Datasets:

harsharora

/

Rp_CommonC_222

like 0

__label__cc

Alaska: Hope on a Hill in Togiak August 12, 2016 • United States Franklin Graham visited with members of Togiak Moravian Church. Volunteers are constructing a new building for the church in Togiak, Alaska. Samaritan’s Purse volunteers provide remote villages with a tangible display of God's grace through church construction projects. The salmon berries are the sweetest. They are a staple for Nellie Thomas who needs to gather enough of the fruit for herself, her husband, and both their parents. She’ll store enough berries—including blackberries, raven berries, and blueberries—to mix in recipes and eat in meals all winter. You can’t really buy fruits and vegetables in Togiak, Alaska—at least not enough that it would matter. So, like Nellie, the residents of Togiak rely on the berry-rich summer tundra and also on the meat from caribou, moose, seal, duck, and even bear to store up for the dark winter months. Nellie Thomas is a long-time member and leader at Togiak Moravian Church in Togiak, Alaska. The building is an answer to years of prayer and dreaming about “a church on the hill.” Right now though Nellie is focused on sockeye salmon, as is most of Togiak, as the fish travel home to spawn. This is why she can’t stay too long talking on the hill above her beloved village where Samaritan’s Purse volunteers are busy placing siding and drywall in a new church building and parsonage. Alaska Projects She has to get back to fishing, she says, but she wanted to stop by to express her gratitude for the weeks of work supplied by volunteers from all over the United States. She’d also come to greet Samaritan’s Purse President Franklin Graham, who’d arrived to meet with church members. The new building will serve as a home base for sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with the people of Togiak and surrounding villages. Strengthening the Local Church The current location where the Moravian church meets is an out-of-date structure built in the 1950s situated in Togiak’s flood zone—a strip of shoreline skirting the Bering Sea inlet of Bristol Bay. Church members have met for more than half a century in the poorly insulated structure with single-pane windows and no indoor plumbing. Something as common as restrooms will make a significant difference to the people who worship there. Franklin Graham meets with members of the Moravian church in remote Togiak, Alaska. But convenience and comfort are only the beginning of the dreams Nellie has imagined for the church’s ministry. Nellie leads the ministry to youth and young people, and, besides wishing they knew the traditional Yup’ik language a little better, she sees an ever-growing need to reach them with the Gospel. “Our young people have problems with drugs and alcohol,” says Nellie. “We need to encourage all of our young people and our youth. We need to teach them about Christ and that God exists. This new building will help us do that in Togiak.” Representatives of the Moravian church arrived in Togiak decades ago the way most things end up there—it’s about as far as the river would take them. “Most of Alaska is very remote, and doing a construction project up here can be very difficult,” Franklin Graham told church members. “We look for a project every year to help local churches here, and this is going to be a tremendous facility for the people of Togiak.” “This is going to be a tremendous facility for the people of Togiak.” Though the Yup’ik continue to see the world through a spiritual lens, they’re not bound by animistic superstition. The sight of many is now trained on God’s work in creation. They dream dreams and see visions of what He will do among them. For years some residents, even some children, had dreams of or imagined seeing a church up on the hill. Now that vision is becoming a reality. More Than a Building All Terrain Vehicles are the main mode of transport along Togiak’s unmarked streets and rough terrain. The ministry of our volunteers in Togiak started days before construction began. Samaritan’s Purse volunteers took advantage of a ten-day delay in the shipping of materials from Seattle to paint two buildings—including the building belonging to the tribal council. Because of the attention these impromptu projects gained, a young man heard the Gospel from a volunteer and received Jesus as his Savior. And once materials arrived, volunteers quickly caught up. They even found themselves three weeks ahead of schedule. “Everything happens for a reason. One of the reasons we are here is to build this building, but that’s not the primary reason we are here. The primary reason we are here is to show these folks up here the love of Jesus,” program manager Doug Konetchy told volunteers. “Everything you do here is making a difference in the Kingdom.” Aviation Assets Play Role in Fulfilled Dreams When nine Liberty University aviation students and faculty, joined by several seasoned Samaritan’s Purse volunteers, arrived in Togiak in July on two of our Casa 212 airplanes, they had no idea they were fulfilling the long-dreamed dreams of a village—a village straining under the weight of poverty, substance abuse, and family crises. Volunteer Johnny Hewitt joined others from Liberty University’s Aviation program in constructing the new building for the Moravian Church in Togiak, Alaska. “To see it [aviation] being used like this is just fantastic,” said student Johnny Hewitt, who traveled to Togiak with James Mashburn, the associate dean, and several others from Liberty’s Aviation Program. “There’s no other way to get here. It’s a fishing town so they do ship supplies in, but aviation is critical for getting people in and out in a timely manner.” Fellow pilot Colt Feimster echoes this need, a need he’s wanted to be a part of meeting for a long time. “I’ve never been on a formal mission trip, so I figured now is a good time to see how aviation is put to use,” he said. “It really can make an eternal difference.” The young pilots saw the importance of aviation for transporting the many volunteers and other personnel it takes to accomplish projects in remote places. Thanks to the volunteer response and the planes to get them there, Samaritan’s Purse has completed 26 construction projects throughout “The Last Frontier” over the past several years. We have a goal of accomplishing at least one such project each year until critical needs are met. Additions this year to the Moravian seminary we built last year in Bethel, Alaska, are being completed concurrently with the work in Togiak. A Symbol on a Hill Adherence to tradition and attention to the seasons are a matter of survival in this remote landscape, so change isn’t prized in the small villages of western Alaska. Perhaps this is why the only noticeably new building in Togiak until now has been the K-12 school, which is built up on the hill out of reach of Bristol Bay’s flood zone. Located centrally and visibly on a tundra hill above Togiak, the new Moravian church building will be a center for hope and ministry. And it turns out that same hill couldn’t have been a better place to build a church. As residents move further away from the flood-prone areas, they are making the church the center of this shifting population. From almost anywhere in Togiak, and even neighboring villages on the Bay, this new building is visible as a symbol of, we pray, a brighter future. Alaska Projects Samaritan’s Purse staff and ministry partners aim to bring practical help and the Good News of Jesus Christ to native peoples in Alaska and the surrounding region. Alaska Projects 013870 Volunteer teams are helping in Jesus’ Name as we repair, rebuild, and restore homes in... ▶ God Continues to Work as Samaritan’s Purse Completes 66 Churches in Niger As the Samaritan’s Purse RECON program comes to an end in Niger, fruit continues to... ▶ Samaritan's Purse Rebuilds Two More Churches in Rural Alaska North American Ministries is helping to strengthen local churches and reach villages with... ▶ Samaritan's Purse helps to build communities by constructing houses, schools, hospitals, and churches. Our projects provide shelter for families who lost everything in disasters, education opportunities to help break the cycle of poverty, facilities for physical and spiritual healing, and places to build up the body of Christ.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744896

__label__wiki

Parliament brings back Criminal Libel (Photo: Samoa Observer) By Joyetter Luamanu, 19/12/2017 Parliament yesterday endorsed the government’s plan to re-introduce the Criminal Libel Act into the law books of Samoa. Abolished by the ruling Human Rights Protection Party in 2013, Members of Parliament unanimously agreed to bring back the law when Parliament reconvened for the last time this year at Tuana’imato yesterday. The bill passed the first, second and third reading within less than an hour. Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Mailielegaoi has been instrumental in bringing back the law, as part of a government-driven effort to clamp down on “ghost writers” such as “Ole Palemia” and others who use fake social media pages to attack members of the public. Speaker of Parliament, Leaupepe Tole’afoa Fa’afisi, said the re-introduction of the law was expedited due to the urgent nature of the issues it sets out to deal with. Minister of Justice and Courts Administration, Fa’aolesa Katopau Ainuu, introduced the Bill in Parliament. He said the law is not new. “This amendment is in relation to defamation,” he said. “Currently there is a clause to have this case before the Court for a civil claim. The amendment today is to add on the criminal prosecution for defamation. “People have asked as to why we need to reinstate the criminal libel when the matter can be dealt with through civil. “In a civil claim, there is a need for lawyers to represent your case and most of our people cannot afford a lawyer; whereas the Criminal Libel the matter can be prosecuted by the Police and you would not need a lawyer. The Minister also talked about the history of the law. “It was abolished back in 2013 based on legal opinions of some lawyers however the government sees the need to reinstate this law following requests by members of the public who want to pursue cases before the Court but cannot afford a legal counsel,” said Fa’aolesa. The Bill amends the Crimes Act 2013 with introduction of a new Part 9A for crimes against a person’s reputation. This is according to the explanatory memorandum, which further says the offence being introduced under this Part is “False statement causing harm to a person’s reputation”. “The rationale for introducing the offence is to address harm done to a person’s reputation by another person who publishes false information about that person. “This is similar to defamatory libel and although civil proceedings for defamation are available to the public, the reality is, not all Samoans have access to these proceedings as not all are able to afford legal services required for such proceedings. “It is therefore on that premise that this offence is introduced into the Crimes Act 2013 to allow any member of the public to have access to the criminal justice system in dealing with the harm suffered due to false information being published. “- provides for the short title and commencement. - provides for the insertion of a new Part 9A with a new section 117A which provides that a person who publishes information about another person that is false with the intention to cause harm to that person’s reputation, commits an offence,” says the Memorandum on the Amendment. Member of Parliament, Fonotoe Lauofo Pierre supports the Bill and commended Fa’aolesa for reinstating the measure that will better serve members of public who are victims of defamation. “The passage of the amendment couldn’t come at a better time, given the advancement of technology nowadays. “This amendment criminalizes those who publish untrue comments, and most especially nowadays with the use of social media. “What comes to mind is the utilization of cell phones via texts, where users send threatening and defaming remarks and this has escalated over the years. “That is why I want to thank the Minister.” He spoke about an incident out of his Village where this same issue was discussed. “Members of the youth were making unwelcoming remarks towards others,” he said. “It’s saddened to see such actions and this also applies to emails and that is why this amendment couldn’t come at a better time,” said Fonotoe. CRIMES AGAINST A PERSON’S REPUTATION AMENDMENT False statement causing harm to a person’s reputation: 1. (1) A person commits an offence who publishes by any means information: 1. (a) about another person; 2. (b) that is false; 3. (c) with the intention to cause harm to that person’s reputation. 2. (2) It is a defence under this section if the information published 3. (3) A person who commits a crime under this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 175 penalty units or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three (3) months.”. Govt. allocates $2.3 million for Taufusi drainage The Government is moving to fix the drainage and footpaths at flood-prone Taufusi by allocating $2.3million for the project. The money was approved when Parliament passed the supplementary budget for 2019/2020 last week. By Lanuola Tusani Tupufia - Ah Tong 29/01/2020 Samoan woman breaks new ground in N.Z. A Samoan carpenter, Ma’aola Fiupepe is the first ever female carpenter to earn a qualification in New Zealand through the Pacific Trades Partnership. By Sapeer Mayron 29/01/2020

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744897

__label__wiki

About Circle Sanctuary P.O. Box 9, Barneveld WI 53507 USA Circle, also known as Circle Sanctuary, is a non-profit international Nature Spirituality resource center and legally recognized Nature Spirituality church. Founded in 1974, Circle helps people from many spiritual orientations connect with each other as well as with the spiritual dimensions of Nature. Circle Sanctuary is a church rooted in Sacred Land, serving people of Pagan and other Nature-centered spiritual paths. We honor the Divine through Nature preservation and fostering Community through celebrations, ceremonies, education, outreach and other ministries. As a result of our sacred work, our vision is of a sustainable organization with strong connections to our local, national and international community, living in a world where our religious traditions and spiritual diversity are respected and honored, and walking in harmony with each other and the greater Circle of Nature of which we all are part. Circle facilitates information exchange, contact connections, and other networking through publications, social media, podcasts, webpages, festivals, classes, and other events. Education & Public Information Circle sponsors a variety of workshops, training programs, and other educational events at Circle Sanctuary and at other locations. Workshops are held in connection with festivals and at other times. Special programs include ministry training. In addition, Circle Ministers travel near and far to do presentations for conferences, festivals, and other events sponsored by colleges and universities, religious and spiritual communities, healing centers, and other institutions. Circle's networking and education work also has a public education dimension. Circle provides information via news sources, social media, and digital and in print publishing in order to dispel misconceptions and improve understanding of Nature Spirituality and its practitioners. Over the years, interviews with Circle staff, ministers, and other members have appeared in public media, including press, radio, television, and films. In addition, Circle Sanctuary is active in international, multicultural, interfaith, and multilingual cooperation endeavors. Nature Preservation Circle is headquartered on a 200-acre sacred Nature preserve which it purchased in 1983. Circle Sanctuary Nature Preserve is located in the rolling hills of southwestern Wisconsin, about an hour's drive west of Madison. It includes forests, meadows, a remnant prairie, streams, springs, ancient sandstone rock outcroppings, Nature trails, and an abundance of wild birds and other wildlife. The preserve also features a variety of ritual sites and meditation places, including a Stone Circle, outdoor shrines, and one of America's first Green cemeteries. Circle Sanctuary Nature Preserve is engaged in environmental education, prairie habitat restoration, woodlands and wetlands conservation, and other Nature preservation endeavors. Several environmental scientists are among the volunteers helping with research and conservation projects at the preserve. The preserve and Circle Cemetery are open to Circle Sanctuary members and the public at a variety of festivals, classes, and other events held throughout the year. Most events and visits at other times require advance registration. Circle sponsors a variety of festivals, retreats, and other events throughout the year. The largest festival is the international Pagan Spirit Gathering which is a weeklong celebration of Summer Solstice. This festival, held in June, brings together hundreds of Circle Network members from throughout the USA and elsewhere. It features numerous activities, including rituals, workshops, youth program, bonfires, discussion groups, spiritual leadership training, concerts, bazaar, and more. Other festivals include Samhain (late October), Yule (mid-December), Imbolc (early February), Welcome Spring (mid-March), Earth Day (late April), Beltane (early May), Green Spirit Festival (late July), and Fall Equinox (mid-September). Circle Sanctuary Community The Circle Sanctuary Community is the spiritual community of women, men, and children who share ritual, ideas, support, and celebration with each other at Circle festivals and other events throughout the year. Most members are from Wisconsin and neighboring states but others are from more distant places. Within the Community is the Volunteers Circle which helps with various aspects of Circle's work. Circle Statement of Purpose We encourage the growth and well-being of Nature Spirituality through promoting dialogue, cooperation, and mutually beneficial networking among individuals, groups, and organizations of different paths through Circle Network. We provide contacts through social networking, publications, correspondence, and telephone. We maintain Circle Sanctuary land, a spiritual Nature preserve. We promote the creation and sharing of rituals, meditations, music, images, and other spiritual artforms. We provide ministerial services including counseling, healing, and conducting weddings, child blessings, funerals, burials, home blessings, and other rites of passages. We sponsor the Pagan Spirit Gathering and other festivals throughout the year as well as educational activities, including workshops, talks, leadership training, and youth programs. We publish and distribute spiritual books, tapes, and other resources for spiritual development and practice. We engage in religious freedom activist work through the Lady Liberty League. We promote understanding and acceptance in mainstream society through public education, interfaith networking, and public relations media work, and we engage in academically sound and publishable research, and in multicultural exchange and cooperation for planetary wellness.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744898

__label__wiki

Baroness Karren Brady CBE Watch My Showreel 2.5k to 5k - 10k to 25k About Baroness Karren Brady CBE Karren Brady began her career at Saatchi & Saatchi when she was 18 years old and swiftly moved onto LBC as junior Account Executive. She is now known as the first woman in football and has been Managing Director of Birmingham City Football Club since 1993. As well as for her work on ‘The Apprentice’ TV series. She took over Birmingham City when it was in administration, and in her first year at the helm, the Club recorded a financial trading profit. In 1996 the Club made an overall profit for the first time in modern history and in February 1997 the Club launched on the Stock market valued at the time of float at £25,000,000; Karren was the youngest Managing Director of a PLC in the UK. During the past years Karren has increased the average gate of the Club from 6,000 to a sell out capacity of over 30,000. In 2007 her business was valued at over £60million. Karren has attracted much media attention in her position, and was the subject of an hour long documentary ‘Inside Story’ – The Real Life Manageress’ shown on BBC 1. She has hosted her own TV show, Brady Bunch, and has also presented both Loose Women and Live Talk on ITV and she has also presented Central Weekend Live. Karren has written four books; a factual account of her first season at Birmingham City, ‘Brady plays the Blues’ two novels, ‘United’ and ‘Trophy Wives’ and her latest book ‘Playing to Win’ is about successful women in business. Karren is a columnist for The Sun newspaper; the UK’s biggest selling national daily newspaper, The Evening Mail in Birmingham, and The Guardian. She is a judge of the Cosmopolitan Women of Achievement Awards and the Sports Industry Awards. She is on the business Board of Scope, and the Ambassador for Birmingham Women’s Aid. She is Chairman of Kerrang! (EMAP), and a Board Director of Mothercare PLC, Channel 4 Television and Sport England. Voted by Cosmopolitan as one of the 100 most powerful women in the world and in 2004 and again in 2006 attended The Queen’s lunch for Women Achievers and Business Leaders. She was acknowledged as one of the most influential women in Britain by the Daily Mail and voted as one of Britain’s Most Inspirational Women by Good Housekeeping magazine. In November 2006 she won the Cosmopolitan Woman of the Year, in the category of Women Who Have Changed the World. In March 2006 she was chosen as the team leader on BBC1’s The Apprentice, for Comic Relief, where she lead her team to a resounding victory over the boys team raising over £750,000 for charity. AFTER DINNER SPEAKING & PRESENTATIONS Karren Brady is a world class After Dinner Motivational and Inspiration Speaker. She covers subjects such as Motivation, Goal Achieving, Leading a Team, Delivering Change, Marketing, Business, Entrepreneurship, Management Skills, Women in Business, Team Building as well as after dinner speaking. She’s passionate, straight talking and delivers a genuine and personal account of how she built up her company and how she leads people towards change. She speaks passionately about how she succeeded in a man’s world, shares funny anecdotes as well and giving practical and inspiration advice to companies and individuals. Karren was spot on! Very good presentation, talk and superb questions answered Carl Dalby, Vice President PCubed Thank you to Karren for her speech at the Annual PCA Business Summit at Lords on Tuesday. I was in the audience and was truly enthralled - she was FANTASTIC. I have described her talk as 'Life Changing' - so refreshing and motivational’ Professional Cricketers Association (Business Event at Lords) Thanks for doing such a sterling job for the Learning Skills Council on Thursday — the client was delighted! JLA (Learning Skills Council) ‘Thank you for all your efforts to help make the Management & Leadership conference such a resounding success. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive — and I do mean overwhelmingly! The delegates were truly impressed.’ Bill Manson, The Management & Leadership Network Karren, thank you for making our dinner so memorable last week. You achieved what many consider to be unachievable — a silent audience during your talk! I have received many compliments saying that this was one of the best so far. David Johns, Institution of Civil Engineers My Showreel

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744900

__label__cc

Beyond Fossil Fuels: Harrison Dillon on Biofuels The co-founder, president and chief technology officer of Solazyme weighs in on the hurdles facing his industry Editor's note: This Q&A is a part of a survey conducted by Scientific American of executives at companies engaged in developing and implementing non–fossil fuel energy technologies. What technical obstacles currently most curtail the growth of biofuels? What are the prospects for overcoming them in the near future and the longer-term? Speaking from the perspective of our microbial renewable oil production technology platform and advanced biofuels, the majority of the true technical hurdles for us have already been crossed. The business plan for Solazyme has been to fit into the existing multitrillion-dollar liquid transportation fuel infrastructure; for example, we are using standard industrial fermentation technology and standard oil refining technology to manufacture ASTM-compliant fuels that can be distributed through standard gas stations into standard, unmodified vehicles. The goal in front of us now is to continue to optimize and customize strains and processes tailored to specific products as well as to continue driving down the cost of our oil production process. Solazyme's obstacles are more along the lines of classic commercialization process development than attempting to demonstrate proof of concept. The long-term prospects for renewable oil production are very good; policymakers and the public at large understand that there are larger and greater environmental and energy security needs driving the imperative for these advanced biofuel technologies to come online. Putting Solazyme's process into dedicated commercial plants is the more near-term step. The hurdles there involve obtaining project financing during an unprecedented economic crisis. The good news is that Solazyme's technology fits neatly into existing infrastructure and produces fuels that meet current specifications, which minimizes the amount of new technology that has to be created to design and construct a commercial plant. Once we see the project financing markets opening again this will be a hurdle that can be crossed. In the meantime, looking at creative ways to retrofit existing equipment is a good interim strategy. Are there obstacles to scaling up biofuels to serve a larger national or global customer base? Our company has a decidedly global view in our approach to renewable oil production. Solazyme's unique microbial conversion technology process allows algae to produce oil in standard conversion technology facilities quickly, efficiently and at commercial scale. Such facilities already exist today, which is an enormous advantage in that we can perform our novel process in commercial-scale facilities that have already been built to serve global markets. Algae is an incredibly feedstock-flexible platform because it has developed over billions of years to eat just about anything in order to make oil. Our technology allows renewable oil commercial plants to be located virtually anywhere next to the available agricultural waste streams (wood chips in the Northwest, corn stover/stalks in the Midwest, and bagasse/sugarcane in the South and in Asia). This feedstock flexibility allows us to locate facilities worldwide and not be dependent on a feedstock that is geographically limited. These oils are tailored not only for biofuel production, but also as replacements for fossil petroleum and plant oils in a diverse range of products running from green household cleaning supplies to cosmetics and foods. With a large portion of the global population getting a significant proportion of their daily caloric intake from cooking oils, this technology is a true bridge from inedible agricultural waste to oils and foods. It is a solution (food and fuel, not food vs. fuel) technology that can be deployed in many parts of the world. Imagine a third-world country able to supply a portion of its oil needs (both natural oils and fuel needs) using this platform. The fact that our plants can be placed anywhere and are not sunlight-dependent is a tremendous advantage. Can the existing energy infrastructure handle growth in biofuels? Or does that, too, need further modification? The answer to this question depends on whether you are making fuels that meet existing fuel standards or if you are making fuels that are fundamentally new. Fuels that do not meet existing standards and must either be used as a blend stock or be put through a full regulatory process are not going to be able to leverage the existing energy infrastructure. There are several reasons why we produce crude oil and then refine it into fuels using standard oil-refining techniques rather than invent new molecules or new fuels. One is that there are no inventive steps needed on the infrastructure side of the equation. In addition, refining crude oil into fuels costs about 50 cents per gallon at commercial scale. We feel that it makes much more sense to focus resources on reducing the cost of making crude oil as rapidly as possible and accept a modest refining cost rather than focus resources on making fundamentally new fuels that will need to go through multiyear regulatory reviews that cost tens of millions of dollars and will require new infrastructure to be built before they can be commercialized. Given the current economic crisis, can your industry get the necessary capital (from public or private sources) to adequately finance its growth? The freezing of the capital markets and large project financing will have an impact on the speed to commercialization for these advanced biofuel technologies. It is impossible to predict how long the markets will remain frozen. We think it will require companies to be creative and innovative in how they move forward. For example, it might mean that rather than building greenfield fit-for-purpose plants for advanced biofuel production, retrofitting existing plants would be a quicker path to reaching commercialization. The current state of the capital markets will also force companies to be more responsible with their money and will likely weed out companies that have been built on the assumption that venture capital and public financing would always flow freely. From a strategic standpoint, which is the bigger competitor for biofuels: incumbent coal, oil and gas technologies or other alternative energy technologies? The market size and the need for renewable energy solutions is tremendous. It is going to take more than one approach to tackle these issues. We actually don't see these varying technologies as direct competition. In fact we see them existing together and actually in some cases complementing each other. For example, in the liquid transportation arena, we believe that for personal transportation needs like commuting to work and getting around town it makes sense to use electric vehicles that run on "clean, green electrons" from wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal, not gasoline. We focus on developing diesel and jet fuels because the industries that use them will not be able to replace their heavy-duty liquid transportation fuels anytime in the near future. By offering a cleaner, sustainable alternative like Soladiesel or Solafuel Jet that have a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 30 percent reduction in particulate emissions over even today's petroleum-based ultralow-sulfur diesel, we can make strides in slowing global warming while reducing particulates and air pollution that plague our industrial areas. Is there a cost target that you and others in your industry are aiming to achieve in, say, five years? Getting to fuel economics is crucial. The fact of the matter is that no matter how environmentally conscious and clean your fuel is, people will not pay more for a gallon of diesel. As with any process development refinement, getting the last mile of cost saved is the longest mile—we are close, though. Solazyme is continuing to drive down the cost of production; we are on target to be at fuel economics of $60–$80 per barrel of crude algal oil in 24–36 months. Beyond Fossil Fuels: Energy Leaders Weigh In

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744907

__label__wiki

What's On - 5 May 2015 Exhibition: Voices from Afghanistan Tuesday 11 November 2014 - Sunday 27 March 2016 This exhibition presents the perspectives of participants, of those affected by the war – both in Afghanistan and in Australia – and of eyewitnesses to the conflict. Read More Some Australians who have fought in Afghanistan were only starting primary school when the war started after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. For thirteen years Australia’s servicemen and women have served, often in multiple deployments. They were sent to bring stability and security to a country that has known little of either for a generation. Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan continues, but with the winding down of major combat operations, it is timely to look back on the war. This exhibition presents the perspectives of participants, of those affected by the war – both in Afghanistan and in Australia – and of eyewitnesses to the conflict. The Voices from Afghanistan temporary exhibition is located in the the Galleries of Remembrance, a $45 million Victorian Government redevelopment that utilises 1,600 square metres of undercroft space that exists beneath the Shrine of Remembrance. Over 800 objects are included in permanent and temporary exhibition spaces which illustrate the experiences of Australians at war and in peacekeeping operations, from Pre-Federation to the present day, with a particular focus on individual and unit stories of Victorian service and sacrifice. Last admission to the Galleries of Remembrance is 4.30pm. Exhibition: The war on our doorstep Tuesday 11 November 2014 - Sunday 17 July 2016 The latter New Guinea campaigns saw Australia’s troops hone the skills and demonstrate the prowess which, by war’s end, had made them the world’s finest jungle fighters. Read More Australian success in Papua between July 1942 and January 1943 checked the Japanese southward advance but the victories at Kokoda, Milne Bay and the Beachheads did not remove the Japanese presence in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea to Papua’s north. From early 1943, Australian troops embarked upon a series of campaigns in the Mandate–at Wau (29 January – 6 February 1943), Salamaua–Lae (April–September 1943), Finisterre Range (September 1943 – April 1944) and Huon Peninsula (September 1943 – March 1944) which eradicated the enemy threat from mainland New Guinea once and for all. These campaigns, the subject of this exhibition, were the largest series of interconnected operations ever undertaken by the Australian military and proved every bit as gruelling and hard fought as the earlier, more celebrated campaigns in Papua. The latter New Guinea campaigns saw Australia’s troops hone the skills and demonstrate the prowess which, by war’s end, had made them the world’s finest jungle fighters. This temporary exhibition is located in the the Galleries of Remembrance, a $45 million Victorian Government redevelopment that utilises 1,600 square metres of undercroft space that exists beneath the Shrine of Remembrance. Over 800 objects are included in permanent and temporary exhibition spaces which illustrate the experiences of Australians at war and in peacekeeping operations, from Pre-Federation to the present day, with a particular focus on individual and unit stories of Victorian service and sacrifice. Exhibition: Records of war Tuesday 11 November 2014 - Monday 19 October 2015 Since the First World War Australia has shown commitment and vision in collecting and preserving records of war to commemorate the service and sacrifice of Australians at war. Read More Since the First World War (1914-18) Australia has shown commitment and vision in collecting and preserving records of war to commemorate the service and sacrifice of Australians at war. Exhibition: The Anzac battlefield Tuesday 14 April 2015 - Monday 31 August 2015 The enduring fascination with Gallipoli is explored in this exclusive exhibition which presents some 100 items recovered from the Joint Historical Archaeological Survey of the Gallipoli battlefield (2010 – 14) by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Turkish government. Read More The enduring fascination with Gallipoli is explored in this exclusive exhibition which presents some 100 items recovered from the Joint Historical and Archaeological Survey of the Gallipoli battlefield (2010 – 14) supported by the Australian, New Zealand and Turkish governments. Historical and geographical context is provided by maps and engravings on loan from the University of Melbourne, the Mehmet Ugurlu print collection and the Turkish Naval Forces Command. On display in the Shrine Visitor Centre, the exhibition will be open 10am - 5pm daily. Visit our podcasts page to listen to the free recording of the public program Battlefield Archaeology held on 6 May 2015. This exhibition is proudly supported by the Australian, Turkish and Victorian governments, The University of Melbourne, The Calvert-Jones Foundation and City of Melbourne.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744909

__label__wiki

Home Articles SPORTS Why Politics CANNOT Be Separated From Sports Why Politics CANNOT Be Separated From Sports What better way than sports to teach our children about the highs and lows of American culture? Besides, the current debate surrounding the National Anthem in football is not about politics. Jonathan Hetterly, LPC Nowhere to Run To, Nowhere to Hide America is struggling with a deep, cultural divide that extends from the White House to the National Football League. Public opinion is divided on the recent protests by NFL players and the aggressive reaction from President Trump. To no one’s surprise, whites and conservative Republicans predominantly object to the protests. Blacks and liberals strongly disapprove of Trump’s words. The views about the protest are sharply divided by race, partisanship, and age. If a player wants the privilege of making millions of dollars in the NFL,or other leagues, he or she should not be allowed to disrespect…. …our Great American Flag (or Country) and should stand for the National Anthem. If not, YOU'RE FIRED. Find something else to do! My colleague Shane Owens has written a thoughtful and respectful position on why politics and football should stay separate. He is not alone in his opinion. I, however, strongly disagree with my colleague. I believe sports cannot and should not be immune to the current cultural landscape. I know I am also not alone in my beliefs. Here are my central arguments for my perspective and position. Many White Conservatives Label the Protests as “Political” When It’s Really About “RACE” RELATED: A Mental Health Counselor’s Advice to Colin Kaepernick Swapping out “race” and framing the current protests around “politics” or “patriotism” is a cunning move, because many folks blindly support the American ideals and will not tolerate anything that is deemed “unpatriotic.” But let’s call these protests what they really are … they are highlighting racial inequality. No one wants to be labeled “racist.” But use the word “race” and folks (mainly a demographic of white folks) get squeamish. Why? Because America has and always has had a RACE problem. The divisive debate about kneeling for the National Anthem only reinforces that America has a RACE relations problem. Why? “Race” is a Political Topic for Whites … For Non-Whites, It’s Their Life I don’t pretend to understand all the complexity to racism and race relations, but for many, the very concept of separating race from a person’s life and identity is insensitive at best and insulting and devaluing at worst. The ability to talk about race as a compartmentalized subject is one of the more pervasive and subtle forms of white privilege, institutionalized racism, and societal racism. Justin Gest, author of The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality, wrote about the catchphrase “I’m not racist” last year for Politico. Gest wrote how racism is perceived as a “‘mute button’ pressed on someone while they are still crying out about a sense of lost status – from a position of historic advantage, frequently in terms they have difficulty articulating.” Addressing Racial Struggles Make a Lot of White Folks Uncomfortable Steve Chapman wrote a piece for the Chicago Tribune titled, “Why Do Whites Oppose the NFL Protests?” Chapman highlights how whites have historically been in a hurry for African-Americans to stop griping about discrimination and get over it. Whites generally resent organized efforts by African-Americans to raise grievances and seek change. Last year, a Reuters poll found that 63 percent of whites disapproved of NFL players kneeling during the anthem — compared with 17 percent of blacks. Chapman cites a poll conducted in 1966 where a majority of whites disapproved of Martin Luther King Jr. and his peaceful protests to advance the cause of integration and equality. “But progress and growth always involve challenge, uncomfortableness, and change. And the folks who tend to push back the hardest are those who benefit most from the status quo or have the most to be defensive about.” Sports Historically Have Not Been Immune to Racial Inequality and Problems The Jacksonville Jaguars are the only NFL franchise to have a majority owner of color. Shahid Khan, a Pakistani-born American businessman, joined NFL ownership in 2012. There are no African-American NFL franchise owners. African-American males are only six percent of the United States population, but comprise 57-70 percent of college football players and nearly 70 percent of the players in the National Football League, according to data cited to VICE (and the vast majority are between the ages of 15 and 34). It is the highest percentage of African-American players since the 2003 season. And yet the institutions of college and professional football remain mostly silent on issues like racism, police brutality and the death of unarmed black citizens. Let's remember why NFL players started kneeling. They are talking about the need for criminal justice reform and police department reform. — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) October 1, 2017 Almost 400 NFL players have criminal records that range from murder to rape, gun possession, drugs. No one took a knee against them. — MARK SIMONE (@MarkSimoneNY) October 2, 2017 Racism and prejudice in the NFL is not a sin from the far distant past. Football has a terrible history of blocking black players from playing quarterback. Warren Moon is the only African-American quarterback inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He endured repeated pushes by coaches to switch positions, assuming a black athlete lacked the intelligence to play one of the most important positions in sports. If some folks view race as a political issue, then politics will always be a part of sports as long as the majority of players are not white. It’s not surprising that the National Anthem protests are controversial. While the majority of NFL players are black, the NFL fan base is 83 percent white and 64 percent male. Sports Provides a Perfect Platform for Debate and Discourse It is exactly because sports can bring folks together that it is a perfect vehicle to raise important issues. Sports is where we can and should debate the American values and ideals. Sports should be a platform to be educated on and debate problems sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, consumerism, war, peace, domestic violence … you name it. I am all in favor of entertainment and escapism. But imagine being a spectator at the 1936 Olympics where Jesse Owens stood face-to-face with one of the most evil and tyrannical men and regimes in human history. Now imagine if you told him, “politics have no place in sports.” Let’s just enjoy the moment and forget about the ails of the world. Even today, with the release of the new Billy Jean King / Bobby Riggs film “Battle of the Sexes” highlighting America’s historical and ongoing struggle with gender equality, sports have never been immune to controversy. The National Anthem Protests Can Spark Awareness and Real Change RELATED: Colin Kaepernick’s Protest vs. Patriotism: Who Wins the Battle of Framing the Message? | Shrink Tank Podcast People should be celebrating the NFL players’ approach. The protest is silent, not disruptive, and entirely nonviolent. It doesn’t block traffic, occupy police, or frighten bystanders. Eric Reid, a safety for the San Francisco 49ers, recently wrote to explain why he decided to join Kaepernick: “We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.” The brilliance of the protest is that you cannot avoid it. It is right in front of you. Question: does strong, even hostile, responses to mild gestures of dissent demonstrate healthy patriotism or aggressive nationalism? Do the lives of black folks matter less than a flag? Or the singing of the National Anthem? You may say, “it’s what the flag or National Anthem represent,” but I can counter with, “but it’s still just a flag or a song. Black lives represent nothing less than the lives of black people.” Symbolic patriotism needs to give precedence to basic human rights. For those who claim it disrespects the flag – why don’t you turn your attention and vitriol to the commercialization of the flag and protest hats, shorts, t-shirts and beer companies peddling their product behind the protective placement of the good ol’ American Stars ‘n’ Stripes. Using the flag to profit, that’s disrespectful! What Colin Kaepernick started, what Black Lives Matter started, continues to grow and evolve. Researchers claim successful protests are both visible and effective. The National Anthem protest has captured the attention of the media, the President of the United States, and therefore the world. Effectiveness is easily defined as changing what is being protested in the long-term. But effectiveness in the short-term is reaching the bystander; those who have not yet joined the movement. We are seeing more football players, white football players, owners, and fans joining the movement. More and more folks seem comfortable linking arms than kneeling during the National Anthem. Research shows most people don’t see themselves as disruptors of social order. Ultimately, people’s desire to conform surpasses public protests that draw attention to what you believe in. History always looks back and favors the oppressed and marginalized. Maybe kneeling during the National Anthem will only be a blip on the radar. Maybe Colin Kaepernick will merely be a footnote decades from today. But history favors Jesse Owens, Mohammed Ali, Billie Jean King, and others who used sports to champion causes of progress and change. “The average NFL football game lasts close to 3 hours. The National Anthem lasts 2 minutes. That’s 1 percent of your entertainment. Is that too much to ask?” If Football Suffers, So Be It It’s convenient to blame the National Anthem protests for the declining viewership of NFL games. However, the data shows the NFL has other problems that contribute to declining viewership. And it isn’t only the NFL that has a viewership problem. It is an industry-wide phenomenon that also includes poor rated viewership for NASCAR and the NBA. But, part of the goal is being accomplished if the sport is suffering. Black people are suffering. Minorities are suffering in our country and around the world. The President of the United States has consistently used dehumanizing and degrading words towards people of color. Quite honestly, I care very little if your football experience suffers. And unfortunately, money tends to be the biggest motivating factor for changing the status quo in America, the land of the “not free” but “at a price.” So hopefully economic consequences will compel the NFL and our culture to evaluate the issues at hand. If Not Sports, Then Where and When Can We Talk? Who determines when racial inequality is discussed or protested? The imbalance of power and control cycles back to the inequality of institutionalized power and privilege. It puts people of color at a disadvantage to the point where they have to request to talk about race. When people turn on a football or baseball game or a NASCAR race, they do not want to be unified. It’s competition. There are winners and losers. No, when people turn on a football game, they want to be entertained. And more and more players are pushing back the notion that their sole purpose is to entertain others while real lives and real people are dying and suffering. There’s a strong chance folks who watch football games on television will not even be permitted to see the protests. But if television stations have the courage and American ideals to show men and women locking arms and/or kneeling, I hope every person can respect their right to do so and avoid vitriolic attacks on their love of America. I hope every father and mother will turn to their children and instead of shielding them from the protests take the opportunity to talk about the struggles Americans face make our nation a better and fairer land for everyone. jonathan hetterly Previous articlePolitics Have No Place in Sports, According to a Psychologist Next articleBlew My Mind Podcast Spooky Series: Stephen King Novels Jonathan Hetterly is a therapist, writer, and pop culture addict. He’s also a contributor to The Shrink Tank podcast. Follow him at @jhetterly and @shrink_tank. Is the Horror of Midsommar Fueled by Gaslighting? Ari Aster’s Midsommar Juxtaposes Visual Artistry with Shocking Horror Jonathan Hetterly, LPC - January 24, 2020 Shrink Tank - January 24, 2020 Ian Murray, LPC - January 23, 2020

