BETWEEN

JOHN ALLAN, PENNY LYNNE ALLAN, JANICE LORRAINE BRADDELL,

JOHN FULLERTON, JULIE FULLERTON, GRIT HIGH, ALEXANDER

GRANT SCHIERMAN, NORA ELIZABETH SCHIERMAN, GARY DAVID

SAWATSKY and LINDA ELIZABETH TEMPLE

PETITIONERS

AND:

STANLEY JACK FROESE, BLAIR GARNET WHITMARSH, ROBERT LONG and ANGELA DAWN QUAALE

RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

langleywatchdog.com (lwd.com) Preamble:

I was contacted by CTV News in late October of 2019 regarding a CTV Investigative Research item into potential serious and illegal campaign donations received by three members of the existing Township of Langley Council plus one member that was not elected in the 2018 Municipal election. I went on air that day, as requested by CTV from a remote location for broadcast that evening. That afternoon I received a package of information that was the source of information for CTV, which I reviewed very thoroughly, found it very newsworthy and published it in this BLOG – The Link to that post follows:

https://langleywatchdog.com/breaking-news-ctv-investigative-report-on-the-actions-of-three-current-members-and-one-former-member-of-the-township-of-langley-council-this-is-outragious/

I must add that in typical Langley Advance Times / Mathew Claxton fashion, their report of this serious issue is lame, pathetic but if nothing else consistent. It does not mention the fact that it was CTV’s investigative work and broadcast of the anonymous material THEY received that was the source of their investigation. I received the same package of information later that day which I made public. Mathew phoned me and asked for my source, which I denied. For the record, ALL the information I receive on any topic is guaranteed to be kept in confidence.

For your information the Langley Advance Times are paid a sum in excess of $150,000 per year by the Township of Langley for their advertising requirements, in typical fashion they are very careful as to what they provide in print; don’t upset the client! (Their two news stories are dated December 17th, 2019 & November 20th, 2020)

The result of all of this published information was an Application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (as indicated above) by TEN (10) resident petitioners, and voters of the Township of Langley. It has been a while, mainly due to Covid-19 shutdowns, however this application will be heard by the Supreme Court of British Columbia Monday November 30th, 2020 thru to December 3rd, 2020.

I am in receipt of a copy of the “Respondents” court submission in support of their court petition to be heard on the dates above.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions:

PART V. ORDERS SOUGHT (Page 36)

113.The petitioners seek the following orders

1) A declaration that the respondents failed to disclose a direct or indirect pecuniary conflict of interest contrary to section 100 of the Community Charter.

2) A declaration that the respondents attended meetings, participated in discussions, attempted to influence voting, and/or voted in a manner contrary to s. 101(2) of the Community Charter.

3) An order pursuant to s. 111 of the Community Charter that the respondents, other than Former Councillor Quaale, are disqualified from holding office until the next general local election.

4) Costs, including special costs.

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

The submission by the Petitioners is detailed, very complete and in my view very compelling! This is obviously being dealt with in a court of law so the outcome cannot be judged at this point. Having said that, the Petitioners submission is some 36 pages in length which cannot be fully copied into this Blog, however we will offer some excerpts that we find are of particular interest to residents of the Township regardless of the outcome.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

PART I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW (Page 1&2)

  1. The petitioners seek declarations that the respondents, three sitting members of the Council of the Township of Langley (the “Township”) – including the mayor – and a former city councillor, failed to disclose pecuniary conflicts of interest contrary to the Community Charter, S.B.C., 2003, c. 26 (“Community Charter”). As a result of that failure, the petitioners say that those respondents who are currently sitting members of Council must be disqualified from their positions in office.
  2. This case is based on unprecedented (and largely undisputed) facts. In the lead-up to the 2018 municipal election, the respondents received numerous campaign contributions from multiple property developers while those same developers had applications before Council. In some cases, these contributions were received within days of the application coming before Council. Despite having received a legal opinion from the Township’s solicitor that a conflict of interest could exist if contributions were accepted while developments were “in-stream”, or if the contributions were made shortly after a development application was made, none of the respondents disclosed the contributions and sought legal advice, let alone made a declaration that they were in a conflict of interest. The respondents went on to vote in favour of each of the development applications.
  3. To the petitioners’ knowledge, this pattern of campaign contributions, with such a close temporal proximity between the contributions and votes on applications, has never come before the courts. It in turn raises an important legal issue with widespread implications for the integrity of, and public confidence in, municipal governance in this province. To date, the jurisprudence on conflicts of interest arising out of campaign contributions has held that a contribution, and a later vote in favour of an application, does not constitute a conflict of interest without “something more”. The petitioners say that, in this case, the “something more” is the pattern and temporal proximity of the contributions and voting behaviour, which would lead a reasonably informed person to conclude that the contributions might have influenced the exercise of the respondents’ duty as Council members.
  4. For their part, the respondents say that there is a much higher legal threshold, and that there must be explicit evidence that the respondents agreed to “deliver a vote” or a quid pro quo before a conflict of interest can be made out. The petitioners say that such a high threshold would be virtually impossible to meet from an evidentiary perspective and is in any event entirely inconsistent with the broad and liberal interpretation to be applied to the conflict of interest provisions in the Community Charter. The purpose of the provisions – to maintain public confidence that elected officials do not have divided loyalties – must inform the legal threshold that is to be applied by this Court. Public confidence can be undermined in circumstances short of an explicit “agreement to vote” or quid pro quo. It is also not restored by virtue of the fact that disclosure of the contributions is later required under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, S.B.C. 2014, c. 18. It is the lack of disclosure, and the failure to seek legal advice, at the time of the votes that undermines public confidence.
  5. In this case, the circumstances – the timing of the contributions relative to votes, the sheer number of contributions, the repeated pattern of behaviour, the ignoring of legal advice, and the perceived circumvention of legislative restrictions on campaign contributions – are sufficient to give rise to a conflict of interest. If the respondents are correct, and there is no conflict of interest in this case, the democratic principle of transparency will be substantially undermined given that the voting public would have no opportunity to even know about the contributions, and the possibility of divided loyalties, at the time of the votes.

PART II. FACTS (Page 2&3)

  1. The Parties
  • The Township is not a named respondent in this Petition but was served pursuant to s. 111(5)(b) of the Community Charter. It has filed a Response to Petition and affidavit material in support of the respondents.

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

IMPORTANT – NOTE: The Township of Langley has filed a Response to the Petition and filed an affidavit in support of the Respondents apparently suggesting Council members only followed staff’s recommendations on the respective proposal in front of them. That in my view and experience as a former Alderman and a Mayor is an insanity defense! Staff / the Township have no way of knowing what donations have been made to elected members of Council. This does not absolve members of Council from not removing themselves from the decision or at the very least announcing a potential conflict due to the donations received. Council members are not obligated to support staff recommendations, they knew better!

The question must be asked, WHY is the Township of Langley interfering in a legal question that only affects the politically elected? They have no business in getting involved, it could reflect a bias on their part for some unknown reason, what could that be? It should be explored further, it doesn’t make any common sense.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

B The Campaign Contributions (Page 3,4,5, &6)

12. As noted at the outset, this case does not involve a single contribution from one developer and a subsequent development application by that developer. Rather, it involves numerous contributions by persons connected to a number of developers made while their development applications were before Council in the lead-up to the municipal election held on October 20, 2018.

13. In short, Mayor Froese received at least $12,600,6 Councillor Whitmarsh received at least $8,900,7 Councillor Long received at least $8,000,8 and Former Councillor Quaale received at least $7,700,9 from persons who were owners, directors, officers, executives and/or employees of the various property development companies.

14. These are significant amounts, particularly in light of the recent amendments to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act that had come into effect.10 Those amendments capped the maximum amount an individual could contribute to a campaign to $1,200.11Further, corporations were prohibited from making campaign contributions.12

i) The developers

15. In total, at least 19 persons connected with seven property development companies made campaign contributions to the respondents. The following is a summary of the individual contributors and the development companies they are associated with:

1) “The Mitchell Group” (Mitchell Group Investments Inc.)

• Ken Mitchell (Director and Officer)

• Diane Mitchell (Director and Officer)

• Jacilyn O’Shea (Director of Development)

• Ryan O’Shea (Director of Residential development)13

2) “The Beedie Group” (The Beedie Group Developments Ltd., BDC (Langley Property) Ltd., 161884 Canada Inc.)

