Why is Mayor Jackson so intent on scuttling the October 8, 2016 Land Claim Meeting (6-2)

Just over two years ago we came within a hare’s breath of losing most of our beach at Sauble to the Saugeen First Nation (“SFN”). A lot of closed door sessions far removed from public scrutiny had led to a draft deal with SFN. The deal could easily have been passed by council resolution in the summer of 2014.

It did not pass or even get on the council floor as a motion, largely because one member of council broke the code of silence and told a member of the public (me) what was going down.

Then on July 7, 2014 there was a meeting (sponsored by Amabel Property Owners Association and Friends of Sauble Beach) where the residents found out what was going on behind their backs. After a few more meetings hundreds of residents wrote, emailed, and phoned John Close and council, scolding them and demanding that the proposed deal not go through. John and council listened, and aborted the mission.

If not for the leak of information and the pivotal July 7, 2014 meeting, the beach could have easily been given to the SFN nation, and residents would not have known that their beach wqas gone until after the ink had dried.

Inexplicitly, Janice Jackson, then a councillor, tried to scuttle that July 7, 2014 meeting.

First she tried to wrestle the microphone away from the master of ceremonies, John Strachan. She was unsuccessful. Then she tried to convince me and other organizers that one sponsor (Amabel Property Owners Association), which I was representing, was illegal and illegitimate and as such I should not be allowed to speak. She failed. And she tried to get to the podium microphone to try to tell the audience the Amabel Property Owners Association was illegal. She failed there too, and the presentation went ahead, and we even had to put on a second session because there were too many to fit in the room for the first.

We are indeed fortunate that Janice Jackson failed to stop the meeting.

If she had stopped the meeting we may have lost the beach.

Why Ms. Jackson tried to stop the meeting of July 7 2014 is a bit of a puzzle, because she was the one who broke the closed session code of silence and alerted me that John Close was preparing a giveaway deal in closed session. I expected her to help with the meeting, not to try to shut it down.

I found out only later the explanation why she tried to shut us down.

Doug Jordan is president of an organization call Sauble Beach Residential Property Owners association, a group, according to Doug Jordan`s sworn testimony, which was started on the request of Janice Jackson in 2011. Doug Jordan’s sworn te3stimony was that:

“Municipal Council member Janice Jackson, Town of South Bruce Peninsula, approached me about starting a property owners association in the spring of 2011”.

Mr. Jordan did start such an organization shortly afterward.

At a 2013 barbecue party, the SBRPOA had a table set up to sign up members. Janice Jackson took to the stage and said:

“Please join Sauble Beach Residential Property Owners Association . I really need the support in council.”

This was a clear indication that SBRPOA was Ms. Jackson`s political party.

In a May 3, 2014 meeting of the Amabel Property owners association, director Orma Lyttle had this to say:

“Well what happened was Janice Jackson had been calling me because I had been a former president of the association, and she just wanted to talk about a few issues; and Janice would say “we understand or we’re told that you have over twelve thousand dollars and we would like to have that money now”. (from transcript of the audio recording of the meeting)

“We” had to mean SBRPOA.

Ms. Jackson failed to get the money. APOA was alive and well and was not in the business of handing out money to politicians.

Janice Jackson tried to replace the APOA with her political organization SBRPOA. She failed. She tried to get APOA`s money. That failed too. Then she tried to stop APOA from having a meeting on July 7, 2014 regarding the land claim. That failed too.

Amabel Property Owners Association is sponsoring another Land Claim meeting June 8, 2016 at 9:30 am at the Sauble Beach Commuty Centre.

Now Janice Jackson is trying to scuttle that APOA meeting too.

In a September 21,2016 broadly distributed email she argues that residents should not attend the July 8 meeting because I am just spreading false propaganda and fear-mongering, and attempting to create panic, and that I am “furious” because I am not in charge.

Her claims are false and unsupportable.

