To further clarify this point it states in (5.0.1) “A lawyer shall not act or do anything omit to do anything in circumstances where he or she ought to know that, by acting, doing the thing or omitting to do the thing, he or she is being used by a client, by a person associated with a client or by any other person to facilitate dishonesty, fraud, crime or illegal conduct.”

All the information relating to the lawyer John Willey and his public lies had been forwarded to The Law Society of Upper Canada. The Society has responded with a standard letter advising and confirming receipt of information. But it was not only lawyer John Willey who decided to destroy the most basic ideals of our democracy. Mayor Brian McMullan and two city councillors Jennie Stevens and Jeff Burch were not only fully aware of the situation since 2008 and onward but had direct personal involvement. Councillor Jeff Burch in what appeared a staged questioning of lawyer John Willey at the April 29^th Council meeting said, “Councillor Stevens and I have been out many, many times including the mayor, sat in people's kitchens and walked through the neighbourhood, so everyone should first recognise that as you mentioned, ah, city staff, councillors, and the mayor put a lot of time into looking into the complaints...”

Councillor Jeff Burch had been correct in a fashion. Fellow Merritton Ward Councillor Jennie Stevens left the now infamous telephone answering machine message confirming to one of the victims of the flooding that Mayor McMullan had fixed a lawful by-law fine so he would not have to pay for it. Councillor Jeff Burch had given an ominous warning to a victim of the flooding when he told the individual, “...that they know people in high places with the City of St. Catharines and this could be difficult.” (Directly from a handwritten statement of one of the victims.) Mayor Brian McMullan had called this individual exploding in anger as to why he gave a copy of the answering message to anyone.

Personal and direct involvement of the mayor and two councillors had been documented and made public, still the 'sound being made unsound' went deeper at this level of government. Another City Councillor, Dawn Dodge commented on allegations and not the findings being made public. Councillor Dodge would have to of known of the Ministry of the Environment investigation where lawyer John Willey's client Sam Demita was found in breach of the EPA regulation which prohibits the burial of hazardous waste material. Councillor Dodge somehow preferred to ignore this fact.

It was not only the two Merritton Ward Councillors and the Mayor who had knowledge of the facts, each and every councillor was sent an email advising them of the facts surrounding this property and owner. This email was sent prior to the April 29^th Council meeting. Councillor Matt Harris had copies of documents provided directly to him prior to the public meeting. Each and every councillor was aware of the intentional breaches of law by Sam Demita for over four years. Each and every councillor knew that lawyer John Willey had stood before them and lied to gain their vote. Each of the listed councillors swears an oath of office and is elected to represent the people of their city and not special interest. Not one of the listed councillors (Jeff Burch, Jennie Stevens, Matthew Harris, Joseph Kushner, Peter Secord, Greg Washuta, Mathew Siscoe, Mark Elliot, Dawn Dodge, Bill Phillips, Len Stack, and Bruce Williamson), has a right to claim that they acted in the best interest of the people who elected them by ignoring the very laws each and everyone has to abide by.

Councillor Jeff Burch went on in his questioning of lawyer John Willey, he said “...um, there was one accusation I believe only one that you didn't answer. I believe at the time this ravine was filled in there wasn't proper paperwork done and it wasn't done properly, could you explain that.” Lawyer John Willey responded correctly that the City of St. Catharines does not have a grading permit requirement. Councillor Burch continued, “So in your own view or in the view of your client there was no asking for forgiveness rather than permission, all of the required proper paperwork, all of the permissions, all of the stuff properly gone through.”

With this Councillor Jeff Burch quite intentionally opened another opportunity for lawyer John Willey to lie to his fellow councillors. John Willey responded, “That's our position, we'll certainly acknowledge that moving forward for this storage it is necessary to apply to make this application so that is the one item that does require the very request we are making.”