• Ryan Beedie (President, sole Director and Officer)

• Rob Fiorvento (Managing Partner)

• Todd Yuen (President, Industrial)

• Jason Tonin (Vice President, Land Development)14

3) “Vesta” (Vesta Properties Ltd.)

• Kent Sillars (sole Director and Officer)

• Dennis Wiemken (Senior Vice President)

• Braedon Sillars (Development Coordinator)

• Julie Sillars (owner)

  • Marlene Best (Senior Development Manager)15

4) “Lanstone” (Lanstone Homes (Murrayville) Ltd.)

• Lanson Foster (Director and sole Officer)

• John Tilstra (Director)16

5) “Infinity” (Infinity Properties Ltd.)

 • Timothy Bontkes (sole Director and Officer)17

6) “Polygon” (Polygon Homes Ltd., Polygon Union Park Homes Ltd.)

 • Scott Baldwin (Officer, Senior Vice President, Development)18

7) “Essence” (Essence Properties Inc.)

 • Kevin Dhaliwal (Director)

• Seeta Dhaliwal (Director)19

16. Persons connected to The Mitchell Group contributed a total of $10,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.20

17. Persons connected to The Beedie Group contributed a total of $10,800 to all four respondents.21

18. Persons connected to Vesta contributed a total of $8,800 to all four respondents.22

19. Persons connected to Lanstone contributed a total of $3,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.23

20. Persons connected to Infinity contributed a total of $2,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.24

21. Persons connected to Polygon contributed a total of $1,200 to Mayor Froese.25

22. Persons connected to Essence contributed a total of $2,400 to Councillor Long.26

C. The timing of the contributions relative to the development applications before Council (Page 6)

23. At the same time that these campaign contributions were made, all of the developers listed above had matters before Council in which they were interested parties. Most of these matters were rezoning applications or development permit applications. The following is a list of the matters before Council at the material time:

1) The Mitchell Group: The Williams Neighbourhood Plan.27

2) The Beedie Group: Four development permit applications.28

3) Vesta: Five rezoning applications, and two different contracts with the Township.29

4) Lanstone: One rezoning/heritage alteration permit application.30

5) Infinity: One rezoning/development permit application.31

6) Polygon: One rezoning/development permit application.32

7) Essence: One rezoning/development permit application.33  

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

The Petitioners submissions go onto explain in detail the timing of each case before Council, the actions of each member of Council towards the respective application(s), the dates, timing and amount of donations received all supported in detail by the minutes of the Council meeting involved.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

D. The legal opinion

62. Importantly, the respondents engaged in this voting behaviour despite having received a legal opinion that doing so could constitute a conflict of interest.

63. In June 2016, the Township sought a legal opinion from Lidstone & Company as to whether campaign contributions from a developer would disqualify a council member from voting on that developer’s rezoning application. The opinion was received by Council on June 13, 2016.94 All the respondents were on Council at the time.

64. In the opinion, Don Lidstone, Q.C. advised that campaign contributions without more did not constitute a conflict of interest. In the opinion’s summary, he stated the following:

…the campaign contribution by itself does not create a conflict of interest, even if that developer later applies for a rezoning. An exception would be if a developer gives a Council member a donation when the rezoning application comes before Council.95

65. Mr.Lidstone also concluded his opinion by stating:

There could be a conflict if the Council member was personally or privately connected to the developer, if development was in-stream at the time of the election, or if the developer made a donation after the rezoning application was made. However, we understand that none of these apply in relation to the Brookswood rezoning applications.96

E. The respondents’ evidence

66. For their part, the respondents do not deny that they received any of the contributions at issue in this proceeding, nor do they deny that they participated in, and voted on the various applications without making any declarations of conflict of interest. Rather, they universally say that: (a) there was never any indication from the contributors that the contributions were made with any intention or expectation of an agreement to vote a particular way; (b) none of their votes were influenced by campaign contributions; and (c) they were always motivated to vote in the best interest of the Township.

(lwd.com) Summary:

The Respondents evidence above in (a) (b) and (c) is out of step when measured against numerous items of case law extensively outlined in the Petitioners Submissions. In summarizing numerous articles on case law including the Appeals Court the Petitioners state the following:

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

78. Thus, three key points emerge:

1) The conflict of interest provisions are to be interpreted broadly and liberally.

2) The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that the public has confidence that their elected officials do not have divided loyalties, and therefore it does not matter whether there is any personal gain or not.

3) The test is an objective one – whether a reasonably well-informed person would conclude that the interest might influence the exercise of the public official’s duty.

(lwd.com) Summary Cont’d:

If you weigh the language contained in the Community Charter, if you weigh the decisions coming out of various case law examples as outlined in the Petitioners submissions, it only makes sense that these Council members plea rings hollow. That they act responsibly and honorably must be displayed by their actions (a declaration of a conflict or potential conflict of interest), not in words after the fact. Put another way – Talk is Cheap! If all one had to do was to tell a judge, just believe me, our society would be in far more trouble than is the case today.

If you wish to receive a PDF of the Petitioners submissions, reply to this email and I will send you a copy.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

There has been a lot of controversy in our recent provincial election, some of it written about in this BLOG. In reality there has been an underbelly of discontent in our community for years. Our just retired MLA, Rich Coleman, is and was at the center of much of it – again many of those issues we have written about.

Staunch supporters of free enterprise have, since the mid 90’s, gravitated to what they considered to be their only free enterprise political option in British Columbia, the B.C. Liberal Party. Unfortunately, that old saying, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute Power corrupts absolutely” can best be found in the make-up that provincial party and locally by extension a small Cabal of power brokers closely aligned with the Langley East Liberal Constituency Association. Obviously, not everyone associated with it, because most innocently align themselves with parties that best represent their personal philosophy. Unfortunately, in my experience many are innocently being taken for granted and have been taken for a ride for years in Langley East.

To put Megan Dykeman’s victory into an historical perspective, the constituency area which is now known as Langley East has been redistributed many times over many years. The various free enterprise options (Social Credit and then B.C. Liberal) were created out of the Delta Constituency in 1966 and certainly since that date the free enterprise option has been the party of choice, before and since in our community.

Why have we promoted the need for change, why have we endorsed Megan Dykeman and why, for the first time in my life have I endorsed, worked for, and donated to the NDP? Well, a great candidate with a strong resume, first of all, with an ideal opportunity to make a significant difference in our community. Positive change has come to the Township of Langley! Read ON-

Back just prior to the 2017 election I had received a strong favorable opinion about the NDP and its new leader from a good friend. We were able to arrange a meeting with then candidate John Horgan and had a great conversation in a two-hour meeting. I was a strong free enterprise supporter, but NEVER at any cost. The fact remains, BAD government is BAD government, left, right or center. In our view John Horgan had done a particularly good job over the last three and a half years and we feel he deserved a solid mandate for a full term.

There is a long list of wrongdoing by the B.C. Liberal Government and its members over their sixteen years in office which we will not go into detail here. Having said that, the Cullen Commission into money laundering currently underway has received some very damaging and critical public testimony against our former MLA Rich Coleman. We are not accusing anyone of anything, but we are reporting based on very recent public testimony. In the areas of property deals there is the debacles with Western Forest Products on Vancouver Island, the Little Mountain and the Burke Mountain property sales, all that carry a stench with them.

As to how our MLA’s actions have affected the Township of Langley, there are many? For our purposes today we will illustrate just a couple of examples I am personally aware of that in my view raise alarming questions.

Provincial MLAs should NOT be involved in the local politics of their constituency(s), in any way, that is IF you care about political independence and/or the potential for undue influence in your municipal government. Why? Municipalities have to be able to work with whatever Provincial Government is elected. MLAs should not be exerting pressure or influence on locally elected officials. That has happened in the Township of Langley for decades.

Over the past two decades it has reached the point where this office is not attempting to hide their endorsements, as a matter of fact they are openly flogging their endorsements.

In Langley’s case openly getting involved in who is or is not running municipally and who they will support including having candidates in for interviews. Our residents should be shocked!