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744910

__label__cc

You Call, We Haul The life & times of Bob Carter By Mat Ireland Best known for founding international haulier, Trans UK, Bob Carter was involved in the ground-breaking changes occurring in British transport of the 60s and 70s. Beginning in the army where he witnessed nuclear testing on Christmas Island in the 1950s, he went on to be a driver, office worker and finally company owner. Bob was able to turn his hand to any aspect of his business operation, from repairing mechanical defects, to operating forklifts and even on the odd occasion, driving his own trucks. In 1975 he set out on Trans UK's maiden run to Iran in his Humber Sceptre with 4 of his trucks in convoy - the first trip of many, for the company. The denationalization of BRS and the implementation of the 'O' licence, the rapid growth of privately owned haulage companies, combined with the Middle East oil boom of the 70s all helped Bob to develop a successful British and international transport operation. A real one-off and Mr. Nice Guy, Bob Carter was held in high esteem and respected by one and all. Including nearly 300 photos, You Call, We Haul is an inspirational story which will appeal to those with an interest in the hey-day of Middle-East travel and those with a general love of great British transport companies. Mat Ireland Publisher: Fox Chapel (September 1, 2019) Book Cover Image (jpg): You Call, We Haul

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744912

__label__cc

Life & History In Memory of Molly Clark Molly’s Bash Caretakers Experiences Links & Thank You PRESERVING THE SITE Because of the nature of the materials used in constructing the buildings and the harshness of the weather in the outback, the buildings are vulnerable to falling into disrepair quickly. It is for this reason that the buildings need regular care and maintenance. The materials of the homestead are coolibah, corrugated iron and ripple iron that have been white washed. The floors in the original part of the homestead are cement over ash and fat and in the rest of the house is cement generally. The roof was originally covered with grass thatch tied down to split saplings and was later updated to corrugated iron. The outbuildings, consisting of the meat house and saddle house, are constructed of part Acacia peuce and coolibah with a grass thatching roof. Due to local cattle rubbing against the thatching it has been reinforced with chicken wire. Old Andado Homestead is seen as the only remaining Homestead of its kind in Australia. It is a poignant reminder of how life was without modern amenities such as mains electricity, hot water systems, mains water, the telephone and glass windows in some cases! For many that come through Old Andado it is an ‘eye opener’ and they find it staggering that someone could live there for over 50 years, for others it reminds them of their grandmother’s homes. It is a real testament to its rigid framework construction that it still standing today! The Old Andado Homestead is an overnight stop for many people who are crossing the Simpson Desert, completing the Binn’s Track or doing many of the outback tracks. It has also been used as a base for Parks and Wildlife crews who are studying the nocturnal wildlife at the Mac Clark Acacia Peuce Reserve. It has been regularly visited by geologists and scientists over the years as well as many artists, photographers and bird watchers. In 2008 a group of people passionate about the Old Andado homestead got together and formed Friends of Old Andado Incorporated. Our aim is to initially secure caretakers for the site and then to raise funds to install solar power and improve the services and amenities available to visitors. Our most important task above all is to ensure the buildings are cared for and remain as is for another 50 years and longer! For more information on the Friends of Old Andado Incorporated please contact us. Site by Netgrrl SG