Both Councillor Jeff Burch and lawyer John Willey knew this was a lie made publicly to mislead all who listened. Councillor Jeff Burch facilitated that lie with full intent and purpose as he knew the truth. All of the listed councillors knew that this was a lie. As councillors each knew that Sam Demita was in breach of the by-laws for several years intentionally. Grading permits are not required in the City of St. Catharines that is true and correct. Yet all of this land is designated Environmental Protection Area under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Authority Act administered through the Niagara Conservation Authority at the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Under the EPA no development is permitted, under EPA no outdoor storage is permitted, and under the EPA any fill to be dumped or deposited would require permits and full documentation of every load. No automotive related business is permitted on this land, city zoning by-laws breached, the Planning Act breached, and EPA laws breached; all since late 2007. Councillor Jeff Burch became a partner in the lies by lawyer John Willey.

Most official bodies are subject to some form of accountability for their conduct. Lawyers are subject to the Rules and Professional Conduct as already examined. Doctors adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, police have rules and standards, which when breached consequences may be severe. Even large corporations such as Bell are scrutinised by a 'watchdog' organisation in the form of the CCTS. City of St. Catharines has a written Code of Conduct for Elected Officials, Local Boards and Advisory Committees.

This written Code of Conduct claims to reinforce “the City of St. Catharines Accountability and Transparency Policy and other relevant legislation within which all members of Council, local boards and advisory committees must operate.” Supposedly this written Code of Conduct ensures “that those members share a common integrity base and through adherence to its principles, the Code of Conduct serves to enhance public trust.”

There are five key principles listed that exemplify the essence of the Code of Conduct. Number four (4) states, “members are responsible for making honest statements and no member shall make a statement when they know that statement is false, or with the intent to mislead other members or the public.”

As a member of St. Catharines City Council, Councillor Jeff Burch found little use for integrity and principle on April 29^th 2013. He himself proved with his own words the direct personal involvement of both councillors, and the mayor in the situation surrounding lawyer John Willey's client Sam Demita, owner/operator of Sun Collision.

Councillor Jeff Burch prior to standing and asking his questions of lawyer John Willey listened to Willey's lie. Jeff Burch knew without hesitation that the statements uttered by lawyer John Willey were meant to deceive and mislead. Those lies centred around official provincial documents and legislation, and Councillor Burch had full access to all the material. He knew of the MOE investigation and the fact that Sam Demita was found in breach of Ontario Regulation #347, he knew of the MOE request to have the damaged vehicles moved from the fence line. As a councillor in his second term Jeff Burch is fully aware of zoning by-laws and of planning regulations.

As all the members of council received an email prior to the council meeting of April 29^th providing access to official documentation proving intentional breaches, Councillor Jeff Burch was fully aware of the facts. Jeff Burch was also fully aware that these lands are under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Authority Act as Environmentally Protected Area, and therefore under provincial legislation. The EPA lands require specific permits even if local municipal zoning does not. A senior officer from the Niagara Escarpment Commission confirmed in writing in April of 2009 that no permits were filed for the dumping or filling of the ravine by John Willey's client. Councillor Jeff Burch had access to a copy of this NEC letter.

Click here for the full Conservation Ontario Development, Interference & Alteration Regulations PDF.

Still with all the knowledge of the facts, with access to official documents, and with direct personal involvement, Councillor Jeff Burch became a tool of deception. Point five (5) of the key principles of the Code of Conduct for Elected Officials states, “members are expected to serve the public interest by upholding both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies established by the Federal Parliament, Ontario's Legislature, and St. Catharines City Council.”

Councillor Jeff Burch stood before his fellow council members with the intent to deceive and mislead. He obliterated the basic principles of the 'Code of Conduct' and his actions cannot be permitted to pass without action and a demand for serious consequences.

As people elect councillors to represent them at municipal government there is still a demand for some level of dignity and honesty. Councillor Jeff Burch proved that the truth was irrelevant to him and became a partner in the deceit by lawyer John Willey. Each and every councillor was made aware of the facts, and each one sitting as municipal government representatives would be aware of the laws, and each became part of the lie. Mayor Brian McMullan as head of council, was not only personally involved, as head of council facilitated the climate for the public lie to continue.