In proving that we are not talking conspiracy theories here, we offer the following:

Leading up to my announcement as a candidate for Mayor in early February 2008 I requested and had a meeting with our MLA Rich Coleman which I had requested as a courtesy to introduce myself as a candidate for Mayor of the community he represented. In that meeting I received three very clear messages from Rich Coleman – 1) They are OK with the job the current Mayor is doing – 2) The CAO of the Township (Mark Bakken) is a good friend of mine and 3) You have been making noises about municipal land deals, I want you to know we are OK with them. My responses were – to #1, we are not – to #2, that is interesting and – to #3 we are not OK with it, it is bull shit, and it is going to stop. It did not take a rocket scientist to realize I would not be his first choice for Mayor, nor after that meeting, did I care.

Facetiously I ask – Who is we Rich? (to the statement made by Rich that we are OK with the Municipal land deals)

The good news? We won the Mayoral campaign that year. The bad news – Be careful what you wish for?

Further proof are some internal emails received and statements made by one local realtor Joel Schacter, good friend of Rich Coleman in an email to the realtors in his office (full content of emails in our March 2013 BLOG Post) and signatory to an RCMP complaint against me that received significant media exposure. For the record it was found to be baseless. Excerpts from those emails follow:

Schacter: I have had discussions with some of the senior management at the hall as well as our MLA Rich Coleman and 2 former mayors…. they are all suggesting Mel has the best chance of taking Green out.

A fellow realtor stated the following:

Reply to Schacter: It is likely, that most of the people in the office are not aware of your behind the scenes smear campaign against what I consider to be ………..a very intelligent, honest and fair guy who is being slammed by a bunch of self-serving idiots that have their own hidden agendas…..just like you do.

Are you scared of losing your inside connections to all of the Township and School Board real estate deals?

Pretty easy to prove my point.

In a further response:

Reply to Schacter: Why is it, that you and Rich Coleman and Mark Bakken all hang out together and scheme about how to “take out” Green??  What is it really about Rick Green that has got your collected attention?

I was told a long time ago, to find the truth……. simply follow the money.

It seems however, that you have a lot more energy than me……… as I see various political figures in your office at the end of the day……….  You seem to be very popular, so you should try closing your office blinds when nighttime arrives.

In summary: This is a great day in the Township of Langley. We now have an MLA that will truly represent the Township of Langley and the interests of all of our residents, as opposed to that of special interests. It has been a long time coming and we are excited for our communities future.

As to the B.C. Liberal Party and its future, the jury is out. The internal fights are just beginning; Do they change the name? Do they seriously undertake renewal and take a deep internal look at who and what they represent? When will they conduct a leadership contest? And one thing that to-date has not been talked about, what was the net effect of the NEW Political Campaign Financing rules. This was the first election conducted under this NEW campaign financing legislation.

Campaign Financing rules just may be the toughest hill to climb for the B.C. Liberal Party in their attempt to comeback.

The B.C. Liberals (or whatever name they use) has a long way to come back, if they do? We have seen some relevant B.C. history of a political party that has so damaged their reputation and image with the public that any thought of a come-back was a non-starter. Of course, a lot of this will depend on the performance of the NDP over the next four years, we believe they have a great opportunity if they play their cards right!

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

In an on-line Langley City All-Candidates Meeting moderated by former Editor of the Langley Times Frank Bucholtz candidates were asked about their position on the question of support for the Reactivation of the Interurban Corridor – Mary Polak’s answer showing her ignorance of the issue was on display in full color. What it shows that many of us have known for some time, is that the B.C. Liberals are in support of CP Rail not having to live up to the signed terms and obligations of their $6.3 Million purchase of freight rights over what is known as the Pratt Livingston Corridor in 1988! This attitude of working against the public’s protected passenger rights is fitting with the title of my last blog post –

Is this deliberate or are they just ignorant of the facts!

“When the B.C. Liberal Party tells you who they are…. Believe Them!

The Master Agreement that represents the freight rights sale and obligations over this corridor was uncovered and its renewal led by me as Mayor of the Township of Langley in 2009. This renewal was supported in writing by the Mayors and Councils of City of Delta, City of Surrey, City of White Rock, City of Langley, Township of Langley, and the City of Abbotsford. It was renewed a short 6 weeks BEFORE we lost it forever. Since that time, the Mayor and Council of the City of Chilliwack are registered in unanimous support! So, let us set the record straight shall we:

Master Agreement Synopsis

Introduction – Press Release: 2:00 PM July 27th, 1988

B.C. Government names ITEL Rail Corp. as successful bidder in sale of B.C. Hydro’s Rail Freight Division. C.P. Rail acquires operating rights to strategic trackage for Roberts Bank Coal Port.

NOTE: 

Sale of FREIGHT operating rights on entire corridor to Itel of Chicago for a price of approx. $32

Million. (These FREIGHT rights are now owned by Southern Rail)

Sale of FREIGHT operating rights on the joint section (Pratt Livingston corridor) to CP Rail for a

price of $6.3 Million.

The Master Agreement is an agreement made between the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Canadian Pacific Limited on the 29th day of August 1988 covering what is known as the Pratt-Livingston corridor, or otherwise known as the Joint Section. (This section is roughly from 232nd Street through the Langleys to Cloverdale). This agreement was for 21 years as well as the renewal clause, both permitting renewal at either party’s option.

What are the key points of interest found within this agreement? Excerpts follow –

Page 2 – E.

“CP Rail has also agreed to grant Hydro running rights over certain tracks owned by C.P. Rail.”

Page 3 Part 1

Pratt Livingstone 1.01 – Sale of Assets on Pratt Livingston Line to C.P. Rail. “Hydro agrees to

sell, and C.P. Rail agrees to purchase the Tracks and Equipment free and clear of all liens,

charges and encumbrances.”

Page 4 1.02    

Grant of Statutory Right of Way over Pratt Livingstone to C.P. Rail.

“Hydro agrees to grant to C.P. Rail on the closing date a statutory right of way over the Railway Operations Easement Area in the form attached hereto as Annexure III.”

Page 4 1.03

Survey of Railway Operating Easement Area

“The Railway Operations Easement Area shall encompass the Tracks and an area sufficient to enable C.P. Rail to double track, construction of such double track to be at the sole cost of C.P. Rail including the cost of removal and relocation of the works of any other party on the lands required to double track.”

Page 5 1.05

Running Rights over Pratt-Livingstone Tracks to Hydro

“Hydro hereby reserves unto itself the right in perpetuity to operate a railway on the Tracks and Equipment and on the double track, when constructed. The reservation shall be in the form of running rights agreement attached hereto as Annexure V.”

Page 5 1.05(b)

“if the railway operations of Hydro are sold to and operated by the Successor Rail Company,

provided it is not owned or controlled by Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) or

Burlington Northern Inc. (“BN”), on a without charge basis, so long as the use thereof by the

Successor Rail Company does not exceed 33% of the total annual wheelage of all trains

operating trains in the Railway Operations Easement Area.”

Page 12 5.03  

Regulation “C.P. Rail will not take any action intended to bring Hydro or Successor Rail

Company under the jurisdiction of the Railway Act R.S.C. 1970, c. R-2, as amended or the

National Transportation Act, 1987 S.C. 1987, c. 34, as amended.”

P. 21               

Entire Agreement

Section 10.07 “Each of the parties hereto acknowledges that there are no covenants,

representations, warranties, agreements, or conditions expressed or implied, collateral or

otherwise, forming part of or in any way affecting or relating to this agreement save as

expressly set out in this Agreement and this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement

between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.”

Annexure V     Page 2 Sect. 1.2         

“Hydro shall have the exclusive right to operate upon any Hydro trackage connected with the

Joint Section to serve present or future industry from the Joint Section, to pick up or discharge

passengers, freight, or express business upon the Joint Section or to handle directly any

passenger, freight, or express business originating at or destined to points on the Joint

Section.”

Page 3 Article II Section 2.4  

“CP Rail shall initially at its sole cost and expense, maintain and keep the Joint Section,

including all mainline turnouts, in good condition and repair suitable for use by all parties.”

Section 2.5     

“CP Rail shall make such reasonable rules and regulations as are from time to time customary

among railways for the operation of the Joint Section. All train schedules, rules and

regulations shall be reasonable among all railway companies using the Joint Section and shall

not reasonably discriminate against any of them.”

