[Sust-mar] Re: Sperry's Beach

[Tom Daly]

In response to your letter of November 15, as follows:

Dear Committee Members:
RE:    Sperry's Beach, Petite Riviere, Lunenburg County

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence, with enclosed petition, dated
October 13, 2005, regarding the issues associated with the above-noted
property.

While I understand the community's frustrations, the Province has an
obligation to ensure that actions taken by the Province to not affect the
property rights of a private landowner.

Both Ministers of the Departments of Natural Resources and Environment and
Labour have assured me that their staff have expended considerable effort
assisting the community, and are continuing to do so by obtaining outside
legal advice as to ownership of the "sand spit" and shore front.  I have
also been advised that Mr. David Himmelman, the owner of the land
associated with the burial site, is working successfully with the Mi'kmaq
Burial Ground Research and Registration Association and has permitted
access and entry to perform clean up and research.

I have requested the Minister of Natural Resources to advise the committee,
in writing, of the outcome of the legal opinion as promptly as possible
upon receipt.

Sincerely,
John F. Hamm


Dear Mr Premier;

Thank you for your letter dated November 15 in which you state: "I
understand the community's frustrations".  In what follows, we will outline
some of those frustrations, that you might better understand and more
appropriately react to them.

In your letter you state: "The Province has an obligation to ensure that
actions taken by the Province do not affect the property rights of a
private landowner".  This is the core of the problems we are facing.  In
the decade that this community has been addressing the various issues
around Sperry's Beach we have not yet encountered a single elected
representative or paid Servant of The Public who understand that the
Province's prime obligation to The Public is to ensure that actions taken
by a private landowner do not affect the rights of the Public. While this
obligation is particularly vested in the Department of Natural Resources'
statutory authority and responsibility to administer and control Crown
lands, the entire body of research to support the claim of the Himmelman's
has been produced by, or under the direction of, Department of Natural
Resources staff at our Public expense.

In your letter you state: "Both Ministers of the Departments of Natural
Resources and Environment and Labour have assured me that their staff have
expended considerable effort assisting the community".  Here are a few
recent examples of that "considerable effort".

On August 3, 2004,  we hand-delivered a letter to Mr Morash requesting that
he meet our community re the burial grounds:  he did not so much as
acknowledge receipt of the letter until accosted a year later at a public
meeting June 25, 2005.  Even after visiting the site that day, his only
response was to write a letter to the Minister of Tourism asking " . . .
that appropriate departmental staff visit the area . . . ".  To our
knowledge, he has not returned since.

On February 9, 2005, we hand-delivered a letter to Mr Hurlburt's office in
Halifax  requesting that he meet our committee to attempt  to resolve the
situation.  To this day, he has never acknowledged receipt of the letter.
In frustration, we called a public meeting for June 25, 2005 to which we
invited him, Senior Solicitor Diane Rowe, and whatever staff he felt
appropriate.  On June 15, 2005 we learned that he would not attend- by
reading a story in the local paper.  He never bothered to respond to our
invitation.  Nor did a single member of his staff attend.

On June 25, 2005 we asked Mr Morash to request DNR to remove several fence
posts, obviously planted well below the high water mark.  Mr Hurlburt
replied that his staff had determined that the fence is not located below
the ordinary high water mark.  On October 18, 2005 (at our request) Mr
Morash wrote to Mr Hurlburt to ask the time at which field staff visited
the site, and the methodology they employed to determine the position of
the ordinary high water mark.  Three months later, there has been no response.

On August 17, 2005 three Sperry's Beach Committee members (and our legal
advisor Senator Jim Cowan) met DNR Minister Richard Hurlburt,  DNR Deputy
Minister Peter Underwood, DNR Senior Solicitor Diane Rowe and MLA Kerry
Morash, in response to a written invitation from Mr Morash: "This meeting
would allow for the updating of each other's file on Sperry's Beach, the
exchanging of information relevant to the ownership of the beach and to try
and come to a mutual understanding as to how to protect the public interest
in this matter."  We went to that meeting prepared for an exchange of
information and discussions to reach a mutual understanding.  The
Department of Natural Resources, however, prepared no information
whatsoever to exchange, and left the meeting saying only that they would
"take our information into consideration".  When we asked for a timetable
for that consideration, they bluntly refused.

In your letter you continue: ". . .  their staff have expended considerable
effort assisting the community, and are continuing to do so by obtaining
outside legal advice as to ownership of the "sand spit" and shore front."
December 1, 2005 Senator Cowan received a letter from Minister Hurlburt:
"the Department has requested quotes from three individuals to perform
title work and provide a legal opinion re the Crown's interest to land
located at Sperrys Beach" and _not_ re: "ownership of the sand spit and
shore front" as they told you.

In your letter you state: "I have also been advised that Mr. David
Himmelman, the owner of the land associated with the burial site, is
working successfully with the Mi'kmaq Burial Ground Research and
Registration Association and has permitted access and entry to perform
cleanup and research".  The implication that this demonstrates commitment
and benevolence on the part of Mr Himmelman is simply unfounded: it is,
rather, mere basic compliance with Section 5 of the Cemeteries Protection
Act.  The advice offered to you also seems to have omitted the fact that Mr
Himmelman continues to lease out the burial site as summer cattle pasture
in violation of Sections 7(1) and 8(1)(b) of the Cemeteries Protection Act,
despite our request to Mr Hurlburt, his Deputy Minister Peter Underwood,
his Senior Solicitor Diane Rowe and Mr Morash that they take any and all
measures necessary to end this desecration (see
http://users.eastlink.ca/~td/firsts/)

No, Mr Premier, we don't think you do understand this community's
frustration: unresponsive stonewalling as outlined above is the norm of the
'Public Service' we have been provided for over a decade.

Today we are asking for your assistance on two issues: please order
Minister Hurlburt to respond immediately to MLA Morash's letter of October
18; and please ensure on our behalf that "legal advice as to ownership of
the "sand spit" and shore front" is the task that has been given to
'outside counsel'.

Sincerely,
The Sperry's Beach Committee
	John Bell
	Phil Carter
	Tom Daly
	Laila Glanville
	Anne Greer


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 01/14/2006