Specifically she claims:

Mr. Gammie is canvassing the neighbourhood and taping notices to doors in Sauble Beach asserting the Land Claim is spiralling out of control due to mismanagement and that I am crafting some sort of back-room deal with the First Nations.

Here are the notices that Amabel Property Owners members have circulated:

Is the SAUBLE BEACH LAND CLAIM case being properly managed?
Or is it spiralling out of control?
Find out what you can do!!
Saturday October 8, 2016 at 9:30 am
Sauble Beach Community Centre
Meeting Sponsored by Amabel Property Owners Association

Why are the residents being kept in the dark (again)?
Properly managed? Or spiralling out of control? Find out what you can do!!
Saturday October 8, 2016 at 9:30 am
Sauble Beach Community Centre
Meeting Sponsored by Amabel Property Owners Association

Nowhere does either notice say that the Land Claim is spiralling out of control. Nowhere does either notice say that the land claim is being mismanaged. Nowhere in either notice does it allege that Ms. Jackson is crafting some sort of back-room deal with the First Nations. Deals and first nations are not even mentioned.

Ms. Jackson’s claims are false.

Our only assertion in the notices is that the residents are once again being kept in the dark. Our point is that being shut out puts residents in a situation where we do not know whether things are in control or not, and that makes some residents nervous.

She also claims in her email that the room cleared in an August 13 council meeting as soon as I took the floor. That is false too.

I submit that Janice Jackson is trying to scuttle the October 8 Amabel Property Owners meeting because she does not want the residents to know just how much they are being kept in the dark, and she does not want residents too know how weak the first nations claim is, and how strong our defence could be.

Her claim that:

“Mr. Gammie could be severely damaging our case by speaking out against the town and our position” …

is false and ridiculous. In July 2014 I did speak out against the town’s position on the land claim. Because the town’s position at the time was unacceptable. But not since. Now I do not even know the town position (because like you I am being kept in the dark). And contrary to Ms. Jackson’s claim there is no way we could be hurting the town position with the October 8th meeting.

There are many more false claims in Janice Jackson’s email to you. Too numerous to review and refute.

I urge you not to fall for Janice Jackson’s false assertions.

Our concern is that residents are being kept in the dark, and the potential consequences of that.

At the October 8th meeting we will demonstrate how weak the SFN case is, and how strong our case could be. And then we will ask you whether you wish to trust Janice or ask for more disclosure. It’s that simple.

The Land Claim meeting October 8th I believe will be interesting to most.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Why is Mayor Jackson so intent on scuttling the October 8, 2016 Land Claim Meeting (6-2)

  1. Paul McCulloch says:

    Craig you are what is commonly referred to as a loose cannon. The sbrpoa as a group voted for you and have regretted it ever since. Try keeping your mouth shut for awhile and listen. You are an embarrassment to the town .You will never be elected again in this town.

    • cgammie says:

      Mr. McCulloch: I listened and heard you very clearly. I note that you have not even attempted to rebut my argument. Instead you called names and hurled insults. Your tactic is called ad hominem. It is the action of choice for those who are incapable of presenting a rebuttal or contributing anything of value.

      Have a nice day Paul.

  2. yabder4 says:

    I asked you in summer of 2014, and you chose to ignore this development. You do realize that this trumps any argument you put forth. We had a good deal with the previous council that I hold you personally responsible for messing up. Will you please respond to this article now?

    Saugeen, Nawash seek land, $90 billion


    Roger Tottman, Windspeaker Contributor, Saugeen and Nawash First Nations Ontario

    Page 14

    In what is perhaps the most unusual land claim to date, two Ontario First Nations are seeking 22,000 hectares and $90 billion in compensation.

    On May 27 of this year, the Saugeen and Nawash Ojibway filed a statement of claim against Ontario and Canada for a breach of their fiduciary obligations (trusteeship to the First Nations in the negotiation and signing of the Treaty of 1854.)

    The Saugeen and Nawash Ojibway are also asserting ownership of road allowances currently vested in nine municipal defendants in Gray and Bruce Counties.