Section 2.7     

“This agreement does not contemplate the operation of passenger trains upon the Joint

Section by any railway company other than Hydro. Hydro shall have the right to operate

passenger trains over the Joint Section. The cars and engines of such passenger trains shall be

included in the wheelage count made pursuant to Section 4.4.”

Summary:

The Master Agreement lays out in very specific terms the rights and conditions of the sale of the freight rights over the Joint Section (known as the Pratt Livingston Corridor) by all parties concerned. A review of the B.C. Government Press Release spells out the intent of the then B.C. Government to #1 – Continue ownership of the full Interurban Corridor in the right of the people of B.C. and #2 – protect corridor for passenger rights on said corridor. The rights were renewed by B.C. Hydro in June of 2009, two months prior to the 21-year term of expiry.

The Master Agreement and relevant additional pages number 88.

IMPORTANT – A full copy of this Master Agreement is available for review to substantiate its authenticity, but it will not be released from our possession.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Anti LGBTQ decisions or sexist comments are not acceptable.

Political campaigns have a way of exposing candidates and political parties, good or bad. What we are seeing exposed in this-years provincial campaign are telltale signs of what those involved in the B.C. Liberal Party are really all about. Our elected representatives MUST be held to a much higher standard in public discourse than the general public – tweeting an apology by the leader of the party does not cut it! As I said, when a Political Party or Candidate tells you who they are…. Believe them!

The B.C. Liberal Party has for years sent a message to the people of B.C. about who they are, their 16 year deplorable record has been laid out in spades; from extensive give away land deals on Burke Mountain and Little Mountain; to a promise not to sell B.C. Rail BUT after winning the election they awarded CN with a 999 year lease option deal followed by extensive court proceedings surrounding this debacle that stunk; to robbing ICBC of over $1.2 Billion dollars to balance their budget, the B.C. Liberals have told all of us who they are! The list of lies and corruption are extensive throughout their time in power.

Check out the Tyee feature 117 BC Liberal Falsehoods, Boondoggles and Scandals over 16 years of governance –

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/04/10/BC-Liberal-Falsehoods-Scandals-Whole-List/

So now we are faced with the real social views that underpin the B.C. Liberal Party. In June of this year it was discovered and published that 14 B.C. Liberal MLAs had expensed more than $1,700 (in public constituency funds) to advertise in The Light Magazine. They describe themselves as a “free monthly Christian lifestyle magazine”.

However, the magazine also promotes highly controversial views, including something called the “West Coast Christian Accord” on “gender identity and human sexuality”, which condemns “homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous” marriages and those who “adopt a homosexual or transgender self-perception.”

According to constituency expense receipts, B.C. Liberal MLAs Laurie Throness (Now resigned!), Rich Coleman, Shirley Bond, Marvin Hunt, John Martin, Joan Isaacs, Todd Stone, Mike deJong, Simon Gibson, Michael Lee, Sam Sullivan and Mary Polak have each disclosed that they have billed taxpayers varying amounts for ads placed with Light Christian Media Inc.

In answer to this revelation, B.C. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson, when confronted by the media he states that the B.C. Liberal Party are inclusive as are all members and will not be advertising in any of these identified periodicals. This apparently, by his lack of action or comment, did not impress MLA Laurie Thrones, he has refused comment or assurance that he believes in the words and stated position of leader Wilkinson. He resigned today. Why wasn’t he fired?

So now, at virtually the start of the election campaign, the B.C. Liberal candidate for Langley East, Margaret Kunst as a councillor was one of three members of Council who voted against endorsing the installation of a Rainbow crosswalk between the RCMP headquarters and the School Board offices.

During the 30-minute debate on the issue she did not comment once – which stands out as someone who wanted to slide below the surface as far as media is concerned. This was no-cost to the residents of the Township of Langley; it is a show of support for the LGBTQ community and it was supported by the RCMP and school board. She claimed she was only against the process.

Really? That has proven to be incorrect since that vote and that excuse! – The Langley Chapter of the Association of Reformed Political Action Canada which encourages Reformed Christians to get involved in political issues sent out a questionnaire to all candidates prior to the last Municipal Election.

Question – Langley Township has painted a rainbow crosswalk within the last few years. Would you support the painting of such crosswalks – Margaret Kunst Answer WAS NO! She believes our Canadian Flag represents freedom and inclusivity for all in Canada. Fact – The Rainbow Flag is a widely displayed symbol (internationally) of support for the LGBTQ community.

So, this crosswalk is to be between the SD35 headquarters and the RCMP detachment in Murrayville supported by both organizations to signal inclusiveness to all visitors and had been in the works for about a year! Clearly Margaret Kunst, based on the uncovering of her answers to the questionnaire, did not tell the truth when asked for the reasons behind her vote by the media. Therefore the only possible conclusion is this is her personal view, and the leader, Andrew Wilkinson did nothing about it and has shown ZERO leadership in the matter!

So in the face of wide criticism from all corners of British Columbia of support ads in a slanted religious magazine and now of the Langley East candidate which has displayed such bias, we have a Leader in Andrew Wilkinson who has shown demonstrably poor leadership in dealing with these issues.

If all of that was not bad enough, we now have a Zoom MLA retirement / roast of Ralph Sultan that has been posted extensively on-line showing MLA Jane Thornthwaite making sexist and suggestive accusations against NDP MLA Bowinn Ma. In the aftermath of this telling debacle the B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson was seen as a party to this retirement function and was seen laughing at the remarks by Jane Thornthwaite. An apology via Twitter from Wilkinson was all that was received until the day of the Leaders Debate. In the view of most, Andrew Wilkinson and the B.C. Liberals have clearly sent a message to the people of B.C., they are out of touch with today’s societal expectations – they are a dinosaur.

As I have said in earlier BLOG Posts, my decision to support the NDP and Megan Dykeman has not been made lightly but is being made in what I believe to be in the best interest of the Township of Langley and our Province. In my view, given the reality of politics in our province, a vote for the Green Party would be a vote for the B.C. Liberals. The reality is, regardless how you cut it, the Green Party cannot reach the numbers required to have any significant impact this time around on the political scene in British Columbia or our community.

A Vote for Megan Dykeman in Langley East is a vote for our community that will serve the Township of Langley well.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

To Respectful and Effective Representation…. For Langley East Vote for Megan Dykeman…. We are!

It is no-secret, over the best part of 45 years I have been actively involved in free enterprise politics. An activist, life member, Constituency Vice-President, President, Candidate and Provincial Convention Plenary Chair, an Alderman in Delta, and Mayor of the Township of Langley. Throughout my political life I thought I had seen everything – the good, the bad and the ugly side of politics – until we moved to Langley. A fantastic and great community, one that our family loves deeply, but a community with a sleazy political underbelly of political control that I have written about earlier on this BLOG. This cadre of power brokers has held us back in so many ways to benefit themselves. It is our time to turn the page, break loose and move forward in a positive way. Let us break free of the past deplorable political representation at the provincial level towards a progressive representative and political party that meets the needs of 2021!

I do not make my decision of support lightly, without very-serious thought and weighing what is in the best interest of our Province and our community! We need the strong visionary leadership of John Horgan as well as that of a very bright and compassionate individual, currently the Chair of our Langley School Board, Megan Dykeman who is proud to be part of Premier John Horgan’s NDP Team! Her background in leadership is extensive, impressive, and very worthy of being our MLA!

Megan is very qualified to represent you – An experienced leader who has served 6 years as Community Chair of the Langley Agricultural and Economic Advisory Committee and Chair of the Blueberry Cannon Taskforce. As a Trustee, she has also served on the Provincial Conflict of Interest Committee and various BCSTA committees, including the Finance and Audit Committee.

Active in her community, Megan is the President of the Langley Farmers Institute and the Parliamentarian’s Association of British Columbia. She is a founding “A” leader of ‘Otter Flying Feathers’ 4-H club, the first 4-H poultry club in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley in over 25 years.

While raising her two kids and running her business, Megan studied Farm Business Management at the University of Saskatchewan, completed her Bachelor of Professional Arts in Governance, Law and Management from the University of Athabasca, and obtained her Masters in International Relations from Macquarie University. Her thesis focused on food security, an international and local issue that she is passionate about. There is no question, she is very bright and articulate, a Provincial MLA we could all be proud of, someone who will fight for the Township of Langley’s present needs and its future!