In Laval, Quebec ordinary people had had enough and had demanded a 'clean-up'. It is easy in today's society to be jaded and believe that such actions are carried on regularly, and they may be. Yet when uncovered there has to be a demand for consequences. Stability of democracy itself demands it. In St. Catharines, Ontario the people of the city had been intentionally censored from knowing the truth by the very press that they should be able to trust.

Two representatives, one each from The Standard, the main local newspaper published under the Sun Media banner, and one from Niagara this Week, a Metroland community newspaper were attending the council meeting. Jeff Bolichowski from The Standard had even made comments on his Twitter account regarding the issues raised. Another reporter from The Standard, Don Fraser 'favourited' it. Yet Bolichowski omitted all the information from his article in the newspaper. He had information and copies of documents sent to him to confirm details, still Bolichowski decided to censor the facts from the people of St. Catharines.

The Standard has certainly shown bias in its 'reporting' of issues that relate to the City of St. Catharines. Reporter Marlene Bergsma had in fact lied in an article published in relation to the mayor, in effect protecting the mayor. Jeff Bolichowski did not lie about the April 29^th Council meeting he simply decided what the people of the city should be permitted to know. Jeff Bolichowski made himself the self-proclaimed censorship board of news and facts. Can intended omission of facts be taken as a lie? In official or legal proceeding it is certainly the case.

Niagara this Week had Scott Rosts present at the council meeting. Scott Rosts is the city reporter & city editor, and in this case no article appeared in Niagara this Week at all. Through May to July of 2012 there was a situation where a resident had filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board in relation to a development in Port Dalhousie. The Standard had Marlene Bergsma write an article dated May 1^st 2012, and Niagara this Week had Mike Zettel do an article dated July 26^th 2012. At the time the resident filing the appeal cited issues regarding how the development would affect a public park.

On April 29^th 2013 intentional breaches of law and implication of city involvement had been raised, and a statement that an appeal to the OMB was being made. Jeff Bolichowski saw nothing worth reporting on, nor did Scott Rosts. Even after alarming documents were sent to both newspapers raising even greater questions regarding this situation, both newspapers ignored them.

Censorship exists in countries such as China, Cuba, Russia and others where the people are not permitted to have the truth or facts by governments who thrive on total control of power. It is difficult to accept that such censorship would or could exist in a democratic society.

Since the April 29^th public council meeting an appeal was filed with the OMB, and a response was received from the OMB dated July 23^rd. A copy of the official OMB response was sent to Jeff Bolichowski of The Standard, and a copy was sent to Niagara this Week. No response and no comment has come from either 'newspaper' or reporter Jeff Bolichowski.

It is a fallacy to believe that rights and freedoms are a guarantee in a democratic society. When media decides to impose voluntary and clear censorship of news and facts from the people who are affected by a situation, then democracy faces its biggest threat. Reporters have risked their lives around the world to bring news to the people. In this case Jeff Bolichowski and the publishers of The Standard and Niagara this Week decided what the people of the City of St. Catharines are permitted to know. Residents in the Merritton area of St. Catharines had their lives turned upside down by this development yet the local press had determined they should not know any of the unfolding facts.

Can such a situation be allowed to continue? Every attempt is being made to bring public attention to this deplorable state of affairs. Certainly the Ontario Municipal Board cannot be ignored regardless of the depth of censorship imposed. In addition the Law Society is examining facts brought to their attention, and although many of the so called 'watchdog' organisations appear to be toothless, it will be interesting to see the outcome of this specific complaint.

Laval, Quebec had no choice in the end but to expose the corruption and bring those who sought the public's trust to face the consequences of their actions. Is St. Catharines, Ontario not a dot in the landscape of Canada? A nation where laws and legislation guide society to equality for all. Or is St. Catharines a city where the ideals that sustain a nation are simply bought and sold? There is a great deal more to this story before it reaches the end.

On August 7^th City Councillor Mat Siscoe was quoted in an article by Scott Rosts in Niagara this Week commenting on municipal government. Rosts wrote, “He said this is the level of government that relates most to citizens on some of the issues in their community.” Councillor Siscoe further added, “These are the people you call when you have issues in your neighbourhood that you need addressed.” (City Councillor encourages public input on governance, NTW Aug.7.13.)

