Can Canada become “a Society of Equals” ?
I applied to the City of Kawartha Lakes to present a reputation to City Council on October 10. It concerns the Final Draft Rural Zoning By-law proposal which may be enacted as soon as November.
October 10, deputation to Council (DRAFT)
I am pleased to be accepted by this Council to voice my objection to PLAN2023-039 as reported in the Final Draft Rural Zoning By-law (henceforth referred to as”Final Draft”) document released for public consideration in July 2023. Final Draft concerns the culminated four-year effort to amalgamate 14 rural zoning by-laws into one Rural Zoning By-law which has been optimistically described as a new “consolidated”, “harmonized”, and “modernized” version. On the surface, this seems be a worthy undertaking, but…
…. “the devil is in the details”.
In speaking with other concerned constituents of Kawartha Lakes who, like me, are rural property owners, it's these details that we have wanted time to understand. The two weeks granted by Council on August 29 to extend the initial cutoff date of September 1 for citizen feedback, was an unfairly short period of time to allow broader community input from CKL property owners. The 380-page Final Draft contains far too many rules, charts, tables and policies for an average property owner to study, digest and properly weigh the implications.
My Purpose.
I am making this deputation today on behalf of all rural property owners within the City of Kawartha Lakes. My purpose it to defend and protect their property rights from the unintended consequences to which they will be exposed should this Final Draft pass into law before sufficient public oversight has been completed.
Yes, this is a property rights issue.
Before going further, I will state some facts.
First, I am a Canadian citizen as I assume are all nine members of Council.
Second, Canada has a constitution which, I have been assured by legal experts, enacts the highest laws of the nation pertaining to citizenship and its prescribed rights and obligations. The Constitution includes the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Third, common law has been practiced in Canada since it was founded as a nation, and even before when it was a British colony. Property rights, particularly in the most common cases of divorce and the dissolution of other partnership arrangements, are well-established and widely recognized by all Canadians as part of common law.
My specific objections
The Final Draft fails to acknowledge the property rights of CKL’s landowners and contains a questionable and suspicious Definition in chapter 3. Specifically:
Person is defined on page 33 as “an individual, association, firm, partnership, corporation, trust, incorporated company, corporation as created under the Condominium Act, as amended, organization, trustee of agent, and the heirs, executors or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can be applied according to law.” The Oxford English Dictionary defined person as “an individual human being”. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is clear in its application of that law to individual human beings. The problem: The definition of person in the Final Draft is inconsistent with the average citizen's understanding of the term. It also creates implications which may confuse and abridge the rights and freedoms of Canadian property owners when they find themselves in a legal zoning dispute for which common law and their property rights may apply.
Individual Property Rights pertain to our farmers, homeowners, cottage owners, small business owners like my brother and sister-in-law who operate a dog kennel on their land, and others. The problem: The Final Draft does not acknowledge, define or delineate these rights within its pages. This is a serious omission and Council must prevent it from becoming a CKL By-law until it has been amended to correct this and potentially other shortcomings and/or omissions that affect CKL property owners. As it stands, the Final Draft proposes a one-sided, autocratic instrument that awards all zoning authority and powers to the City and virtually none to our property owners. Any zoning disputes that may arise can only be settled through the strict, slow and bureaucratic processes, procedures and policies that have also been defined, controlled and executed by municipal departments and the authorities therein. This arrangement is too heavily lop-sided against any recourse that a property owner has to settle a dispute if a By-law is created by Council based on this undemocratic Final Draft.
Specific recommendations to “democratize” the Final Draft.
Amend the Final Draft to define person as the Oxford English Dictionary does. Create another definition ‘legal representatives of person(s)’ to include the other entities to which the Final Draft refers in its current person definition. This will remove unnecessary and expensive legal wrangling, obfuscation, confusion and frustration that is sure to arise in the case of future zoning disputes.
Council to seriously consider re-purposing and modifying the Final Draft to become a democratic Rural Zoning Compendium of Best Practices instead of a one-sided By-law of autocratic, impersonal and strictly enforceable rules. The City has already invested time and money on this Consolidation project and the Final Draft contains valuable content. It documents legacy bylaw provisions that have been applied with some success over many generations. These are ideal to provide a starting point in all rural zoning recommendations presented by City advisors (”rural zoning consultants”?) to property owners rather than by inflexible and impersonal enforcers who may exercise their authority in an over-zealous manner ( Note: I personally suffered serious consequences from this in 2016 during the building of my home)
Individual property rights must be made an integral part of the Rural Zoning Compendium of Best Practices to empower all CKL property owners to protect and defend their property assets. These must be clearly and prominently acknowledged, and unambiguously defined and delineated. By making this change, our elected City Council members will signal to the public that they are prepared to defend and protect those rights as their top priority in all property-related matters, and that they intend to hold City staff and its workforce accountable to those objectives.
Final comments
By transforming the Final Draft from a strictly enforceable book of rules, policies, standards and charts to a compendium of best rural zoning practices, future discussions and negotiations between property owners and enforcement officials can be conducted as equals. Yes the term “negotiations” applies. It's no different than “negotiations” between public sector labour unions and government employers which are sometimes resolved by professional arbitration specialists when a deadlock prevails. In a personal property dispute, however, non-governmental arbitration specialists are preferred over those paid with public funds in order to avoid “institutional bias”.
I wish to encourage City Council and the City of Kawarth Lakes to capitalize on this excellent opportunity to establish a reputation for defending and protecting the Constitutional and property rights of all constituents under it's authority. I understand that it will take courage to enact measures like a compendium of best rural zoning practices when other Ontario municipal governments have not yet seen the wisdom in creating a society of equals between Canadian citizens and their governing institutions.
Individual Property Rights, clearly and comprehensively defined within a Rural Zoning Compendium of Best Practices, is essential if a truly democratic relationship between the City and its constituents will ever be achieved.
Canada, and its hierarchy of governing authorities, can never be described as a “civil society” until these rights are finally given their due powers for all Canadians in their relationship with every level of government.
Can our Mayor and eight Ward Councillors take the first step towards building a lasting mutual respect and trust between our citizens and “the state” by enacting the recommendations above?
Thanks for hearing me out.
Will be interesting to see the outcome from your proposal. The optimist in me hopes that your recommendations are taken seriously.