While most of us will know and understand our past, with very polarized politics in British Columbia, there comes a time in my view where, regardless of left, right or center, bad government is bad government. Regardless of a particular philosophical bent, sometimes it makes abundant sense to stand against that bad government. A few key things have happened to change my mind in reaching our decision today.

Being very politically involved all of my life I have watched the progression of the B.C. Liberal Party since its inception and growth coming out of the 1991 election. I ran for Social Credit for Delta North in that election and know that transition very well, I will not regurgitate any of that here, possibly in a later Blog Post. My point is, I have been up close and personal with the growth of the B.C. Liberals from Gordon Wilson, to Gordon Campbell, to Christy Clark and now Andrew Wilkinson. Unfortunately, thanks to the likes of Gordon Campbell and then Christy Clark and their collective gang (a number still hanging around), the B.C. Liberal Party began to pull off a number of stunts. Check out the Tyee feature 117 BC Liberal Falsehoods, Boondoggles and Scandals over 16 years of governance.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/04/10/BC-Liberal-Falsehoods-Scandals-Whole-List/

I do not like who they are, what they stand for, the decisions they have made and their lack of any ethical standards? They have had a chance to rebuild and renew and they chose the route of “don’t worry the public will forget”. Our old Social Credit Party chose the same course of inaction – they are no longer in existence and rightfully so.

Then something happened, John Horgan was elected leader of the NDP. A group of us had a chance to have a 2-hour meeting with then candidate John Horgan in March of 2017, and I was very-impressed. In my opening introduction I stated – “Well hell has frozen over; Rick Green is in an NDP office”. Based on our meeting and conversation I felt he deserved a chance to form government. I am 74 years old and the 2017 election was the first time our family has ever voted NDP and I have to say we have not regretted that for one minute. Shocking to some, we have also donated to the NDP in each year John has been Premier. We will get into their record of achievement in future posts during this election.

An MLA must represent all of his or her constituents, regardless of who that may be. It should never be based on some kind of hierarchical ranking of citizens within their constituency, based on some kind of perceived inner circle. That is exactly how the Township of Langley has been controlled, for the best part of two decades.

With Megan Dykeman we will have an MLA who is deeply committed to serve all of our residents regardless of their position or who they are within our community. The Township of Langley deserves so much better and we have many needs that can only be delivered from our Provincial Government as lobbied and fought for by our MLA.

We believe Megan Dykeman is the only choice in Langley East to serve ALL of us in the Township of Langley in Victoria!

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

Langley Politics has a terrible reputation province wide, and the Langley East Liberal Constituency Association and its past small cabal of leaders and hangers-on are at the center of everything political – Provincial and Municipal within the Township! All of this at our expense, do not believe me, the latest plus a few stories that should disgust all taxpayers.

We moved to Langley from Delta in 1997, bought our farm, our horses and settled into semi-retirement. A condition of our move, I stay out of politics. Free enterprise politically very active in Delta dating back to 1975 unelected and elected. The issues I uncovered in the Township after 10 years of living here changed all of that. There were about 9 major issues, so I started my campaign for Mayor, we worked for 1 ½ years and we won! Be careful what you ask for?

What I uncovered during the 2008 campaign and after our swearing in were bombshells, one after the other. I uncovered them through challenging staff with questions – from the Financial Boondoggle with the Langley Events Center, to numerous questionable development approvals, to landfill on agricultural land – there were many areas where those responsible should have been dealt with severely and legally; however it certainly didn’t take long to realize who most of those elected owed their election success to. I have written a lot about many issues, over 120 posts since 2013, so I will not get into any of that here. This is important, Mark Bakken, Township of Langley CAO, is Rich Coleman’s very-good friend, as told to me directly by Rich in Feb. of 2008! In that same meeting he advised me that “they were OK with the land sales that were going on”, I was making noise about them at the time. Do we have to say any more?

So, what is the real story behind the almost launched Eric Woodward BC NDP Campaign? The HIT job that just happened?

First, the announcement of Eric’s candidacy leaked out prematurely on Saturday which left everyone scrambling, nevertheless everything was quickly put together. The Langley East B.C. Liberals freaked out at their serious prospects of losing the Rich Coleman “FIEFDOM”! Everything was looking very-positive for Eric in this constituency that to-date has been considered the exclusive domain of one Rich Coleman! But they would not let that happen!

The just announced HIT job on Councillor Eric Woodward, is despicable by any measure. There is a Cabal of Fort Langley residents who have had it out for Eric Woodward for some time. It is no secret that I have published a few BLOG posts against Eric a number of years ago; having said that I also met with Eric a few times prior to the last Municipal Election and we had a good discussion about the Township, his ideas and his vision. Remember he did not support my campaign in 2011, however I was only interested in what he would do to help correct the ills of the Township. I liked what he had to say, endorsed him along with 4 other Councillors in this BLOG prior to the last election and in my opinion, Eric has performed head and shoulders above anyone else on Council, and he has only been there for two years.

I have to point this out – Prior to the last election and before I published any endorsements, I received very inflammatory statements and commentary about Eric of a personal and slanderous nature from a few in Fort Langley – and they know who they are. I would never entertain anything against anyone that is based loosely on rumor, gossip, and innuendo. I have been in politics too long and have seen what unfounded rumor, gossip, and innuendo can do. I was the target of a few of the same people directly tied to the Langley East B.C. Liberal Cabal (See below)! These people and their leader do not take kindly to threats to their power base.

The interesting part of this HIT job comes from those directly connected to the B.C. Liberals in the Township of Langley, non-other than Jordan Bateman (Liberal spokesperson with the ICBA, former President of Rich Coleman’s Constituency Association and now identified as the Treasurer of said Association) who has been spreading unfounded gossip, rumor, innuendo or suggestions against Eric Woodward with his media buddy contacts; in their effort to protect a fledgling new candidate Margaret Kunst and the B.C. Liberals in Langley East who was in clear trouble, potentially losing this previously safe B.C. Liberal seat and they knew it!

Through an endless number of Tweets from Jordan Bateman to all his media buddies and everyone political stating “there was a big reveal coming” and “just wait until the media finds out what the real story is”, you can see why Eric, due to past rumor, gossip and innuendo he faced in the Municipal Campaign, his responsible action was to withdraw. The reality is, due to a short campaign period, and what he has faced before which was spread by word of mouth, he could not effectively respond in such a short time frame to effectively correct any misinformation! While not appropriate at this time, I would be preparing a lawsuit for defamation of character if this ever raised its head again! Let us not lose sight of the fact that all of this is tied directly to the B.C. Liberals in Langley East, to deny this is to deny the facts.

The latest just in: (Mathew Claxton Sept. 28th, 2020) Jordan Bateman in the Langley Advance Times sounding like he is still a spokesperson for the Langley East Constituency Association. “He filled out Liberal Nomination Papers” – really Jordan, that is the best you can do? Now given his track record of this whole saga I wouldn’t believe a word he says! But all of that aside, let me see if I have this straight – If I take the B.C. Liberals at their word and they didn’t want Eric as a candidate, they are coming unglued that he was going to run for another party? Really? So, in the face of that reality you go out and spread unfounded rumor, gossip, innuendo plus that infamous political line “if you knew what I knew or something similar” garbage. Absolutely despicable, there is no other word for it. You are a coward Jordan. If you have something to say go for it – let the chips fall where they may, and you will be seen for who you really are!

Further evidence, if we needed any, is laid out within the following issues that I experienced during my three years in the Mayor’s Office! I remember a candidate for Township of Langley Municipal Council in a Municipal Election past received a call from one Rich Coleman requesting he come in for an interview. What? Really? This is what is really happening, if you don’t fall in line you had better rethink your position!

Issue of interestIn 2010, I had numerous breakfast meetings with citizens throughout the Township. Through those meetings I was advised numerous times of a company called Brownshack Developments, with well-connected owners of the day. Per the Community Charter my responsibility was to keep members of Council informed which I did.

A meeting, no staff present, no accusations, the political HIT job commenced. A Complaint to the RCMP was made by Councillor Grant Ward (former RCMP) and Joel Schacter that I released in-camera information; it clearly was not. This resulted in over $150,000 in Township legal bills and $25,000 for me personally, defending myself. A 7-month RCMP investigation through 2 Crown Counsels and finally a Special Prosecutor, releasing his report 2 months before the 2011 election. I was cleared, but I paid a high price politically and financially. That was their plan!