Councillor Mat Siscoe prefers to ignore the hypocrisy, the corruption of law and ethics by Council of the City of St. Catharines of which he is a member. Municipal government is the one level of government that people both relate most to and on where their input can be heard. When corruption rots the foundation then the very basis of our democracy is at peril.



Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Silent Splendour - We are here, now what?

A small cottage garden in St. Catharines, Ontario has been transformed from stark emptiness to a lush oasis of beauty and serenity. Its journey of evolution revealed in a six part series following a caravan of change towards a destination opposed to convention.

A plan, what we needed was a plan, something to guide us, something to work from. It is said that one must understand the lay of the land. Identify any possible obstacles and at the same time recognise all potential benefits.

Our chosen little house stood like an elf between two larger homes of brick and cement block. Its front yard more like one of those commemorative postage stamps, not so small to stick to the tongue but still a postage stamp.

We had 33 feet in width and only thirteen and a half feet from the city sidewalk to our front steps. Two tall and mature maple trees flanked left and right, and although they would provide shade in the summer, their root systems could not be ignored. It was also a major road for the area with relatively heavy traffic and in the winter with salt spreading and City ploughing, any plan we decided on would have to take these facts into consideration.

The passageways to either side of the house required attention. On the one side the neighbour's chain link fence was only two feet from our walls and dead space, weed control was the only action needed there. To the left, the passageway provided space to stretch the imagination. There was no fence to provide a distinct separation between the cement block giant and our elf, yet it was the connecting artery to the backyard.

A barren backyard found that the might of a shovel would overcome all challenges, and a plan began to take shape. 

It was the backyard that provided most of the excitement with its size. True its width could not be considered obese yet its length at some 100 feet the proverbial blank canvas waiting for splashes of daring and imagination. Chain link fences separated the yards here, leaving a feeling of something more like the flat lands of Saskatchewan, albeit in the mini size, than private spaces.

As far as plans go, we didn't have one other than being adamant that 'as is' was not going to be the policy. One decision made early was that the back fence, which was set some twenty feet into the property had to be moved. The rest was up in the air. Olivera and I thought maybe we should consider taking inspiration from one of the varied styles used by those who had travelled this road before us. After all copying something tried and true would mean leaning on an experienced formula, a set of guidelines.

Our front yard, small and compact, equal to the first guarded steps towards change. 

Two small garden beds were cut out left and right of the front porch, leaving much to the lawn in tact

Regardless of what style is chosen it needs to meld with both the gardener and the space available. It would be somewhat eccentric to think that geometric hedges and trimmed topiary could exist in a space measuring only thirty feet by thirteen and a half feet. Many garden designers suggest that real curb appeal takes into account the surrounding community. Now, blending may work for a distiller of whiskey but neither Olivera nor I were too keen on that idea.

So what style could we choose? One which first came to mind was the English Cottage garden. The cottage garden is a distinct style of garden that uses an informal design, traditional materials, dense plantings, and a mixture of ornamental and edible plants. Earliest cottage gardens were more practical than their modern descendants with an emphasis on vegetables and herbs, along with some fruit trees, perhaps a bee hive, and even livestock. Modern day cottage gardens include countless regional and personal variations of the more traditional English cottage garden, and embrace plant materials, such as ornamental grasses or native plants, that were never seen in the rural gardens of cottages.

Informality of design which was the main feature of an English cottage garden appealed to us most of all as we fought to formalise a plan. St. Catharines, Ontario has large sections of its land still used for agriculture, in particular for the wine industry of Niagara. Still the traditional notion of beehives, fruit trees and particularly livestock were features both Olivera and I discounted from any future plan.

Size is not a major concern for a cottage garden, even if we could not ignore its limitations. Gertrude Jekyll applied what are cottage garden principles to her structured design of densely planted borders at Manor House, Upton Grey Hamshire. The term 'cottage garden' may even be applied to the large and sophisticated garden at Hidcote Manor. Vita Sackville-West described this as “a cottage garden on the most glorified scale.” (Vita Sackville West, “Hidcote Manor”, Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society [1949:476-81]) At Hidcote Manor colour harmonies are carefully contrived and controlled, as in the famous 'Red Borders', though still applying the basic principles of a cottage garden.