    The part of the claim that is likely to have the most far-reaching effect is the return of unsold road allowance, particularly shore road allowance.

    For readers unfamiliar with this term, it was the practice of the original surveyors in Ontario to leave a 20-metre strip of land around all coastlines of major lakes. This strip is known as a “shore road allowance.” Over the years, as roads were built they tended to follow the easiest terrain rather than the shore, consequently the owners of the land inside the allowance began to view the 20-metre strip as their property although they held no patent to it.

    Many have built expensive homes on it. Recently some municipalities, who received the shore road allowance from the province, have begun to sell the land for $1 plus legal fees, or in some cases trade the shore for another 20-metre strip.

    In October 1993 the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, acting on behalf of The Keppel Township Shore Line Owners Association, tried to prevent a court from hearing the claim to this allowance.

    Their lawyer, Don Greenfield, suggested that if the First Nation is successful at trial, they will bar all access to the water.

    Chief Ralph Akiwenzie of The Nawash Nation said “this was a flagrant attempt to inflame public opinion against the First Nation. The idea of the Saugeen Ojibway barring access to the water to anyone, including sport fishermen, is ludicrous.”

    Greenfield was unsuccessful and Justice Robert Zelinski granted the First Nation the right to litigate their claim.

    Darlene Johnson, land claims co-ordinator for the Nawash and Saugeen Ojibway, says “the royal Proclamation of 1763 guaranteed First Nations territories and that the surrender of land could only take place at meetings specifically called for that purpose.

    “The meeting on Manitoulin at which the Saugeen and Nawash Ojibway signed the 1836 Treaty was not called for the purpose of land surrender,” said Johnston, an Ojibway professor on leave of absence from the Faculty of Law at the University of Ontario.

    “This Treaty resulted in the loss of one-and-a-half million acres of their traditional territory just south of what is now the Bruce Peninsula. In return for all that land, the First Nations got a promise that Canada would protect their fishery as well as their new home, the Bruce Peninsula.

    “However, by 1847 the chiefs and councils of the Saugeen Ojibway were nervous enough about the intentions of the government in Canada to ask for a confirmation of their lands from Queen Victoria,” Johnston said.

    In her Royal Declaration of 1847, Queen Victoria confirmed the Saugeen Ojibway lands consisted of the entire Saugeen Peninsula (Bruce Peninsula,) north from a line joining Southampton and Owen Sound. The Saugeen Ojibway territories also included an 11-kilometre limit out into the waters around the peninsula.

    In an 1851 treaty, the Saugeen Ojibway surrendered a one-kilometre-wide strip stretching between their two largest settlements at Owen sound and Southampton in the belief that the government would build a road and improve communications between the two communities. The road was not built until many years later. The Rev. C. Vandusen, a historian of the times, states that the road was not built because the Indian Department sold the land to speculators.

    “By 1854 the Saugeen Ojibway were under pressure to cede the Bruce peninsula. By treaty No. 72, signed in 1854, the Sugn (Bruce) Peninsula (200,000Hectares) except for specific reservations. However, in negotiations, the government violates both the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Indian Protection Act of 1851,” said Johnston.

    “The evidence of the Crown’s breach of its obligations to the Saugeen Ojibway is the following: The Crown agrees to sell the surrendered land, invest the proceeds (minus surveying and auction costs) and distributes the interest to the Saugeen Ojibway.

    “The 1855 Order in Council, by which the Government accepted the terms of the surrender, states clearly the Crown received the lands ‘in trust’ In other words, the Crown accepts responsibility to sell the lands for the benefit of the Saugeen Ojibway. “However, certain lands are left unsold although the government promised to sell all the lands for the benefit of the Saugeen Ojibway. These lands, lake and river beds, shore road allowances, other road allowances and certain lots throughout the Peninsula are the basis of the claim.”

    From 1979 to 1993, the Saugeen Ojibway began a long series of negotiations with the Crown to resolve issues from the 1836 and 1854 Treaties. These negotiations stalled in 1993.