Another Issue of interestAs published in my March 23rd, 2013 BLOG Post, leading up to the 2011 election campaign, we received a thread of emails from a Realtor in Joel Schacter’s Real Estate Office which we found very-interesting. The full email thread is available on the above post so I will just highlight items of interest – This is just another example of interference for dubious reasons by those connected with the B.C. Liberal Langley East Constituency Assoc.!

1st email – from Joel Schacter – Tuesday 11/15 2011 3:00 PM

“I have had discussions with some of the senior management at the hall as well as our MLA Rich Coleman and 2 former mayors…. they are all suggesting Mel has the best chance of taking Green out.”

He goes on to list all candidates for Mayor, Councillor and School Trustee that he recommends.

2nd Email – The response from Glenn Duff (Then Langley Realtor) –

“It is likely, that most of the people in the office are not aware of your behind the scenes smear campaign against what I consider to be ………..a very intelligent, honest and fair guy who is being slammed by a bunch of self-serving idiots that have their own hidden agendas…..just like you do.”

“Are you scared of losing your inside connections to all of the Township and School Board real estate deals? Pretty easy to prove my point.”

3rd Email – Further response from Glenn Duff (Then Langley Realtor) –

“Why is it, that you and Rich Coleman and Mark Bakken all hang out together and scheme about how to “take out” Green??  What is it really about Rick Green that has got your collected attention?”

“I was told a long time ago, to find the truth……. simply follow the money.”

“It seems however, that you have a lot more energy than me……… as I see various political figures in your office at the end of the day……….  You seem to be very-popular, so you should try closing your office blinds when nighttime arrives.”

In Summary:

The unfortunate part of this whole story is the charade that has been perpetrated on the residents of the Township of Langley.

I would suggest that the vast majority of those who take out a membership in the B.C. Liberal Party are just not aware of the ulterior motives of those in leadership roles. I understand that in everyone’s busy lives and basic trust that they put in the hands of those elected wonder, how can any of this be true? Why would anyone have such a lust for power and control?

In the world we are living in, and in the Municipality, we are living in, with our developable land base, trust me it is NOT a conspiracy theory! Quite frankly, it all makes me sick, we can only hope it has the same affect on the citizens of the Township of Langley in future elections.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

Unbeknown to most residents of the Province of British Columbia, your rights municipally took a serious hit, a serious blow to your ability to file a complaint of wrongdoing against your Municipal Government, staff and/or Council Member, to have a respectful hearing and have something done about it. Be wary of any government that tells you they are going to make your life easier and less complicated. The date was May 29th, 2003 when the Liberal Government of the day under Premier Gordon Campbell, after a few years of promotion with the then Municipal Politicians across the province, irreversibly changed Municipal governance in B.C… They introduced and passed legislation introducing the B.C. Municipal Community Charter which replaced in large part the former Municipal Act. Let’s be clear there was a need to look at some revisions, however not a virtual rewrite of everything that governs you as a citizen within any community, municipality and/or city in the Province of B.C…

Now don’t get me wrong, not all changes are bad, BUT I urge you to review this BLOG Post through the eyes of what these changes have meant to you and all residents of our province. You see if we were going to believe that all staff and elected mayors and councilors within the province were going to act responsibly, honourably and with integrity, a rewrite of this legislation would be fine, BUT folks, that thinking is both naïve and unrelated to what happens in real life. Where there is a will there is a way. I am not targeting all municipal and City staff or all politicians, but I am referring to the need for oversight of all actions and decisions of those involved. No different than anyone who owns and operates a business, you have security as well as checks and balances. Even at that we hear horror stories daily.

The Old Municipal Act

I was an Alderman in Delta from 1986 – 1989 and we operated under the rules and legislation of the then Municipal Act. There was available to all municipalities, elected politicians and citizens of those municipalities an opportunity to register complaints to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in Victoria who would have their various audit personnel investigate the complaint(s) to ensure staff and elected representatives were acting within the framework of provincial legislation. They had the authority to issue penalties and changes.

I can recall (a councilor who shall remain nameless) in the early to mid-80s before I was elected who took exception to the actions and the directions of the Mayor of the day with respect to a budget issue and the Ministry sent over an audit team to investigate. That would not happen under today’s rules. This oversight was available to residents and elected politicians on everything covered by the then enacted provincial legislation.

The B.C. Community Charter

I can only offer my opinion that under this legislation (circa 2003) it is a license for abuse and corruption in the hands of the wrong people, and there lies the problem, I want to repeat that “It is a license for abuse and corruption in the hands of the wrong people.”

Now there will be many out there who will dismiss my suggestion as something that could not or would not happen, you know, a conspiracy theory, really? Tell me what a thief looks like or someone with detrimental ulterior motives? Anyone who has been in business knows what I am talking about. The problem in government, especially municipally (I would suggest senior levels of government have processes in place for checks and balances) is your elected politicians are part-time at best subjected to having to trust a wide variety of staff that spend their time steering their elected masters in whatever direction they want to. I have been there, and to-date have written over 100 BLOG Posts on issues that Township residents didn’t know anything about. Many of these were uncovered by doing some due diligence – you know, common sense.

As I have said, the Community Charter in principle is fine but in reality, it does not deal with the real world and the potential for, and the reality of corruption. I am sure they said they removed oversight due to cost, there is a cost to governance and democracy! Besides it would have been a convenient excuse in the day, but I would suggest it was done for ulterior motives.

Overview of the Community Charter (Taken from the Discussion Paper for Community Charter 2001.)

The Charter will be based on the principle of respect and recognition for communities and their local governments. It will enable municipalities to become more self-reliant by providing them with greater autonomy, independence, new powers and better financial and other tools for governing communities and delivering services. It will also create a new accountability framework for citizens to make sure government remains accessible and accountable in every community. Its vision continues to be based on principles of open, accountable and financially responsible municipalities. The Charter itself will be shorter and easier to read than existing legislation and will eliminate red tape for citizens and municipal councils alike.

Sounds great doesn’t it! Now read that carefully, it is a disaster for residents who are now told in the face of Municipal wrongdoing, including breaches of the Charter, sue us! This is the answer frequently received and obviously in the eyes of most citizens, this is a non-starter.

The Township of Langley – Why should we be concerned? Check out langleywatchdog, here is just a small cross section of important items we have covered, you should be concerned. If you want to refer to any BLOG Posts listed below go to archives on left side of page under the date you wish to review:

February 2013

Township Muzzles and banishes citizens from Council

Wall Townhouse Development vs Metro Vancouver court fight (despite previous TOL approval)

The Mufford Crescent Diversion (Your municipal Council lied to you)

March 2013

Langley Events Center – A project long past in need of a Forensic Audit, The Inconvenient Facts!

Development in the Township of Langley – The Inconvenient Facts!

Soil Deposits on Agricultural Land – It’s about money, for who?

April 2013

Soil Deposit on Agricultural Land – It gets more interesting!

Wall Townhouse Development – Closing comments speaks volumes!

Township residents denied just benefits in land sales!

May 2013

Is Township of Langley Council morally bankrupt?

Municipal Finances – The truth in Langley!

September 2013

Township of Langley sues citizen over FOI request. Facts!

November 2013

Township of Langley property deals – The stench is palpable!

December 2013

Township of Langley – Out of control taxation and spending!

January 2014

Township of Langley pays Trinity University 80% over assessed value!

February 2014

Brookswood Plan – A sadly failed effort by Council.

March 2014

Brookswood Plan – Don’t accept referral!

Brookswood Community Plan – The inconvenient facts and the truth!

May 2014

Township of Langley sues citizen – Loses badly!

Transportation needs South of the Fraser – Council fails badly!

June 2014

Metro FOI – Breaking News Coleman email!

July 2014

Township of Langley politics, more interesting – Liberal Poll!

Move along, nothing happening here!

September 2014

UPDATE BREAKING NEWS – Langley Events Center, the financial reality – An outrage!

(I have skipped all campaign related Posts)

June 2015

Aldergrove gets a pool – Promised Indoor during campaign receives an outdoor pool!

July 2015

Mayor Froese’s Public Engagement Committee – Nothing but a charade!