Vita Sackville-West took these similar ideals to design her rendition of a cottage garden in one the many 'garden rooms' at Sissinghurst Castle. Her idea of a cottage garden was a place where “the plants grow in a jumble, flowering shrubs mingled with roses, herbaceous plants with bulbous subjects, climbers scrambling over hedges, seedlings coming up wherever they have chosen to sow themselves,” (Wikipedia, Cottage Garden). Even the language used to describe such ideals of the cottage garden style was delicious.

Regardless of what plan or style chosen we could not forget that we had two children under the age of ten. Room was needed for them to stretch out their legs and maybe even to throw a ball. Since our home and yard was something less grand than a manor house or castle, overly dense planting would ensure constant casualties. We started with small steps forward, piercing the ground with our shovel.

Buckets of soil mixed with clay and stone were moved to the back fence, soon enough we would have to deal with this mountain. 

At the front of the house we decided to establish beds for planting close to the porch and at the length of the passageway from the sidewalk to the house. It was the backyard that provided more exercise for the newly purchased shovel. Several beds were dug alongside the chain link fence on either side of the yard. As each bed was dug more and more clay based soil needed to be moved. Bucket after bucket of clay mixed with stone and even shards of coal were being deposited at the back fence. Eventually Mohammed would have to come to his mountain but for the time being it was the excitement of changing our barren yard into a garden that was of importance.

As with all gardeners, enough is never enough and the twin size bed had to grow into a double.

Muscle and sweat became a staple diet in this garden with more and more stone added as accent. 

In my 20's I had lived for a short time in Italy and a love for natural stone developed within me. Planning out our garden was the ideal opportunity to use those memories and experiences. Natural stone had been used by man as a building material since the early days of civilization. Its beauty and strength can be adapted to many applications, and in varying ways. I decided to incorporate natural local stone in pathways and separations for the newly established garden beds.

By the time the first phase was nearing completion we had cut out six garden beds in the backyard. To one side two long curved beds provided ample room for stronger plant selections to anchor each of the beds. On the opposite side the first ground breaking venture was a curved area close to the house with two lattice screens erected to support climbing roses. Smaller sections along the length of the fence line were cut out for more roses though leaving much of the grass intact.

Opposite to the two long curved beds an area was chosen to place a garden bench with its floor of eventual stone. Towards the back, four rectangle individual beds within a compound were selected for dahlias and lilies. Overall we were pleased with the layout. Enough space was left for our children to stretch their legs, and at the same time the bland open space was beginning to fill in.

Two long curved beds were laid out to one side of the backyard along the chain link fence. 

A cookie cutter was borrowed from the kitchen to prepare beds for lilies and dahlias. 

Late autumn and winter was a time to refine the plan and overall look of what we had started. The motivation that carried both of us to bring in nature's beauty into our lives was only at the infant stage. At first it was simple, we hated the emptiness of what felt like an open field. There was no feeling of intimacy or privacy where we could simply relax. Our front yard though small, was devoid of character, of individuality.

These early emotions and the desire for change set us on a journey, one that has lasted for over a decade now. Our steps were short ones, maybe somewhat predictable for a beginner. Christopher Lloyd had dared all gardeners to “do something outlandish, to splash out, and be freer than ever.” We had decided to take up Christopher Lloyd's dare in 2003. Maybe it was after a stiff shot of courage to be different, or just seeing the physical beauty that was beginning to develop within our first guarded steps.

Finally our efforts began to produce rewards, and it was joyful. It was such beauty that became our motivation for taking more daring steps.

Our climbing roses began to fill in the lattice screens standing behind them and explode with life and colour. Plants that had been young and timid were finding strength and vigour demanding companionship. Along with our gardens awakening came our own. The journey had began in earnest for both Olivera and I.

Part 3

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com