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744913

__label__wiki

Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27 Revoked/spent regulations under this Act current June 6, 2019 – (e-Laws currency date) January 1, 2019 – June 5, 2019 December 6, 2018 – December 11, 2018 April 3, 2018 – December 5, 2018 April 1, 2018 – April 2, 2018 December 12, 2017 – March 31, 2018 June 6, 2011 – May 16, 2017 October 25, 2010 – May 11, 2011 May 14, 2009 – October 24, 2010 May 14, 2008 – May 13, 2009 July 25, 2007 – May 13, 2008 January 1, 2007 – July 2, 2007 October 19, 2006 – December 19, 2006 March 28, 2006 – October 18, 2006 November 1, 2005 – March 27, 2006 June 17, 2004 – October 31, 2005 O. Reg. 319/09 QUINTE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 182/06 KAWARTHA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 181/06 KETTLE CREEK CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 180/06 LAKEHEAD REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 179/06 LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 178/06 LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 177/06 NORTH BAY-MATTAWA CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 176/06 SAULT STE. MARIE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 175/06 RAISIN REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 174/06 RIDEAU VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 172/06 NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 171/06 ST. CLAIR REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 170/06 SOUTH NATION RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 169/06 SAUGEEN VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 168/06 GANARASKA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 167/06 OTONABEE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 166/06 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 165/06 MATTAGAMI REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 164/06 MAITLAND VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 163/06 LOWER TRENT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 162/06 HALTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 161/06 HAMILTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 160/06 CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 159/06 CROWE VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 158/06 ESSEX REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 157/06 UPPER THAMES RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 156/06 NICKEL DISTRICT CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 155/06 NIAGARA PENINSULA CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 153/06 MISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 152/06 LOWER THAMES VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 151/06 GREY SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 150/06 GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 148/06 CATARAQUI REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 147/06 AUSABLE BAYFIELD CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 146/06 CATFISH CREEK CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 42/06 CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 97/04 CONTENT OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITY REGULATIONS UNDER SUBSECTION 28 (1) OF THE ACT: DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 670/00 CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LEVIES O. Reg. 139/96 MUNICIPAL LEVIES R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 136 CONSERVATION AREAS - UPPER THAMES RIVER R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 135 CONSERVATION AREAS - SOUTH NATION RIVER R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 134 CONSERVATION AREAS - SAULT STE. MARIE REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 133 CONSERVATION AREAS - SAUGEEN VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 132 CONSERVATION AREAS - SAUBLE VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 131 CONSERVATION AREAS - ST. CLAIR REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 130 CONSERVATION AREAS - RIDEAU VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 129 CONSERVATION AREAS - PRINCE EDWARD REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 128 CONSERVATION AREAS - OTONABEE REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 127 CONSERVATION AREAS - NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 126 CONSERVATION AREAS - NORTH GREY REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 125 CONSERVATION AREAS - NORTH BAY-MATTAWA R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 124 CONSERVATION AREAS - NICKEL DISTRICT R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 123 CONSERVATION AREAS - NIAGARA PENINSULA R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 122 CONSERVATION AREAS - NAPANEE REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 121 CONSERVATION AREAS - MOIRA RIVER R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 120 CONSERVATION AREAS - MISSISSIPPI VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 119 CONSERVATION AREAS - METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 118 CONSERVATION AREAS - MATTAGAMI REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 117 CONSERVATION AREAS - MAITLAND VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 116 CONSERVATION AREAS - LOWER TRENT REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 115 CONSERVATION AREAS - LOWER THAMES VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 114 CONSERVATION AREAS - LONG POINT REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 113 CONSERVATION AREAS - LAKEHEAD REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 112 CONSERVATION AREAS - LAKE SIMCOE REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 111 CONSERVATION AREAS - KETTLE CREEK R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 110 CONSERVATION AREAS - KAWARTHA REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 109 CONSERVATION AREAS - HAMILTON REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 108 CONSERVATION AREAS - HALTON REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 107 CONSERVATION AREAS - GREY SAUBLE R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 106 CONSERVATION AREAS - GRAND RIVER R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 105 CONSERVATION AREAS - GANARASKA REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 104 CONSERVATION AREAS - ESSEX REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 103 CONSERVATION AREAS - CROWE VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 102 CONSERVATION AREAS - CREDIT VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 101 CONSERVATION AREAS - CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 100 CONSERVATION AREAS - CATFISH CREEK R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 99 CONSERVATION AREAS - CATARAQUI REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 98 CONSERVATION AREAS - AUSABLE-BAYFIELD O. Reg. 173/06 PRINCE EDWARD REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 154/06 NAPANEE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 149/06 MOIRA RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES O. Reg. 282/97 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - OTONABEE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY O. Reg. 46/95 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - AUSABLE-BAYFIELD O. Reg. 724/94 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - SOUTH NATION RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY O. Reg. 417/94 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - THE PRINCE EDWARD REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY O. Reg. 416/94 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - GREY SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY O. Reg. 33/94 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - KAWARTHA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY O. Reg. 260/92 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - MOIRA RIVER O. Reg. 152/91 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - LAKEHEAD REGION O. Reg. 99/91 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - THE NIAGARA PENINSULA CONSERVATION AUTHORITY O. Reg. 22/91 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - MAITLAND VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 170 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - UPPER THAMES RIVER R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 169 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - SAUGEEN VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 168 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - SAUBLE VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 167 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - ST. CLAIR REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 166 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - RIDEAU VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 164 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 163 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - NORTH GREY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 162 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - NORTH BAY-MATTAWA CONSERVATION AUTHORITY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 161 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - NICKEL DISTRICT R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 160 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - NAPANEE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 159 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 158 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 157 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - MATTAGAMI REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 156 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - LOWER TRENT REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 155 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - LOWER THAMES VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 154 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 153 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - LAKE SIMCOE REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 152 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - KETTLE CREEK R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 151 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - HAMILTON REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 150 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - HALTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 149 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - GRAND RIVER R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 148 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - GANARASKA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 147 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - ESSEX REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 146 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - CREDIT VALLEY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 145 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 144 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - CATFISH CREEK R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 143 FILL, CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - CATARAQUI REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 141 FILL AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - SAULT STE. MARIE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 140 FILL AND ALTERATION TO WATERWAYS - RAISIN REGION R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 139 FILL - SPENCER CREEK R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 137 FILL - GRAND VALLEY Conservation Authorities Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.27 Consolidation Period: From June 6, 2019 to the e-Laws currency date. Last amendment: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2. Legislative History: 1993, c. 27, Sched.; 1994, c. 27, s. 127; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 40-47; 1996, c. 32, s. 66; 1997, c. 5, s. 64; 1997, c. 26, Sched.; 1997, c. 29, s. 54; 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 1998, c. 3, s. 33; 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 1-14; 2000, c. 5, s. 8; 2001, c. 8, s. 203; 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2004, c. 8, s. 46, Table; 2006, c. 3, Sched. D; 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 105; 2006, c. 22, s. 113; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 8; 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 19; 2009, c. 12, Sched. L, s. 2; 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1; 2011, c. 9, Sched. 27, s. 22; 2017, c. 8, Sched. 17, s. 5; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4 (see: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 10); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 20-23; 2018, c. 16, s. 3; 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2. PURPOSE AND INTERPRETATION ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES Meeting to establish authority for watershed Establishment, jurisdiction and initial financing Upper-tier municipalities Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Hamilton Region Conservation Authority Grand River Conservation Authority Grouping of municipalities Establishment of authority for two or more watersheds ENLARGING AREAS OF JURISDICTION, AMALGAMATIONS AND DISSOLUTIONS Enlargement of authority’s area Amalgamation of authorities Participating municipalities following annexation, etc. Dissolution of authority MEMBERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE Members of authority Duty of members Meetings of authority Decision-making at meetings Chair, vice-chair Employees and advisory boards OBJECTS, POWERS AND DUTIES Powers of authorities Mandatory programs and services Municipal programs and services Transition plan re subs. 21.1.2 (2) Fees for programs and services Agreement re road Minister’s powers Information required by Minister Projects of authority Projects requiring approval Apportionment of benefit Recovery of project capital costs Determination of capital expenditure Review of apportionment of capital costs Maintenance and administration costs Recovery of operating expenses Review of apportionment of operating expenses Other amounts owing to authority Regulations by authority re area under its jurisdiction REGULATION OF AREAS OVER WHICH AUTHORITIES HAVE JURISDICTION Prohibited activities re watercourses, wetlands, etc. Period of validity Cancellation of permits Delegation of power Regulations: activities affecting natural resources Regulations by authority re lands owned by it Restriction on entry ENFORCEMENT AND OFFENCES Appointment of officers Entry without warrant Stop order Rehabilitation orders MATTERS RELATING TO LAND AND WATER USE Restrictions on projects Assessment of lands of authority Cemetery lands Right to use water power Assent of electors not necessary Spending by authority Regulations, Lieutenant Governor in Council Rolling incorporations 0.1 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 1. 1 In this Act, “administration costs” means salaries and travelling expenses of members and employees of an authority, office rent, maintenance and purchase of office equipment, expenses connected with exhibits, visual equipment and printed matter for educational purposes, and all expenditures necessary for carrying out the objects of an authority other than capital expenses and maintenance costs of projects; (“frais d’administration”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “administration costs” in section 1 of the Act is repealed. (See: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 2 (1)) “advisory board” means an advisory board appointed by an authority; (“conseil consultatif”) “authority” means a conservation authority established by or under this Act or a predecessor of this Act; (“office”) “executive committee” means the executive committee appointed by an authority; (“comité de direction”) “land” includes buildings and any estate, term, easement, right or interest in, to, over or affecting land; (“bien-fonds”) “maintenance costs” means all expenditures required specifically in relation to the operation or maintenance of a project; (“frais d’entretien”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “maintenance costs” in section 1 of the Act is repealed. (See: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 2 (1)) “Minister” means the Minister of Natural Resources; (“ministre”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “Minister” in section 1 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 1) “Minister” means the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks or such other member of the Executive Council as may be assigned the administration of this Act under the Executive Council Act; (“ministre”) “municipality” means a local municipality, and includes a band under the Indian Act (Canada) that is permitted to control, manage and expend its revenue money under section 69 of that Act; (“municipalité”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 1 of the Act is amended by adding the following definition: (See: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 2 (2)) “operating expenses” include, (a) salaries, per diems and travel expenses of employees and members of an authority, (b) rent and other office costs, (c) program expenses, (d) costs that are related to the operation or maintenance of a project, but not including the project’s capital costs, and (e) such other costs as may be prescribed by regulation; (“dépenses d’exploitation”) “participating municipality” means a municipality that is designated by or under this Act as a participating municipality; (“municipalité participante”) “project” means a work undertaken by an authority for the furtherance of its objects; (“projet”) “watershed” means an area drained by a river and its tributaries. (“bassin hydrographique”) R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 1; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 40; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 1; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 40 (1, 2) - 30/01/1996; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 1 - 18/12/1998 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 2 (1, 2) - not in force 2 (1) Where the councils of any two or more municipalities situate either wholly or partly within a watershed by resolution request the Minister to call a meeting for the establishment of an authority for the watershed or any defined part thereof, the Minister shall fix a time and place for such a meeting and shall forthwith notify the council of every municipality either wholly or partly within the watershed or part thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (1). Representatives at meeting (2) The council of each municipality may appoint representatives to attend the meeting in the following numbers: 1. Where the population is 1,000,000 or more, seven representatives. 1.1 Where the population is 500,000 or more but less than 1,000,000, six representatives. 1.2 Where the population is 250,000 or more but less than 500,000, five representatives. 2. Where the population is 100,000 or more but less than 250,000, four representatives. 3. Where the population is 50,000 or more but less than 100,000, three representatives. 4. Where the population is 10,000 or more but less than 50,000, two representatives. 5. Where the population is less than 10,000, one representative. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (2); 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (1). Authority of representatives (3) The representatives so appointed have authority to vote and generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities at the meeting. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (3). (4) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities notified are entitled to appoint. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (4); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 4. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (1) - 29/06/2001 Establishment and jurisdiction of authority 3 (1) Upon receipt by the Minister of a resolution passed at a meeting held under section 2 and at which a quorum was present by not less than two-thirds of the representatives present thereat requesting the establishment of an authority, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may establish a conservation authority and designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities and the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (1); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 5 (1). Where only part of municipality in watershed (2) Where a municipality is only partly within the watershed, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may include the whole or that part of the municipality in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (2). Name of authority (3) The name of each authority shall be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall conclude with the words “conservation authority” in English and shall include the words “office de protection de la nature” in French. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (3). (4) Every authority is a body corporate. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (4). (5) Every authority may, for its purposes, borrow on the promissory note of the authority such money as may be required until payment to the authority of any grants and of sums to be paid to the authority by the participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (5); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 5 (2). Regional municipalities to act in place of local municipalities 4 (1) An upper-tier municipality that was established as a regional municipality before the day subsection 6 (1) of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force, (a) shall act in the place of the local municipalities within the regional municipality for the purpose of appointing representatives to attend a meeting for the establishment or enlargement of a conservation authority or the amalgamation of conservation authorities and for the purpose may appoint representatives in the numbers to which the local municipalities would otherwise have been entitled; and (b) shall be a participating municipality in the place of such of the local municipalities within the regional municipality as are wholly or partly within the area under the jurisdiction of a conservation authority and shall appoint to each such authority the number of members to which the local municipalities would otherwise have been entitled as participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 4 (1); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 6 (1). (2) Repealed: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 6 (2). 5 (1) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is continued under the name Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de Toronto et de la région in French, and has jurisdiction in all matters provided for in this Act over the area under its jurisdiction on December 31, 1990, as it may be altered under this Act. 1997, c. 26, Sched. (2) Repealed: 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (2). Designation of participating municipalities and area (3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate, (a) the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and (b) the area over which the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has jurisdiction. 1997, c. 26, Sched. (4) Despite subsections 14 (1), (2) and (5) but subject to subsection 14 (2.1), the number of members appointed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority by the City of Toronto shall, at all times, be equal to the total number of members appointed by the other participating municipalities. 1997, c. 26, Sched.; 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (3). 1997, c. 26, Sched. - 01/01/1998 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (2, 3) - 29/06/2001 6 (1) The Hamilton Region Conservation Authority is continued under the name Hamilton Region Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de la région de Hamilton in French, and has jurisdiction in all matters provided for in this Act over the area under its jurisdiction on the 31st day of December, 1990, as it may be altered under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 6 (1). (3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority and the area under its jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 6 (3). (4) Repealed: 2000, c. 5, s. 8. 2000, c. 5, s. 8 - 01/01/2001 7 (1) The Grand River Conservation Authority is continued under the name Grand River Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de la rivière Grand in French as a conservation authority under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 7 (1). (2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Grand River Conservation Authority and the area over which it has jurisdiction. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (5). 8 The participating municipalities may designate any group of municipalities that shall be considered as one municipality for the purpose of appointing a member or members to a conservation authority and provide for the appointment of the member or members to be appointed by a group of municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 8; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 2. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 2 - 18/12/1998 9 Where the councils of any three municipalities situate either wholly or partly within the area comprising two or more watersheds by resolution request the Minister to call a meeting for the establishment of an authority for such watersheds or any defined parts thereof, the provisions of sections 2 and 3 apply with necessary modifications. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 9. 10 (1) If an authority has been established, the council of a municipality that is completely or partly outside the jurisdiction of the authority may call a meeting to consider the enlargement of the area over which the authority has jurisdiction to include an area specified by the municipality. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 3 (1). (1.1) Notice of the meeting shall be given to each participating municipality of the authority and to any municipality that is completely or partly within the area specified under subsection (1). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 8. (2) Each municipality that receives notice of the meeting may appoint the number of representatives to attend the meeting that is determined in accordance with subsection 2 (2). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 8. (3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities are entitled to appoint under subsection (2). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 8. (4) At a meeting held under this section at which a quorum is present, a resolution may be passed to do all of the following: 1. Agree to enlarge the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. 2. Designate participating municipalities for the enlarged area. 3. Designate the enlarged area over which the authority has jurisdiction. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 8. Two-thirds majority vote (5) A resolution described in subsection (4) shall be passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the representatives present at the meeting. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 8. Resolution in effect (6) A resolution described in subsection (4) takes effect on such terms as it may specify despite anything to the contrary in the order in council establishing the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 8. Minister’s copy (7) The municipality that called a meeting under subsection (1) shall provide the Minister with a copy of any resolution described in subsection (4) passed at the meeting promptly after the resolution is passed. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 8. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 3 (1, 2) - 18/12/1998 11 (1) If two or more authorities have been established for adjoining watersheds or parts thereof, one or more of the authorities or the council of a participating municipality of one of the authorities may call a meeting to consider the establishment of one authority to have jurisdiction over the areas that are under separate jurisdictions. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 4 (1); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (1). (1.1) Notice of the meeting shall be given to each participating municipality of the relevant authorities. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (2). (1.2) The body or bodies that call a meeting under subsection (1) shall ensure that, at least 14 days before the meeting, notice of the meeting is, (a) published in a newspaper having general circulation in each participating municipality, including in the electronic version of the newspaper where available; or (b) if there is no newspaper of general circulation in a participating municipality, posted on a website maintained by the municipality and in at least one prominent place in the municipality. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (2). Public representations (1.3) No vote shall be taken on a resolution requesting amalgamation of the authorities unless members of the public have been given an opportunity at the meeting to make representations on the issue. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (2). (2) Each municipality that receives notice of the meeting may appoint the number of representatives to attend the meeting that is determined in accordance with subsection 2 (2). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (3). (3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities are entitled to appoint under subsection (2). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (3). 1. Establish a new authority that has jurisdiction over areas that previously were under the separate jurisdiction of the two or more existing authorities of the adjoining watersheds. 2. Dissolve the existing authorities. 3. Designate the participating municipalities for the new authority. 4. Designate the area over which the new authority has jurisdiction. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (4). (4.1) A resolution described in subsection (4) shall be passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the representatives present at the meeting. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (4). Approval by Minister (4.2) The authorities or the municipality who called a meeting under subsection (1) shall submit the resolution passed in accordance with subsection (4.1) to the Minister for approval and the Minister may approve the resolution with such changes and on such terms and conditions as he or she considers appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (4). (4.3) The resolution takes effect in accordance with the terms of the resolution and the Minister’s approval. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (4). Assets and liabilities of former authorities (5) When the establishment of a new authority and the dissolution of the existing authorities take effect under subsection (4.3), all the assets and liabilities of the dissolved authorities vest in and become assets and liabilities of the new authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 11 (5); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (5). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 9 (1-5) - 12/12/2017 12 Repealed: 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 5. 13 Where a new municipality is erected or two or more municipalities are amalgamated or any area is annexed to a municipality and any part of the resulting municipality is within the area over which an authority has jurisdiction, such resulting municipality shall be deemed to have been designated a participating municipality by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 13. 13.1 (1) An authority shall call a meeting of the members of the authority to consider the dissolution of the authority if, by resolution, the councils of two or more participating municipalities request the meeting. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. (1.1) The authority that calls a meeting under subsection (1) shall ensure that, at least 14 days before the meeting, notice of the meeting is, (b) if there is no newspaper of general circulation in a participating municipality, posted on a website maintained by the municipality and in at least one prominent place in the municipality. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 10 (1). (2) Despite subsection 16 (2), a quorum at a meeting called under this section consists of two-thirds of the members of the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 10 (2). (3), (4) Repealed: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 10 (3). (5) No vote shall be taken on a resolution requesting dissolution of the authority unless members of the public have been given an opportunity at the meeting to make representations on the issue. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. Criteria for dissolution (6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may dissolve the authority, on such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate, if, (a) the Minister receives a resolution requesting the dissolution passed by at least two-thirds of the members of the authority present and entitled to vote at a meeting held under this section and at which a quorum was present; (b) the Minister is satisfied that acceptable provision has been made for future flood control and watershed interests and for the disposition of all assets and liabilities of the authority; and (c) the Minister of the Environment is satisfied that acceptable provision has been made for future protection of drinking water sources. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41; 2006, c. 22, s. 113 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 13.1 (6) (c) of the Act is amended by striking out “of the Environment”. (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 2) 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41 - 30/01/1996 14 (1) Members of an authority shall be appointed by the respective councils of the participating municipalities in the numbers set out in subsection 2 (2) for the appointment of representatives. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 12 (1). Changes in number of members (2) The total number of members of the authority and the number of members that each participating municipality may appoint shall be adjusted as required to ensure compliance with subsection (1) if the municipalities that are participating municipalities change or the population of a participating municipality changes. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (6). Agreement on number of members (2.1) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (5), the total number of members of the authority and the number of members that each participating municipality may appoint may be determined by an agreement that is confirmed by resolutions passed by the councils of all of the participating municipalities. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (6). (3) Every member of an authority shall be resident in a participating municipality in which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (3). Requirements regarding composition of authority (4) The appointment of members to an authority shall be in accordance with such additional requirements regarding the composition of the authority and the qualification of members as may be prescribed by regulation. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 12 (2). (4.1) A member shall be appointed for a term of up to four years, as may be determined by the council that appoints the member. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 12 (2). (4.2) A member’s term begins at the first meeting of the authority after his or her appointment and expires immediately before the first meeting of the authority after the appointment of his or her replacement. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 12 (2). Replacement of member (4.3) Despite subsections (4.1) and (4.2), a member may be replaced by the council of the participating municipality that appointed the member. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 12 (2). (4.4) A member is eligible to be reappointed. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 12 (2). Where part of municipality in authority’s area (5) Where part only of a municipality is situated in an area over which an authority has jurisdiction, the number of members appointed for the municipality shall be based on the population of that part only of the municipality, and the population shall be deemed to be the same proportion of the total population of the whole municipality as the area of that part of the municipality is of the total area of the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (5). (6) Repealed: 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 42. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 42 - 30/01/1996; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 6 - 18/12/1998 Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the Act is amended by adding the following section: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 3) 14.1 Every member of an authority shall act honestly and in good faith with a view to furthering the objects of the authority. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 3. 15 (1) The first meeting of an authority shall be held at such time and place as may be determined by the Minister and, in each year thereafter, the authority shall hold at least one meeting before the 1st day of March and at least one meeting after the 1st day of July and such other meetings as it considers necessary to effectively conduct the affairs of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 15 (1). Copies of minutes to members (2) Within 30 days after any meeting of an authority or of an executive committee, the secretary-treasurer of the authority shall send a copy of the minutes of the meeting to each member of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 15 (2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 7. (3) Every meeting held by the authority shall be open to the public, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the by-laws of the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 13. 16 (1) Each member of an authority is entitled to one vote. 1998, c. 18, Sched, I, s. 8. (2) At any meeting of an authority, a quorum consists of one-half of the members appointed by the participating municipalities, except where there are fewer than six such members, in which case three such members constitute a quorum. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 16 (2); 2006, c. 22, s. 113 (2). Majority vote (3) A majority vote of the members present at any meeting is required upon all matters coming before the meeting. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 16 (3). 17 (1) At the first meeting held in each year or at such other meeting as may be specified by the authority’s by-laws, the authority shall appoint a chair and one or more vice-chairs from among the members of the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 43; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 14. (2) Subject to subsection (1), upon the death of the chair or a vice-chair, or upon the incapacity of the chair or a vice-chair to act, or upon the chair or a vice-chair ceasing to be a member of the authority, the remaining members may appoint a member to fill such vacancy. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 17 (2). Absence of chair and vice-chairs (3) In the event of the absence of the chair and the vice-chairs from any meeting of an authority, the members present shall appoint an acting chair who, for the purposes of such meeting, has all the powers and shall perform all the duties of the chair. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 17 (3). 18 (1) An authority shall appoint a secretary-treasurer and may appoint such other employees as it considers necessary who shall hold office during the pleasure of the authority and shall receive such salary or other remuneration as the authority determines, payable out of the funds of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 18 (1). (2) An authority shall establish such advisory boards as may be required by regulation and may establish such other advisory boards as it considers appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 15. (3) An advisory board shall comply with any requirements that may be prescribed by regulation with respect to its composition, functions, powers, duties, activities and procedures. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 15. 19 (1) The authority may appoint an executive committee from among the members of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 19 (1). (2) The chair and vice-chair of the authority shall be the chair and vice-chair of the executive committee. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 19 (2). (3) Repealed: 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 9. 19.1 (1) An authority may make by-laws, (a) respecting the meetings to be held by the authority, including providing for the calling of the meetings and the procedures to be followed at meetings, specifying which meetings, if any, may be closed to the public; (b) prescribing the powers and duties of the secretary-treasurer; (c) designating and empowering officers to sign contracts, agreements and other documents on behalf of the authority; (d) delegating all or any of its powers to the executive committee except, (i) the termination of the services of the secretary-treasurer, (ii) the power to raise money, and (iii) the power to enter into contracts or agreements other than those contracts or agreements as are necessarily incidental to the works approved by the authority; (e) providing for the composition of its executive committee and for the establishment of other committees that it considers advisable and respecting any other matters relating to its governance; (f) respecting the roles and responsibilities of the members of the authority and of its officers and senior staff; (g) requiring accountability and transparency in the administration of the authority including, (i) providing for the retention of records specified in the by-laws and for making the records available to the public, (ii) establishing a code of conduct for the members of the authority, and (iii) adopting conflict of interest guidelines for the members of the authority; (h) respecting the management of the authority’s financial affairs, including auditing and reporting on the authority’s finances; (i) respecting the by-law review required under subsection (3) and providing for the frequency of the reviews; and (j) respecting such other matters as may be prescribed by regulation. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. Conflict with other laws (2) If a by-law made by an authority conflicts with any provision of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or a provision of a regulation made under one of those Acts, the provision of the Act or regulation prevails. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. Periodic review of by-laws (3) At such regular intervals as may be determined by by-law, an authority shall undertake a review of all of its by-laws to ensure, amongst other things, that the by-laws are in compliance with any Act referred to in subsection (2) or any other relevant law. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. By-laws available to public (4) An authority shall make its by-laws available to the public in the manner it considers appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. (5) An authority shall make such by-laws under this section as are required for its proper administration, (a) in the case of an authority that was established on or before the day section 16 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force, within one year of that day; and (b) in the case of an authority that is established after the day section 16 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force, within one year of the day the authority is established. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. (6) Despite the repeal of section 30 by section 28 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017, a regulation that was made by an authority under that section continues in force after the repeal until the earlier of, (a) the day that is one year after the day section 16 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force; and (b) the day the regulation is revoked by the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. Direction by Minister (7) The Minister may give an authority a written direction to make or amend a by-law on any matter described in subsection (1), in accordance with the direction, within such period of time as may be specified in the direction. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. (8) The authority that receives a direction under subsection (7) shall comply with the direction within the time specified in the direction. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. Regulation where failure to comply (9) If an authority fails to adopt a by-law in accordance with the direction made under subsection (7), the Minister may make regulations in relation to the matters set out in the direction that are applicable in the area of jurisdiction of the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. (10) Any regulation made by the Minister under subsection (9) prevails over any conflicting by-law that the authority may have adopted. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 16. 20 (1) The objects of an authority are to provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 20; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 18. (2) Despite subsection (1) and subject to any other legislation pertaining to these resources, authorities may enter into agreements to allow exploration, storage and extraction by others in order to share in the revenue from use of gas or oil resources owned by them if, (a) the use is compatible with the conservation, restoration, development and management of other natural resources; and (b) extraction occurs on land adjacent to, but not on, conservation authority land. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 10. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 10 - 18/12/1998 21 (1) For the purposes of accomplishing its objects, an authority has power, (a) to study and investigate the watershed and to determine programs and services whereby the natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed; (b) for any purpose necessary to any project under consideration or undertaken by the authority, to enter into and upon any land and survey and take levels of it and make such borings or sink such trial pits as the authority considers necessary; (c) to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise and to expropriate any land that it may require, and, subject to subsection (2), to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land so acquired; (d) despite subsection (2), to lease for a term of five years or less land acquired by the authority; (e) to purchase or acquire any personal property that it may require and sell or otherwise deal therewith; (f) to enter into agreements for the purchase of materials, employment of labour and other purposes as may be necessary for the due carrying out of any project or to further the authority’s objects; (g) to enter into agreements with owners of private lands to facilitate the due carrying out of any project; (h) to determine the proportion of the total benefit afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them; (i) to erect works and structures and create reservoirs by the construction of dams or otherwise; (j) to control the flow of surface waters in order to prevent floods or pollution or to reduce the adverse effects thereof; (k) to alter the course of any river, canal, brook, stream or watercourse, and divert or alter, as well temporarily as permanently, the course of any river, stream, road, street or way, or raise or sink its level in order to carry it over or under, on the level of or by the side of any work built or to be built by the authority, and to divert or alter the position of any water-pipe, gas-pipe, sewer, drain or any telegraph, telephone or electric wire or pole; (l) to use lands that are owned or controlled by the authority for purposes, not inconsistent with its objects, as it considers proper; (m) to use lands owned or controlled by the authority for park or other recreational purposes, and to erect, or permit to be erected, buildings, booths and facilities for such purposes and to make charges for admission thereto and the use thereof; (m.1) to charge fees for services approved by the Minister; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 21 (1) (m.1) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 19 (3)) (n) to collaborate and enter into agreements with ministries and agencies of government, municipal councils and local boards and other organizations and individuals; (o) to plant and produce trees on Crown lands with the consent of the Minister, and on other lands with the consent of the owner, for any purpose; (p) to cause research to be done; (q) generally to do all such acts as are necessary for the due carrying out of any project or as may be desirable to further the objects of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 21; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (1, 2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 11; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 19 (1, 2, 4, 5). Approval of Minister (2) If the Minister has made a grant to an authority under section 39 in respect of land, the authority shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land under clause (1) (c) without the approval of the Minister except if, (a) the disposition is for provincial or municipal infrastructure and utility purposes; (b) the province, the provincial agency, board or commission affected by the disposition or the municipal government, agency, board or commission affected by the disposition has approved it; and (c) the authority informs the Minister of the disposition. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (1). (3) The Minister may impose terms and conditions on an approval given under subsection (2), including a condition that the authority pay a specified share of the proceeds of the disposition to the Minister. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (3). 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (1-3) - 30/01/1996; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 11 - 18/12/1998 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (1) - 25/10/2010 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 19 (1, 2, 4, 5) - 12/12/2017; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 19 (3) - not in force 21.1 (1) The following are the programs and services that an authority is required or permitted to provide within its area of jurisdiction: 1. Mandatory programs and services that are required by regulation. 2. Municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of municipalities situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding referred to in subsection (3). 3. Such other programs and services as the authority may determine are advisable to further its objects. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (1). (2) Programs and services referred to in paragraph 1 of subsection (1) shall be provided in accordance with such standards and requirements as may be set out in the regulations. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (1). Memorandum of understanding with municipalities (3) An authority may enter into a memorandum of understanding with a municipality situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction in respect of programs and services that the authority will provide on behalf of the municipality. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (1). Periodic review of memorandum (4) An authority and a municipality who have entered into a memorandum of understanding described in subsection (3) shall review the memorandum at such regular intervals as may be determined by the memorandum. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (1). (5) Programs and services that an authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the memorandum of understanding or in such other agreement as may be entered into by the authority and the municipality. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (1). (6) An authority shall carry out such consultations with respect to the programs and services it provides as may be required by regulation and shall do so in the manner specified by regulation. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 21.1 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4) 21.1 (1) An authority shall provide the following programs or services within its area of jurisdiction: 1. A program or service that meets any of the following descriptions and that has been prescribed by the regulations: i. Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards. ii. Programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands owned or controlled by the authority, including any interests in land registered on title. iii. Programs and services related to the authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities as a source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006. iv. Programs and services related to the authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities under an Act prescribed by the regulations. 2. A program or service, other than a program or service described in paragraph 1, that has been prescribed by the regulations on or before the first anniversary of the day prescribed under clause 40 (3) (h). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. Same, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (2) In addition to the programs and services required to be provided under subsection (1), the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority shall provide within its area of jurisdiction such programs and services as are prescribed by the regulations and are related to its duties, functions and responsibilities under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. Standards and requirements (3) Programs and services required to be provided under subsections (1) and (2) shall be provided in accordance with such standards and requirements as may be set out in the regulations. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (1) - 12/12/2017; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 20 (2) - no effect - see 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 10 (1) - 06/06/2019 21.1.1 (1) An authority may provide within its area of jurisdiction municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding or such other agreement as may be entered into with the municipality in respect of the programs and services. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. Memorandum, agreement available to public (2) An authority shall make a memorandum of understanding or other agreement available to the public in such manner as may be determined in the memorandum or agreement. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. Periodic review of memorandum, agreement (3) An authority and a municipality who have entered into a memorandum of understanding or other agreement shall review the memorandum or agreement at such regular intervals as may be determined in the memorandum or agreement. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. (4) Programs and services that an authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the memorandum of understanding or agreement. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. 21.1.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), in addition to programs and services described in sections 21.1 and 21.1.1, an authority may provide within its area of jurisdiction such other programs and services as the authority determines are advisable to further its objects. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. (2) On and after the day prescribed by the regulations, if financing under section 25 or 27 by a participating municipality is necessary in order for an authority to provide a program or service authorized to be provided under subsection (1), the program or service shall not be provided by the authority unless an agreement that meets the following criteria has been entered into between the authority and the participating municipality in respect of the program or service: 1. The agreement must provide for the participating municipality to pay to the authority, i. an apportioned amount under section 25 in connection with a project related to the program or service, or ii. an apportioned amount under section 27 in respect of the program or service. 2. The agreement must include provisions setting out the day on which the agreement terminates and a requirement that it be reviewed by the parties within the period specified in the regulations for the purpose of determining whether or not the agreement is to be renewed by the parties. 3. The agreement must meet such other requirements as may be prescribed by the regulations. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. (3) Programs and services that an authority agrees to provide under an agreement entered into as described in subsection (2) shall be provided in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be set out in the agreement. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. 21.1.3 (1) Every authority shall develop and implement a transition plan for the purpose of ensuring that it will be in compliance with subsection 21.1.2 (2) by the day prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of that subsection. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. (2) The transition plan shall address the following matters in accordance with the regulations: 1. Preparation by the authority of an inventory of the authority’s programs and services. 2. Consultation by the authority with participating municipalities on the inventory of programs and services mentioned in paragraph 1. 3. If financing under section 25 or 27 by a participating municipality is necessary in order for the authority to provide a program or service authorized to be provided under subsection 21.1.2 (1), steps to be taken by the authority for the purposes of seeking to enter into an agreement with the participating municipality in respect of that program or service. 4. Such other matters as may be prescribed by the regulations. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. 21.1.4 An authority shall carry out such consultations with respect to the programs and services it provides as may be required by regulation and shall do so in the manner specified by regulation. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 4. 21.2 (1) The Minister may determine classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge a fee. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. Publication of list (2) The Minister shall publish the list of classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge a fee in a policy document and distribute the document to each authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. (3) If the Minister makes changes to the list of classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge a fee, the Minister shall promptly update the policy document referred to in subsection (2) and distribute the new document to each authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. Where authority may charge fee (4) An authority may charge a fee for a program or service that it provides only if it is set out on the list of classes of programs and services referred to in subsection (2). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. Amount of fee (5) The amount of a fee charged by an authority for a program or service it provides shall be, (a) the amount prescribed by the regulations; or (b) if no amount is prescribed, the amount determined by the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. (6) Every authority shall prepare and maintain a fee schedule that sets out, (a) the list of programs and services that it provides and in respect of which it charges a fee; and (b) the amount of the fee charged for each program or service or the manner in which the fee is determined. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. (7) Every authority shall adopt a written policy with respect to the fees that it charges for the programs and services it provides, and the policy shall set out, (a) the fee schedule described in subsection (6); (b) the frequency within which the fee policy shall be reviewed by the authority under subsection (9); (c) the process for carrying out a review of the fee policy, including the rules for giving notice of the review and of any changes resulting from the review; and (d) the circumstances in which a person may request that the authority reconsider a fee that was charged to the person and the procedures applicable to the reconsideration. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. Fee policy to be made public (8) Every authority shall make the fee policy available to the public in a manner it considers appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. Periodic review of fee policy (9) At such regular intervals as may be determined by an authority, the authority shall undertake a review of its fee policy, including a review of the fees set out in the fee schedule. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. Notice of fee changes (10) If, after a review of a fee policy or at any other time, an authority wishes to make a change to the list of fees set out in the fee schedule or to the amount of any fee or the manner in which a fee is determined, the authority shall give notice of the proposed change to the public in a manner it considers appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. Reconsideration of fee charged (11) Any person who considers that the authority has charged a fee that is contrary to the fees set out in the fee schedule, or that the fee set out in the fee schedule is excessive in relation to the service or program for which it is charged, may apply to the authority in accordance with the procedures set out in the fee policy and request that it reconsider the fee that was charged. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. Powers of authority on reconsideration (12) Upon reconsideration of a fee that was charged for a program or service provided by an authority, the authority may, (a) order the person to pay the fee in the amount originally charged; (b) vary the amount of the fee originally charged, as the authority considers appropriate; or (c) order that no fee be charged for the program or service. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21. 22 An authority and any municipality may enter into agreement for the construction or maintenance of a road or the reconstruction or maintenance of an existing road under the jurisdiction of the municipality for the purpose of providing access to lands of the authority used or to be used for park or recreational purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 22. 23 (1) Despite any powers conferred on an authority by this Act, the Minister may, when and for such periods as he or she considers necessary in the public interest, (a) require an authority to carry out flood control operations in a manner specified by the Minister; (b) require an authority to follow instructions issued by the Minister for the operation of one or more of the authority’s water control structures; or (c) take over the operation of one or more of an authority’s water control structures and require the authority to reimburse the Minister for any costs incurred by the Minister as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 45. Areas not under jurisdiction of authority (2) Despite any powers conferred on the council of a municipality under this or any other Act, in an area that is not under the jurisdiction of an authority, the Minister may, when and for such periods as he or she considers necessary in the public interest, (a) require the council of a municipality to carry out flood control operations in a manner specified by the Minister; (b) require the council of a municipality to follow instructions issued by the Minister for the operation of one or more of the water control structures operated by the council; or (c) take over the operation of one or more of the water control structures operated by the council of a municipality and require the council to reimburse the Minister for any costs incurred by the Minister as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 45. “municipality” includes an upper-tier municipality. 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. 23.1 (1) An authority shall provide the Minister with such information as the Minister may require in relation to its operations, including the programs and services it provides. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 22. (2) The information shall be provided at the time and in the manner as the Minister may specify. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 22. (3) If directed by the Minister to do so, an authority shall publish all or such portion of the information provided to the Minister under subsection (1) and shall do so at the time and in the manner specified by the Minister. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 22. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 23.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 5) (4) The Minister may, at any time, appoint one or more investigators to conduct an investigation of an authority’s operations, including the programs and services it provides. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 5. Powers of investigator (5) For the purposes of an investigation under subsection (4), an investigator may, (a) inquire into any or all of the authority’s affairs, financial and otherwise; (b) require the production of any records that may relate to the authority’s affairs; (c) inspect, examine, audit and copy anything required to be produced under clause (b); (d) conduct a financial audit of the authority’s operations, including its programs and services; and (e) require any member of the authority and any other person to appear before the investigator and give evidence on oath about the authority’s affairs. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 5. (6) Section 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 applies to an investigation under subsection (4). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 5. Report of investigator (7) On completion of an investigation, an investigator shall report in writing to the Minister, who shall promptly transmit a copy of the report to the authority. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 5. Cost of investigation (8) The Minister may require the authority to pay all or part of the cost of an investigation under subsection (4). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 5. 24 (1) Before proceeding with a project, the authority shall file plans and a description with the Minister and obtain his or her approval in writing. 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (1). (2) Repealed: 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (1). Notice re raising of portion of cost (3) When the statement of apportionment of the cost of any project requires a municipality to raise any portion of the cost in a subsequent year or years, the council shall, within thirty days after it receives the notice of apportionment, notify the authority in writing whether the portion of the cost will be provided by the issue of debentures or raised by taxation in the subsequent year or years. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (3). Time for notice where apportionment under review (4) When a municipal council has, in accordance with subsection 25 (2), notified the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that it is dissatisfied with any apportionment, the time allowed for notifying the authority under subsection (3) shall be reckoned from the date of the order confirming or varying the apportionment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (4); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 20. Approval of works on lakes or rivers (6) Despite the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, a project for the construction of dams or other works on a lake or river that has been approved under this section does not require approval under that Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (6). (7) This section does not apply to a project unless the project involves money granted by the Minister under section 39. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 46. 24 Before proceeding with a project that involves money granted by the Minister under section 39, the authority shall file plans and a description with the Minister and obtain his or her approval in writing. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 46 - 30/01/1996; 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (1, 2) - 01/01/1993 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23 - not in force; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 20 - 03/04/2018 25 (1) When an authority has determined the proportion of the total benefit of any project afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them, it shall cause a notice containing a statement of the apportionment to be sent to the council of each participating municipality by registered mail. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (1). Review of apportionment by L.P.A.T. (2) Any municipal council that is dissatisfied with any apportionment may, within thirty days after it receives notice of the apportionment, notify the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the authority in writing by registered mail that it applies for a review of the apportionment by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (2); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 21 (1). (3) Upon application, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal shall fix a date for the hearing of all interested parties and shall give all necessary directions for the hearing. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (3); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 21 (2). Powers of L.P.A.T. on hearing (4) The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has authority to take evidence, to confirm or vary the apportionment of the authority and to fix and award costs, and its decision is final and conclusive and is not open to appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (4); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 21 (2). Variation of apportionment (5) In the event of the authority varying any apportionment made by it, this section applies with necessary modifications. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (5). 25 (1) An authority may, from time to time, determine the amount of capital costs to be incurred in connection with a project and apportion the capital costs to the participating municipalities in accordance with the regulations. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 25 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 6) (1.1) Subject to subsections (1.2) and (1.3), an authority shall not, on and after the day prescribed by the regulations, include in the apportionment any capital costs in connection with a project related to a program or service authorized to be provided under subsection 21.1.2 (1). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 6. (1.2) An authority shall include in the apportionment of capital costs to a participating municipality any capital costs in connection with a project related to a program or service that has been identified in an agreement between the municipality and the authority as described in subsection 21.1.2 (2). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 6. (1.3) If the circumstances prescribed by the regulations apply in respect of an authority, a person designated by the Minister may, by written notice to the authority, specify that a later day than the day prescribed by the regulations under subsection (1.1) applies to the authority and if such a notice is issued, the prohibition set out in subsection (1.1) applies to the authority on and after the day set out in the notice. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 6. Notice of apportionment (2) An authority shall send a notice of apportionment in writing to each participating municipality setting out the amount of the capital costs for a project that has been apportioned to the participating municipality. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. Payment of apportioned amount (3) Each participating municipality shall pay to the authority the portion of the capital costs for a project that is specified in the notice of apportionment in accordance with the requirements set out in the notice and with this section. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. How money to be raised (4) Each participating municipality may issue debentures to provide financing for the capital costs for a project of an authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. Where money raised over several years (5) If the notice of apportionment requires a municipality to raise its portion of the capital costs for a project over a period of two or more years, the municipality shall, within 30 days of receiving the notice of apportionment, give the authority written notice of how it will pay its portion of the capital costs. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. Debt due (6) The amount of the portion of the capital costs for a project that is specified in a notice of apportionment sent to a participating municipality is a debt due by the participating municipality to the authority and may be enforced by the authority as such. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23 - not in force; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 21 (1, 2) - 03/04/2018 26 (1) An authority may, from time to time, determine what money will be required for capital expenditure in connection with any project. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (1). Portion to be raised by participating municipalities (2) The portion of the money so required that each participating municipality shall raise shall be in the same proportion as the benefit derived by each such municipality bears to the total benefit derived by all participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (2). (3) Upon notice in writing of the amount required to be raised, signed by the secretary-treasurer of the authority, each participating municipality shall raise by the issue of debentures or otherwise such money as may be required by the authority for capital expenditure. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (3); 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (3). Enforcement of payment (4) Subject to subsection (3), an authority may enforce payment against any participating municipality of the portion of the capital cost required to be raised by the municipality as a debt due by the municipality to the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (4). Where only part of municipality in area (5) Where only a part of a participating municipality is situated in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction, the portion of the money required to be raised by that municipality for capital expenditure may be charged only against the rateable property in that part of the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (5). (6) Repealed: 1994, c. 27, s. 127. 26 (1) Any participating municipality that receives a notice of apportionment under section 25 may, within 30 days after receiving the notice of apportionment, apply to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, or to such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, for a review of the apportionment among the participating municipalities of the capital costs for the relevant project. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 22. (2) The participating municipality that makes an application under subsection (1) shall send a copy of the notice of application to the authority and to every other participating municipality of the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. (3) The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, shall hold a hearing to reconsider the apportionment of capital costs among the participating municipalities, including considering whether the apportionment complies with section 25 and the regulations and whether the portion apportioned to the municipality is otherwise appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 22. (4) The parties to the hearing are the applicant municipality, the authority, any other participating municipality of the authority that requests to be a party, and such other persons as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may determine. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 22. Requirement to pay costs stayed (5) A participating municipality that makes an application under this section is not required to pay the portion of the capital costs that was apportioned to the municipality under the notice of apportionment until the determination of the application. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. Delay of notice (6) A participating municipality that makes an application under this section is not required to give notice under subsection 25 (5) until 30 days after the final determination of the application. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. Powers on hearing (7) Upon hearing an application under this section, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may confirm or vary the apportionment of the capital costs by the authority among the participating municipalities. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 22. (8) A decision under subsection (7) is final. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 23. 1994, c. 27, s. 127 - 09/12/1994; 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (3) - 01/01/1993 27 (1) Repealed: 1997, c. 29, s. 54 (1). Apportionment of maintenance costs (2) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), after determining the approximate maintenance costs for the succeeding year, the authority shall apportion the costs to the participating municipalities according to the benefit derived or to be derived by each municipality, and the amount apportioned to each such municipality shall be levied against the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (2); 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (1). Apportionment of administration costs (3) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), after determining the approximate administration costs for the succeeding year, the authority shall apportion the costs to the participating municipalities and the amount apportioned to each such municipality shall be levied against the municipality. 1997, c. 29, s. 54 (2). Minimum levy for administration costs (4) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), an authority may establish a minimum sum that may be levied for administration costs by the authority against a participating municipality, and, where the amount apportioned to any municipality under subsection (3) is less than the minimum sum, the authority may levy the minimum sum against the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (4); 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (3). (5) The secretary-treasurer of the authority, forthwith after the amounts have been apportioned under subsections (2), (3) and (4), shall certify to the clerk of each participating municipality the total amount that has been levied under those subsections, and the amount shall be collected by the municipality in the same manner as municipal taxes for general purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (5). Levy where only part of municipality in area (6) Where only a part of a participating municipality is situated in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction, the amount apportioned to that municipality may be charged only against the rateable property in that part of the municipality and shall be collected in the same manner as municipal taxes for general purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (6). (7) An authority may enforce payment against any participating municipality of any portion of the maintenance costs or administration costs levied against the municipality as a debt due by the municipality to the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (7). (8) A municipality against which a levy is made under this section may appeal the levy to the Mining and Lands Tribunal continued under the Ministry of Natural Resources Act. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4); 2017, c. 8, Sched. 17, s. 5 (1). Time for appeal (9) The appeal must be commenced within 30 days after the municipality receives notice of the levy from the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). (10) The parties to the appeal are the municipality, the authority and any other person added as a party by the Tribunal. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4); 2017, c. 8, Sched. 17, s. 5 (2). Compliance pending determination (11) The municipality shall comply with the levy pending the determination of the appeal. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Matters to be considered at hearing (12) The Tribunal shall hold a hearing on the appeal and shall consider, (a) whether the levy complies with this section and the regulations made under subsection (16); and (b) whether the levy is otherwise appropriate. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4); 2017, c. 8, Sched. 17, s. 5 (2). Powers of Tribunal (13) The Tribunal may, by order, confirm, rescind or vary the amount of the levy and may order the authority or the municipality to pay any amount owing as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4); 2017, c. 8, Sched. 17, s. 5 (2). No appeal (14) No appeal lies from the decision of the Tribunal. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4); 2017, c. 8, Sched. 17, s. 5 (2). When subss. (8-14) begin to apply (15) Subsections (8) to (14) do not apply until the first regulation made under subsection (16) comes into force. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Regulations re levies (16) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the nature and amount of the levies made by authorities under this section, including regulations that restrict or prohibit the making of levies described in the regulations. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 27 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1)) 27 (1) Every year an authority shall determine its operating expenses for the subsequent year and apportion those expenses to the participating municipalities in accordance with the regulations. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 27 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 7 (1)) (1.1) Subject to subsections (1.2) and (1.3), an authority shall not, on and after the day prescribed by the regulations, include in the apportionment any operating expenses related to a program or service authorized to be provided under subsection 21.1.2 (1). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 7 (1). (1.2) An authority shall include in the apportionment of operating expenses to a participating municipality any operating expenses related to a program or service that has been identified in an agreement between the municipality and the authority as described in subsection 21.1.2 (2). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 7 (1). (1.3) If the circumstances prescribed by the regulations apply in respect of an authority, a person designated by the Minister may, by written notice to the authority, specify that a later day than the day prescribed by the regulations under subsection (1.1) applies to the authority and if such a notice is issued, the prohibition set out in subsection (1.1) applies to the authority on and after the day set out in the notice. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 7 (1). Fixed portion for some municipalities (2) Despite subsection (1) and subject to the regulations, an authority may establish a fixed minimal amount as the portion of the authority’s operating expenses that a participating municipality is required to pay each year, and may apportion that amount to the municipality instead of the portion determined under subsection (1) in any year in which the fixed minimal amount exceeds the portion determined under subsection (1). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 27 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “subsection (1)” wherever it appears and substituting in each case “subsections (1) and (1.1)”. (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 7 (2)) (3) An authority shall send a notice of apportionment in writing to each participating municipality setting out the amount of the operating expenses that has been apportioned to the participating municipality. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). (4) Each participating municipality shall pay to the authority the portion of the operating expenses that is specified in the notice of apportionment in accordance with the requirements set out in the notice and with this section. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). (5) The amount of the portion of the operating expenses specified in a notice of apportionment sent to a participating municipality is a debt due by the participating municipality to the authority and may be enforced by the authority as such. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). 1993, c. 27, Sched. - 31/12/1991; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (1-4) - 30/01/1996; 1997, c. 29, s. 54 (1, 2) - 01/01/1998 2017, c. 8, Sched. 17, s. 5 (1, 2) - 01/04/2018; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1) - not in force 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 7 (1, 2) - not in force 27.1 (1) Any participating municipality that receives a notice of apportionment under section 27 may, within 30 days of receiving the notice, apply to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or to such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, for a review of the apportionment of the operating expenses. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). (2) The participating municipality that makes an application under subsection (1) shall send a copy of the notice of application to the authority and to every other participating municipality of the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). (3) The Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, shall hold a hearing to reconsider the apportionment of the operating expenses, including considering whether the apportionment complies with section 27 and the regulations and whether the portion apportioned to the municipality is otherwise appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). (4) The parties to the hearing are the applicant municipality, the authority, any other participating municipality of the authority that requests to be a party and such other persons as the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may determine. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). No stay (5) The appellant municipality shall comply with the notice of apportionment pending the determination of the application. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). (6) Upon hearing an application under this section, the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may confirm or vary the apportionment of the operating expenses by the authority among the participating municipalities and may order participating municipalities to pay such portion of the operating expenses as it determines. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). (7) A decision under subsection (6) is final. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 27.1 of the Act is amended by striking out “Mining and Lands Commissioner” wherever it appears and substituting in each case “Mining and Lands Tribunal”. (See: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (2)) 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 24 (1, 2) - not in force Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the Act is amended by adding the following section: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1)) Specified municipality 27.2 (1) In this section, “specified municipality” means, when used in reference to an authority, (a) a municipality that is designated under the regulations made under the Clean Water Act, 2006 as a participating municipality for the authority for the purposes of that Act but that is not one of the authority’s participating municipalities under this Act, or (b) a municipality that is designated under the regulations made under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 as a participating municipality for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for the purposes of that Act but that is not one of the authority’s participating municipalities under this Act. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). Determination of amounts owing by specified municipality (2) An authority may, from time to time and in accordance with the regulations, determine the amounts owed by any of its specified municipalities in connection with the programs and services the authority provides in respect of the Clean Water Act, 2006 and Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). (3) If the authority determines under subsection (2) that amounts are owing by any of its specified municipalities, the authority shall send a notice in writing to the specified municipality, setting out the amounts that the specified municipality owes to the authority. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). Payment of amounts (4) Subject to subsections (5) to (10), each specified municipality shall pay to the authority the amounts specified in the notice in accordance with the requirements set out in the notice. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). Review of notice (5) Any specified municipality that receives a notice under subsection (3) may, within 30 days after receiving the notice, apply to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or to such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, for a review of the amounts owing. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). (6) The specified municipality that makes an application under subsection (5) shall send a copy of the notice of application to the authority and to every other participating municipality and specified municipality of the authority. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). (7) The Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, shall hold a hearing to reconsider the amounts owing, including considering whether the determination of the amounts owing was carried out in accordance with subsection (2). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). (8) The parties to the hearing are the applicant municipality, the authority, any other participating municipality or specified municipality of the authority that requests to be a party and such other persons as the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may determine. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). (9) Upon hearing an application under this section, the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may confirm or vary the amounts owing and may order the specified municipality to pay the amounts. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). (10) A decision under subsection (9) is final. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). (11) The amounts owed to the authority set out in a notice sent to a specified municipality or in an order under subsection (9), as the case may be, are a debt due by the specified municipality to the authority and may be enforced by the authority as such. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 27.2 of the Act is amended by striking out “Mining and Lands Commissioner” wherever it appears and substituting in each case “Mining and Lands Tribunal”. (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 8 (2)) 28 (1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction, (a) restricting and regulating the use of water in or from rivers, streams, inland lakes, ponds, wetlands and natural or artificially constructed depressions in rivers or streams; (b) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetland; (c) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for development if, in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development; (d) providing for the appointment of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section or section 29; (e) providing for the appointment of persons to act as officers with all of the powers and duties of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. (2) A regulation made under subsection (1) may delegate any of the authority’s powers or duties under the regulation to the authority’s executive committee or to any other person or body, subject to any limitations and requirements that may be set out in the regulation. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Conditional permission (3) A regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) may provide for permission to be granted subject to conditions and for the cancellation of the permission if conditions are not met. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. References to maps (4) A regulation made under subsection (1) may refer to any area affected by the regulation by reference to one or more maps that are filed at the head office of the authority and are available for public review during normal office business hours. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Minister’s approval of development regulations (5) The Minister shall not approve a regulation made under clause (1) (c) unless the regulation applies only to areas that are, (a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to inland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazards; (b) river or stream valleys; (c) hazardous lands; (d) wetlands; or (e) other areas where, in the opinion of the Minister, development should be prohibited or regulated or should require the permission of the authority. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Regulations by L.G. in C. governing content of authority’s regulations (6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the content of regulations made by authorities under subsection (1), including flood event standards and other standards that may be used, and setting out what must be included or excluded from regulations made by authorities under subsection (1). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Invalid regulation (7) A regulation made by an authority under subsection (1) that does not conform with the requirements of a regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6) is not valid. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. (8) Subject to subsection (9), if a regulation is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6), subsection (7) does not apply to a regulation that was previously made by an authority under subsection (1) until two years after the regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council comes into force. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. (9) If a regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6) is amended by an amending regulation, subsection (7) does not apply, in respect of the amendment, to a regulation that was made by an authority under subsection (1) before the amending regulation, until such time as may be specified in the amending regulation. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. (10) No regulation made under subsection (1), (a) shall limit the use of water for domestic or livestock purposes; (b) shall interfere with any rights or powers conferred upon a municipality in respect of the use of water for municipal purposes; (c) shall interfere with any rights or powers of any board or commission that is performing its functions for or on behalf of the Government of Ontario; or (d) shall interfere with any rights or powers under the Electricity Act, 1998 or the Public Utilities Act. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (8); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Activities under the Aggregate Resources Act (11) A requirement for permission of an authority in a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) does not apply to an activity approved under the Aggregate Resources Act after the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. (12) Permission required under a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) shall not be refused or granted subject to conditions unless the person requesting the permission has been given the opportunity to require a hearing before the authority or, if the authority so directs, before the authority’s executive committee. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Powers of authority (13) After holding a hearing under subsection (12), the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall, (a) refuse the permission; or (b) grant the permission, with or without conditions. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Grounds for refusing permission (13.1) If the permission that the person requests is for development related to a renewable energy project, as defined in subsection 2 (1) of the Electricity Act, 1998, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, (a) shall not refuse the permission unless it is necessary to do so to control pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches; and (b) shall not impose conditions unless they relate to controlling pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches. 2009, c. 12, Sched. L, s. 2; 2018, c. 16, s. 3 (1). Reasons for decision (14) If the authority or its executive committee, after holding a hearing, refuses permission or grants permission subject to conditions, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall give the person who requested permission written reasons for the decision. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. (15) A person who has been refused permission or who objects to conditions imposed on a permission may, within 30 days of receiving the reasons under subsection (14), appeal to the Minister who may, Offence: contravening regulation (16) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under subsection (1) or the terms and conditions of a permission of an authority in a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12; 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (2). Limitation for proceeding (16.1) A proceeding with respect to an offence under subsection (16) shall not be commenced more than two years from the earliest of the day on which evidence of the offence is discovered or first comes to the attention of officers appointed under clause (1) (d) or persons appointed under clause (1) (e). 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (3). (17) In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law, the court, upon making a conviction under subsection (16), may order the person convicted to, (a) remove, at that person’s expense, any development within such reasonable time as the court orders; and (b) rehabilitate any watercourse or wetland in the manner and within the time the court orders. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Non-compliance with order (18) If a person does not comply with an order made under subsection (17), the authority having jurisdiction may, in the case of a development, have it removed and, in the case of a watercourse or wetland, have it rehabilitated. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Liability for certain costs (19) The person convicted is liable for the cost of a removal or rehabilitation under subsection (18) and the amount is recoverable by the authority by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Powers of entry (20) An authority or an officer appointed under a regulation made under clause (1) (d) or (e) may enter private property, other than a dwelling or building, without the consent of the owner or occupier and without a warrant, if, (a) the entry is for the purpose of considering a request related to the property for permission that is required by a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c); or (b) the entry is for the purpose of enforcing a regulation made under clause (1) (a), (b) or (c) and the authority or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a contravention of the regulation is causing or is likely to cause significant environmental damage and that the entry is required to prevent or reduce the damage. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Time of entry (21) Subject to subsection (22), the power to enter property under subsection (20) may be exercised at any reasonable time. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Notice of entry (22) The power to enter property under subsection (20) shall not be exercised unless, (a) the authority or officer has given reasonable notice of the entry to the owner of the property and, if the occupier of the property is not the owner, to the occupier of the property; or (b) the authority or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that significant environmental damage is likely to be caused during the time that would be required to give notice under clause (a). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. No use of force (23) Subsection (20) does not authorize the use of force. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Offence: obstruction (24) Any person who prevents or obstructs an authority or officer from entering property under subsection (20) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. (25) In this section, “development” means, (a) the construction, reconstruction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind, (b) any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential use of the building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure, (c) site grading, or (d) the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere; (“aménagement”) “hazardous land” means land that could be unsafe for development because of naturally occurring processes associated with flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or unstable soil or bedrock; (“terrain dangereux”) “pollution” means any deleterious physical substance or other contaminant that has the potential to be generated by development in an area to which a regulation made under clause (1) (c) applies; (“pollution”) “watercourse” means an identifiable depression in the ground in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs; (“cours d’eau”) “wetland” means land that, (a) is seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or has a water table close to or at its surface, (b) directly contributes to the hydrological function of a watershed through connection with a surface watercourse, (c) has hydric soils, the formation of which has been caused by the presence of abundant water, and (d) has vegetation dominated by hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants, the dominance of which has been favoured by the presence of abundant water, but does not include periodically soaked or wet land that is used for agricultural purposes and no longer exhibits a wetland characteristic referred to in clause (c) or (d). (“terre marécageuse”) 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. (26) A regulation that was in force immediately before the day the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent and that was lawfully made under clause (1) (e) or (f) of this section as it read immediately before that day shall be deemed to have been lawfully made under clause (1) (c). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. 28 (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4) and section 28.1, no person shall carry on the following activities, or permit another person to carry on the following activities, in the area of jurisdiction of an authority: 1. Activities to straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or to change or interfere in any way with a wetland. 2. Development activities in areas that are within the authority’s area of jurisdiction and are, i. hazardous lands, ii. wetlands, iii. river or stream valleys the limits of which shall be determined in accordance with the regulations, iv. areas that are adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to an inland lake and that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazards, such areas to be further determined or specified in accordance with the regulations, or v. other areas in which development should be prohibited or regulated, as may be determined by the regulations. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. Exception, aggregates (2) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to an activity approved under the Aggregate Resources Act after December 18, 1998, the date the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. Same, prescribed activities (3) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to an activity or a type of activity that is prescribed by regulation and is carried out in accordance with the regulations. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. Same, prescribed areas (4) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to any activity described in that subsection if it is carried out, (a) in an area that is within an authority’s area of jurisdiction and specified in the regulations; and (b) in accordance with any conditions specified in the regulations. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. “development activity” means a development activity as defined by regulation; (“activité d’aménagement”) “hazardous land” means hazardous land as defined by regulation; (“terrain dangereux”) “watercourse” means a watercourse as defined by regulation; (“cours d’eau”) “wetland” means a wetland as defined by regulation. (“terre marécageuse”) 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (1, 2, 7, 8) - 01/04/1999; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12 - 18/12/1998 2009, c. 12, Sched. L, s. 2 - 14/05/2009 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (2, 3) - 25/10/2010 28.1 (1) An authority may issue a permit to a person to engage in an activity specified in the permit that would otherwise be prohibited by section 28, if, in the opinion of the authority, (a) the activity is not likely to affect the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land; (b) the activity is not likely to create conditions or circumstances that, in the event of a natural hazard, might jeopardize the health or safety of persons or result in the damage or destruction of property; and (c) any other requirements that may be prescribed by the regulations are met. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. Application for permit (2) A person who wishes to engage in an activity that is prohibited under section 28 in an area situated in the jurisdiction of an authority may apply to the authority for a permit under this section. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. (3) An application for a permit shall be made in accordance with the regulations and include such information as is required by regulation. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. (4) Subject to subsection (5), an authority may issue a permit with or without conditions. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. (5) An authority shall not refuse an application for a permit or attach conditions to a permit unless the applicant for the permit has been given an opportunity to be heard by the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. Renewable energy projects (6) In the case of an application for a permit to engage in development related to a renewable energy project as defined in subsection 2 (1) of the Electricity Act, 1998, (a) the authority shall not refuse the permit unless it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to control pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches; and (b) despite subsection (4), the authority shall not impose conditions on the permit unless the conditions relate to controlling pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25; 2018, c. 16, s. 3 (2). (7) If the authority, after holding a hearing, refuses a permit or issues the permit subject to conditions, the authority shall give the applicant written reasons for the decision. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. (8) An applicant who has been refused a permit or who objects to conditions imposed on a permit may, within 30 days of receiving the reasons under subsection (7), appeal to the Minister who may, (a) refuse the permit; or (b) order the authority to issue the permit, with or without conditions. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. “pollution” means pollution as defined by regulation. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. 28.2 A permit shall be valid for a period to be determined in accordance with the regulations. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. 28.3 (1) An authority may cancel a permit issued under section 28.1 if it is of the opinion that the conditions of the permit have not been met or that the circumstances that are prescribed by regulation exist. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. (2) Before cancelling a permit, an authority shall give a notice of intent to cancel to the permit holder indicating that the permit will be cancelled on a date specified in the notice unless the holder requests a hearing under subsection (3). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. Request for hearing (3) Within 15 days of receiving a notice of intent to cancel a permit from the authority, the permit holder may submit a written request for a hearing to the authority. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. (4) The authority shall set a date for the hearing and hold the hearing within a reasonable time after receiving a request for a hearing. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. (5) After a hearing, the authority may confirm, rescind or vary the decision to cancel a permit. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. 28.4 An authority may delegate any of its powers relating to the issuance or cancellation of permits under this Act or the regulations, or to the holding of hearings in relation to the permits, to the authority’s executive committee or to any other person or body, subject to any limitations or requirements that may be prescribed by regulation. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 25. 28.5 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to activities that may impact the conservation, restoration, development or management of natural resources and that may be carried out in the areas of jurisdiction of authorities, including regulations, (a) identifying activities that have or may have an impact on the conservation, restoration, development or management of natural resources for the purposes of the regulation; (b) regulating those activities; (c) prohibiting those activities or requiring that a person obtain a permit from the relevant authority to engage in the activities in the authority’s area of jurisdiction. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 26. (2) A regulation under clause (1) (c) that requires that a person obtain a permit from the relevant authority to engage in an activity described in subsection (1) may, (a) provide for applications to be made to an authority for the permit and specify the manner, content and form of the application; (b) provide for the issuance, expiration, renewal and cancellation of a permit; (c) require hearings in relation to any matter referred to in clauses (a) and (b) and specify the person before whom, or the body before which, the matter shall be heard, provide for notices and other procedural matters relating to the hearing and provide for an appeal from any decision. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 26. (3) A regulation made under this section may be limited in its application to one or more authorities or activities. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 26. 29 (1) An authority may make regulations applicable to lands owned by the authority, Regulations: public use of authority’s property (1) The Minister may make regulations with respect to land and other property owned by authorities including regulations, (a) regulating and governing the use by the public of the lands and the works, vehicles, boats, services and things of the authority; (b) providing for the protection and preservation from damage of the property of the authority; (c) prescribing fees for the occupation and use of lands and works, vehicles, boats, recreational facilities and services; (d) prescribing permits designating privileges in connection with use of the lands or any part thereof and prescribing fees for permits; (e) regulating and governing vehicular and pedestrian traffic and prohibiting the use of any class of vehicle or classes of vehicles; (f) prohibiting or regulating and governing the erection, posting up or other display of notices, signs, sign boards and other advertising devices; (g) prescribing terms and conditions under which horses, dogs and other animals may be allowed on the lands or any part thereof; (h) subject to the Forest Fires Prevention Act and the regulations made thereunder, prohibiting or regulating and governing the use, setting and extinguishment of fires. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 29 (1); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (1). (1.1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the content of regulations made under subsection (1), including the standards that may be used, and setting out what must be included or excluded from regulations made under subsection (1). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 29 (1.1) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 27 (2)) (1.2) A regulation made under subsection (1) that does not conform with the requirements of a regulation made under subsection (1.1) is not valid unless it has been approved by the Minister. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (2). (2) Every person who contravenes any regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 29 (2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (3). (2) A regulation made under this section may be limited in its application to one or more authorities. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 27 (2). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (1-3) - 18/12/1998 30 Repealed: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 28. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 105 - 25/07/2007 30.1 (1) An authority or an officer appointed under a regulation made under clause 28 (1) (d) or (e) shall not enter land without, (a) the consent of the owner of the land and, if the occupier of the land is not the owner, the consent of the occupier of the land; or (b) the authority of a warrant under the Provincial Offences Act. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 14. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to entry under clause 21 (1) (b) or subsection 28 (20). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 14. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 30.1 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29) 30.1 An authority may appoint officers for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. 30.2 (1) An officer appointed by an authority under section 30.1 may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), enter any land situated in the authority’s area of jurisdiction for the purposes of determining compliance with subsection 28 (1), a regulation made under subsection 28 (3) or section 28.5 or with the conditions of a permit issued under section 28.1 or under a regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. No entry to buildings (2) The power to enter land under subsection (1) does not authorize the entry into a dwelling or other building situated on the land. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (3) The power to enter land under subsection (1) may be exercised at any reasonable time. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Power upon entry (4) An officer who enters land under subsection (1) may do any of the following things: 1. Inspect any thing that is relevant to the inspection. 2. Conduct any tests, take any measurements, take any specimens or samples, set up any equipment and make any photographic or other records that may be relevant to the inspection. 3. Ask any questions that are relevant to the inspection to the occupant of the land. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (5) Subsection (1) does not authorize the use of force. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Experts, etc. (6) An officer who enters land under this section may be accompanied and assisted by any person with such knowledge, skills or expertise as may be required for the purposes of the inspection. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Search with warrant 30.3 (1) An officer may obtain a search warrant under Part VIII of the Provincial Offences Act in respect of an offence under this Act. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (2) The search warrant may authorize any person specified in the warrant to accompany and assist the officer in the execution of the warrant. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Search without warrant (3) If an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that there is something on land that will afford evidence of an offence under this Act but that the time required to obtain a warrant would lead to the loss, removal or destruction of the evidence, the officer may, without warrant, enter and search the land. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. 30.4 (1) An officer appointed under section 30.1 may make an order requiring a person to stop engaging in or not to engage in an activity if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is engaging in the activity, has engaged in the activity or is about to engage in the activity and, as a result, is contravening, (a) subsection 28 (1) or a regulation made under subsection 28 (3) or under section 28.5; or (b) the conditions of a permit that was issued under section 28.1 or under a regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Information to be included in order (a) specify the provision that the officer believes is being, has been or is about to be contravened; (b) briefly describe the nature of the contravention and its location; and (c) state that a hearing on the order may be requested in accordance with this section. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Service of order (3) An order under this section shall be served personally or by registered mail addressed to the person against whom the order is made at the person’s last known address. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Registered mail (4) An order served by registered mail shall be deemed to have been served on the fifth day after the day of mailing, unless the person served establishes that the person did not, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond the person’s control, receive the order until a later date. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (5) An order under this section takes effect when it is served, or at such later time as is specified in the order. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (6) A person who is served with an order under this section may request a hearing before the authority or, if the authority so directs, before the authority’s executive committee by mailing or delivering to the authority, within 30 days after service of the order, a written request for a hearing that includes a statement of the reasons for requesting the hearing. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (7) After holding a hearing, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall, (a) confirm the order; (b) amend the order; or (c) remove the order, with or without conditions. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (8) The authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall give the person who requested the hearing written reasons for the decision. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (9) Within 30 days after receiving the reasons mentioned in subsection (8), the person who requested the hearing may appeal to the Minister and, after reviewing the submissions, the Minister may, 30.5 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence if he or she contravenes, (a) subsection 28 (1) or a regulation made under subsection 28 (3) or under section 28.5; (b) the conditions of a permit that was issued under section 28.1 or under a regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c); or (c) a stop order issued under section 30.4. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction, (a) in the case of an individual, (i) to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months, or to both, and (ii) to an additional fine of not more than $10,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues; and (b) in the case of a corporation, (i) to a fine of not more than $1,000,000, and (ii) to an additional fine of not more than $200,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Monetary benefit (3) Despite the maximum fines set out in clauses (2) (a) and (b), a court that convicts a person of an offence under clause (1) (a) or (b) may increase the fine it imposes on the person by an amount equal to the amount of the monetary benefit that was acquired by the person, or that accrued to the person, as a result of the commission of the offence. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Contravening s. 29 regulations (4) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under section 29 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. Obstruction of officer (5) Every person who prevents or obstructs an officer from entering land under section 30.2 or 30.3 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. 30.6 A proceeding shall not be commenced with respect to an offence under subsection 30.5 (1), (4) or (5) more than two years after the day on which the offence first comes to the attention of an officer appointed under section 30.1. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. 30.7 (1) In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law, the court, upon convicting a person of an offence under clause 30.5 (1) (a) or (b), may order the convicted person to, (a) remove, at the convicted person’s expense, any development within such reasonable time as the court orders; and (b) take such actions as the court directs, within the time the court may specify, to repair or rehabilitate the damage that results from or is in any way connected to the commission of the offence. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (2) If a person does not comply with an order made under subsection (1), the authority having jurisdiction may arrange for any removal, repair or rehabilitation that was required of a person under subsection (1) to be carried out. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. (3) The person to whom an order is made under subsection (1) is liable for the cost of any removal, repair or rehabilitation arranged by an authority under subsection (2), and the amount is recoverable by the authority by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 29. 31 The Expropriations Act applies where land is expropriated by an authority or where land is injuriously affected by an authority in the exercise of its statutory powers. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 31. Crown land affected 32 (1) Where any land required for the carrying out of a project or a part thereof is Crown land, a plan and description of the land prepared and signed by an Ontario land surveyor and signed by the chair or vice-chair of the authority shall be deposited with the Minister, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (1). Interference with public work (2) Where a project or a part thereof may interfere with a public work of Ontario, the authority shall file with the Minister of Infrastructure a plan and description of the project or a part thereof together with a statement of the interference with the public work that may occur and a statement of the manner in which the authority proposes to remedy the interference, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister of Infrastructure. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (2); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (3); 2011, c. 9, Sched. 27, s. 22. Interference with highway (3) Where a project or a part thereof will interfere with a public road or highway, the authority shall file with the Minister of Transportation a plan and description of the project or a part thereof together with a statement of the interference with the public road or highway that will occur and a statement of the manner in which the authority proposes to remedy the interference, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister of Transportation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (3). Costs, how to be borne (4) The cost of rebuilding any road, highway, bridge, public work or any part thereof and the cost of any other work that any of the Ministers of the Crown may require to be done under this section shall be borne by the authority, except where an agreement providing for payment thereof in some other manner has been entered into with the Crown in right of Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (4); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (4). 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (3, 4) - 01/04/1999 2011, c. 9, Sched. 27, s. 22 - 06/06/2011 33 (1) Land vested in an authority, except works erected by an authority for the purposes of a project, is taxable for municipal purposes by levy under section 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001 or section 277 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be, upon the assessment and classification of such land determined in each year by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the land shall be assessed under the Assessment Act as if the works erected by the authority on the land had not been erected. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (1); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 8. Assessment of rented property (2) Despite subsection (1), section 18 of the Assessment Act applies with necessary modifications in respect of lands vested in an authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 33 (2). (3) The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation shall deliver or mail to each authority concerned and to the clerk of each municipality in which any of the land is situated a notice setting out the assessment and the classification of the land in the municipality. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (2); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203. Reconsideration under Assessment Act (4) The authority may request a reconsideration under section 39.1 of the Assessment Act. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (3). Appeal to the Assessment Review Board (5) The authority or the municipality may appeal to the Assessment Review Board under section 40 of the Assessment Act and the last day for appealing is the day that is 90 days after the authority or the clerk of the municipality, as applicable, is notified. 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 19. Assessment Act to apply (6) The Assessment Act applies, with necessary modifications, with respect to a request for a reconsideration or an appeal. 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 19. (7) Repealed: 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (3). Assessment for next year’s taxation (8) The assessment of land under subsection (1) shall be determined by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in each year for the purpose of taxation in the following year. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 33 (8); 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (4); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (1-4) - 01/01/1998; 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19 - 31/12/1998; 1998, c. 3, s. 33 - 11/06/1998 2001, c. 8, s. 203 - 29/06/2001 34 (1) Where the carrying out of a project will require the use of a cemetery or other place of interment of human remains, the authority shall acquire other suitable lands for the interment of the bodies contained in the cemetery or other place of interment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (1). Notice to plot owners (2) The authority shall forward a notice to the owner of each lot in the cemetery or other place of interment, but, if the owner or the owner’s whereabouts is unknown, the notice shall, wherever possible, be forwarded to some other person having an interest in the plot through relationship or otherwise to a deceased person buried therein. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (2). Publication of notice (3) The authority shall also cause a notice to be published once a week for at least three weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the locality where the cemetery or other place of interment is located, which notice shall state, (a) that the cemetery or other place of interment has been acquired for the purposes of the authority; (b) that other land, describing it, has been acquired by the authority for the purpose of reinterring the bodies; (c) that the authority will at its own expense proceed to remove the bodies from the cemetery or other place of interment to the lands acquired for reinterment at a time not less than one month after the forwarding or third publication of the notice, whichever is the later date; and (d) that the owner of any plot in the cemetery or other place of interment, or any other person with the approval of the authority, may cause any body interred in the cemetery or other place of interment to be removed to any other place of interment at the expense of the owner or person if the owner or person obtains permission from the authority and effects the removal within one month from the forwarding or insertion of the notice, whichever is the later date, or before such later date as the authority determines. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (3). Removal of bodies (4) The authority has full power to cause the removal of any body from the cemetery or place of interment to any lands acquired under subsection (1) despite any other Act and to authorize the removal by any other person of the body for reinterment in any other cemetery or place of interment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (4). Removal of headstones (5) Where a body is removed and reinterred, any headstone or other stone shall be removed and re-erected at the place of reinterment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (5). Conveyance of lands for reinterment (6) The authority shall render land, including fences and buildings, acquired for the reinterment of bodies, in a fit and proper condition and shall convey the land to the owner of the cemetery or other place of interment from which the bodies were removed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (6). 35 (1) The authority has the right to use any water power created upon lands vested in it for its own uses. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5). (2) Repealed: 2006, c. 3, Sched. D, s. 1. Obligation to pay (3) Any person using water power created upon authority lands shall pay to the authority an annual reasonable compensation for the use of the water power. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5). (3.1) Where the authority and a person described in subsection (3) are unable to agree on the amount of the annual compensation, the matter shall be arbitrated under the Arbitration Act, 1991. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5). Charge for power (4) Subject to review by the Minister of Natural Resources, an authority shall charge persons who at the time of the establishment of the authority are, or thereafter become, users of power derived by them from the use of the waters of the watershed for any additional power generated from increased head or flow due to the works undertaken by the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 35 (4); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (6). When section not to apply (5) This section does not apply to water power reserved to the Crown under the Public Lands Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 35 (5). 2006, c. 3, Sched. D, s. 1 - 19/10/2006 36 Where by this Act any power is conferred or duty imposed upon a municipality, or the council of a municipality, including a power or duty to raise money, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed by the council of the municipality without the assent of the electors. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 36. 37 All money that is paid to an authority for specified purposes under this Act may be spent by the authority as it considers proper. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 32. 38 (1) Every authority shall cause its accounts and transactions to be audited annually by a person licensed under the Public Accounting Act, 2004. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (1); 2004, c. 8, s. 46. (2) No person shall be appointed as auditor of an authority who is or during the preceding year was a member of the authority or who has or during the preceding year had any direct or indirect interest in any contract or any employment with the authority other than for services within his or her professional capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (2). (3) An authority shall, upon receipt of the auditor’s report of the examination of its accounts and transactions, forthwith forward a copy of the report to each participating municipality and to the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (3). 2004, c. 8, s. 46, Table - 01/11/2005 39 Grants may be made by the Minister to any authority out of the money appropriated therefor by the Legislature in accordance with such conditions and procedures as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 39. 40 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations defining any term that is used in this Act and that is not defined in this Act. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 40 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 9 (1)) 40 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, (a) governing the composition of conservation authorities and prescribing additional requirements regarding the appointment and qualifications of members of conservation authorities; (b) governing advisory boards established under subsection 18 (2), including requiring authorities to establish one or more advisory boards and prescribing requirements with respect to the composition, functions, powers, duties, activities and procedures of any advisory board that is established; (c) prescribing programs and services for the purposes of subsections 21.1 (1) and (2) and prescribing Acts for the purposes of subparagraph 1 iv of subsection 21.1 (1); (d) respecting standards and requirements applicable to programs and services for the purposes of subsection 21.1 (3); (e) governing the apportionment of an authority’s capital costs in connection with a project for the purposes of section 25; (f) governing reviews under sections 26 and 27.1, including prescribing a body that may conduct such reviews instead of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or the Mining and Lands Commissioner, as the case may be; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 40 (1) (f) of the Act is amended by striking out “Mining and Lands Commissioner” and substituting “Mining and Lands Tribunal”. (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 9 (3)) (g) governing the apportionment of an authority’s operating expenses for the purposes of section 27, prescribing expenses as operating expenses for the purposes of section 27, governing the amount that participating municipalities are required to pay under section 27, including the fixed amount that a participating municipality may be required to pay under subsection 27 (2), and restricting and prohibiting the apportionment of certain types of operating expenses; (h) defining any term that is used in this Act and that is not defined in this Act; (i) respecting anything that is necessary or advisable for the proper administration of this Act. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 9 (1). (2) The standards and requirements established for programs and services in a regulation made under clause (1) (d) may include standards and requirements to mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through increasing resiliency. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 9 (1). Regulations, Minister (a) prescribing matters that may be the subject of by-laws made under clause 19.1 (1) (j); (b) respecting the amount of any fee that may be charged by an authority in relation to a program or service, including determining the manner in which the fee is calculated; (c) prescribing the period for the purposes of paragraph 2 of subsection 21.1.2 (2); (d) prescribing requirements for the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 21.1.2 (2); (e) governing the matters to be addressed in a transition plan under section 21.1.3 and prescribing additional matters to be addressed; (f) governing consultations that an authority must carry out for the purposes of section 21.1.4; (g) governing the information that authorities must provide to the Minister under section 23.1, including the publication of that information; (h) prescribing a day for the purposes of subsections 25 (1.1) and 27 (1.1); (i) prescribing circumstances for the purposes of subsections 25 (1.3) and 27 (1.3); (j) governing the determination of amounts owed under subsection 27.2 (2). 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 9 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 40 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 9 (2)) Minister’s regulations, ss. 28 to 28.4 of the Act (a) governing the prohibitions set out in section 28, including, (i) prescribing the limits on river and stream valleys for the purposes of subparagraph 2 iii of subsection 28 (1), (ii) determining or specifying areas for the purposes of subparagraph 2 iv of subsection 28 (1), (iii) determining areas in which development should be prohibited or regulated for the purposes of subparagraph 2 v of subsection 28 (1), (iv) prescribing activities or types of activities to which the prohibitions set out in subsection 28 (1) do not apply and respecting the manner or circumstances in which the activities or types of activities may be carried out and any conditions or restrictions that apply to the activity or type of activity, (v) prescribing areas in which the prohibitions set out in subsection 28 (1) do not apply and respecting the manner or circumstances in which the activities may be carried out in such areas and any conditions or restrictions that apply to carrying out activities in such areas, (vi) defining “development activity”, “hazardous land”, “watercourse” and “wetland” for the purposes of section 28; (b) governing applications for permits under section 28.1, the issuance of the permits and the power of authorities to refuse permits, including prescribing requirements that must be met for the issuance of permits under clause 28.1 (1) (c), conditions that may be attached to a permit or circumstances in which a permit may be cancelled under section 28.3 and respecting the period for which a permit is valid under section 28.2; (c) defining “pollution” for the purposes of section 28.1; (d) governing the delegation of powers by an authority under section 28.4 and prescribing any limitations or requirements related to the delegation. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 9 (2). 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 33 (1, 2) - no effect - see 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 10 (2) - 06/06/2019; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 23 - 03/04/2018 2019, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 9 (1-3) - not in force 41 A regulation made under this Act that adopts a document by reference may adopt the document as it may be amended from time to time after the regulation is made. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 34.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744916