November 2015

Township of Langley Council executes ALC Memorandum of Understanding!

January 2016

Township of Langley Development is out of control. OCP and zoning not safe. Vesta?

March 2016

Aldergrove gets Pool – An insulting shaft by Council.

November 2016

After the calamity in the U.S. can we now agree that politics is important! Every vote counts!

December 2016

Achieving something while on Council requires determination and commitment.

Is it Dirty Politics or Corruption in the Township of Langley Part 1 of 4

Is it Dirty Politics or Corruption in the Township of Langley Part 2 of 4

Is it Dirty Politics or Corruption in the Township of Langley Part 3 of 4

Is it Dirty Politics or Corruption in the Township of Langley Part 4 of 4

January 2017

CFIB Municipal Spending Watch – The Township of Langley is the worst offender in B.C.

216th St Overpass in Walnut Grove – “It’s not my job to do what my constituents want” Froese

January 2018

Breaking News – The Railway through the Langleys… History revealed – just the facts!

NEW CFIB Municipal Spending Watch Survey – Township still the worst performing.

August 2018

The Smart and Only Way to solve the South of Fraser’s Transportation and Transit deficit.

October 2018

Township of Langley Election 2018…. Remember “Change Begins with Choice”!

January 2019

Well it’s been three months since our Municipal Election, Interesting results…. My thoughts?

February 2019

UPDATE! We Won! – Fraser Surrey Docks will NOT be using the Fraser Surrey Docks for Coal transfer!

March 2019

Urgent Plea to TransLink Mayors Council and Board members.

May 2019

The Truth about TRANSLINK SURVEY RESULTS EXPOSED…. Misrepresentation, it’s startling!

October 2019

BREAKING NEWS – CTV Investigative report on the actions of three current members of Council.

Just before I was elected plus while I was in office, there were a number of issues which I uncovered frankly just by asking questions of senior staff. I asked questions because common sense told me this just did not make any sense. Be careful the questions you ask, the answers in many cases add to the conundrum you are facing! The Council majority of the day were not prepared to acknowledge the problem, let alone act on them:

  • Park Lane Condo development in Fort Langley – Just prior to my election in 2008 the Council of the day had approved a three-story Condo development on the waterfront of Fort Langley. They gave 1st, 2nd, Public Hearing, and 3rd reading on this development when out of the blue comes the addition of a fourth story at 4th reading and Development Permit stage. Well FYI, you are only allowed to change form character and design after 3rd reading, NOT adding density. This was clearly a breach of the Community Charter, so what recourse did the public have – sue (using your money) or forget about it.
  • The Athenry Development up behind the renovated Willoughby Hall – After our election in 2008 we had the Athenry proposal brought before our Council by staff, a proposal that the previous Council dealt with at 1st, 2nd, Public Hearing and 3rd Reading, we were to consider 4th reading and obviously the Development Permit. As we had not dealt with it before we had to review all of the detail the previous Council dealt with and it was clear to me and the probably 30 residents with homes backing onto the development that the development had changed dramatically. Five buildings, not one, 15 foot set back from back fences and not the 40 feet originally proposed and it went downhill from there. Once again this resulted in a dramatic increase in density when only form, character and design were permitted to be dealt with. There were threatened lawsuits because the Township Council would not listen, some homeowners lost close to $100K in home value, there were family breakups over it and more. Again, with the Community Charter your only recourse is to sue.
  • Landfill on Agricultural Land – A runaway practice in the Township was what we called landfill farming. Prior to my election the Township on receipt of a complaint would refer all complaints to the Agricultural Land Commission to deal with the issue. Those referrals were automatic when in fact by Provincial Legislation every application called for a site-specific resolution by Council in support or opposition before sending that application to the ALC. This grew into a major issue in rural TOL when I uncovered a memo from the Township CAO to the ALC in 2005 advising that a resolution of Council had been passed to send all applications to the ALC when in fact, after asking to see that resolution, found that there was no such resolution. This should have resulted in some sort of legal action, but without the resulting support legislation that was available under the old Municipal Act our hands were tied, especially with the majority on Council being opposed to any action. Why, good question.
  • The Langley Events Center – Please review my BLOG Post on this issue, there should have been a Forensic Audit but with the Community Charter Legislation and Council opposition that would be impossible. This was and is a very serious financial boondoggle.

Summary:

So, as the saying goes you get the government you deserve. I have said many times that politics is not a spectator sport, it is a participation sport, that is if you truly care about how your government is managing your community. For those that think we can do politics differently today, I have news for you, outside of Social Media (which I agree is a big difference), politics today is as much a war as it has ever been. Obviously, I don’t mean that in a violent way BUT I do mean it as a serious fight of ideas and ideals and for honesty and integrity in government.

So, if you look at the reality of the Community Charter and its complete lack of oversight, add to that a weak and submissive (and/or controlled) Council from outside influencers coupled with the fact we now have FOUR year terms, the prospect of change is not great. What is even of greater concern is that senior staff in the Township of Langley have been in place for the best part of 19 years and I can tell you that IS NOT normal in Municipal and City Administration in British Columbia. It is very unhealthy in simple terms.

To put things in perspective I will repeat a comment made to me by Rich Coleman our MLA about 9 months before the election I won in 2008 (previously published in my BLOG). In a meeting we had in February of 2008 in his Board Room in Aldergrove he stated, “so what’s this meeting about”, I answered “I just wanted to come by and introduce someone who is running for Mayor” – his comment “We are OK with the job the Mayor is doing” my response, “well we are not”. He immediately went on “I want you to know two things, the CAO is a good friend of mine and you have been making noises about some land deals and we are OK with them”. For the record, I leaned across the table and stared at him and stated, “well we aren’t, it’s bullshit and it’s going to stop.” You don’t have to be a genius to read the message and to know what is going on and it isn’t very pretty.

When are we going to say enough is enough and elect members of Council that will put an end to this nonsense. The next election is only three years away (a very short amount of time in the world of politics), lets encourage strong, high profile members of our community to run for office who are willing to change our direction for the better. As a community we need to pay attention to the actions and or inactions of Council, our community depends on it.

We at langleywatchdog.com would like to extend our warmest wishes for a Merry Christmas and a healthy, happy and prosperous New Year! See you in 2020!!!!

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

 

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

 

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

via BREAKING NEWS – CTV Investigative Report on the actions of three current members and one former member of the Township of Langley Council! This is outragious!

Quote  —  Posted: October 31, 2019 in Uncategorized

The TransLink Survey results just released by TransLink yesterday exposes this organization for what it does very well, they are irresponsible with your tax dollars, conduct one sided Open Houses with only ONE option, conduct in-house on-line surveys with only ONE option and conduct market research offering only ONE option with ONE Question – Add all of this up, you get a ONE sided result surprised!
IMPORTANT – Added to the above is the fact the area being surveyed is absolutely starved for Transportation of any kind. In Langley/Surrey you get the results that have been published, all manufactured by TransLink for your pleasure. Wasting tax dollars is something they do very well.

Real Market Research seeks out the public’s views on a selection of issues, providing a variety of options to select from. Conducting telephone market research and asking the question ‘would you be in favor of SkyTrain to Langley City down the Fraser Highway” with no other option – WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO BE THEIR ANSWER? Especially, as stated above, they are starved for a transit option of any kind! It is an insult to the intelligence of the region, all designed with a preset answer.

On telephone market research, let’s break down their numbers:

In Surrey a sample size of 595, a margin of error of +/-4%, 85% support and in numbers 505.

In Langley City a sample size of 67, a margin of error of +/-12%, 90% support and in numbers 60.

In Township Langley, sample size of 180, a margin of error of +/-8%, 92% support and in numbers 165.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This phone call research again asked one question with only one option and you get 90%-92 %? In a transportation starved community, how did they not get 100%?

On Open House, filled out survey forms?

Pouring an endless amount of taxpayer dollars towards and into promoting; the website, Digital ads (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google Search network, Google Display Network, G mail ads), Surrey Now Leader banner ads, advertorial, Facebook Posts, Langley Advance Times Banner ads, advertorial, Facebook Posts, SMS NextBus alert ads, eNewsletters, Social Media using Facebook and Twitter (Facebook events were created for each open house), Direct Outreach through corporate, business and community organizations, Mail out postcards to Surrey and Langley businesses and residents, Street teams (staff) distributing postcards at transit hubs, Community Events in Surrey, Information Boards at Surrey City Hall, Langley City Hall and the Township of Langley City Hall and finally transit ads! And you are Surprised at the result?

