I don't live in T. Bay, but if I did, I would suggest that council join efforts with administration to consult with Provincial and Federal governments to foot the bill to build this 'temporary' camp site - especially, because of where the proposed site selected may be in a flood-zone area. Taxpayers may be wasting their money for this project. However, the humanitarian issue needs to be addressed. I don't believe that any chosen location would be without opposition. If propety values were reduced when the LPH was in operations, then it would be a concern for this location. I sympathize with council having to make a decision on this one.
1 0 0
The model of paying your utility levy with your property tax is just a cloak for what many municipal councils across Ontario are doing to their taxpayers. Firstly, they create a one-size fits-all levy. Is this fair when there are more than one person living at a different address? The single-status person is being subjected to adverse effect discrimination by having to pay the same rate as family and marital-status people. Think about it. Then administration and council will approve a policy to blend both utility and property taxes on your property tax bill. Your utility tax rate is based on operations' cost. Wouldn't it be fair for everyone if a utility levy was based on operations' cost relative to per capita. Secondly, municipalities who endorse the one-size fits-all levy is trying to slide their actions under the radar as per s. 10(1) of the OHRC. The municipality where I live has started the same procedure about 2 yr. ago. I have an application filed with HRTO. Decision pending!
0 0 0
I don't believe that PAL or FAC has done its purpose since these regulations were first introduced. These programs seem to be more like a money-grab opportunity for the federal gov't. I used to own guns and hunt prior to when these regulations came into effect. I even took part in trap shooting at our local gun range. Just before the program came into effect, I gave my guns to family members. Today, the use of firearms (legal or illegal) have caused more deaths than before registration came into effect. The problem here is penalty in taking ones life or causing injury. Stricter laws are needed to help reduce gun violence - even if this means to evoke the death penalty. Accidental cause of injury or death, or self-defence, will not apply here. The evoking of the death penalty may deter those who wish to take one's life intentionally. PAL and FAC will still remain purposeless. Weapons that are either legal or illegal, will still find their way into our country. That's a given!
12 5 1
Provincial Rebate cheques Deferral. Will the new Prime Minister take notice of a suggestion put forward from a mayor located in a municipality near Thunder Bay about provincial supplement cheques (i.e., Ontario Taxpayer Rebate, or any other type), which should be sent to municipalities instead of their intended recipients?
0 18 1
I'm not sure if he would be appreciated in practising medicine again. Just look at his reviews from some of his patients; especially before he became a MP. These reviews are unbias with respect to timing of his political appointment. Also, they are not very good.
0 0
It's amazing! Before NWMO announced that they have selected the town of Ignace as their host community for dumping radioactive waste at Revell Lake, council and other supporting members of the public complained about the dire straits of poor economics in their community and that times are tuff. Now, council wants to challenged this case, that has no likelihood of success, in Supreme Court of Canada. This usually takes a great deal of money for an appeal. One of two things are happening here: 1) either Ignace came into a great deal of money where they can afford to sponsor a team of lawyers, which in all likelihood will have costs greater than the amount owing to Ms. Dufault, or 2) they are trying to bully Ms. Dufault by causing great economic strain on her with respect to legal fees that may be too high for her to shoulder. Good luck to you Ms. Dufault for standing up for your rights against a corporate bully. I'm sure that the SCC will see through council's arrogance.
6 3 1
It's always nice to see a person/people stand up for their rights, no matter what rights have been infringed upon. Good for you Ms. Dufault. Perhaps similar mannered municipalities can "learn more" from this court ruling and quit wasting taxpayer's money on meritless litigation costs.
3 0 0
So sad! If law enforcement is unsuccessful, then there is always civil action. But, before taking that approach, I suggust that the Town of Kenora address their concern with administration to prepare a Respectful Behaviour Policy; if there is no such policy in existance. This policy will take in members of council, administration, hourly employees, board, committee, and sub-committee members, and most importantly it will also address members of the public about acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour towards other people. It has to start somewhere, and this is as good as a place to start at, if any.
17 2
So sad! If law enforcement seems not to work out, then there is always civil remedies. If the accused is found guilty, damages can be very expensive. Also, if the Town of Kenora does not have a Respectful Behaviour Policy adopted, then I suggest council to address administration to have one prepared. At least now, all parties will have some sort of guidelines to follow and consequences towards the aggressor.
3 0 0
No listings have been posted by Ed Dunnill
From what I read in comments, trust appears to be the degree of risk you are willing to accept without personal injury when knowing/associating with someone. Before my dad's passing, his 'words of wisdom' was the famous acronym "DTA" - don't trust anyone! Limit your risk and you won't get hurt.
11 1 0