    In May 1994 the two First Nations filed a claim for breach of fiduciary obligations. The claim states that the Crown (i.e. both Ontario and Canada) has obligations to First Nations much as any trustee has toward those on whose behalf it acts. The Saugeen Ojibway charge that in the signing of the 1854 Treaty, the Crown breached its fiduciary obligations to them.

    The Crown said it was unable or unwilling to protect the Saugeen Ojibway from encroachments by whites.

    The Saugeen Ojibway are not saying the treaty is legally invalid, but they are saying the situation deserves remedy, and that remedy should include the return of the unsold lands as well as compensation for surrendered land.

    Darlene Johnston used the example of listing your farm with a real estate agent. Your have no reason to suspect this prso s not honest because there are laws governing his actions that are designed to protect your interests.

    But instead of selling it, he lives on it for years. In fact, he never does get around to selling all of it, and the parts he does sell, he sells to relative for less than market value and you receive none of the proceeds.

    “That doesn’t mean we are going after land already patented for, so people in the Bruce needn’t fear for the homes and land they bought in good faith. It does mean, however, that if we are successful at trial, we will be asking for court to compensate us for losses resulting from the bad faith of the Crown,” Johnston said.

    “The goal is to return the First Nation to the position we would have been in if the treaty had never been signed, at least as much as is legally possible.”

    The fiduciary obligations of the federal government to First Nations were established in 1984 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favor of the Musqueam Nation of British Columbia. The Musqueam claimed that the Department of Indian Affairs in 1944, had leased part of their reserve, for peppercorn rent, to a white group for the creation of a golf course.

    The Supreme Court awarded the First Nation $6 million. In this case the claim is for “loss of use” of 200,000 hectares for 140 years. As of Oct. 28, 1994, one defendant, the Township of Amabel, has filed a defence. The remaining 12 have filed notice of intent to file.

    (Amabel is South Bruce Peninsula now for readers info)

  3. yabder4 says:

    Still ignoring this? The reason it was being surveyed was because of this treaty. The Saugeen Ojibway are not saying the treaty is legally invalid, but they are saying the situation deserves remedy, and that remedy should include the return of the unsold lands as well as compensation for surrendered land. So we had a settlement that TSBP would receive $$$ from the government to assist in running the beach in a shared capacity. Now YOU want the TSBP to keep paying for it fully AND potentially compensate SON for it’s use. That a bad deal.

    • cgammie says:

      yabder there are two separate lawsuits. You are having serious trouble distinguishing. I cannot help you.

      We did not have a settlement. We had a John Close proposal.

      What I and thousands of others want is very simple. You think you know what it is, but you have no idea.


      • Zebra1 says:

        Craig, from the Sun Times Article May 8th, 2019. As you can see, it CLEARLY states there was a settlement. Why do you continue to deny this fact?

        The trial is expected to come more than five years after a mediated tentative settlement was proposed between SFN, the federal government and South Bruce Peninsula in the summer of 2014, which would have extended native ownership from its current location at Main Street, north to 6th Street North and be bound by the west side of Lakeshore Boulevard.
        A joint board of the municipality and the First Nation would have managed the beach.
        Under the proposed settlement, the federal and the Ontario government would provide $5 million to to the town, subject to approval, to offset its share of the cost to manage the beach. Compensation to SON was not disclosed.

        • cgammie says:

          You said: .”…..Sun Times Article May 8th, 2019 …CLEARLY states there was a settlement. Why do you continue to deny this fact?”

          Then you quoted the sun times article as: “The trial is expected to come more than five years after a mediated tentative settlement was proposed between SFN,”

          The May 8th article does not say or imply that “there was a settlement”. The article says “..tentative settlement was proposed”. And “…Under the proposed settlement,….”.

          Of course I deny that there was a settlement. Because in fact there was no settlement. If there had been a settlement in 2014 the lawsuit would be settled and there would be no trial.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s