The level of awareness seems to have been the question of the day!

With the money poured into this one-sided Public Engagement Campaign the results are not at all surprising. Throughout the survey they talk about the plan for the South of Fraser – Surrey is NOT the South of Fraser region, it is a small part of it! Once again asking residents ONE question on ONE option in a region starved for any Transit Option does not constitute a survey of ANY value.

Seriously consider the following –

 Doug McCallum got elected with only 13.50% of the eligible voters in Surrey!
Promised SkyTrain at a cost of $1.65 Billion, actual cost will be $3 + Billion!
Promised City Police Force @ 10% cost increase– Increase will be substantially greater!

 The Safe Surrey Coalition has disbanded, Doug McCallum is the lone remaining voice and will cost the residents throughout the region increased TransLink taxation costs PLUS increased Surrey taxation for increased Policing costs. This financial irresponsibility has got to stop! Check out the Per Capita Costs below on all options:

 Original LRT, Guildford, Surrey Center to Newton Pop. 312,340 @ $1.65 Billion = $5,122. Per capita
o 11 kms in length 104th Guildford to Surrey Center down King George Blvd to Newton

 SkyTrain Surrey Center to Fleetwood Population 62,735 @ $1.65 Billion = $25,504. per capita.
o 7 kms in length down Fraser Highway to Fleetwood

 SkyTrain Surrey Center to Langley City Population 157,618 @ $3.2 Billion = $20,302. per capita
o 16 kms in length down Fraser Highway (About $800 million thru a Dead Zone, 25% no population)

The solution for our region follows and the questions regarding this option were not asked? WHY?

 Scott Rd SkyTrain to Chilliwack, Population 852,846 @ $1.250 Billion = $1,465. per capita
o 99 kms in length

The Interurban State-of-the-Art Hydrail Passenger Rail proposal makes sense for 1.2 million people! Why wasn’t this option offered in their survey? Cost would be pennies on the dollar and would serve 14 Post Secondary Institutions, 7 First Nations Communities and 16 Cities, towns and municipalities!
Let’s stop insulting the intelligence of the Public. Let’s start by conducting a balanced survey that will MEAN something, save Billions of dollars and provide far better service at a fraction of the cost while we are at it!

It would be laughable IF it wasn’t so serious! TransLink continues to waste an immense number of tax dollars while the regions (1.2 million residents) are losing out on a FREE for use corridor.

For more detail from the South Fraser Community Rail Group – Contact Rick Green – 604 866-5752
Website http://www.southfrasercommunityrail.ca
Email address southfrasercommunityrail@shaw.ca

All of you are charged with the responsibility to set in place a transportation plan that is effective and is financially / fiscally and environmentally responsible, in other words a plan that is practical for our region and delivers value for our tax dollars. While I fully understand your regional responsibility is for Metro Vancouver, a truer look at our region extends out to Chilliwack, in other words, like West Coast Express there is a crossover responsibility from the Langleys into Abbotsford and Chilliwack. The effective population catchment North of the River is about 320,000 for WCE while South of the Fraser that catchment is a population of some 1.2 million today with NO similar transportation options available.

I have been in your shoes…. By way of introduction my name is Rick Green, 10 years ago I served on the Mayors Translink Council as the Mayor of the Township of Langley. I know very well the responsibility each of you carry in your role as a member of the Council and-also of those on the Board. I was on the Council when we had to deal with the negotiations with the Provincial Government for our $400 + Million share of the Evergreen Line Funding, so I understand the issues you are going to have to deal with in a profound way. With respect to options, LRT, Skytrain or something already in place, lets speak to value for money, if we want to maximize the benefits for all residents in the region. I certainly hope that is our goal!

With respect to the selection of options and then key to that is what does each option cost? I have found all too often we (staff/mayors/Board members) have overlooked the most viable and practical for an unrealistic and impractical option just because we have it on our system (Skytrain). If you didn’t know prior to being in your position, you do by now or will find out shortly that available funding is and will be in very very short supply.

Your responsibility (a matter of fact your provincially mandated responsibility through legislation) is not a parochial one with parochial interests always being pushed by the large communities, it is what is in the best interest of the region, that is what you are responsible for doing. I hate to say it, and you have found out, the weighted vote gets in the way of that mandate so therefore the majority must rely on the issue of quorum. No quorum no vote, that generally wakes up those that are driven by parochial interests. I can say, in my experience we never really had that issue, but apparently it is back, and must be dealt with IF we are to respond in the best interests of ALL concerned.

So what am I asking for? A little background first! In 2009 I set up and chaired the “South of the Fraser Community Rail Task Force” endorsed and with elected members of the Councils of the day, Delta, Surrey, White Rock, City of Langley, Township of Langley, Abbotsford plus two community groups and a representative of Trinity University, University of the Fraser Valley and Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Our Task Force worked with Shaw Cable to produce a 25 minute documentary video that all members of this Council should view through this link https://langleywatchdog.com/topics/ . We have continued our efforts (post elected office) in a variety of ways to promote this option through the South Fraser Community Rail committee, effectively an extension of that Task Force without elected Council members.

As a member of the Translink Council we had Tom Prendergast and his management group, then CEO of Translink, out to our board room on two occasions to present what we believe is the Smart and Only solution for passenger rail South of the Fraser. He was strongly in favor of taking a serious look, unfortunately he was attracted by the bright lights of Broadway and headed back to New York to chair the New York Transit commission, the largest transit network in the world shortly after our discussions. After Tom had left we held a few meetings with the incoming senior staff and presented our thoughts and plan to an education session of the Translink Mayor’s Council.

Back to our ask…. We would appreciate an opportunity to show all members of the Mayors Translink Council, and Board Members if at all possible, a presentation representative of about 12 years of work by elected and non-elected members of our communities South of the Fraser. We will confront and effectively answer all questions related to history, rights, legal authority (uncovered during my term as Mayor) and much much more. This presentation has been given to Premier John Horgan and others in the Provincial Cabinet.

To move this along we are asking to inform all of you about an option that, as we say above, is THE SMART AND ONLY WAY to repair our transit deficit South of the Fraser. At the very least, given it’s and our past history you should be aware of all pertinent detail.

Just imagine….

The Plan to Reestablish Community Light Rail Passenger Service connecting communities between the Pattullo Bridge and Chilliwack!

o To utilize the 99 KM rail line between the Pattullo Bridge in Surrey and Chilliwack at NO COST for passenger corridor use.

o To establish a Spine (main rail line) and Rib (road network) feeding the rail line by a bus system between the Pattullo Bridge and Chilliwack in the same fashion as the current road system feeds Skytrain by bus.

o To establish a state-of-the-art Hydrogen Powered system that is environmentally clean serving and saving the very difficult Fraser Valley Airshed. A technology introduced in Germany 2 years ago!

o To dramatically reduce traffic congestion from all major east west highways throughout the South of the Fraser.

o To provide affordable, reliable and safe transit and transportation to a population of over 1.2 million people for employment, shopping and air travel through the Abbotsford Int. Airport. Not available today.

o To provide affordable transportation for students and faculty accessing FOURTEEN University Campuses South of the Fraser. Increase access, increase enrollment!

o To provide an extension of lower mainland public transportation that would run from West Vancouver to Chilliwack.

o To provide tourism access throughout the Fraser Valley!

o To provide public transportation that would serve the exponentially growing population up the valley due to housing costs.

o To establish an affordable system that according to three engineering studies is 7.9% the cost per KM of the Surrey LRT line – Or

o To establish an affordable system that according to three engineering studies would create 99 KMs of passenger service for 48% of the cost of the 16.6 KMs Surrey to Langley proposed LRT line! Far less if it is a Skytrain proposal!

o All at an affordable cost, convenient to use that makes SENSE!
Strong statements, you bet. Let us put our money where our mouth is. The South of the Fraser is not the only part of the region underserved, lets be smart with the limited funds available!

Special Note: Go to our NEW website http://www.southfrasercommunityrail.ca

RG
I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.
Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!
Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!
To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.