__label__wiki

Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 current December 10, 2019 – (e-Laws currency date) July 1, 2019 – December 9, 2019 June 8, 2019 – June 30, 2019 July 1, 2018 – May 28, 2019 May 1, 2018 – June 30, 2018 February 1, 2018 – April 30, 2018 November 14, 2017 – December 11, 2017 November 1, 2017 – November 13, 2017 September 1, 2017 – October 31, 2017 December 3, 2015 – August 31, 2017 December 15, 2009 – May 31, 2011 January 31, 2007 – May 13, 2008 June 22, 2006 – December 19, 2006 November 1, 2005 – June 21, 2006 January 5, 2005 – October 31, 2005 June 17, 2004 – January 4, 2005 O. Reg. 377/17 CONDOMINIUM RETURNS O. Reg. 181/17 DESIGNATION OF CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY O. Reg. 179/17 CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL O. Reg. 49/01 DESCRIPTION AND REGISTRATION O. Reg. 48/01 GENERAL Condominium Act, 1998 S.O. 1998, CHAPTER 19 Historical version for the period February 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018. Last amendment: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75. Legislative History: 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7; 2001, c. 9, Sched. D, s. 3; 2002, c. 8, Sched. I, s. 7; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2004, c. 8, s. 46, 47 (1, 3); 2006, c. 17, s. 248; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 7; 2006, c. 34, s. 7; 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 18; 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 17; 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 48; 2009, c. 33, Sched. 17, s. 4; 2009, c. 34, Sched. E; 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9 (But see 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 158); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1-146 (But see 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 82, 2017, c. 20, Sched. 8, s. 147 and 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 79); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80; 2017, c. 20, Sched. 8, s. 75; 2017, c. 20, Sched. 9, s. 5; 2017, c. 24, s. 74; 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75. PART I.1 ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT Designation of condominium authority Administrative agreement Policy directions Compliance by condominium authority Revocation of designation Condition precedent for exercise of certain powers Condominium Authority Criteria and directives re board members Board appointments Change in number of directors Appointment of chair Public access to corporate by-laws Not Crown agency No personal liability, Crown employee No Crown liability Indemnification of the Crown No personal liability, board members and others Not public money Powers and Duties of Condominium Authority Additional powers Change to objects or purposes Right to use French Advisory councils, advisory process Duty to inform Minister Advice of condominium authority Assessments of corporations CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL Definitions and Administration Chair, vice-chairs Termination of appointments Combined applications Parties to a proceeding Right of affected persons Power to dismiss applications Order during proceeding Orders at end of proceeding Payment under order for compensation, costs or a penalty Publication of orders REGISTRATION AND CREATION Place of registration Real property Acts Declaration and Description Requirements for declaration Requirements for description Planning Act PART II.1 CONDOMINIUM RETURNS No false or misleading statements No duty of Registrar Late filing fee Registrar’s database Certificate of Registrar Ownership of property Effect on encumbrances Discharge of encumbrances Discharge of encumbrance Agreement for management services Dealing with title to real property Easements described in declaration or phase Easements and lease of common elements Shared facilities agreement Telecommunications agreements Action by corporation Restriction on ability to sue Contracts valid Notices under the Expropriations Act Notices under the Planning Act No acquisition of units, etc. Existing remedies Information certificate to owners Conduct of business Meetings of directors Procurement process, etc. Disclosure by director of interest Disclosure by officer of interest Transfer of Control by Declarant First board of directors Turn-over meeting Procedure for board calling a meeting Requisition for meeting Record of owners and mortgagees Giving notice to owners Mortgagee’s right to vote Loss of owner’s right to vote Method of voting Majority voting Service on owner or mortgagee By-laws and Rules Occupancy standards by-law Joint by-laws and rules Auditors and Financial Statements Appointment of auditor Delivery of statements Right to attend meeting Amendment of statements SALE AND LEASE OF UNITS Condominium guide Disclosure of budget Rescission of agreement Material changes in disclosure statement Accountability for budget statement Status certificate Information on corporation Sale of Units Implied covenants Duty to register declaration and description Interim occupancy Money held in trust Corporation’s sale of the property Right of dissenters Lease of Units Notification by owner Common Expenses Contribution of owners Lien upon default Priority of lien Default with respect to leased unit Mortgagee’s rights Repair after damage Provisions of declaration Alterations by declaration Work done for owner Reserve fund Reserve fund study Use of reserve fund Changes to Common Elements and Assets Changes made by corporation Modifications to Common Elements and Assets Modifications made by corporation Changes made by owners Modifications made by owners Double coverage Capacity to maintain insurance Disclosure by insurer Information to owners Act prevails Amendments to the Declaration and Description Amendments with owners’ consent Change of address for service Order of Director of Titles Termination of Agreements Mutual use agreements Insurance trust agreements Corporation’s money Use of common elements by owners Use by owners Dangerous activities Prohibited conditions and activities Entry by canvassers Compliance with Act Effect of registration Termination with consent Termination upon substantial damage Termination upon sale of property Termination by court Distribution of assets False, misleading statements Compliance order Compliance order of Registrar Service under s. 134.1 Oppression remedy Order for permanent removal of person No termination of tenancy Offences, condominium authority Offences, filings and assessments Offences, general COMMON ELEMENTS CONDOMINIUM CORPORATIONS Owners’ land Contents of declaration Contents of description Repair after damage and insurance PHASED CONDOMINIUM CORPORATIONS Type of corporation Creation of phase Corporation’s remedy Remedy of purchasers Turn-over obligations Corporation’s obligations for phase VACANT LAND CONDOMINIUM CORPORATIONS Buildings on common elements Status of buildings in corporation Substantial damage LEASEHOLD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATIONS Leasehold interest of owners Leasehold estate in property Rent for property Consent of lessor for termination Termination by lessor Expiration of leasehold interests Effect of termination or expiration PART XIV Transition, turnover Transition, disclosure Transition, insurance Transition, termination of agreements Transition, regulations 1 (1) In this Act, “administrative agreement” means the agreement described in subsection 1.2 (1); (“accord d’application”) “annual general meeting” means a meeting of the owners of a corporation held in accordance with subsection 45 (2); (“assemblée générale annuelle”) “approval authority” means the approval authority for the purposes of sections 51, 51.1 and 51.2 of the Planning Act; (“autorité approbatrice”) “auditor” means a person licensed as a public accountant under the Public Accounting Act, 2004 who is appointed as an auditor of a corporation under section 60; (“vérificateur”) “board” means the board of directors of a corporation; (“conseil”) “building” means a building included in a property; (“bâtiment”) “by-law” means a by-law of a corporation; (“règlement administratif”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “by-law” in subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “or a by-law made under subsection 21.1 (4)” at the end. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (2)) “claim” includes a right, title, interest, encumbrance or demand of any kind affecting land but does not include the interest of an owner in the owner’s unit or common interest; (“réclamation”) “common elements” means all the property except the units; (“parties communes”) “common elements condominium corporation” means a common elements condominium corporation described in subsection 138 (2); (“association condominiale de parties communes”) “common expenses” means the expenses related to the performance of the objects and duties of a corporation and all expenses specified as common expenses in this Act or in a declaration; (“dépenses communes”) Note: On May 1, 2018, the day named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “common expenses” in subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “in the regulations” after “this Act”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (3)) “common interest” means the interest in the common elements appurtenant to, (a) a unit, in the case of all corporations except a common elements condominium corporation, or (b) an owner’s parcel of land to which the common interest is attached and which is described in the declaration, in the case of a common elements condominium corporation; (“intérêt commun”) “common surplus” means the excess of all receipts of the corporation over the expenses of the corporation; (“excédent commun”) “condominium authority” means the corporation that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has designated as such under clause 1.1 (1) (a); (“autorité du secteur des condominiums”, “autorité”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following definition: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (5)) “condominium guide” means a guide that is described in subsection 71.1 (1); (“guide sur les condominiums”) “condominium management provider”, “condominium management services” and “condominium manager” have the same meaning as in the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015; (“fournisseur de services de gestion de condominiums”, “gestionnaire de condominiums”, “services de gestion de condominiums”) “corporation” means, unless the context provides or requires otherwise, a corporation created or continued under this Act; (“association”) “declarant” means a person who owns the freehold or leasehold estate in the land described in the description and who registers a declaration and description under this Act, and includes a successor or assignee of that person but does not include a purchaser in good faith of a unit who pays fair market value or a successor or assignee of the purchaser; (“déclarant”) “declarant affiliate” means a body corporate with or without share capital, whether or not this Act applies to it, that is related to a declarant by reason of being deemed to be, (a) a subsidiary of the declarant under subsection 1 (2) of the Business Corporations Act, (b) a holding body of the declarant under subsection 1 (3) of the Business Corporations Act, or (c) affiliated with the declarant under subsection 1 (4) of the Business Corporations Act; (“membre du même groupe”) “declaration” means a declaration registered under section 2 and all amendments to the declaration; (“déclaration”) “deed” includes a transfer under the Land Titles Act; (“acte scellé”) “delegated provisions”, when used in connection with the condominium authority, means the provisions of this Act and the regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council specifies under clause 1.1 (1) (b) and of which the administration is delegated to the condominium authority under subsection 1.1 (3); (“dispositions déléguées”) “description” means a description registered under section 2 and all amendments to the description; (“description”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (1) is amended by adding the following definition: “Director of Titles” means the Director of Titles appointed under section 9 of the Land Titles Act; (“directeur des droits immobiliers”) See: 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, ss. 1 (1), 6. “encumbrance” means a claim that secures the payment of money or the performance of any other obligation and includes a charge under the Land Titles Act, a mortgage and a lien; (“sûreté réelle”) “freehold condominium corporation” means a corporation in which all the units and their appurtenant common interests are held in fee simple by the owners; (“association condominiale de propriété franche”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following definition: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (1)) “guarantee fund” has the same meaning as in subsection 2 (1) of the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017; (“fonds de garantie”) “improvement” means, in relation to a unit, (a) any part of a unit, where the part does not constitute a standard unit or part of a standard unit, or (b) any repair or modification to a standard unit that is done using materials that are higher in quality, as determined in accordance with current construction standards; (“amélioration”) “leasehold condominium corporation” means a corporation in which all the units and their appurtenant common interests are subject to leasehold interests held by the owners; (“association condominiale de propriété à bail”) “lessor”, in relation to a leasehold condominium corporation, means the person who owns the freehold estate in the land described in the description; (“bailleur”) “Minister”, in relation to a particular provision of this Act, means the Minister responsible for administration of the provision; (“ministre”) “mortgage” includes a charge under the Land Titles Act, in which case “mortgagor” and “mortgagee” mean the chargor and the chargee under the charge; (“hypothèque”, “débiteur hypothécaire”, “créancier hypothécaire”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following definition: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (11)) “non-leased voting unit” means, (a) except in subsection 46 (2), a unit of an owner who is entitled to vote in respect of the unit at a meeting to elect or to remove a director, where the unit is used for residential purposes and the unit is not subject to a lease, as determined by the regulations, within the 60 day period before the time that the board gives a preliminary notice under subsection 45.1 (1) for the meeting, or (b) in subsection 46 (2), a unit of an owner who is entitled to vote in respect of the unit at a meeting to elect or to remove a director, where the unit is used for residential purposes and the unit is not subject to a lease, as determined by the regulations, within the 60 day period before the date that the board receives a requisition for a meeting under that subsection; (“partie privative non louée conférant le droit de vote”) “owner” means, (a) in relation to a corporation other than a leasehold condominium corporation or a common elements condominium corporation, a person who is shown as the owner of a freehold interest in a unit and its appurtenant common interest, according to the records of the land registry office in which the description of the corporation is registered, and includes a mortgagee in possession and a declarant with respect to any unit that the declarant has not transferred to another person, (b) in relation to a leasehold condominium corporation, a person who is shown as the owner of the entire leasehold interest in a unit and its appurtenant common interest, according to the records of the land registry office in which the description of the corporation is registered, and includes a mortgagee in possession and a declarant with respect to any unit in which the declarant has not transferred the leasehold interest to another person but does not include a tenant of the owner, or (c) in relation to a common elements condominium corporation, a person, including the declarant, who is shown as the owner of a common interest in the common elements and a freehold interest in the parcel of land to which the common interest is attached, as described in the declaration, according to the records of the land registry office in which the description of the corporation is registered; (“propriétaire”) “phased condominium corporation” means a phased condominium corporation to which Part XI applies; (“association condominiale constituée par étape”) “pre-existing elements” and “pre-existing elements fund study” have the same meaning as in subsection 17.1 (1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act; (“éléments préexistants”, “étude du fonds des éléments préexistants”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definitions of “pre-existing elements” and “pre-existing elements fund study” in subsection 1 (1) of the Act are repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (2)) “pre-existing elements” and “pre-existing elements fund study” have the meaning prescribed by the regulations made under the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017; (“éléments préexistants”, “étude du fonds des éléments préexistants”) “prescribed” means prescribed by the regulations; (“prescrit”) “property” means the land, including the buildings on it, and interests appurtenant to the land, as the land and interests are described in the description and includes all land and interests appurtenant to land that are added to the common elements; (“propriété”) “proposed property” means the property described in the declaration and description that are required to be registered to designate a proposed unit as a unit under this Act; (“propriété projetée”) “proposed unit” means land described in an agreement of purchase and sale that provides for delivery to the purchaser of a deed in registerable form after a declaration and description have been registered in respect of the land; (“partie privative projetée”) “purchaser of a unit”, in relation to a leasehold condominium corporation, means the purchaser of an owner’s interest in a unit and the appurtenant common interest; (“acquéreur d’une partie privative”) “registered” means registered under the Land Titles Act or the Registry Act and “register” and “registration” have corresponding meanings; (“enregistré”, “enregistrer”, “enregistrement”) “Registrar” means the Condominium Registrar appointed under subsection 9.1 (1); (“registrateur”) “regulations” means the regulations made under this Act; (“règlements”) “repair” means to repair or replace after normal wear and tear, damage or failure; (“réparer”) “reserve fund” means a reserve fund established under section 93; (“fonds de réserve”) “reserve fund study” means a reserve fund study described in section 94; (“étude du fonds de réserve”) “reserve fund study provider” means a person who meets all prescribed requirements for the purpose of conducting a reserve fund study; (“fournisseur d’étude de fonds de réserve”) “residential condominium conversion project” has the same meaning as in subsection 17.1 (1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act; (“projet de conversion en condominiums à usage d’habitation”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “residential condominium conversion project” in subsection 1 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (3)) “residential condominium conversion project” has the meaning prescribed by the regulations made under the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017; (“projet de conversion en condominiums à usage d’habitation”) “rule” means a rule of a corporation; (“règle”) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “rule” in subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “or a rule made under subsection 21.1 (4)” at the end. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (18)) “standard unit” means, subject to the regulations, for the class of unit in a corporation to which the unit belongs, (a) the standard unit described in a by-law made under clause 56 (1) (h), if the corporation has passed a by-law under that clause, or (b) the standard unit that is prescribed, if the corporation has not passed a by-law under clause 56 (1) (h); (“partie privative normale”) “status certificate” means a status certificate described in section 76; (“certificat d’information”) “unit” means a part of the property designated as a unit by the description and includes the space enclosed by its boundaries and all of the land, structures and fixtures within this space in accordance with the declaration and description; (“partie privative”) “vacant land condominium corporation” means a vacant land condominium corporation described in subsection 155 (2). (“association condominiale de terrain nu”) 1998, c. 19, s. 1 (1); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2004, c. 8, s. 46, 47 (3); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 15); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (13, 17); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (1). “warranty authority” has the same meaning as in subsection 2 (1) of the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017. (“organisme de garantie”) Ownership of land (2) For the purposes of this Act, the ownership of land or of a leasehold interest in land includes the ownership of space or of a leasehold interest in space respectively. 1998, c. 19, s. 1 (2). Proposed declarant (3) A reference to a declarant in this Act shall be deemed to include, where applicable, a person who proposes or intends to register a declaration and description. 1998, c. 19, s. 1 (3). 2004, c. 8, s. 46, 47 (3) - 01/11/2005 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, s. 1 (1) - not in force; 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, s. 1 (2) - no effect - see 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 158 - 03/12/2015 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15) - 01/09/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (2, 5, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (3) - 01/05/2018; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (7), (12) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 1 (13), (17) - 01/01/2018; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (1) - 01/11/2017 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (1-4) - not in force; 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 79 (1-4) - no effect 1.1 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, (a) designate a not-for-profit corporation without share capital incorporated under the laws of Ontario as the condominium authority for the purposes of this Act; and (b) subject to subsection (2), specify any provisions of this Act and the regulations, except for this Part and Parts I.2 and XIV, as the delegated provisions for the purposes of subsection (3). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) The specification of provisions as the delegated provisions that is made by a regulation made under clause (1) (b) may be restricted to specified aspects or purposes of the specified provisions. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Delegation of administration (3) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council designates a corporation as the condominium authority, the administration of the delegated provisions is delegated to the authority and the authority shall carry out the administration of the delegated provisions. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.2 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall not designate a corporation under clause 1.1 (1) (a) as the condominium authority until the Minister and the corporation have entered into an agreement to be known as the administrative agreement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) The administrative agreement shall include, at a minimum, terms related to the following matters with respect to the condominium authority: 1. The governance of the authority. 2. All matters that the Minister considers necessary for the authority to carry out the administration of the delegated provisions. 3. The maintenance by the authority of adequate insurance against liability arising out of the carrying out of its powers and duties under this Act or the regulations. 4. Any other matter that the Minister considers necessary and that is related to the authority’s powers and duties under this Act or the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Amendment by Minister (3) Subject to section 1.8, the Minister may unilaterally amend the administrative agreement, after giving the condominium authority the notice that the Minister considers reasonable in the circumstances. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.3 (1) Subject to section 1.8, the Minister may issue policy directions to the condominium authority related to its powers and duties under this Act or the regulations, after giving the authority the notice that the Minister considers reasonable in the circumstances. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Part of the administrative agreement (2) The policy directions are deemed to form part of the administrative agreement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (3) The condominium authority shall comply with the policy directions and shall implement measures to do so. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.4 In carrying out its powers and duties under this Act or the regulations, the condominium authority shall comply with the administrative agreement, this Act, the regulations and other applicable law. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.5 (1) The Minister may, (a) require that policy, legislative or regulatory reviews related to the powers and duties of the condominium authority under this Act, the regulations or the administrative agreement be carried out, (i) by or on behalf of the authority, or (ii) by a person or entity specified by the Minister; or (b) require that reviews of the condominium authority, of its operations, or of both, including, without limitation, performance, governance, accountability and financial reviews, be carried out, (ii) by a person or entity specified by the Minister. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) If a review is carried out by a person or entity specified by the Minister, the condominium authority shall give the person or entity specified by the Minister and the employees of the person or entity access to all records and other information required to conduct the review. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.6 In the event of conflict, this Part, Part I.2 and the regulations prevail over, (a) the administrative agreement; (b) the Corporations Act, the Corporations Information Act or a regulation made under either of those Acts; Note: On the day subsection 4 (1) of the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 comes into force, clause 1.6 (b) of the Act is amended by striking out “the Corporations Act” and substituting “the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 3; 2017, c. 20, Sched. 8, s. 147) (c) the condominium authority’s constating documents, by-laws and resolutions. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2 - 01/09/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 3 - see 2017, c. 20, Sched. 8, s. 147 - not in force 1.7 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, revoke the designation of the condominium authority if the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it advisable to do so in the public interest. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Revocation for non-compliance (2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, revoke the designation of the condominium authority if, (a) the authority has failed to comply with this Act, the regulations, other applicable law or the administrative agreement; (b) the Minister has allowed the authority the opportunity of remedying its default within a specified time period that the Minister considers reasonable in the circumstances; and (c) the authority has not remedied its default to the Minister’s satisfaction within the specified time period mentioned in clause (b) and the Minister has so advised the Lieutenant Governor in Council. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Same, no restriction on subs. (1) (3) Nothing in subsection (2) restricts the ability of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to act under subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Revocation on request (4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, revoke the designation of the condominium authority on the terms that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable in the public interest if the authority requests the revocation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (5) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council revokes the designation of the condominium authority under this section, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, provide for any transitional matter necessary for the effective implementation of the revocation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.8 The Minister may exercise a power under subsection 1.2 (3), 1.3 (1) or 1.24 (1) only if the Minister is of the opinion that it is advisable to exercise the power in the public interest because at least one of the following conditions is satisfied: 1. The exercise of the power is necessary to prevent serious harm to the interests of the public, corporations, owners or purchasers, mortgagees or occupiers of units. 2. An event of force majeure has occurred. 3. The condominium authority is insolvent. 4. The number of members of the board of directors of the condominium authority is insufficient for a quorum. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.9 (1) The Minister may, by order, (a) establish competency criteria for members of the board of directors of the condominium authority; and (b) make directives about the nomination of members, the appointment or election process, the length of their terms and whether they may be reappointed or re-elected. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Competency criteria (2) A person is qualified to be appointed or elected to the board of directors only if he or she meets any competency criteria established under clause (1) (a). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (3) In the event of conflict, an order made under subsection (1) prevails over a by-law or resolution of the condominium authority. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.10 (1) The Minister may appoint one or more members to the board of directors of the condominium authority for a term specified in the appointment. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) The number of members appointed by the Minister shall not form a majority of the board of directors. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (3) The members appointed by the Minister may include, (a) representatives of the public, consumer groups, government organizations, corporations, owners or those owners or occupiers who occupy units for residential purposes; and (b) representatives of other interests as the Minister determines. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.11 The Minister may, by order, increase or decrease the number of members of the board of directors of the condominium authority. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.12 The Minister may appoint a chair from among the members of the board of directors of the condominium authority. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.13 (1) The condominium authority shall make its corporate by-laws available for public inspection, (a) within the time and manner specified in the administrative agreement; or (b) within 10 days after the by-laws are made by the board of directors, if no time is specified in the administrative agreement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Access to compensation information (2) The condominium authority shall make available to the public the prescribed information relating to the compensation for members of its board of directors or officers or employees of the authority and relating to any other payments that it makes or is required to make to them, and shall do so in the prescribed manner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (3) The condominium authority shall follow the prescribed processes and procedures with respect to providing access to the public to records of the authority and with respect to managing personal information contained in those records. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.14 (1) Subject to the administrative agreement, the condominium authority may employ or retain the services of any qualified person to carry out any of its powers and duties under this Act or the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Not Crown employees (2) The following persons are not employees of the Crown and shall not hold themselves out as such: 1. Persons who are employed or whose services are retained under subsection (1). 2. Members, officers and agents of the condominium authority. 3. Members of the board of directors of the condominium authority, including those appointed by the Minister. 4. Members of the Condominium Authority Tribunal, if it has been established under Part I.2. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.15 (1) Despite the Crown Agency Act, the condominium authority is not an agent of the Crown for any purpose and shall not hold itself out as such. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) The following persons are not agents of the Crown and shall not hold themselves out as such: 1. Persons who are employed or whose services are retained by the condominium authority. 1.16 (1) No action or other proceeding shall be instituted against an employee of the Crown for an act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of a duty under this Act or the regulations or for an alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of the duty. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Tort by Crown employee (2) Despite subsections 5 (2) and (4) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, subsection (1) does not relieve the Crown of liability in respect of a tort committed by an employee of the Crown to which it would otherwise be subject. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.17 (1) No cause of action arises against the Crown as a direct or indirect result of any act or omission that a person who is not an employee or agent of the Crown takes or makes in the execution or intended execution of any of the person’s powers or duties under this Act or the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. No proceeding (2) No action or other proceeding for damages, including but not limited to a proceeding for a remedy in contract, restitution, tort or trust, shall be instituted against the Crown in connection with any cause of action described in subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.18 The condominium authority shall indemnify the Crown, in accordance with the administrative agreement, in respect of damages and costs incurred by the Crown for any act or omission of the authority or its members, officers, directors, employees or agents in the execution or intended execution of their powers and duties under this Act, the regulations or the administrative agreement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.19 (1) No action or other proceeding shall be instituted against a person mentioned in subsection (2), for an act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of any of the person’s powers or duties under this Act or the regulations or for an alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of that power or duty. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) Subsection (1) applies to, (a) members of the board of directors of the condominium authority; (b) persons who perform functions under this Act or the regulations as employees, agents or officers of the condominium authority or as persons whose services it retains; (c) members of committees of the condominium authority who perform functions under this Act or the regulations; (d) members of the Condominium Authority Tribunal, if it has been established under Part I.2; and (e) individuals who perform functions under the delegated provisions. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Liability of condominium authority (3) Subsection (1) does not relieve the condominium authority of liability to which it would otherwise be subject. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.20 (1) The money that the condominium authority collects in carrying out its powers and duties under this Act or the regulations is not public money within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) The condominium authority may use the money described in subsection (1) to carry out activities in accordance with its objects, subject to subsection 1.23 (2) and any restrictions in this Part. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.21 (1) The Auditor General appointed under the Auditor General Act may conduct an audit of the condominium authority, other than an audit required under the Corporations Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Note: On the later of the day subsection 4 (1) of the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 comes into force and the day section 2 of Schedule 1 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 comes into force, subsection 1.21 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “the Corporations Act” and substituting “the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 3; 2017, c. 20, Sched. 8, s. 147) Access to records and information (2) If the Auditor General conducts an audit under subsection (1), the condominium authority shall give the Auditor General and employees of the Auditor General access to all records and other information required to conduct the audit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2 - 01/09/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 3 - not in force 1.22 (1) The board of directors of the condominium authority shall report to the Minister on its activities and financial affairs as they relate to this Act and the administrative agreement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Form and contents (2) The report shall be in a form acceptable to the Minister and shall provide the information that the Minister requires. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Time for reports (3) The board of directors of the condominium authority shall prepare the report for each year and at the other times that the Minister specifies. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (4) The Minister shall submit each report prepared under this section to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall, (a) lay the report before the Assembly if it is in session; or (b) deposit the report with the Clerk of the Assembly if the Assembly is not in session. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Disclosure by board (5) The board of the condominium authority, (a) may give a copy of the report to other persons before the Minister complies with subsection (4); and (b) shall publish the report on its website when the Minister has complied with subsection (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.23 (1) The condominium authority may carry out other activities in accordance with its objects or purposes, subject to subsection (2). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) The condominium authority shall not engage in commercial activity through a person or entity that is related to the authority. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.24 (1) Subject to section 1.8, the Minister may require that the condominium authority make a specified change to its objects or purposes. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Minister’s approval required (2) The condominium authority shall not make any changes to its objects or purposes unless the Minister’s written approval is obtained in advance. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.25 (1) A person has the right to communicate in French with, and to receive available services in French from, the condominium authority. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. “service” means any service or procedure that is provided to the public by the condominium authority in carrying out its powers and duties under this Act or the regulations and includes, (a) responding to inquiries from members of the public, and (b) any other communications for the purpose of providing the service or procedure. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Board’s duty (3) The board of directors of the condominium authority shall take all reasonable measures and make all reasonable plans to ensure that persons may exercise the right to use French given by this section. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (4) The right to use French given by this section is subject to the limits that are reasonable in the circumstances. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.26 The Minister may require the condominium authority to, (a) establish one or more advisory councils; (b) include, as members of an advisory council, representatives of owners, representatives of occupiers of units, other representatives of the condominium sector and other persons as the Minister determines; or (c) undertake an advisory process in which it seeks advice from one or both of the public and persons with experience or knowledge relating to this Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.27 The condominium authority shall promptly inform and advise the Minister with respect to, (a) any material fact that could affect the authority’s ability to perform its duties under this Act or the regulations; or (b) any urgent or critical matter that is likely to require action by the Minister to ensure that the administration of the delegated provisions is carried out properly. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.28 (1) The condominium authority shall advise or report to the Minister on any matter that the Minister refers to it and that relates to this Part, Part I.2 or the administration of the delegated provisions. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. (2) The condominium authority may suggest to the Minister amendments to Ontario legislation that it considers would, (a) further the purpose of this Part or Part I.2 or the purpose of the delegated provisions; or (b) assist the authority in carrying out its powers and duties under this Act or the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.29 (1) The condominium authority may, (a) establish forms related to the administration of the delegated provisions; (b) in accordance with processes and criteria established by the condominium authority and approved by the Minister, set and collect, (i) fees, costs or other charges related to the administration of the delegated provisions, and (ii) the fees that a party to a proceeding that is the subject of an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal under Part I.2 is required to pay, if the Tribunal has been established under that Part; and (c) make directives governing the payment of the fees, costs and charges described in clause (b). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Setting fees (2) In setting the fees, costs and charges described in clause (1) (b), the condominium authority may specify their amounts or the method for determining the amounts. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. Publication of fee schedule (3) The condominium authority, (a) shall publish the fees, costs and charges, the processes and criteria and the directives on its website and in any other way described in the administrative agreement; and (b) may publish them in any other format that the condominium authority considers advisable. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 2. 1.30 (1) The condominium authority may assess corporations with respect to the expenses and expenditures that the authority has incurred and made related to executing its powers and duties under this Act or the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 4. Process for setting assessment (2) In setting an assessment under subsection (1), the condominium authority shall take into account the fees that the authority has received, including fees from its other operations, and shall comply with the processes and criteria that the authority has established and the Minister has approved. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 4. Same, discretion (3) Subject to subsection (2), in setting an assessment under subsection (1), the condominium authority may, (a) provide that the assessment does not apply to the classes of corporations that it specifies; (b) set different amounts for the assessment based on the different classes of corporations that are subject to the assessment or the type and number of units in each corporation that is subject to the assessment; (c) take into account any other consideration that the authority considers appropriate; or (d) set times for payment of the assessment which may coincide with the time that each of the corporations that is subject to the assessment is required to file a return under Part II.1. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 4. Publication of assessment schedule (a) shall publish the assessments, the processes and the criteria on its website and in any other way described in the administrative agreement; and Part of common expenses (5) If a corporation is subject to an assessment under subsection (1), the assessment shall form part of the common expenses of the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 4. (6) A corporation that is assessed under subsection (1) shall pay the assessment to the condominium authority in the manner and at the time that the authority specifies. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 4. 1.31 In this Part, “application” means an application made to the Tribunal under subsection 1.36 (1), (2) or (3); (“requête”) “Tribunal” means the Condominium Authority Tribunal established under subsection 1.32 (1). (“tribunal”) 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 5. 1.32 (1) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council has made a regulation to designate the condominium authority, the Condominium Authority Tribunal is established under that name in English and tribunal de l’autorité du secteur des condominiums in French. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 5. (2) The condominium authority may appoint members to the Tribunal as part-time or full-time members for terms of up to four years or such other period that is prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 5. Eligibility for appointment (3) A person is not eligible to be appointed to the Tribunal unless the person meets the prescribed requirements, but no person who is a member of the board of directors of the authority shall be appointed to the Tribunal. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 5. (4) A person appointed as a member of the Tribunal is eligible for reappointment if the person meets the eligibility requirements in subsection (3). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 5. 1.33 (1) The condominium authority shall appoint a chair and at least one vice-chair of the Tribunal from among the members of the Tribunal. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 5. (2) If the chair is absent or otherwise unable to act or if the office is vacant, a vice-chair has all the powers and shall perform the duties of the chair. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 5. 1.34 The condominium authority may terminate the appointment of the chair, a vice-chair or a member for cause. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 5. 1.35 Despite section 32 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, this Act and the regulations prevail over the provisions of that Act with which they conflict. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.36 (1) Subject to subsection (4), a corporation may apply to the Tribunal for the resolution of a prescribed dispute with one or more of its owners or one or more occupiers or mortgagees of a unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Same, by owner or mortgagee (2) Subject to subsection (4), an owner or a mortgagee of a unit may apply to the Tribunal for the resolution of a prescribed dispute with the corporation, another owner or an occupier or a mortgagee of a unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Same, by purchaser (3) If the regulations so provide, a purchaser may apply to the Tribunal for the resolution of a dispute with the corporation regarding compliance with subsection 55 (3), but not any other dispute. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. (4) An application may not be made to the Tribunal under this section with respect to, (a) a dispute with respect to Part III, section 20, 26, 82.1, 82.2, 85 or 86, subsection 117 (1) or Part VII or VIII; or (b) a dispute involving the determination of title to any real property. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Form of application (5) An application shall be in the form approved by the Tribunal. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Time for application (6) Subject to any other provision of this Act, an application must be made within two years after the dispute to which the application relates arose. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. (7) If a person does not make an application within the deadline mentioned in subsection (6), the Tribunal may extend the deadline for a time of no more than one additional year if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay in not applying was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.37 (1) Two or more persons who are each entitled to make an application may make the application jointly, subject to any provision in the rules of the Tribunal that authorizes the Tribunal to direct that one or more of the applications be considered in a separate proceeding. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Directed joinder (2) Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal may direct that two or more applications be joined or heard together if the Tribunal believes it would be fair to determine the issues raised by them together. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.38 (1) The parties to a proceeding that is the subject of an application are the parties described in subsection 1.36 (1), (2) or (3), as the case may be, and any other person added as a party under subsection (3). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Rights of corporation (2) If a person or body makes an application under section 1.36 with respect to a unit in a corporation and, under subsection (1), the corporation is not a party to the proceeding that is the subject of the application, the applicant shall serve a copy of the application on the corporation in accordance with the rules of the Tribunal and the corporation is entitled to intervene in the proceeding. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Addition or removal of parties (3) The Tribunal may add or remove a person as a party if the Tribunal considers it appropriate. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6 -01/11/2017 1.39 (1) Subject to section 1.41, the Tribunal shall adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding before it that affords to all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and to be heard on matters in the proceeding. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Method of proceeding (2) Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, any proceeding with respect to an application may be held orally or in writing, in person, by telephone, video conference or electronic mail, or through use of other electronic means in accordance with the rules of the Tribunal. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.40 (1) Despite section 4.8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal may direct the parties to a proceeding to participate in an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for the purposes of resolving the proceeding or an issue arising in the proceeding. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. “alternative dispute resolution mechanism” includes mediation, conciliation, negotiation or any other means of facilitating the resolution of issues in dispute. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.41 (1) The Tribunal may refuse to allow a person to make an application or may dismiss an application without holding a hearing if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the subject matter of the application is frivolous or vexatious or that the application has not been initiated in good faith or discloses no reasonable cause of action. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. (2) The Tribunal may dismiss an application without holding a hearing if the Tribunal finds that the applicant has filed documents with the Tribunal that the applicant knew or ought to have known to have contained false or misleading information. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.42 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred on it under this Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any proceeding before it. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. (2) The Tribunal shall not inquire into or make a decision concerning the constitutional validity of a provision of an Act or a regulation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.43 On the request of a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of property and documents that are the subject of the application in the proceeding or as to which a question may arise in the proceeding, and may order a party to provide security in that connection. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.44 (1) Subject to subsection (4), in a proceeding before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may make any of the following orders: 1. An order directing one or more parties to the proceeding to comply with anything for which a person may make an application to the Tribunal. 2. An order prohibiting a party to the proceeding from taking a particular action or requiring a party to the proceeding to take a particular action. 3. An order directing a party to the proceeding to pay compensation for damages incurred by another party to the proceeding as a result of an act of non-compliance up to the greater of $25,000 or the amount, if any, that is prescribed. 4. An order directing a party to the proceeding to pay the costs of another party to the proceeding. 5. An order directing a party to the proceeding to pay the costs of the Tribunal. 6. An order directing a corporation that is a party to a proceeding with respect to a dispute under subsection 55 (3) to pay a penalty that the Tribunal considers appropriate to the person entitled to examine or obtain copies under that subsection if the Tribunal considers that the corporation has without reasonable excuse refused to permit the person to examine or obtain copies under that subsection. 7. An order directing whatever other relief the Tribunal considers fair in the circumstances. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Orders for costs (2) Despite section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, an order for costs made under paragraph 4 or 5 of subsection (1) shall be determined in accordance with the rules of the Tribunal. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Order for penalty (3) An order for a penalty made under paragraph 6 of subsection (1) shall be in an amount of not more than the lesser of $5,000 and the prescribed amount, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. No order for permanent removal of person (4) The Tribunal shall not make an order requiring a person to vacate a property permanently. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.45 (1) The party against whom an order for compensation, costs or a penalty is made shall pay the amount of the order within 30 days, unless the order specifies another time limit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Adding to common expenses (2) If an order requires an owner to pay compensation or costs to a corporation, the corporation may add the amount of the order to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Set-off against common expenses (3) If an order requires a corporation to pay compensation, costs or a penalty to an owner and the corporation does not pay the amount of the order within the time limit mentioned in subsection (1), the owner may set off the amount against the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.46 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an order of the Tribunal in a proceeding is final and binding. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. (2) A party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may appeal the order to the Divisional Court on a question of law in accordance with the rules of court. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Powers of court (3) On the appeal, the Divisional Court may affirm, reverse or vary the order of the Tribunal. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.47 (1) If the parties to a proceeding that is the subject of an application agree to a settlement in writing and sign the settlement, the settlement is binding on the parties. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Consent order (2) The Tribunal may, on the joint motion of the parties to a settlement described in subsection (1), make an order requiring compliance with the settlement or any part of the settlement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. Application where contravention (3) A party to the settlement described in subsection (1) who believes that another party has contravened the settlement may make an application to the Tribunal for an order under subsection (6), (a) within six months after the contravention to which the application relates; or (b) after the expiry of the time limit described in clause (a) if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay in applying was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. (4) An application under subsection (3) shall be in the form that the Tribunal approves. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. (5) Subject to the rules of the Tribunal, the parties to the proceeding that is the subject of the application are the parties to the settlement and any other person that the Tribunal adds as a party. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. (6) If, on an application under subsection (3), the Tribunal determines that a party has contravened the settlement, the Tribunal may make an order that it considers appropriate to remedy the contravention. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 1.48 The Tribunal shall ensure that a copy of any order that it makes is made available to the public in the prescribed manner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 6. 2 (1) Subject to the regulations and subsections (2) and (2.1), a declaration and description may be registered by or on behalf of the person who owns the freehold or leasehold estate in the land described in the description. 1998, c. 19, s. 2 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 7 (1). (2) A declaration and description for a freehold condominium corporation shall not be registered by or on behalf of a person who does not own the freehold estate in the land described in the description. 1998, c. 19, s. 2 (2). Same, residential condominium conversion project (2.1) A declaration and description that would create a corporation for a residential condominium conversion project shall not be registered unless the declaration contains confirmation from the Registrar, as defined in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, that, (a) the project, the units or proposed units of it and the common elements of it have been enrolled in the Plan, as defined in that Act, in accordance with the regulations made under that Act; (b) the builder, as defined in clause (b) of the definition of that term in section 1 of that Act, is registered as a builder in respect of the project under that Act; and (c) the vendor, as defined in clause (b) of the definition of that term in section 1 of that Act, is registered as a vendor in respect of the project under that Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 7 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 2 (2.1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (5)) (2.1) A declaration and description that would create a corporation for a residential condominium conversion project shall not be registered unless the declaration contains confirmation from the registrar appointed under section 38 of the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 that, (a) the project, the units or proposed units of it, the common elements of it and the real property, if any, that is prescribed have been enrolled in the Plan, within the meaning of that Act, in accordance with the regulations made under that Act; (b) the builder, within the meaning of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, is licensed as a builder in respect of the project under that Act; (c) the vendor, within the meaning of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, is licensed as a vendor in respect of the project under that Act; and (d) all other conditions, if any, that are prescribed have been satisfied. 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (5). (3) Upon registration of a declaration and description, (a) this Act governs the land and the interests appurtenant to the land, as the land and the interests are described in the description; (b) the land described in the description is divided into units and common elements in accordance with the description; and (c) a condominium corporation is created. 1998, c. 19, s. 2 (3). 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (5) - not in force; 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 79 (5, 6) - no effect 3 (1) The declaration and description shall be registered in, (a) the land titles division of the land registry office within the boundaries of which division the land described in the description is situated, if the land registry office has a land titles division; or (b) the registry division of the land registry office within the boundaries of which division the land described in the description is situated, if the land registry office does not have a land titles division. 1998, c. 19, s. 3 (1). (2) A land registrar in whose office a declaration and description are registered shall keep an index of the corporations created by the registrations. 1998, c. 19, s. 3 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (2) is repealed and the following substituted: (2) An index of the corporations created by the registrations shall be kept. 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, s. 2 (1). (3) The index mentioned in subsection (2) shall be in the form approved by the Director of Titles appointed under section 9 of the Land Titles Act and shall be known in English as the Condominium Corporations Index and in French as Répertoire des associations condominiales. 1998, c. 19, s. 3 (3). (3) The index mentioned in subsection (2) shall be in the form approved by the Director of Titles and shall be known in English as the Condominium Corporations Index and in French as Répertoire des associations condominiales. 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, s. 2 (1). Condominium register (4) A land registrar in whose office a declaration and description are registered shall keep a register in the form approved by the Director of Titles to be known in English as the Condominium Register and in French as Registre des condominiums. 1998, c. 19, s. 3 (4). (4) A register in the form approved by the Director of Titles to be known in English as the Condominium Register and in French as Registre des condominiums shall be kept. 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, s. 2 (1). Contents of condominium register (5) Declarations, descriptions, by-laws, notices of termination and other instruments respecting land governed by this Act shall be registered and recorded in the Condominium Register in accordance with the regulations and the instructions of the Director of Titles. 1998, c. 19, s. 3 (5); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (5) is amended by striking out “and the instructions of the Director of Titles” and substituting “if any, or the instructions of the Director of Titles if there are no such regulations”. See: 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, ss. 2 (2), 6. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 4 (1) The Land Titles Act or the Registry Act, as the case may be, applies in respect of property governed by this Act but, if the provisions of either of those Acts conflict with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of this Act prevail. 1998, c. 19, s. 4 (1). Rights of tenants (2) The registration of a declaration and description shall not terminate or otherwise affect the rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 of a person who, at the time of the registration, is a tenant of the property or of a part of the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 4 (4); 2006, c. 17, s. 248 (1). (3) The registration of a declaration and description does not constitute grounds for a landlord to give notice of termination under Part V of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to a tenant described in subsection (2). 1998, c. 19, s. 4 (4); 2006, c. 17, s. 248 (2). (4) Spent: 1998, c. 19, s. 4 (4). 2006, c. 17, s. 248 - 31/01/2007 5 (1) A corporation created or continued under this Act is a corporation without share capital whose members are the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 5 (1). (2) The land registrar shall assign a name to each corporation in accordance with the regulations. 1998, c. 19, s. 5 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (2, 3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (2) is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, ss. 3, 6) (2) A name shall be assigned to each corporation in accordance with the regulations made under this Act, if any, or the instructions of the Director of Titles if there are no such regulations. 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, s. 3. Note: On the day section 3 of Schedule 9 to the Strong Action for Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2012 comes into force, subsection 5 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “the regulations made under this Act” and substituting “the regulations”. (See: 2017, c. 20, Sched. 9, s. 5) Other Act (3) The Corporations Act does not apply to the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 5 (3). Note: On the day subsection 4 (1) of the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 comes into force, subsection 5 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “The Corporations Act” at the beginning and substituting “The Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010”. (See: 2017, c. 20, Sched. 8, s. 75) (4) Subject to the regulations, the Corporations Information Act does not apply to the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 8. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 8 - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (2, 3, 5) - 01/09/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (5) - no effect - see 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (4) 2017, c. 20, Sched. 8, s. 75 - not in force; 2017, c. 20, Sched. 9, s. 5 - not in force 6 (1) Corporations under this Act consist of the following types: 1. Freehold condominium corporations. 2. Leasehold condominium corporations. 1998, c. 19, s. 6 (1). Types of freehold corporations (2) Freehold condominium corporations consist of the following types: 1. Common elements condominium corporations. 2. Phased condominium corporations. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 2 of subsection 6 (2) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 9 (1)) 3. Vacant land condominium corporations. 4. Standard condominium corporations that are not any of the corporations mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. 1998, c. 19, s. 6 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 4 of subsection 6 (2) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 9 (2)) 4. Standard condominium corporations that are not any of the corporations mentioned in paragraph 1 or 3. Restriction on registration (3) A declaration and description shall not be registered unless the registration would create a freehold condominium corporation or a leasehold condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 6 (3). Indication in declaration (4) The declaration shall state, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 6 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 9 (3)) (4) Subject to the regulations, the declaration shall state, (a) whether the corporation is a freehold condominium corporation or a leasehold condominium corporation; and (b) if the corporation is a freehold condominium corporation, the type of freehold condominium corporation that it is. 1998, c. 19, s. 6 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 6 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause (a), by adding “and” at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 9 (4)) (c) whether the corporation is a phased condominium corporation. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 6 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 9 (5)) (5) A phased condominium corporation is a freehold or a leasehold condominium corporation that is subject to Part XI. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 9 (5). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 9 - not in force 7 (1) A declaration shall not be registered unless the declarant has executed it in the manner prescribed by the Act under which it is to be registered. 1998, c. 19, s. 7 (1). (2) A declaration shall contain, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 7 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (1)) (2) Subject to the regulations, a declaration shall contain, (a) a statement that this Act governs the land and interests appurtenant to the land, as the land and the interests are described in the description; (b) the consent of every person having a registered mortgage against the land or interests appurtenant to the land, as the land and the interests are described in the description; (c) a statement of the proportions, expressed in percentages, of the common interests appurtenant to the units; (d) a statement of the proportions, expressed in percentages allocated to the units, in which the owners are to contribute to the common expenses; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 7 (2) of the Act is amended by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (2)) (d.1) a statement of how the proportions mentioned in clauses (c) and (d) are determined; (e) an address for service, a municipal address for the corporation, if available, and the mailing address of the corporation if it differs from its address for service or municipal address; (f) a specification of all parts of the common elements that are to be used by the owners of one or more designated units and not by all the owners; (g) a statement of all conditions that the approval authority, in approving or exempting the description under section 9, requires the declaration to mention; and (h) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 7 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (3), 146 (1). (3) A person shall not withhold the consent mentioned in clause (2) (b) by reason only of the failure of the declarant to enter into a specified number of agreements of purchase and sale for the sale of proposed units. 1998, c. 19, s. 7 (3). (4) In addition to the material mentioned in subsection (2) and in any other section in this Act, a declaration may contain, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 7 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “subject to the regulations” after “contain” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (4)) (a) a statement specifying the common expenses of the corporation; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 7 (4) (a) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (5)) (a) a statement specifying the common expenses of the corporation and the circumstances that may result in the addition of any amount to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit to indemnify or compensate the corporation for, (i) an actual loss, as is prescribed, that the corporation has incurred in the performance of the corporation’s objects and duties, or (ii) any other purpose, if any, that is prescribed; (b) conditions or restrictions with respect to the occupation and use of the units or common elements; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 7 (4) (b) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (6)) (b) conditions or restrictions with respect to the occupation or use of the units, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation; (c) conditions or restrictions with respect to gifts, leases and sales of the units and common interests; (d) a list of the responsibilities of the corporation consistent with its objects and duties; and (e) a description of the allocation of obligations to maintain the units and common elements and to repair them after damage, which allocation has been done in accordance with this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 7 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 7 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause (d) and by repealing clause (e) and substituting the following: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (7)) (e) a description of the allocation of obligations to maintain the units, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation and to repair them, which allocation has been done in accordance with this Act; and (f) all other material that the regulations permit. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 7 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (8)) Determination re common expenses (4.1) The common expenses and the addition mentioned in clause (4) (a) shall be determined in accordance with the prescribed restrictions or requirements, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (8). Inconsistent provisions (5) If any provision in a declaration is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of this Act prevail and the declaration shall be deemed to be amended accordingly. 1998, c. 19, s. 7 (5). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 7 (5) of the Act is amended by adding “A declaration need not be reasonable but” at the beginning. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (9)) 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (1, 2, 4-9) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 10 (3) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 8 (1) Subject to the regulations, a description shall contain, (a) a plan of survey showing the perimeter of the horizontal surface of the land and the perimeter of the buildings; (b) architectural plans of the buildings and, if there are any, structural plans of the buildings; (c) a specification of the boundaries of each unit by reference to the buildings or other monuments; (d) diagrams showing the shape and dimensions of each unit and the approximate location of each unit in relation to the other units and the buildings; (e) a certificate of an architect that all buildings have been constructed in accordance with the regulations and, if there are structural plans, a certificate of an engineer that all buildings have been constructed in accordance with the regulations; (f) a certificate signed by an Ontario land surveyor licensed under the Surveyors Act stating that the diagrams of the units are substantially accurate; (g) a description of all interests appurtenant to the land that are included in the property; and (h) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 8 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Preparation of documents (2) A survey, plan, specification, diagram, certificate or description mentioned in subsection (1) shall be prepared in accordance with the regulations. 1998, c. 19, s. 8 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Common elements, units in building (3) A description shall not be registered unless, (a) the property includes common elements; and (b) each unit for residential purposes includes one or more buildings or is included in a building. 1998, c. 19, s. 8 (3). Approval by examiner of surveys (4) The examiner of surveys appointed under the Land Titles Act may require a description or an amendment to a description to be submitted to the examiner of surveys for approval before it is registered. 1998, c. 19, s. 8 (4). (5) The examiner of surveys shall approve the description or the amendment to the description if satisfied that the document submitted meets the requirements of this section and, if applicable, subsection 11 (6). 1998, c. 19, s. 8 (5); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 11. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 11 - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 9 (1) Section 50 of the Planning Act does not apply in respect of, (a) dealings with whole units and common interests; or (b) easements transferred by or reserved to the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (1). Approvals of descriptions (2) Subject to this section, the provisions of sections 51, 51.1 and 51.2 of the Planning Act that apply to a plan of subdivision apply with necessary modifications to a description or an amendment to a description. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (2). (3) A description or an amendment to a description shall not be registered unless, (a) the approval authority has approved it; or (b) the approval authority has exempted it from those provisions of sections 51 and 51.1 of the Planning Act that would normally apply to it under subsection (2) and it is accompanied by a certificate of exemption issued by the approval authority. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (3). Conversion of rented residential premises (4) If an applicant makes an application for approval in respect of a property that includes a building or related group of buildings containing one or more premises that is used as a rented residential premises or that has been used as a rented residential premises and is vacant, the approval authority may, after consulting with the council of the local municipality in which the property is located if the approval authority is not that municipality, require the applicant to have a person who holds a certificate of authorization within the meaning of the Professional Engineers Act or a certificate of practice within the meaning of the Architects Act or another qualified person inspect the property and report to the approval authority all matters that the approval authority considers may be of concern. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (4). (5) In addition to the conditions that it may impose under subsection 51 (25) of the Planning Act, the approval authority that receives an application described in subsection (4) may impose the conditions that it considers are reasonable in light of the report mentioned in subsection (4). 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (5). Application for exemption (6) Before making an application under subsection 51 (16) of the Planning Act, the owner of a property or a person authorized in writing by the owner of the property may apply to the approval authority to have the description or any part of the description exempted from those provisions of sections 51 and 51.1 of the Planning Act that would normally apply to it under subsection (2). 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (6). Individual exemption (7) The approval authority may grant an exemption if it believes the exemption is appropriate in the circumstances. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (7). Exemption made by Minister (8) If the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the approval authority, that Minister may by regulation provide that the provisions of sections 51 and 51.1 of the Planning Act that apply to a plan of subdivision do not apply to a class of description or an amendment to a class of description specified in the regulation. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (8). Effect of regulation (9) The regulation may be restricted to specified geographic areas of Ontario. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (9). Exemption made by municipality (10) If the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not the approval authority, the approval authority may by by-law provide that the provisions of sections 51 and 51.1 of the Planning Act that apply to a plan of subdivision do not apply to a class of description or an amendment to a class of description specified in the by-law. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (10). Effect of by-law (11) The by-law may be restricted to specified geographic areas within the geographic area of the authority. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (11). s. 52 of Planning Act (12) Section 52 of the Planning Act applies in respect of a description of a vacant land condominium corporation but does not apply in respect of a description of any other corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 9 (12). 9.1 (1) The following person or body shall appoint a person to be known in English as the Condominium Registrar and in French as the registrateur du secteur des condominiums for the purposes of this Act and may appoint a maximum of two deputy Registrars: 1. The board of the condominium authority, if the authority is responsible for the administration of this Part. 2. The Minister, if there is no condominium authority that is responsible for the administration of this Part. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. Powers and duties of Registrar (2) The Registrar shall exercise the powers and perform the duties imposed on him or her under this Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. Same, deputy Registrar (3) A deputy Registrar shall perform the duties that the Registrar assigns and shall act as the Registrar in the Registrar’s absence. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. If more than one deputy Registrar (4) If more than one deputy Registrar is appointed, only one deputy Registrar may act as the Registrar under subsection (3) at any one time. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 9.2 (1) Every corporation shall file with the Registrar the following returns by delivering them to the Registrar in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time and by paying the applicable fee: 1. An initial return. 2. A turn-over return. 3. An annual return. 4. Other returns as prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. (2) Each return shall set out the prescribed information as of the prescribed date. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. (3) Each return shall be verified by the certificate of, (a) a director or officer of the corporation; (b) a condominium manager licensed under the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015 who provides condominium management services to the corporation under that Act; or (c) any other individual having knowledge of the affairs of the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (2). (4) Each return shall be in a form that the Registrar approves. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. Incomplete return (5) The Registrar may accept a return from a corporation for filing even if the return does not comply with the information requirements of subsection (2), but the corporation shall not be considered to have complied with this section until it has satisfied all of the requirements of this section. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12 - 01/01/2018; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (2) - 01/01/2018 9.3 (1) Unless otherwise prescribed, every corporation shall file with the Registrar, within the prescribed time, (a) a notice of change for every change in the directors elected or appointed to the board; and (b) a notice of all additional information, if any, that is prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. (2) It is not necessary to file a notice of change in respect of a director who is re-elected after an immediately preceding term of office. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. (3) A notice required under subsection (1) shall be verified by the certificate of, (4) A notice required under subsection (1) shall be in a form that the Registrar approves. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 9.4 No person shall make a statement in any return or notice that a corporation is required to file with the Registrar if, (a) the statement is false or misleading with respect to any material fact; or (b) the statement omits to state any material fact, the omission of which makes the statement false or misleading. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 9.5 The Registrar may accept the information contained in any return or notice filed under this Act without making any inquiry as to its completeness or accuracy. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 9.6 A corporation that files a return or notice under this Part after the time set out in the regulations shall pay the late filing fee set by the Minister or, if the condominium authority is responsible for the administration of this Part, the condominium authority. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 9.7 (1) The Registrar shall maintain, in accordance with the prescribed requirements, an electronic database of, (a) the information contained in every return and notice that the Registrar receives under this Part; and (b) any other information that relates to this Part and that is prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. (2) The Registrar shall make available to the public, by electronic or other means and in accordance with the regulations, the information that is contained in the electronic database and that is prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 9.8 A person who obtains information in the course of exercising a power or carrying out a duty related to the administration of this Part or the regulations relating to this Part shall preserve secrecy with respect to the information and shall not communicate the information to any person except, (a) as may be required in connection with a proceeding under this Act or in connection with the administration of this Act or the regulations; (b) as authorized under the Regulatory Modernization Act, 2007; (c) to a prescribed entity or organization, if the purpose of the communication is consumer protection; (d) to a law enforcement agency; (e) to the counsel of the person communicating the information; or (f) with the consent of the person to whom the information relates. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 9.9 (1) The Registrar may issue a certificate certifying that, (a) any return or notice required to be filed under this Part has been so filed or has not been so filed; (b) a person named in the certificate on the date or during the period specified in the certificate is shown on the records of the Registrar as a director, officer, manager or attorney for service of the corporation named in the certificate; or (c) information set out in the certificate has been filed under this Part and is contained in the records of the Registrar. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. Form of certificate (2) The certificate shall be issued under the seal of the Registrar and shall be signed by the Registrar. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. Certificates as evidence (3) A certificate purporting to be under the seal of the Registrar and signed by the Registrar, or any certified copy, shall be received in evidence in any prosecution or other proceeding as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified without personal appearance to prove the seal, the signature or the official position of the person appearing to have signed the certificate. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 12. 10 Units and common elements are real property for all purposes. 1998, c. 19, s. 10. 11 (1) Subject to this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules, each owner is entitled to exclusive ownership and use of the owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 11 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 13 (1). Same, common elements (2) The owners are tenants in common of the common elements and an undivided interest in the common elements is appurtenant to each owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 11 (2). (3) The proportions of the common interests are those expressed in the declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 11 (3). No separation (4) The ownership of a unit shall not be separated from the ownership of the common interest and an instrument that purports to separate the ownership of a unit from a common interest is void. 1998, c. 19, s. 11 (4). (5) Except as provided by this Act, the common elements shall not be partitioned or divided. 1998, c. 19, s. 11 (5). Distinction by regulations (6) Despite anything in the declaration, the description, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument, the regulations may specify, (a) what parts of a property or proposed property and what other real property or personal property in respect of a property, a proposed property or a corporation constitute a unit or an asset owned by a corporation or form part of the common elements; and (b) rules and procedures necessary to implement anything described in clause (a). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 13 (2). (7) A provision of a regulation mentioned in subsection (6) ceases to apply to a corporation if a board of the corporation described in subsection (8) so decides and if the corporation has met all other requirements of this Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 13 (2). Board affected (8) A board of the corporation mentioned in subsection (7) is a new board elected at a turn-over meeting held under section 43 or a subsequent board, but does not include, (a) a new board elected pursuant to subsection 152 (6); or (b) a board if a majority of the directors on it are those who were elected at any time when the declarant or a declarant affiliate, individually or jointly, owned a majority of the units in the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 13 (2). 12 (1) The following easements are appurtenant to each unit and shall be for the benefit of the owner of the unit and the corporation: 1. An easement for the provision of a service through the common elements or any other unit. 2. An easement for support by all buildings and structures necessary for providing support to the unit. 3. If a building or a part of a building moves after registration of the declaration and description or after having been damaged and repaired but has not been restored to the position occupied at the time of registration of the declaration and description, an easement for exclusive use and occupation over the space of the other units and common elements that would be space included in the unit if the boundaries of the unit were determined by the position of the buildings from time to time after registration of the description and not at the time of registration. 4. If a corporation is entitled to use a service or facility in common with another corporation, an easement for access to and for the installation and maintenance of the service or facility over the land of the other corporation, described in accordance with the regulations made under this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 12 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 4 of subsection 12 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 14) 4. An easement mentioned in subsection 21.1 (2) as determined in accordance with the regulations. (2) The following easements are appurtenant to the common elements: 1. An easement for the provision of a service through a unit or through a part of the common elements of which an owner has exclusive use. 2. An easement for support by all units necessary for providing support. 1998, c. 19, s. 12 (2). 13 Upon the registration of the declaration and description, an encumbrance against the common elements is no longer enforceable against the common elements but is enforceable against all the units and common interests. 1998, c. 19, s. 13. Note: On July 1, 2018, the day named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 13 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1)) 13 (1) Upon the registration of the declaration and description of a corporation that is not a common elements condominium corporation, an encumbrance against the common elements registered before the registration of the declaration and description is no longer enforceable against the common elements but is enforceable against all the units and common interests. 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1). Same, common elements condominium corporation (2) Upon the registration of the declaration and description of a common elements condominium corporation, an encumbrance against the common elements registered before the registration of the declaration and description is no longer enforceable against the common elements but is enforceable against all the parcels of land mentioned in subsection 139 (1) and common interests. 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1). Encumbrances on or after declaration (3) An encumbrance against the common elements on or after the registration of the declaration and description of a corporation is not enforceable against the common elements but is enforceable against all the units and common interests or, in the case of a common elements condominium corporation, against all of the parcels of land and common interests. 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1). 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1) - 01/07/2018 14 (1) If an encumbrance registered before the registration of the declaration and description is, by virtue of section 13, enforceable against all the units of a corporation and their common interests, an owner may discharge the portion of the encumbrance that is applicable to the owner’s unit and common interest by paying to the encumbrancer the portion of the amount owing on account of principal and interest under the encumbrance that is attributable to the owner’s common interest as specified in the declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 14 (1). (2) Upon payment of the portion of the encumbrance sufficient to discharge a unit and common interest, and upon demand, the encumbrancer shall give to the owner a discharge of that unit and common interest in accordance with the requirements of the regulations. 1998, c. 19, s. 14 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). 14 (1) If an encumbrance is, by virtue of subsection 13 (1) or (3), enforceable against all the units and common interests, an owner may discharge the portion of the encumbrance that is applicable to the owner’s unit and common interest by paying to the encumbrancer the portion of the amount owing on account of principal and interest under the encumbrance that is attributable to the owner’s common interest as specified in the declaration. 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1). (2) If an encumbrance is, by virtue of subsection 13 (2) or (3), enforceable against all the parcels of land mentioned in subsection 139 (1) and common interests, an owner may discharge the portion of the encumbrance that is applicable to the owner’s parcel of land and common interest by paying to the encumbrancer the portion of the amount owing on account of principal and interest under the encumbrance that is attributable to the owner’s common interest as specified in the declaration. 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1). (3) Upon payment of the portion of the encumbrance described in subsection (1) or (2), and upon demand, the encumbrancer shall give to the owner a discharge of the owner’s unit or parcel of land, as the case may be, and common interest, in accordance with the requirements of the regulations made under this Act. 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1). Note: On July 1, 2018, the day subsection 74 (1) of the Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 comes into force, subsection 14 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “the regulations made under this Act” at the end and substituting “the regulations”. (See: 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (2)) Exception, construction lien (4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply if the encumbrance is a lien under the Construction Act. 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1). 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (1) - 01/07/2018; 2017, c. 24, s. 74 (2) - not in force 15 (1) Each unit, together with its appurtenant common interest, constitutes a parcel for the purpose of municipal assessment and taxation. 1998, c. 19, s. 15 (1). (2) Subject to subsection (3), the common elements of a corporation that is not a common elements condominium corporation do not constitute a parcel for the purpose of municipal assessment and taxation. 1998, c. 19, s. 15 (2). (3) A part of the common elements of a corporation that is not a common elements condominium corporation constitutes a separate parcel for the purpose of municipal assessment and taxation if it is leased for business purposes under section 21, the lessee carries on an undertaking for gain on it and it is in the commercial property class prescribed under the Assessment Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 15 (3). Common elements condominium corporation (4) The common elements of a common elements condominium corporation constitute a parcel for the purpose of municipal assessment and taxation within each municipality in which the common elements or a part of them are located and the municipal taxes levied on the parcel or parcels shall form part of the common expenses of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 15 (4). 16 (1) The corporation shall have a seal that the board shall adopt and may change. 1998, c. 19, s. 16 (1). (2) The name of the corporation shall appear in legible characters on the seal. 1998, c. 19, s. 16 (2). 17 (1) The objects of the corporation are to manage the property and the assets, if any, of the corporation on behalf of the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 17 (1). (2) The corporation has a duty to control, manage and administer the common elements and the assets of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 17 (2). (3) The corporation has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the owners, the occupiers of units, the lessees of the common elements and the agents and employees of the corporation comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. 1998, c. 19, s. 17 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 17 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 15) Levies only for corporation’s loss (4) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the corporation shall not levy any penalty, fine or any other amount against an owner, an occupier of a unit in the corporation or any other prescribed person if it does not indemnify or compensate the corporation for an actual loss, as is prescribed, that the corporation has incurred in the performance of the corporation’s objects and duties. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 15. 17.0.1 A corporation shall not enter into an agreement with a condominium management provider or a condominium manager to receive condominium management services unless the provider or manager, as the case may be, is licensed under the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (4) - 01/02/2018 17.1 Nothing in this Act confers on the corporation the power to grant, transfer, lease, release, dispose of or otherwise deal with the title to any real property that the corporation does not own or any interest in real property where the corporation does not own the interest, unless this Act specifically confers the power on the corporation. 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (1). 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (1) - 5/05/2001 18 (1) The corporation may own, acquire, encumber and dispose of real and personal property only for purposes that are consistent with the objects and duties of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 18 (1). Interests in real property (1.1) The assets of the corporation do not include any real property that the corporation does not own or any interest in real property where the corporation does not own the interest. 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (2). Interest in assets (2) The owners share the assets of the corporation in the same proportions as the proportions of their common interests in accordance with this Act, the declaration and the by-laws. 1998, c. 19, s. 18 (2). Validity of easement (3) A grant or transfer of an easement to the corporation is valid even though the corporation does not own land capable of being benefited by the easement. 1998, c. 19, s. 18 (3). 19 On giving reasonable notice, the corporation or a person authorized by the corporation may enter a unit or a part of the common elements of which an owner has exclusive use at any reasonable time to perform the objects and duties of the corporation or to exercise the powers of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 19. 19 (1) Subject to subsection (2), on giving reasonable notice to an owner, the corporation or a person authorized by the corporation may, at any reasonable time, enter a unit of the owner in the corporation or a part of the common elements of which the owner has exclusive use to perform the objects and duties of the corporation or to exercise the powers of the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 16. Same, no notice (2) Subject to any conditions or restrictions in the regulations, the declaration or a by-law may permit the corporation or a person authorized by the corporation to enter the unit or part of the common elements of which the owner has exclusive use without prior notice to the owner in the event of an emergency or other event or circumstance as is prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 16. 20 (1) An easement described in subsection (2) is created, (a) upon the registration of a declaration and description that creates a corporation, if the easement is described in the declaration and description; or (b) upon the registration of an amendment to a declaration and description that creates a phase within the meaning of Part XI in a phased condominium corporation, if the easement is described in the amendment. 1998, c. 19, s. 20 (1). (2) Subsection (1) applies to an easement that, (a) imposes a benefit or a burden on land owned by the declarant other than the property; or (b) the approval authority requires as a condition of approving the declaration and description for the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 20 (2). (a) an easement that provides a benefit to or imposes a burden on land owned by the declarant other than the property; or (b) an easement that, (i) the approval authority requires as a condition of approving the declaration and description for the corporation, and (ii) complies with the prescribed requirements if it provides a benefit to or imposes a burden on land that is not the property or land owned by the declarant. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 17 (1). Creation of easement (3) No deed or other document is required to be registered or delivered to the owner of the land benefited by an easement that is created under subsection (1) in order for the easement to be made effective. 1998, c. 19, s. 20 (3). (3) No deed or other document is required to be registered or delivered in order for an easement that is created under subsection (1) to be effective. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 17 (1). (4) An easement that is created under subsection (1) is valid even though the declarant owns the land to be benefited or burdened by the easement in addition to owning the land relating to the easement that is described in the description. 1998, c. 19, s. 20 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 20 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “even though” and substituting “even if”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 17 (2)) 21 (1) The corporation may by by-law, (a) lease a part of the common elements, except a part that the declaration specifies is to be used only by the owners of one or more designated units and not by all the owners; (b) grant or transfer an easement or licence through the common elements; or (c) release an easement that is part of the common elements. 1998, c. 19, s. 21 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (3). Binding on all owners (2) A lease, grant, transfer or release mentioned in subsection (1), signed by the authorized officers of the corporation, affects the interest of every owner in the common elements as if the lease, grant, transfer or release had been executed by that owner. 1998, c. 19, s. 21 (2); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (4). 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (3, 4) - 05/05/2001 21.1 (1) Subject to the regulations, if any of the following persons or any combination of them share or are proposed to share in the provision, use, maintenance, repair, insurance, operation or administration of any land, any part of a property or proposed property, any assets of a corporation or any facilities or services, they shall enter into an agreement that meets the prescribed requirements and shall ensure that it is registered in accordance with the regulations: 1. Two or more corporations. 2. A corporation and any other person. 3. A corporation and one or more declarants. 4. A declarant and one or more corporations. 5. Two or more declarants. 6. A declarant and any other person. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 18. Covenants running with real property (2) Unless the regulations provide otherwise, any easement or covenant, whether positive or negative in nature, in an agreement mentioned in subsection (1) shall run with any real property that receives a benefit or is subject to a burden under the agreement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 18. (3) The following persons may enforce the easement or covenant against each other: 1. A party to the agreement. 2. The owner or any subsequent owner of the real property. 3. If the real property is property, to which the objects and duties of a corporation apply under section 17, then, subject to the regulations, the corporation and any of its successors and assigns. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 18. (4) The parties to an agreement mentioned in subsection (1) may, in accordance with the regulations, make, amend or repeal joint by-laws or rules governing the provision, use, maintenance, repair, insurance, operation or administration of any land, any part of a property or proposed property, any assets of a corporation or any facilities or services that are subject to the agreement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 18. Non-application (5) Sections 56 and 58 do not apply to any by-law or rule made under subsection (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 18. 22 (1) In this section, “telecommunications” means the emission, transmission or reception of any combination of signs, signals, writing, images, sound, data, alphanumeric characters or intelligence of any nature by wire, cable, radio or an optical, electromagnetic or any similar technical system; (“télécommunications”) “telecommunications agreement” means an agreement for the provision of services or facilities related to telecommunications to, from or within the property of a corporation and includes a grant or transfer of an easement, lease or licence through the property of a corporation for the purposes of telecommunications. (“convention concernant les télécommunications”) 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “telecommunications agreement” in subsection 22 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (1)) “telecommunications agreement” means an agreement for the provision of services or facilities related to telecommunications to, from or within a property and includes a grant or transfer of an easement, lease or licence through the property for the purposes of telecommunications. (“convention concernant les télécommunications”) By-law not required (2) Despite subsection 21 (1), a corporation may, by resolution of the board without a by-law, (a) make an agreement for a network upgrade to a telecommunications system that services the units of the corporation; (b) make an agreement for a telecommunications system that is not connected to a telecommunications system that services the units of the corporation; or (c) amend an agreement for a telecommunications system that services the units of the corporation to permit the other party to the agreement to supply and invoice part or all of the services directly to the unit owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clauses 22 (2) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act are amended by striking out “the units of the corporation” wherever that expression appears and substituting in each case “the units in the corporation”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (2)) Notice required (3) Subsections 97 (3), (4), (5) and (6) apply to an agreement described in subsection (2) as if it were a change in a service that a corporation provides to the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 22 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “97 (3), (4), (5) and (6)” and substituting “97 (6), (7), (8) and (9)”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (3)) Charge to unit owners (4) The cost of the services that are invoiced directly to the unit owners under clause (2) (c) shall not form part of the common expenses, despite anything in the declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (4). Telecommunications easement (5) A corporation and a party, if any, that has entered into a telecommunications agreement with the corporation shall have a non-exclusive easement over the part of the property described in clause (b) for the purpose of installing and using a telecommunications system if, (a) the corporation was created on or after the day this section comes into force and includes one or more units for residential purposes; (b) part of the property is designed to control, facilitate or provide telecommunications to, from or within the property; and (c) the corporation does not have an easement over the property described in the description or a right to use the property that is adequate for, (i) the telecommunications agreement that it has entered into with respect to the property, if it has entered into such an agreement, or (ii) the telecommunications system that the corporation intends to install and use on the property, if it has not entered into a telecommunications agreement with respect to the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (5). Duty to accommodate easement (6) If a telecommunications system installed on the part of the property described in clause (5) (b) interferes with a telecommunications system that the corporation intends to have installed and to use on the property described in the description, the owner of the part of the property shall, upon 30 days written notice by the owner of the easement described in subsection (5), take all necessary steps that are reasonable to accommodate the intended telecommunications system. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (6). (7) The easement is valid even though the corporation and the party, if any, that has entered into a telecommunications agreement with the corporation own no land to be benefited by the easement. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (7). Easements non-exclusive (8) If the property of a corporation that includes one or more units for residential purposes is subject to an easement for the purposes of telecommunications and at least 10 years have passed since the later of the execution of the grant of the easement and the registration of the declaration and description, then, despite anything in the grant, the easement shall be deemed to be non-exclusive. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (8). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 22 (8) of the Act is amended by striking out “If the property of a corporation that” at the beginning and substituting “If a property that”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (4)) (9) A corporation that includes one or more units for residential purposes may terminate a telecommunications agreement if, (a) at least 10 years have passed since the later of the execution of the agreement and the registration of the declaration and description; (b) the board has, by resolution, approved the termination of the agreement; (c) the owners of more than 50 per cent of the units at the time the board passes the resolution consent in writing to the termination of the agreement; and (d) the corporation has given the person 120 days written notice of the termination. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (9). Loss of owner’s right to consent (9.1) An owner is not entitled to consent under clause (9) (c) if any contributions to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit are in arrears for 30 days or more. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (5). Payment of arrears (9.2) An owner who, under subsection (9.1), is not entitled to consent may consent after the corporation receives payment of the arrears with respect to the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (5). (10) Subsection (9) does not apply to a telecommunications agreement if, (a) the corporation entered into the agreement after a new board is elected at a turn-over meeting held under section 43; (b) the agreement is non-exclusive; and (c) the agreement makes allowance for the installation of alternate telecommunications systems. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (10). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 22 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (6)) (10.1) If, under subsection (9), a corporation terminates an agreement, the corporation and its directors, officers and owners are not liable for, (a) any obligations in respect of the termination, including obligations purporting to be incurred as cancellation charges, administration charges, accelerated payments or any other charges, penalties or fees; (b) any monetary obligations under the agreement respecting any period after the termination takes effect, unless the regulations provide otherwise; or (c) any other prescribed consequences. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (6). (11) If, under subsection (9), a corporation terminates a telecommunications agreement, a party to the agreement may, on giving reasonable notice to the corporation, remove personal property that it owns and that is located on the property that was subject to the agreement within 30 days after the termination of the agreement. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (11). Duties on removal (12) A party removing personal property under subsection (11) shall, (a) carry out the removal in a manner that facilitates the installation of other similar personal property for the purposes of telecommunications; and (b) reimburse the corporation for the damage, if any, that the removal causes to the property of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (12). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 22 (12) (b) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (7)) (b) reimburse the corporation for the damage, if any, that the removal causes to the property that was subject to the agreement. (13) A party to a telecommunications agreement that has the right to remove its personal property under subsection (11) shall be deemed to have abandoned the property if it does not remove the property within the time specified in that subsection. 1998, c. 19, s. 22 (13). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (1-4, 6, 7) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 19 (5) - 01/11/2017 23 (1) Subject to subsection (2), in addition to any other remedies that a corporation may have, a corporation may, on its own behalf and on behalf of an owner, (a) commence, maintain or settle an action for damages and costs in respect of any damage to common elements, the assets of the corporation or individual units; and (b) commence, maintain or settle an action with respect to a contract involving the common elements or a unit, even though the corporation was not a party to the contract in respect of which the action is brought. 1998, c. 19, s. 23 (1). Notice to owners (2) Before commencing an action mentioned in subsection (1), the corporation shall give written notice of the general nature of the action to all persons whose names appear in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or are required by that section to appear in that record except if, (a) the action is to enforce a lien of the corporation under section 85 or to fulfil its duty under subsection 17 (3); or (b) the action is commenced in the Small Claims Court. 1998, c. 19, s. 23 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 20. (3) Unless the board determines otherwise, the legal and court costs in an action that the corporation commences or maintains in whole or in part on behalf of any owners in respect of their units shall be borne by those owners in the proportion in which their interests are affected. 1998, c. 19, s. 23 (3). Judgment as asset (4) A judgment for payment in favour of the corporation in an action that the corporation commences or maintains on its own behalf is an asset of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 23 (4). Corporation may be sued (5) The corporation may, as representative of the owners of the units, be sued in respect of any matter relating to the common elements or assets of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 23 (5). Judgment against corporation (6) A judgment for the payment of money against the corporation is also a judgment against each owner at the time of judgment for a portion of the judgment determined by the proportions specified in the declaration for sharing the common interests. 1998, c. 19, s. 23 (6). 23.1 (1) A corporation that has unpaid fees, costs, charges or assessments under Part I.1 or paragraph 5 of subsection 1.44 (1) is not capable of maintaining, (a) a proceeding before the Condominium Authority Tribunal if the condominium authority exists; or (b) a proceeding in a court in Ontario except with leave of the court. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 21. Leave of court (2) The court shall grant leave if the court is satisfied that, (a) the failure to pay the fees, costs, charges or assessments under Part I.1 or paragraph 5 of subsection 1.44 (1) was inadvertent; (b) there is no evidence that the public or the owners of the corporation have been deceived or misled; and (c) at the time of the application to the court, the corporation had no unpaid fees, costs, charges or assessments under Part I.1 or paragraph 5 of subsection 1.44 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 21. 23.2 No contract is void or voidable by reason only that it was entered into by a corporation that has unpaid fees, costs, charges or assessments under Part I.1 or paragraph 5 of subsection 1.44 (1) at the time the contract was made. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 21. 24 (1) For the purposes of the Expropriations Act, if the land to be expropriated is part of the common elements of a corporation and does not include any units, any document that an expropriating authority is required or entitled to serve on the owner of the land, including a notice, an appraisal report and an offer of compensation, is sufficiently served on the owners of the land if the expropriating authority serves the document, (a) on the corporation; and (b) if the land to be expropriated is part of the common elements that the declaration specifies are for the exclusive use of the owners of one or more of the units in the corporation, but not all the owners, on the owners of those units. 1998, c. 19, s. 24 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 22 (1). (2) Within 15 days of being served with a document under subsection (1), the corporation shall notify all persons whose names appear in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or are required by that section to appear in that record that it has been served with a document for the purposes of the Expropriations Act and shall make a copy of the document available for examination by them. 1998, c. 19, s. 24 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 22 (2). Corporation acting for owners (3) For the purposes of the Expropriations Act, all the rights under that Act of the owners of the land to be expropriated in respect of which a document has been served on the corporation under subsection (1) shall be transferred to and exercised by the corporation, subject to section 126. 1998, c. 19, s. 24 (3). 25 A corporation that is served with a notice under the Planning Act shall, within 15 days of being served, notify all persons whose names appear in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or are required by that section to appear in that record that it has been served with a notice under that Act and shall make a copy of the notice available for examination by them. 1998, c. 19, s. 25; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 22 (2). 26 For the purposes of determining liability resulting from breach of the duties of an occupier of land, the corporation shall be deemed to be the occupier of the common elements and the owners shall be deemed not to be occupiers of the common elements. 1998, c. 19, s. 26. 26.1 (1) Despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument, until a board of a corporation described in subsection (2) decides otherwise, the corporation shall not acquire an interest or a right in a unit, other real property or personal property except for no consideration, unless the regulations provide otherwise. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 23. (2) A board of a corporation mentioned in subsection (1) is a new board elected at a turn-over meeting held under section 43 or a subsequent board, but does not include, (b) a board if a majority of the directors on it are those who were elected at any time when the declarant or a declarant affiliate, individually or jointly, owned a majority of the units in the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 23. 26.2 (1) Unless the regulations provide otherwise, nothing in a declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument affects any remedy that the corporation may have at law against a declarant or a declarant affiliate until a board of the corporation described in subsection (2) decides otherwise. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 24. 26.3 A corporation shall send to the owners, (a) at least once every three months or at such other time periods as are prescribed, a certificate that is prepared in accordance with the regulations and that contains the statements described in clauses 76 (1) (d), (e) and (h), the certificate or memorandum described in clause 76 (1) (p) and all other information relating to the corporation as is prescribed; and (b) at the prescribed times, a certificate that is prepared in accordance with the regulations and that includes all other prescribed information relating to the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 25. 27 (1) A board of directors shall manage the affairs of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 27 (1). (2) Subject to subsection 42 (4), the board shall consist of at least three persons or such greater number as the by-laws may provide. 1998, c. 19, s. 27 (2). Change in number (3) The corporation may by by-law increase or, subject to subsection (2), decrease the number of directors as set out in its by-laws. 1998, c. 19, s. 27 (3). 28 (1) Subject to subsection 42 (1), the owners shall elect the board of directors in accordance with this Act and the by-laws. 1998, c. 19, s. 28 (1). Notice of candidates (2) The notice of a meeting to elect one or more directors shall include the name and address of each individual who, for the purpose of clause 45.1 (1) (a), has notified the board in writing and in accordance with the regulations, if any, of the intention to be a candidate in the election by the date specified in the preliminary notice that the board is required to send under subsection 45.1 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 26 (1). Notice of owner-occupant position (3) If, under subsection 51 (6), one position on the board is reserved for voting by owners of owner-occupied units, the notice of meeting shall include, (a) a statement that one position on the board is reserved for voting by owners of owner-occupied units; and (b) a statement indicating which persons have notified the board in writing as of the day before the notice is sent that they intend to be candidates for the position on the board reserved for voting by owners of owner-occupied units. 1998, c. 19, s. 28 (3). Notice of non-leased voting position (3) If, under subsection 51 (6), one position on the board is reserved for voting by owners of non-leased voting units, the notice of meeting shall include, (a) a statement that one position on the board is reserved for voting by owners of non-leased voting units; and (b) a statement indicating the name and address of each individual who, for the purpose of subclause 45.1 (1) (a.1) (iv), has notified the board in writing of an intention to be a candidate for the position on the board reserved for voting by owners of non-leased voting units. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 26 (2). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 26 (1) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 26 (2) - not in force 29 (1) No person shall be a director if, (a) the person is not an individual; (b) the person is under 18 years of age; (c) the person has the status of bankrupt; (d) the person has been found, under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 or the Mental Health Act, to be incapable of managing property; (e) subject to the regulations, the person has been found to be incapable by any court in Canada or elsewhere; or (f) the person has not complied with the prescribed disclosure obligations within the prescribed time. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 27. (2) A person immediately ceases to be a director if, (a) the person has the status of bankrupt; (b) the person has been found, under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 or the Mental Health Act, to be incapable of managing property; (c) subject to the regulations, the person has been found to be incapable by any court in Canada or elsewhere; (d) a certificate of lien has been registered under subsection 85 (2) against a unit owned by the person and the person does not obtain a discharge of the lien under subsection 85 (7) within 90 days of the registration of the certificate of lien; (e) the person has not completed the prescribed training within the prescribed time; or 30 (1) A person shall not be elected or appointed as a director unless the person consents. 1998, c. 19, s. 30 (1). Deemed consent (2) A person shall be deemed to consent if the person is present at the meeting when elected or appointed and does not refuse to act as a director. 1998, c. 19, s. 30 (2). Written consent (3) A person who is not present at the meeting may be elected or appointed if the person consents in writing to act as director before the meeting or within 10 days after the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 30 (3). (4) The election or appointment of a person as director contrary to this section is ineffective. 1998, c. 19, s. 30 (4). 31 (1) Except in the case of directors appointed to the first board of directors under subsection 42 (1), a director is elected for a term of three years or such lesser period as the by-laws may provide. 1998, c. 19, s. 31 (1). (2) Despite subsection (1), a director may continue to act until a successor is elected. 1998, c. 19, s. 31 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 31 (2) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 28) (2) Despite subsection (1), a director may continue to act until, (a) a successor is elected, if the director is not elected to a position described in subsection 51 (6); or (b) if the director is elected to a position described in subsection 51 (6), the earlier of, (i) the time at which a successor is elected, and (ii) the first annual general meeting following the expiration of the director’s term. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 28. 32 (1) Subject to subsection 42 (5), the board of a corporation shall not transact any business of the corporation except at a meeting of directors at which a quorum of the board is present. 1998, c. 19, s. 32 (1). (2) A quorum for the transaction of business is a majority of the number of persons of which the board consists in accordance with this Act, irrespective of any vacancy that arises in the board. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 29. 33 (1) Subject to subsection 51 (8), a director, other than a director on the first board, may be removed before the expiration of the director’s term of office by a vote of the owners at a meeting duly called for that purpose in accordance with section 46 where the owners of more than 50 per cent of all of the units in the corporation vote in favour of removal. 1998, c. 19, s. 33 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 30. (2) In accordance with the by-laws dealing with the election of directors, the owners may, at the meeting, elect any person qualified to be a member of the board for the remainder of the term of a director who has been removed. 1998, c. 19, s. 33 (2). 34 (1) If a vacancy arises in the board, the remaining directors may exercise all the powers of the board as long as a quorum of the board remains in office. 1998, c. 19, s. 34 (1). Replacement made by board (2) If a vacancy arises in the board, including in a position described in subsection 51 (6), and if a quorum of the board remains in office, the majority of the remaining members of the board may appoint any person qualified to be a member of the board to fill the vacancy until the next annual general meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 34 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 31 (1). Replacement made by owners (3) Subject to subsection 51 (6), at the annual general meeting mentioned in subsection (2) the owners shall elect a person to fill the vacancy that arose under that subsection who shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the director whose position became vacant. 1998, c. 19, s. 34 (3). Election when no quorum (4) If a vacancy arises in the board and there are not enough directors remaining in office to constitute a quorum, the remaining directors shall, within 30 days of losing the quorum, call and hold a meeting of owners to fill all vacancies in the board. 1998, c. 19, s. 34 (4). Owner may call meeting (5) If the directors do not call and hold the meeting or if there are no directors then in office, an owner may call the meeting in accordance with the regulations. 1998, c. 19, s. 34 (5); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 31 (2). Reimbursement of cost (6) Upon request, the corporation shall reimburse an owner who calls a meeting under subsection (5) for the reasonable costs incurred in calling the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 34 (6). (7) Despite subsection (2), a vacancy resulting from an increase in the number of directors shall be filled only by election at a meeting of owners duly called for that purpose and the directors so elected shall not act until the by-law increasing the number of directors is registered under subsection 56 (9). 1998, c. 19, s. 34 (7). 35 (1) In addition to meetings of the directors required by the by-laws of the corporation, a quorum of the directors may, at any time, call a meeting for the transaction of any business. 1998, c. 19, s. 35 (1). (2) The person calling a meeting of directors shall give a written notice of the meeting to every director of the corporation, (a) at least 10 days before the day of the meeting, unless the by-laws specify otherwise; and (b) by delivering it to the director personally or by sending it by prepaid mail, courier delivery or electronic communication addressed to the director at the latest address as shown on the records of the corporation, unless the by-laws specify otherwise. 1998, c. 19, s. 35 (2). Content of notice (3) The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting and the general nature of the business to be discussed at the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 35 (3). Waiver of notice (4) A director who attends a meeting shall be deemed to have waived the right to object to a failure to give the required notice unless the director expressly objects to the failure at the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 35 (4). (5) A meeting of the directors may be held, in accordance with the regulations, by teleconference or another form of communications system that is prescribed, if all directors of the corporation consent to the means used for holding the meeting. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 32. 36 (1) A corporation shall have a president and a secretary and all other officers that are provided for by by-law or by resolution of the directors. 1998, c. 19, s. 36 (1). Election and appointment (2) Subject to the by-laws, the directors, (a) shall elect the president from among themselves; (b) shall appoint or elect the secretary; and (c) may appoint or elect one or more vice-presidents or other officers. 1998, c. 19, s. 36 (2). Holding several offices (3) The same person may hold two or more offices of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 36 (3). 37 (1) Every director and every officer of a corporation in exercising the powers and discharging the duties of office shall, (a) act honestly and in good faith; and (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. 1998, c. 19, s. 37 (1). Validity of acts (2) The acts of a director or officer are valid despite any defect that may afterwards be discovered in the person’s election, appointment or qualifications. 1998, c. 19, s. 37 (2). Liability of directors (3) A director shall not be found liable for a breach of a duty mentioned in subsection (1) if the breach arises as a result of the director’s relying in good faith upon, (a) financial statements of the corporation that the auditor in a written report, an officer of the corporation or a condominium manager who provides condominium management services to the corporation under an agreement between the corporation and either the manager or a condominium management provider represents to the director as presenting fairly the financial position of the corporation in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; or Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 37 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of clause (a) and by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 33) (a.1) a report or opinion of a reserve fund study provider with respect to a reserve fund or a reserve fund study, as determined by the regulations, if any; or (b) a report or opinion of a lawyer, public accountant, engineer, appraiser or other person whose profession lends credibility to the report or opinion. 1998, c. 19, s. 37 (3); 2004, c. 8, s. 47 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (5). 2004, c. 8, s. 47 (1) - 01/11/2005 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 33 - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (5) - 01/11/2017 38 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the by-laws of a corporation may provide that every director and every officer of the corporation and the person’s heirs, executors, administrators, estate trustees and other legal personal representatives may from time to time be indemnified and saved harmless by the corporation from and against, (a) any liability and all costs, charges and expenses that the director or officer sustains or incurs in respect of any action, suit or proceeding that is proposed or commenced against the person for or in respect of anything that the person has done, omitted to do or permitted in respect of the execution of the duties of office; and (b) all other costs, charges and expenses that the person sustains or incurs in respect of the affairs of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 38 (1). Not for breach of duty (2) No director or officer of a corporation shall be indemnified by the corporation in respect of any liability, costs, charges or expenses that the person sustains or incurs in or about an action, suit or other proceeding as a result of which the person is adjudged to be in breach of the duty to act honestly and in good faith. 1998, c. 19, s. 38 (2). 39 If the insurance is reasonably available, a corporation shall purchase and maintain insurance for the benefit of a director or officer against the matters described in clauses 38 (1) (a) and (b) except insurance against a liability, cost, charge or expense of the director or officer incurred as a result of a breach of the duty to act honestly and in good faith. 1998, c. 19, s. 39. 39.1 A corporation shall not enter into a prescribed contract or transaction unless the procurement process and other contracts or arrangements that the corporation entered into in relation to the contract or transaction meet the prescribed requirements. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 34. 40 (1) A director of a corporation who has, directly or indirectly, an interest in a contract or transaction to which the corporation is a party or a proposed contract or transaction to which the corporation will be a party, shall disclose in writing to the corporation the nature and extent of the interest. 1998, c. 19, s. 40 (1). Interest to be material (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a contract or transaction or a proposed contract or transaction unless both it and the director’s interest in it are material. 1998, c. 19, s. 40 (2). Purchase of property (3) If the contract or transaction or the proposed contract or transaction to which subsection (1) applies involves the purchase or sale of real or personal property by the corporation that the seller acquired within five years before the date of the contract or transaction or the proposed contract or transaction, the director shall disclose the cost of the property to the seller, to the extent to which that information is within the director’s knowledge or control. 1998, c. 19, s. 40 (3). Time of disclosure (4) The disclosure required by this section shall be made, (a) at the meeting of the board at which the contract or transaction or the proposed contract or transaction is first considered; (b) if the director is not as of the date of the meeting mentioned in clause (a) interested in the contract or transaction or the proposed contract or transaction, at the next meeting of the directors held after the director becomes so interested; (c) if the director becomes interested in the contract or transaction after it is entered into, at the first meeting of the directors held after the director becomes so interested; or (d) if the contract or transaction or the proposed contract or transaction is one that in the ordinary course of the corporation’s business would not require approval by the directors or owners, at the first meeting of the directors held after the director becomes aware of the contract or transaction or the proposed contract or transaction. 1998, c. 19, s. 40 (4). (5) The board shall enter the disclosure made by a director under this section in the minutes of the meeting of the board at which the disclosure was made. 1998, c. 19, s. 40 (5). (6) The director shall not be present during the discussion at a meeting, vote or be counted in the quorum on a vote with respect to a contract or transaction or a proposed contract or transaction to which subsection (1) applies unless the director’s interest in it, (a) is or would be limited solely to the insurance described in section 39 or remuneration as a director, officer or employee of the corporation; or (b) arises or would arise solely because the director is a director, officer or employee of the declarant, if the director has been appointed to the first board by the declarant under subsection 42 (1). 1998, c. 19, s. 40 (6). Effect of disclosure (7) A director who has complied with the requirements of this section and who was acting honestly and in good faith at the time the contract or transaction was entered into, is not, by reason only of holding the office of director, accountable to the corporation or to its owners for any profit or gain realized from the contract or transaction, and the contract or transaction is not voidable by reason only of the director’s interest in it. 1998, c. 19, s. 40 (7). Confirmation by owners (8) Despite anything in this section, a director who has acted honestly and in good faith is not accountable to the corporation or to the owners for any profit or gain realized from the contract or transaction by reason only of holding the office of director, and the contract or transaction is not voidable by reason only of the director’s interest in it if, (a) the contract or transaction is confirmed or approved by at least two-thirds of the votes cast at a meeting of owners duly called for that purpose; and (b) the nature and extent of the director’s interest in the contract or transaction are declared and disclosed in reasonable detail in the notice calling the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 40 (8). 41 (1) An officer of a corporation who is not a director and who has, directly or indirectly, an interest in a contract or transaction to which the corporation is a party or a proposed contract or transaction to which the corporation will be a party, shall disclose in writing to the corporation the nature and extent of the interest. 1998, c. 19, s. 41 (1). (2) An officer who is required to make a disclosure under subsection (1) shall make the disclosure at the first meeting of the board held after the officer becomes aware of the contract or transaction or the proposed contract or transaction. 1998, c. 19, s. 41 (2). Application of s. 40 (3) Subsections 40 (2), (3), (5), (7) and (8) apply to an officer of a corporation who is not a director as if all references to a director in those subsections were references to an officer. 1998, c. 19, s. 41 (3). 42 (1) Within 10 days after the registration of the declaration and description, the declarant shall appoint the first board of a corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (1). (2) The declarant may revoke the appointment of a director to the first board and appoint another director to the first board who shall hold office until a new board is elected at a turn-over meeting held under section 43. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (2). (3) The first board shall hold office until a new board is elected at a turn-over meeting held under section 43. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (3). (4) The first board shall consist of three persons or such greater number as the declaration provides. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (4). (5) A written resolution that is adopted by the first board before the owners elect a director to the first board under subsection (8) and that is signed by all the directors entitled to vote on the resolution at a meeting of the first board, is valid even though no meeting is held to vote on the resolution. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (5). Owners’ meeting (6) Subject to subsection (7), the first board shall call and hold a meeting of owners by the later of, (a) the 30th day after the day by which the declarant has transferred 20 per cent of the units in the corporation; and (b) the 90th day after the declarant transfers the first unit in the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (6). (7) The first board is not required to call or hold the meeting mentioned in subsection (6) if, by the day set for the meeting, the declarant no longer owns a majority of the units and advises the first board in writing of that fact. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (7). (8) At the meeting mentioned in subsection (6), the owners, other than the declarant, may elect two directors to the first board. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (8). (9) At the meeting mentioned in subsection (6), the quorum for the election of directors under subsection (8) is those owners who own 25 per cent of the units in the corporation not owned by the declarant. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (9); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 35. (10) To count towards the quorum, an owner must have been entitled to receive notice of the meeting, must be entitled to vote at a meeting and shall be present at the meeting or represented by proxy. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (10). Increased number (11) A director elected to the first board under subsection (8) shall hold office in addition to the directors appointed to the first board even if the addition of an elected director results in more directors on the board than the declaration allows. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (11). (12) The owners other than the declarant shall not be entitled to elect a director under subsection (8) if the corporation’s first board was appointed or elected on or before the day this section comes into force. 1998, c. 19, s. 42 (12). 43 (1) The board elected or appointed at a time when the declarant owns a majority of the units shall, not more than 21 days after the declarant ceases to be the owner of the majority of the units, call a meeting of owners to elect a new board. 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 36 (1). Who may call meeting (2) If the board does not call the meeting within the required time, an owner or a mortgagee having the right to vote under section 48 may call the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (2). Time of meeting (3) The board shall hold the meeting within 21 days after it is called. 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (3). Things to turn over (4) At the meeting, the declarant shall deliver to the board elected at the meeting, (4) At the meeting, the declarant shall, in accordance with the regulations, if any, deliver to the board elected at the meeting, (a) the seal of the corporation; (b) the minute book for the corporation including a copy of the registered declaration, registered by-laws, current rules and minutes of owners’ meetings and board meetings; (c) copies of all agreements entered into by the corporation or the declarant or the declarant’s representatives on behalf of the corporation, including management contracts, deeds, leases, licences and easements; (d) copies of all policies of insurance and the related certificates or memoranda of insurance and all insurance trust agreements; (e) bills of sale or transfers for all items that are assets of the corporation but not part of the property; (f) the records maintained under subsection 46.1 (3) and subsection 83 (3); and (g) all records that it has related to the units or to employees of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (4); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 36 (3). Same, after meeting (5) The declarant shall deliver to the board within 30 days after the meeting, (5) The declarant shall, in accordance with the regulations, if any, deliver to the board within 30 days after the meeting, (a) the existing warranties and guarantees for all the equipment, fixtures and chattels included in the sale of either the units or common elements that are not protected by warranties and guarantees given directly to a unit purchaser; (b) the as-built architectural, structural, engineering, mechanical, electrical and plumbing plans; (c) the as-built specifications, indicating all substantive changes, if any, from the original specifications; (d) all existing plans for underground site services, site grading, drainage and landscaping, and television, radio or other communications services; (e) all other existing plans and information not mentioned in clause (b), (c) or (d) that are relevant to the repair or maintenance of the property; (f) if the property is subject to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 43 (5) (f) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before subclause (i) and substituting the following: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (6)) (f) if the property is subject to the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017, (i) proof, in the form, if any, prescribed by the Minister, that the units and common elements have been enrolled in the Plan within the meaning of that Act in accordance with the regulations made under that Act, and Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the French version of subclause 43 (5) (f) (i) of the Act is amended. (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (7)) (ii) a copy of all final reports on inspections that the Corporation within the meaning of that Act requires be carried out on the common elements; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 43 (5) (f) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of subclause (i) and by striking out subclause (ii) and substituting the following: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (8)) (ii) a copy of all final reports on inspections that the warranty authority requires be carried out on the common elements, and (iii) all other material, if any, in respect of the property that is prescribed. (g) a table setting out the responsibilities for repair after damage and maintenance and indicating whether the corporation or the owners are responsible; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 43 (5) (g) of the Act is amended by striking out “after damage”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 36 (6)) (h) a schedule setting out what constitutes a standard unit for each class of unit that the declarant specifies for the purpose of determining the responsibility for repairing improvements after damage and insuring them; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 43 (5) (h) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 36 (7)) (i) all financial records of the corporation and of the declarant relating to the operation of the corporation from the date of registration of the declaration and the description; (j) if the meeting is held after nine months following the registration of the declaration and description, the reserve fund study that is required within the year following the registration of the declaration and description; (k) all reserve fund studies that have been completed or are required to have been completed at the time the meeting is held, other than the reserve fund study that is required within the year following the registration of the declaration and description; (l) a copy of the most current disclosure statement delivered to a purchaser of a unit in the corporation under section 72 before the meeting; and (m) all other material that the regulations require to be given to the board. 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (5); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 36 (5), 146 (1). (6) The items mentioned in subsections (4) and (5) shall be prepared at the declarant’s expense, except for the items mentioned in clauses (5) (j) and (k) which shall be prepared at the expense of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (6). (7) The declarant shall deliver to the board within 60 days after the meeting audited financial statements of the corporation prepared by the auditor, on behalf of the owners and at the expense of the corporation, as of the last day of the month in which the meeting is held. 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (7). (8) The corporation may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (9). 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (8); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (5). (9) The court, if satisfied that the declarant has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with subsection (4), (5) or (7), (a) shall order that the declarant pay damages to the corporation for the loss it incurred as a result of the declarant’s acts of non-compliance with subsection (4), (5) or (7), as the case may be; (b) shall order that the declarant pay the corporation’s costs of the application; (c) may order the declarant to pay to the corporation an additional amount not to exceed $10,000; and (d) may order the declarant to comply with subsection (4), (5) or (7), as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 43 (9). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 36 (1, 3, 5) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 36 (2, 4, 6, 7) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (6-8) - not in force; 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 79 (7, 8) - no effect 44 (1) If the property of the corporation includes one or more units for residential purposes or if the corporation is a common elements condominium corporation, the board shall retain a person who holds a certificate of authorization within the meaning of the Professional Engineers Act or a certificate of practice within the meaning of the Architects Act to conduct a performance audit of the common elements described in the description on behalf of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (1). (1) If a property includes one or more units for residential purposes or if the corporation is a common elements condominium corporation, the board shall retain a person who holds a certificate of authorization within the meaning of the Professional Engineers Act or a certificate of practice within the meaning of the Architects Act to conduct a performance audit, on behalf of the corporation, of the common elements described in the description and, unless the regulations provide otherwise, any real property owned by the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 37 (1). Time for audit (2) A performance audit shall be conducted no earlier than six months, and no later than 10 months, following the registration of the declaration and description. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (2). (2) A performance audit shall be conducted before the first anniversary of the date of registration of the declaration and description for the corporation or such other time periods following the registration of the declaration and description that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 37 (1). (3) The corporation shall pay the cost of the performance audit and it shall form part of the corporation’s budget for the year following the registration of the declaration and description. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (3). (4) The person who conducts the performance audit shall determine whether there are any deficiencies in the performance of the common elements described in the description after construction has been completed on them that, (4) The person who conducts the performance audit shall assess, in the person’s professional opinion, whether there are any deficiencies in the performance of the common elements described in the description and the real property that is the subject of the audit, after construction has been completed on them, that, (a) may give rise to a claim for payment out of the guarantee fund under section 14 of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to the corporation; or Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 44 (4) (a) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (9)) (a) may give rise to a claim for payment to the corporation out of the guarantee fund under the prescribed provisions of the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 or the regulations made under that Act; or (b) subject to the regulations made under this Act, would give rise to a claim described in clause (a) if the property of the corporation were subject to that Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 44 (4) (b) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 37 (3)) (b) subject to the regulations, would give rise to a claim described in clause (a) if the property were subject to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 37 (3) of Schedule 1 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 is repealed. This amendment applies only if subsection 37 (3) of Schedule 1 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 does not come into force before the day subsection 75 (10) of Schedule 2 to the Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2017 comes into force. (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 79 (9, 10)) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 44 (4) (b) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (10)) (b) subject to the regulations, would give rise to a claim described in clause (a) if the property were subject to the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017. (5) In making the determination, the person who conducts the performance audit shall, (5) In making the assessment, the person who conducts the performance audit shall, (a) inspect the major components of the buildings on the property which, subject to the regulations, include the foundation, parking garage, wall construction, air and vapour barriers, windows, doors, elevators, roofing, mechanical system, electrical system, fire protection system and all other components that are prescribed; (b) subject to the regulations, inspect the landscaped areas of the property; (c) review all final reports on inspections that the Corporation within the meaning of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act requires be carried out on the common elements; and Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 44 (5) (c) of the Act is amended by adding “and the real property that is the subject of the audit” after “common elements”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 37 (5)) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 37 (5) of Schedule 1 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 is repealed. This amendment applies only if subsection 37 (5) of Schedule 1 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 does not come into force before the day subsection 75 (11) of Schedule 2 to the Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2017 comes into force. (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 79 (11, 12)) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 44 (5) (c) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (11)) (c) review all final reports on inspections that the warranty authority requires be carried out on the common elements and the real property that is the subject of the audit; and (d) conduct a survey of the owners of the corporation as to what evidence, if any, they have seen of, (i) damage to the units that may have been caused by defects in the common elements, and Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subclause 44 (5) (d) (i) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 37 (6)) (i) damage to the units that may have been caused by defects in the common elements and the real property that is the subject of the audit, (ii) defects in the common elements that may cause damage to the units. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (5); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subclause 44 (5) (d) (ii) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 37 (6)) (ii) defects in the common elements and the real property that is the subject of the audit, which defects may cause damage to the units, and (iii) defects in the common elements and the real property that is the subject of the audit, where those common elements and that real property are adjacent to the units, as determined by the regulations, if any. Powers for audit (6) The person who conducts a performance audit may, for the purpose of the audit, (a) enter onto the property at any reasonable time either alone or accompanied with any expert that the person considers necessary for the audit; (b) require any person to produce any drawings, specifications or information that may on reasonable grounds be relevant to the audit; (c) make all examinations, tests or inquiries that may on reasonable grounds be relevant to the audit; and (d) call upon any expert for the assistance that the person considers necessary in conducting the audit. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (6). No obstruction (7) No person shall obstruct a person who is exercising powers under this section or provide false information or refuse to provide information to the person. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (7). (8) The person who conducts a performance audit shall prepare a written report that includes, (a) a copy of the person’s certificate of authorization within the meaning of the Professional Engineers Act or certificate of practice within the meaning of the Architects Act, as the case may be; (b) details of the inspection and findings made by the person in the course of conducting the audit; (c) a statement that the person has reviewed all final reports described in clause (5) (c); (d) a copy of the survey described in clause (5) (d) and a summary of the results of it; (e) the determination that subsection (4) requires the person to make; and (f) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (8); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Submission of report (9) Before the end of the 11th month following the registration of the declaration and description, the person who conducts a performance audit shall, (9) Before the first anniversary of the date of registration of the declaration and description, or such other time periods following the registration of the declaration and description that are prescribed, the person who conducts a performance audit shall, (a) submit the report to the board; and (b) file the report with the Corporation within the meaning of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act if the property is subject to that Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (9). (b) file the report with the warranty authority if the property is subject to the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017. Claim under other Act (10) The filing of the report with the Corporation within the meaning of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act shall be deemed to constitute a notice of claim that the corporation gives to the Corporation within the meaning of that Act under the regulations made under that Act for the deficiencies disclosed in the report. 1998, c. 19, s. 44 (10). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 44 (10) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (13)) (10) The filing of the report with the warranty authority shall be deemed to constitute a notice of claim that the corporation gives to the warranty authority under the regulations made under the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 for the deficiencies disclosed in the report. 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (13). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 37 (1-7) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (9-13) - not in force; 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 79 (9-12) - not in force 45 (1) Subject to the other requirements of this Act, anything that this Act requires to be approved by a vote of any of the owners shall be approved only at a meeting of owners duly called for that purpose. 1998, c. 19, s. 45 (1). (2) The board shall hold a general meeting of owners not more than three months after the registration of the declaration and description and subsequently within six months of the end of each fiscal year of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 45 (2). Matters for annual general meeting (3) At an annual general meeting, an owner may raise for discussion any matter relevant to the affairs and business of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 45 (3). (4) The board may at any time call a meeting of owners for the transaction of any business, and the notice of the meeting shall specify the nature of the business. 1998, c. 19, s. 45 (4). Material for meeting (5) In addition to any matters and material that this Act requires be placed before a meeting of owners, the board shall place before such a meeting, in the prescribed manner, all other material, if any, that is prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 38. 45.1 (1) Before the board sends out a notice to call a meeting of owners, it shall send a preliminary notice to the owners that is prepared in accordance with the regulations and that contains, (a) if the meeting is to elect one or more directors, a request that each individual who intends to be a candidate for election to the board notify the board in writing, by a date that is specified in the notice and that is determined in accordance with the regulations, of the individual’s intention, name and address; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 45.1 (1) (a) of the Act is amended by adding “subject to clause (a.1)” at the beginning. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 39 (2)) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 45.1 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 39 (3)) (a.1) if there is a vacancy in a position on the board described in subsection 51 (6) or if such a vacancy will arise by the time of the meeting under clause 31 (2) (b) or in the circumstances specified in the regulations, if any, (i) a copy of the text of the definition of “non-leased voting unit” in subsection 1 (1) and the text of subsections 51 (5) and (6), (ii) a statement of the date of the last day of the 15-day period mentioned in subsection 51 (5), (iii) a request for a statement, that complies with the regulations, if any, from each owner of a non-leased voting unit stating that the owner is the owner of a non-leased voting unit, and (iv) a request that each individual who intends to be a candidate, for the position on the board reserved for voting by owners of non-leased voting units, notify the board in writing, by a date that is specified in the notice and that is determined in accordance with the regulations, of the individual’s intention, name and address; (b) a request that any owner who wishes that the board include any material in the notice calling the meeting provide the material to the board by a date that is specified in the notice and that is determined in accordance with the regulations; and (c) all other materials, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 39 (1). Material to include in notice of meeting (2) The board is not required to include in the notice calling a meeting of owners any material mentioned in clause (1) (b) or (c) unless the regulations provide otherwise. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 39 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 39 (1) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 39 (2, 3) - not in force 46 (1) A requisition for a meeting of owners may be made by those owners who at the time the board receives the requisition, own at least 15 per cent of the units, are listed in the record maintained by the corporation under subsection 47 (2) and are entitled to vote. 1998, c. 19, s. 46 (1). Form of requisition (2) The requisition shall, (a) be in writing and be signed by the requisitionists; (b) state the nature of the business to be presented at the meeting; and (c) be delivered personally or by registered mail to the president or secretary of the board or deposited at the address for service of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 46 (2). Same, removal of directors (3) If the nature of the business to be presented at the meeting includes the removal of one or more of the directors, the requisition shall state, for each director who is proposed to be removed, the name of the director, the reasons for the removal and whether the director occupies a position on the board that under subsection 51 (6) is reserved for voting by owners of owner-occupied units. 1998, c. 19, s. 46 (3). Duty of board (4) Upon receiving a requisition mentioned in subsection (1), the board shall, (a) if the requisitionists so request in the requisition or consent in writing, add the business to be presented at the meeting to the agenda of items for the next annual general meeting; or (b) otherwise call and hold a meeting of owners within 35 days. 1998, c. 19, s. 46 (4). (5) If the board does not comply with subsection (4), a requisitionist may call a meeting of owners which shall be held within 45 days of the day on which the meeting is called. 1998, c. 19, s. 46 (5). (6) Upon request, the corporation shall reimburse a requisitionist who calls a meeting under subsection (5) for the reasonable costs incurred in calling the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 46 (6). 46 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a requisition for a meeting of owners can only be made by those owners who, at the time the board receives the requisition, (a) own at least 15 per cent of the units; (b) appear in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or are required by that section to appear in that record; and (c) have no contributions to the common expenses payable for their units that have been in arrears for 30 days or more. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Meeting re director in reserved position (2) If the nature of the business to be presented at a meeting of owners includes the removal or the election of a director who occupies a position on the board described in subsection 51 (6), a requisition made by owners for the meeting can only be made by those owners who, at the time the board receives the requisition, (a) own at least 15 per cent of the non-leased voting units in the corporation; (3) If a requisition made under subsection (2) does not meet the requirements of that subsection but does meet the requirements of subsection (1), the meeting may proceed for the transaction of any business pursuant to subsection (1) but not for the removal or the election of a director as described in subsection (2). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Purpose of meeting (4) A requisition for a meeting of owners may be called for any of the following purposes: 1. An information meeting of owners being a meeting at which no vote shall be taken on any matter other than routine procedure. 2. The removal or the election of one or more of the directors. 3. Any other purpose for which this Act or the regulations permit the owners to requisition a meeting of owners. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. (5) The requisition shall contain the prescribed information and shall be in the prescribed form. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Delivery of requisition (6) The requisition shall be delivered personally or by registered mail to the president or secretary of the board or deposited at the address for service of the corporation or as is otherwise prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Response of board (7) Subject to subsection (8), upon receiving a requisition, the board shall, within 10 days or such other time period, if any, that is prescribed, respond to the requisitionists in writing, in accordance with subsection (9), stating that, (a) the board will call and hold a meeting of owners for the transaction of business in the requisition; or (b) the board will not call and hold a meeting of owners for the transaction of business in the requisition and state why, according to the board, the requisition does not comply with any or all of subsections (1) to (6). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Withdrawal of requisition (8) The board is not required to respond to a requisition under subsection (7) if the requisitionists have withdrawn it in accordance with the regulations, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Delivery of response (9) In responding under subsection (7), the board shall deliver its response to the requisitionists at their address for service given in the requisition or as is otherwise prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Default response (10) If the board does not respond to the requisitionists as required by subsection (7), the board shall be deemed to have responded to the requisitionists as described in clause (7) (a). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Calling meeting (11) Subject to subsection (12), if the board responds or is deemed to have responded as described in clause (7) (a), the board shall, (a) if the requisitionists so request in the requisition or consent in writing, add the business to be presented at the meeting to the agenda of items for the next annual general meeting that, in accordance with this Act, is scheduled to be held, as determined by the board or as determined in the prescribed manner, (i) at least 40 days after the end of the time period that the board has to respond to the requisitionists under subsection (7), in the case of a request, (ii) at least 40 days after the consent is given, in the case of a consent; or (b) otherwise call and hold a meeting of owners within 40 days after the end of the time period that the board has to respond to the requisitionists under subsection (7). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. (12) The board shall not do anything required by clause (11) (a) or (b) if the requisitionists withdraw the requisition in accordance with the regulations, if any, before the next annual general meeting described in that clause (a) or the meeting described in that clause (b), as the case may be, is held. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. Revised requisition (13) If the board responds as described in clause (7) (b), the requisitionists may, within 10 days or such other time period, if any, that is prescribed, revise the requisition in accordance with the regulations and deliver or deposit it in accordance with subsection (6). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. (14) Subsections (6) to (12) apply to a revised requisition as if it were a requisition mentioned in those subsections. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. (15) If the board responds to an original requisition or a revised requisition as described in clause (7) (b), the requisitionists shall be deemed to have abandoned the original requisition or the revised requisition, which shall then have no force and effect, unless, (a) they deliver or deposit a revised requisition in accordance with subsections (13) and (14); or (b) within 20 days or such other time period, if any, that is prescribed, they, (i) apply, in accordance with Part I.2, to the Condominium Authority Tribunal established under that Part for resolution of the original requisition or the revised requisition as a matter in dispute, if the Tribunal has been established under that Part and the application may be made under that Part, or (ii) apply to the Superior Court of Justice for resolution of the original requisition or the revised requisition, if the Condominium Authority Tribunal has not been established under Part I.2 or the application described in subclause (i) may not be made under that Part. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 40. 46.1 (1) A corporation shall maintain the record required by subsection (3). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 41. Notice of owner’s name and unit (2) As soon as reasonably possible upon becoming an owner in a corporation and, in any event, no later than 30 days after becoming an owner in a corporation, the owner shall give notice to the corporation in writing, setting out the owner’s name and, in accordance with the regulations, identifying the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 41. (3) A corporation shall maintain a record of, (a) the owner’s name and the identification of the unit, if an owner, at any time, gives notice to the corporation in writing, setting out the owner’s name and, in accordance with the regulations, identifying the owner’s unit; (b) the owner’s address for service if, (i) an owner who has given the notice described in clause (a), notifies the corporation in writing, at any time, of the owner’s name and address for service, including any change in the address for service, and (ii) the owner’s address for service is in Ontario; (c) the mortgagee’s name, the identification of the unit and the mortgagee’s address for service, if, (i) a mortgagee, at any time, gives notice to the corporation in writing, setting out the mortgagee’s name and, in accordance with the regulations, identifying the unit that is the subject of the mortgage, (ii) under the terms of the mortgage, the mortgagee has the right to vote at a meeting of owners in the place of the unit owner or to consent in writing in the place of the unit owner, (iii) the mortgagee notifies the corporation in writing of the right described in subclause (ii) and the mortgagee’s address for service, including any change in the address for service, and (iv) the mortgagee’s address for service is in Ontario; (d) if an owner described in clause (a) agrees to a method of electronic communication under clause 47 (4) (c) and communicates that agreement to the corporation in writing, the name of the owner and a statement of that method; and (e) if a mortgagee described in clause (c) agrees to a method of electronic communication under clause 47 (5) (c) and communicates that agreement to the corporation in writing, the name of the mortgagee and a statement of that method. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 41. Duty to update record (4) A corporation that receives a notification or communication described in subsection (2) or (3) shall update its record to reflect the notification or communication as soon as reasonably possible after receipt or within such other period of time that the by-laws of the corporation provide. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 41. Use of record (5) A corporation shall use the record for the purposes of this Act, and no other purpose. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 41. 47 (1) Any notice that is required under this Act to be given to owners shall, (a) be in writing; (b) be given at least 15 days before the day of the meeting, if the notice is a notice of meeting of owners; (c) if the notice is a preliminary notice described in subsection 45.1 (1), be given at least 20 days before the subsequent notice of meeting of owners described in that subsection; (d) be given to the owners in accordance with subsection (4); and (e) if the notice is a notice of meeting of owners or a preliminary notice described in subsection 45.1 (1), be given to the mortgagees described in subsections (2) and (3) in accordance with subsection (5). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. (2) In the case of a notice of meeting of owners, the owners and mortgagees whose names, 20 days before the day of the meeting, appeared in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or were required by that section to appear in that record shall be deemed to be the owners and mortgagees to whom the notice is required to be given under subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. Same, other notice (3) In the case of a preliminary notice described in subsection 45.1 (1) or any other notice to owners that is not a notice of meeting of owners, the owners or mortgagees whose names, five days before the day the notice is given, appeared in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or were required by that section to appear in that record shall be deemed to be the owners and mortgagees to whom the notice is required to be given under subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. Service on owner (4) A notice that is required to be given to an owner shall be, (a) delivered to the owner personally; (b) sent by prepaid mail addressed to the owner at the address for service that appears in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or that is required by that section to appear in that record; (c) sent by facsimile transmission, electronic mail or any other method of electronic communication if, (i) the owner agrees, in accordance with subsection (6), that the party giving the notice may give the notice by that method, and (ii) a statement of that method of giving notice appears in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or that is required by that section to appear in that record; or (d) delivered at the owner’s unit or at the mail box for the unit unless, (i) the party giving the notice has, by the following time, received a written request from the owner that the notice not be given in this manner, (A) in the case of a notice of meeting of owners, at least 20 days before the day of the meeting, or (B) in the case of a preliminary notice described in subsection 45.1 (1) or any other notice to owners that is not a notice of meeting of owners, at least five days before the day the notice is given, and (ii) the owner has given an address for service described in clause (b) that is not the address of the unit of the owner or the address for the mail box for the unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. Service on mortgagee (5) A notice that clause (1) (e) requires be given to a mortgagee shall be, (a) delivered to the mortgagee personally; (b) sent by prepaid mail addressed to the mortgagee at the address for service that appears in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or that is required by that section to appear in that record; or (i) the mortgagee agrees, in accordance with subsection (6), that the party giving the notice may give the notice by that method, and (ii) a statement of that method of giving notice appears in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or that is required by that section to appear in that record. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. Agreement to electronic delivery (6) The agreement mentioned in clause (4) (c) or (5) (c) shall be, (a) in writing and in the prescribed manner; or (b) in a form, other than writing, if it is in accordance with the regulations, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. Content of notice of meeting (7) A notice of meeting of owners shall, (a) specify the place, the date and the hour of the meeting, as well as the nature of the business to be presented at the meeting; and (b) be accompanied by, (i) a copy of all proposed changes to the declaration, by-laws, rules or agreements that are to be discussed at the meeting, (ii) a copy of the requisition, if an owner has made a requisition under section 46, and (iii) all other material, if any, that is prescribed and that is presented in the prescribed manner, in addition to any material that this Act requires. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. Matters at meeting (8) No vote shall be taken at a meeting of owners on any matter other than routine procedure unless that matter was clearly disclosed in the notice of the meeting. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. (9) An owner or mortgagee who attends a meeting or who is represented by proxy at a meeting shall be deemed to have waived the right to object to a failure to give the required notice, unless the person expressly objects to the failure at the meeting. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 42. 48 (1) A mortgagee of a unit who is described in clause 46.1 (3) (c) has the right to vote at a meeting of owners in the place of the unit owner or to exercise the right, if any, of the unit owner to consent in writing if, at least four days before the date of the meeting, (a) the mortgagee’s name appears in the record required by section 46.1 or is required by that section to appear in that record; and (b) the mortgagee gives notice to the corporation and to the owner of the mortgagee’s intention to exercise the right. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 43 (1). More than one mortgagee (2) If a unit is subject to more than one mortgage for which the mortgagee has the right to vote at a meeting of owners in the place of the owner or to consent in writing in the place of the owner, the mortgagee who has priority may exercise the right and in that case no other mortgagee may exercise the right. 1998, c. 19, s. 48 (2). (3) If a mortgagee who has priority fails to exercise the right, the mortgagee who is next in priority may exercise the right and in that case no other mortgagee may exercise the right. 1998, c. 19, s. 48 (3). Voting or consent by owner (4) If none of the mortgagees who have the right exercises the right, the owner has the right to, (a) vote at a meeting of owners subject to subsection 51 (1); or (b) consent in writing if the owner is otherwise entitled to consent under this Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 43 (2). 49 (1) An owner is not entitled to vote at a meeting if any contributions payable in respect of the owner’s unit have been in arrears for 30 days or more at the time of the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 49 (1). (1) An owner is not entitled to vote at a meeting if any contributions to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit have been in arrears for 30 days or more at the time of the meeting. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 44 (1). (2) An owner who is not entitled to vote under subsection (1) may vote if the corporation receives payment of the arrears with respect to the owner’s unit before the meeting is held. 1998, c. 19, s. 49 (2). (2) An owner who, under subsection (1), is not entitled to vote may vote if the corporation receives payment of the arrears with respect to the owner’s unit before the meeting is held. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 44 (1). Parking or storage unit (3) No owner shall vote in respect of a unit that is intended for parking or storage purposes or for the purpose of providing space for services or facilities or mechanical installations unless all the units in the corporation are used for one or more of those purposes. 1998, c. 19, s. 49 (3); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 44 (2). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 44 (1) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 44 (2) - 01/11/2017 50 (1) A quorum for the transaction of business at a meeting of owners, other than a meeting of owners mentioned in subsection 42 (6), section 43 or subsection 45 (2) or such other meetings that are prescribed, is those owners who own 25 per cent of the units in the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 45 (1). Same, annual general meeting, etc. (1.1) A quorum for the transaction of business at a meeting of owners mentioned in section 43 or subsection 45 (2) or such other meetings that are prescribed is, (a) those owners who own 25 per cent of the units in the corporation, if it is the first attempt to hold the meeting; (b) those owners who own 25 per cent of the units in the corporation, if a quorum is not present at the first attempt to hold the meeting and it is the second attempt to hold the meeting; or (c) subject to subsection (1.2), those owners who own 15 per cent of the units in the corporation, if a quorum is not present at the second attempt to hold the meeting and it is the third or subsequent attempt to hold the meeting. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 45 (1). Higher quorum (1.2) A by-law registered in accordance with subsection 56 (9) after this subsection comes into force may provide that the quorum for the transaction of business at a meeting of owners, other than a meeting of owners that is mentioned in subsection 42 (6) or that is prescribed, is those owners who own 25 per cent of the units in the corporation, subject to subsection (2). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 45 (1). Restriction on voting (1.3) Despite subsection 47 (8), no vote shall be taken at a meeting of owners under clause (1.1) (b) or (c) on any matter other than routine procedure unless that matter was clearly disclosed in the notice of first attempt to hold the meeting under clause (1.1) (a). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 45 (1). (2) To count towards the quorum, an owner must be entitled to vote at a meeting and shall be present at the meeting or represented by proxy. 1998, c. 19, s. 50 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 45 (2). Where only one owner (3) If a corporation has only one owner, the owner present in person or by proxy constitutes a meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 50 (3). 51 (1) For an owner to vote at a meeting of owners, the owner’s name must appear in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or be required by that section to appear in that record and the owner must be entitled to vote at the meeting. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 46 (1). One vote per unit (2) All voting by owners shall be on the basis of one vote per unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 51 (2). Joint owners (3) The majority of the owners of a unit may exercise the right to vote in respect of the unit but the vote shall not be counted if there are two or more owners of the unit and they are evenly divided on how to exercise the vote. 1998, c. 19, s. 51 (3). (4) Subject to this section, on a vote to elect or to remove a member of the board all owners entitled to vote may vote for each member of the board. 1998, c. 19, s. 51 (4). (5) In subsections (6), (7) and (8), “owner-occupied unit” means a unit of an owner who is entitled to vote in respect of the unit at a meeting to elect or to remove a director where the unit is used for residential purposes and the owner has not leased the unit within the 60 days before notice is given for the meeting, as shown by the record that the corporation is required to maintain under subsection 83 (3). 1998, c. 19, s. 51 (5). Request for election to reserved position (5) Within 15 days after the board gives a preliminary notice to which clause 45.1 (1) (a.1) applies, an owner of a non-leased voting unit may deliver to the board, (a) the statement mentioned in subclause 45.1 (1) (a.1) (iii); and (b) a request that complies with the regulations, if any, and that a person be elected, at the meeting of owners to which clause 45.1 (1) (a.1) applies, to a position on the board reserved for voting by owners of non-leased voting units. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 46 (2). Reserved position (6) If at least 15 per cent of the units of the corporation are owner-occupied units on or after the time at which the board is required to call a turn-over meeting under section 43, no persons other than the owners of owner-occupied units may elect a person to or remove a person from one of the positions on the board. 1998, c. 19, s. 51 (6). (6) No persons other than the owners of non-leased voting units may elect a person to or remove a person from one of the positions on the board at a meeting of owners to which clause 45.1 (1) (a.1) applies if, (a) the board has received a request described in clause (5) (b) within the time period specified in subsection (5); and (b) on or after the time at which the board is required to call a turn-over meeting under section 43 and as at the last day of the 15-day period mentioned in subsection (5), (i) there is at least one non-leased voting unit in the corporation, and (ii) a minority of the units in the corporation are non-leased voting units. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 46 (2). (7) Nothing in subsection (6) affects the right of the owner of an owner-occupied unit to vote to elect or to remove any members of the board other than the member who occupies the position mentioned in that subsection. 1998, c. 19, s. 51 (7). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 51 (7) of the Act is amended by striking out “an owner-occupied unit” and substituting “a non-leased voting unit”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 46 (3)) (8) A director elected under subsection (6) may be removed before the expiration of the director’s term of office by a vote of the owners at a meeting duly called for the purpose where the owners of more than 50 per cent of all of the owner-occupied units in the corporation vote in favour of removal. 1998, c. 19, s. 51 (8). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 51 (8) of the Act is amended by striking out “the owner-occupied units” and substituting “the non-leased voting units”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 46 (4)) 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 46 (1) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 46 (2-4) - not in force 51.1 (1) All consents by owners shall be on the basis of one consent per unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 47. (2) The majority of the owners of a unit may exercise the right to consent in respect of the unit but the consent shall not be counted if there are two or more owners of the unit and they are evenly divided on the exercise of the right to consent. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 47. 52 (1) Votes may be cast by, (a) a show of hands, personally or by proxy; or (b) a recorded vote that is, (i) marked on a ballot cast personally or by a proxy, (ii) marked on an instrument appointing a proxy, or (iii) indicated by telephonic or electronic means, if the by-laws so permit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 48 (1). (1.1) In subsection (1), “telephonic or electronic means” means any means that uses the telephone or any other electronic or other technological means to transmit information or data, including telephone calls, fax, e-mail, automated touch-tone telephone system, computer or computer networks. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 48 (1). (1.2) A vote cast by proxy is subject to the instrument appointing the proxy. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 48 (1). Request for recorded vote (2) At a meeting of owners, a person entitled to vote at the meeting may request that a recorded vote be held on any item scheduled for a vote either before or promptly after the vote. 1998, c. 19, s. 52 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 48 (2). (3) A proxy need not be an owner. 1998, c. 19, s. 52 (3). Appointment of proxy (4) An instrument appointing a proxy shall be in writing under the hand of the appointer or the appointer’s attorney, shall be for one or more particular meetings of owners, shall comply with the regulations and shall be in the prescribed form. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 48 (3). (5)-(7) Repealed: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 48 (3). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 48 (1, 3) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 48 (2) - 3/12/2015 53 Unless otherwise provided in this Act, all questions proposed for the consideration of the owners at a meeting of owners shall be determined by a majority of the votes cast by owners at the meeting in accordance with subsection 52 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 49. 54 Unless this Act indicates otherwise, anything required to be given to an owner or a mortgagee under this Act is sufficiently served if it is given in accordance with subsection 47 (4) or (5), as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 54; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 50. 55 (1) The corporation shall keep adequate records, including the following records: 1. The financial records of the corporation. 2. A minute book containing the minutes of owners’ meetings and the minutes of board meetings. 3. A copy of the declaration, by-laws and rules. 3.1 The returns and notices that it has filed with the Registrar under Part II.1. 4. All lists, items, records and other documents mentioned in subsections 43 (4) and (5). 5. The report described in subsection 44 (8) that the corporation receives from the person who conducts a performance audit. 6. The records required under subsection 46.1 (3) and 83 (3). 7. A record of all reserve fund studies and all plans to increase the reserve fund under subsection 94 (8). 8. A copy of all agreements entered into by or on behalf of the corporation. 9. The report that the corporation receives from an inspector in accordance with subsection 130 (5). 10. All instruments appointing a proxy or ballots for a meeting of owners that are submitted at the meeting. 11. All other records, if any, that are prescribed. 12. Any additional records specified in the by-laws of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 55 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (1-3). Period of retention (2) In addition to satisfying the requirements of any taxing authority in Ontario, the government of Canada or any other jurisdiction to which the corporation is subject, the corporation shall retain the records mentioned in subsection (1) for the following periods of time: 1. For all financial records of the corporation described in paragraph 1 of subsection (1), at least six years from the end of the last fiscal period to which they relate or such longer period that is prescribed. 2. For those records described in paragraphs 2 to 11 of subsection (1), the period of time that is prescribed. 3. For those records described in paragraph 12 of subsection (1), the period of time specified in the by-law. 4. For all other records, the period of time that is prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (4). Method of retention (2.1) Records may be kept in electronic or paper form in accordance with the prescribed requirements, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (4). Providing records to provider or manager (2.2) If a corporation has entered into an agreement with a condominium management provider or a condominium manager to receive condominium management services, the corporation shall provide the provider or manager, as the case may be, with any of the corporation’s records that the provider or manager reasonably requires and shall do so at the time and in the manner that is prescribed and in accordance with the prescribed requirements. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (8). Examination of records (3) The corporation shall permit an owner, a purchaser or a mortgagee of a unit or an agent of one of them duly authorized in writing, to examine or obtain copies of the records of the corporation in accordance with the regulations, except those records described in subsection (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (4). Regulation power (3.1) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), a regulation described in that subsection may, (a) specify processes that a person entitled to examine or obtain copies of records under that subsection must follow to do so; (b) specify processes that the corporation must follow to respond to requests for records; (c) specify fees that a corporation may charge for payment by a person who makes a request to the corporation to examine or obtain copies of records under that subsection, where the fees are for costs relating to the examination or copying of the requested records; and (d) prescribe forms for requests for records or responses to those requests. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (4). (4) The right to examine or obtain copies of records under subsection (3) does not apply to, (a) records relating to employees of the corporation, except for contracts of employment between any of the employees and the corporation; (b) records relating to actual or contemplated litigation, as determined by the regulations, or insurance investigations involving the corporation; (c) subject to subsection (5), records relating to specific units or owners; or (d) any prescribed records. 1998, c. 19, s. 55 (4); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (5-7). (5) Clause (4) (c) does not prevent, (a) an owner, a purchaser or a mortgagee of a unit or an agent of one of them duly authorized in writing from examining or obtaining copies of records under subsection (3) if the records relate to the unit of the owner, the unit being purchased or the unit that is subject to the mortgage, as the case may be; (b) an owner of a unit or an agent of the owner duly authorized in writing from examining or obtaining copies of records under subsection (3) if the records relate to the owner; or (c) an owner, a purchaser or a mortgagee of a unit or an agent of one of them duly authorized in writing from examining or obtaining copies of the record that section 46.1 requires the corporation to maintain. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (8). (6) Despite subsections (3) and (4), a corporation may disclose a record described in clause (4) (b) but shall not disclose, (a) a record described in clause (4) (a); (b) subject to subsection (5), a record described in clause (4) (c); or (c) subject to the regulations, a record described in clause (4) (d). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (8). (7) A copy that a corporation has certified under its seal to be a true copy of a record is admissible in evidence and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts stated in it. 1998, c. 19, s. 55 (7). Penalty for non-compliance (8) A corporation that without reasonable excuse does not permit an owner, a purchaser or a mortgagee of a unit or an agent of one of them duly authorized in writing to examine or to obtain copies of records under this section shall pay a sum determined in accordance with the regulations to the owner, purchaser or mortgagee on receiving a written request for payment from that person. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (9). Recovery of sum (9) The owner, purchaser or mortgagee may recover the sum from the corporation by an action in the Small Claims Court. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (9). Order for production of records (10) If a corporation without reasonable excuse does not permit an owner, a purchaser or a mortgagee of a unit or an agent of one of them duly authorized in writing to examine or to obtain copies of records under this section, the Small Claims Court may order the corporation to produce the records for examination. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (9). (11) Subsections (8) to (10) do not apply to any matter in dispute for which a person may apply for resolution under section 1.36 to the Condominium Authority Tribunal established under Part I.2. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (9). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (1-9) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (6, 7) - no effect - see: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 51 (4) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (8, 9) - 01/11/2017 56 (1) The board may, by resolution, make, amend or repeal by-laws under this section, (a) to govern the number, qualification, disqualification, nomination, election, resignation, removal, term of office and remuneration of the directors, subject to subsection (2); (b) to regulate board meetings, the form of board meetings and the quorum and functions of the board; (b.1) to establish a period of time within which a corporation shall update its record for the purposes of subsection 46.1 (4); (c) to provide that the quorum for the transaction of business at a meeting of owners, other than a meeting of owners that is mentioned in subsection 42 (6) or that is prescribed, is those owners who own 25 per cent of the units in the corporation, subject to subsection 50 (2); (c.1) to govern the methods permitted for holding a vote by a show of hands or for holding a recorded vote under clause 52 (1) (b) and the procedure for holding the vote, including permitting a recorded vote described in subclause 52 (1) (b) (i) or (ii) to be submitted to the corporation by mail; (d) to govern the appointment, remuneration, functions, duties, resignation and removal of agents, officers and employees of the corporation and the security, if any, to be given by them to it; (e) subject to subsection (3), to authorize the borrowing of money to carry out the objects and duties of the corporation; (f) to authorize the corporation to object to assessments under the Assessment Act on behalf of owners if it gives notice of the objections to the owners, and to authorize the defraying of costs of objections out of the common expenses; (g) to govern the assessment and collection of contributions to the common expenses; (h) to establish what constitutes a standard unit for each class of unit specified in the by-law for the purpose of determining the responsibility for repairing improvements after damage and insuring them; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 56 (1) (h) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (5)) (h) to establish what constitutes a standard unit for each class of unit specified in the by-law for the purpose of determining the responsibility for repairing or maintaining improvements made to units or insuring the units; (i) to extend the circumstances described in subsection 105 (2) under which an amount shall be added to the common expenses payable for an owner’s unit for the purposes of subsection 105 (3); Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 56 (1) (i) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (6)) (j) to govern the maintenance of the units and common elements; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 56 (1) (j) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (7)) (j) to govern the maintenance or repair of the units, the common elements and the assets, if any, of the corporation; (k) to restrict the use and enjoyment that persons other than occupants of the units may make of the common elements and assets of the corporation, subject to any agreement made by the corporation with respect to the use and enjoyment of its common elements and assets that it shares with another person; (l) to govern the management of the property; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 56 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (8)) (l.1) to govern any matter mentioned in subsection 21.1 (1), if the by-law is made in accordance with the regulations; (m) to govern the use and management of the assets of the corporation; (n) to specify duties of the corporation in addition to the duties set out in this Act and the declaration; (o) to establish the procedure with respect to the mediation of disputes or disagreements between the corporation and the owners for the purpose of section 125 or 132; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 56 (1) (o) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (9)) (o) to modify the procedure set out in the regulations with respect to the mediation or arbitration of disputes or disagreements between, (i) the corporation and the owners, as determined by the regulations, if any, for the purpose of section 82.2 or 125, or (ii) a lessor and a leasehold condominium corporation for the purpose of subsections 168 (3) and (4); (p) to govern the conduct generally of the affairs of the corporation; or (q) for any other prescribed purpose. 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (1-4, 10). Remuneration of directors (2) A by-law relating to the remuneration of directors shall fix the remuneration and the period not exceeding three years for which it is to be paid. 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (2). Borrowing by-law (3) A corporation shall not borrow money for expenditures not listed in the budget for the current fiscal year unless it has passed a by-law under clause (1) (e) specifically to authorize the borrowing. 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 56 (3) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (11)) (3) A corporation shall not borrow money unless it has passed a by-law under clause (1) (e) specifically to authorize the borrowing or unless the regulations provide otherwise. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (11). Assessment appeal (4) If the corporation has passed a by-law under clause (1) (f), the corporation shall have the capacity and authority to appeal under section 40 of the Assessment Act on behalf of owners but shall not be liable for an alteration in the assessment of a unit or for any other matter relating to the appeal, except for the costs of the appeal. 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 18; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (12). (5) Despite a by-law made under clause (1) (f), on written notice to the board and to the Assessment Review Board given before the hearing of an appeal under section 40 of the Assessment Act, an owner may withdraw an appeal that the corporation has made on the owner’s behalf. 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 18. By-laws to be reasonable (6) The by-laws shall be reasonable and consistent with this Act and the declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (6). Same, proposed by-laws (7) By-laws proposed by the declarant before the registration of a declaration and description shall be reasonable and consistent with this Act and the proposed declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (7). (8) If any provision in a by-law or a proposed by-law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall prevail and the by-law or proposed by-law, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be amended accordingly. 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (8). (9) For each by-law of a corporation, an officer of the corporation shall certify a copy of the by-law as a true copy and the corporation shall register the copy in, (b) the registry division of the land registry office within the boundaries of which division the land described in the description is situated, if the land registry office does not have a land titles division. 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (9). When by-law effective (10) A by-law is not effective until, (a) the owners of a majority of the units in the corporation, or such other number of owners that is prescribed, vote in favour of confirming it, with or without amendment; and (b) a copy of it is registered in accordance with subsection (9). 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (10); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (13). Same, proposed by-law (11) Despite subsection (10), a by-law proposed by the declarant before the registration of the declaration and description shall be effective until it is replaced or confirmed by a by-law of the corporation that takes effect in accordance with subsection (10). 1998, c. 19, s. 56 (11). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (1-4, 10, 12, 13) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 52 (5-9, 11) - not in force 57 (1) Subject to section 56, the board may, by resolution, make, amend or repeal by-laws not contrary to this Act or the declaration that establish standards for the occupancy of units in the corporation for residential purposes. 1998, c. 19, s. 57 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 53 (1). (2) The standards shall be, (a) the occupancy standards contained in a by-law passed by the council of a municipality in which the land of the corporation is situated; or (b) subject to the regulations, standards that are not more restrictive than standards that are in accordance with the maximum occupancy for each unit based on the maximum occupancy for which the building in which the units are located is designed. 1998, c. 19, s. 57 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (3) A by-law passed under subsection (1) may prohibit persons from occupying units in the corporation that do not comply with the standards set out in the by-law. 1998, c. 19, s. 57 (3); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 53 (1). (4) If the corporation has passed a by-law under subsection (1) and a person contravenes the standards for the occupancy of a unit set out in the by-law, the board may, by resolution, levy against the unit, (a) an assessment for the amount that reasonably reflects the amount by which the contravention increases the cost of maintaining the common elements and repairing them after damage; and (b) an assessment for the amount that reasonably reflects the amount by which the contravention increases the cost of using the utilities that form part of the common expenses. 1998, c. 19, s. 57 (4); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 53 (2). (5) The assessments mentioned in subsection (4) shall form part of the contribution to the common expenses payable for the unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 57 (5). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 53 (1, 2) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 58 (1) The board may make, amend or repeal rules under this section respecting the use of the units, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation to, (a) promote the safety, security or welfare of the owners and of the property and the assets, if any, of the corporation; or (b) prevent unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the units, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 54 (1). Rules to be reasonable (2) The rules shall be reasonable and consistent with this Act, the declaration and the by-laws. 1998, c. 19, s. 58 (2). Same, proposed rules (3) Rules proposed by the declarant before the registration of a declaration and description shall be reasonable and consistent with this Act, the proposed declaration and the proposed by-laws. 1998, c. 19, s. 58 (3). (4) If any provision in a rule or a proposed rule is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall prevail and the rule or proposed rule, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be amended accordingly. 1998, c. 19, s. 58 (4). Amendment by owners (5) The owners may amend or repeal a rule at a meeting of owners duly called for that purpose. 1998, c. 19, s. 58 (5). Notice of rule (6) Upon making, amending or repealing a rule, the board shall give a notice of it to the owners that includes, (a) a copy of the rule as made, amended or repealed, as the case may be; (b) a statement of the date that the board proposes that the rule will become effective; (c) a statement that the owners have the right to requisition a meeting under section 46 and the rule becomes effective at the time determined by subsections (7) and (8); and (d) a copy of the text of section 46 and this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 58 (6); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 54 (2). When rule effective (7) Subject to subsection (8), a rule is not effective until the following time: 1. If the board receives a requisition for a meeting of owners under section 46 within 30 days after the board has given notice of the rule to the owners, the earlier of, i. the time at which a quorum is not present at the first attempt to hold the meeting, and ii. the time at which a quorum is present at the first attempt to hold the meeting and the owners do not vote against the rule at the meeting. 2. If the board does not receive a requisition for a meeting of owners under section 46 within the 30 days after the board has given notice of the rule to the owners, the day after that 30th day. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 54 (3). (8) A rule or an amendment to a rule that has substantially the same purpose or effect as a rule that the owners have previously amended or repealed within the preceding two years is not effective until the owners approve it, with or without amendment, at a meeting duly called for that purpose. 1998, c. 19, s. 58 (8). Same, proposed rule (9) Despite subsection (7), a rule proposed by the declarant before the registration of the declaration and description shall be effective until it is replaced or confirmed by a rule of the corporation that takes effect in accordance with subsection (7). 1998, c. 19, s. 58 (9). (10) All persons bound by the rules shall comply with them and the rules may be enforced in the same manner as the by-laws. 1998, c. 19, s. 58 (10). 59 (1) The boards of two or more corporations may make, amend or repeal joint by-laws or rules governing the use and maintenance of shared facilities and services. 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (1). Application to corporations (2) A joint by-law or rule is a by-law or rule, as the case may be, of each corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (2). When joint by-law effective (3) A joint by-law is not effective until, (a) the majority of the owners of the units of each corporation vote in favour of confirming it, with or without amendment; and (b) each corporation registers a copy of it in accordance with subsection 56 (9). 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (3). (4) The vote of the owners under clause (3) (a) may be at a joint meeting of the corporations duly called for that purpose. 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (4). Repeal of joint by-law (5) Once a joint by-law is effective, it is effective until the owners of a majority of the units of each corporation vote in favour of repealing it and a copy of the repealing by-law is registered in accordance with subsection 56 (9). 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (5). Amendment of joint rule (6) The owners of each corporation may amend or repeal a joint rule at a joint meeting of owners of the corporations or at a meeting of owners of each corporation if the meeting has been duly called for that purpose. 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (6). Notice of joint rule (7) Upon making, amending or repealing a joint rule, the board of each corporation shall give a notice of the joint rule to its owners that includes, (b) a statement of the date that the boards propose that the rule will become effective; and (c) a statement that the owners have the right to requisition a meeting under section 46 and the rule becomes effective at the time determined by subsections (8), (9) and (10). 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (7). When joint rule effective (8) Subject to subsection (10), if the board of any of the corporations receives a requisition for a meeting under section 46 within 30 days after it gives notice of the joint rule to its owners, the joint rule is not effective until the owners approve it at a joint meeting of owners of the corporations or at a meeting of owners of each corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (8). Same, no requisition (9) Subject to subsection (10), if the board of none of the corporations receives a requisition for a meeting under section 46 within 30 days after it gives notice of the joint rule to its owners, the joint rule is not effective until 30 days after the board of each corporation has given notice of the joint rule to its owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (9). Same, previous rule (10) A joint rule or an amendment to a joint rule that has substantially the same purpose or effect as a joint rule that the owners have previously amended or repealed within the preceding two years is not effective until the owners of each corporation approve it, with or without amendment, at a joint meeting of owners of the corporations or at a meeting of owners of each corporation duly called for that purpose. 1998, c. 19, s. 59 (10). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 59 of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 55) 60 (1) At their first meeting, the owners shall appoint one or more persons qualified to be auditors to hold office as auditors until the close of the next annual general meeting and, if the owners do not do so, the board shall make the necessary appointments as expeditiously as possible. 1998, c. 19, s. 60 (1). Same, subsequent years (2) At each annual general meeting, the owners shall appoint one or more persons qualified to be auditors to hold office as auditors until the close of the next annual general meeting and, if the owners do not do so, the auditor in office continues in office until a successor is appointed. 1998, c. 19, s. 60 (2). Appointment by court (3) If for any reason no auditor is appointed as required by this section, the Superior Court of Justice may, on the application of an owner, (a) appoint one or more persons qualified to be auditors to hold office as auditors until the close of the next annual general meeting; (b) fix the remuneration that the corporation shall pay for the services of the auditor who is appointed; and (c) fix the amount that the corporation shall pay to the owner for the cost of the application. 1998, c. 19, s. 60 (3); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (5). Notice of appointment (4) The corporation shall give notice in writing to an auditor of the appointment immediately after the appointment is made. 1998, c. 19, s. 60 (4). (5) The owners of a corporation shall not appoint auditors under subsection (2) at an annual general meeting if, (a) a turn-over meeting has been held under section 43; (b) the corporation consists of fewer than 25 units; and (c) as of the date of the meeting, all the owners consent in writing to dispense with the audit mentioned in subsection 67 (1) until the next annual general meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 60 (5). (6) An owner is not entitled to consent under clause (5) (c) if any contributions to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit are in arrears for 30 days or more. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 56. (7) An owner who, under subsection (6), is not entitled to consent may consent after the corporation receives payment of the arrears with respect to the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 56. 61 No person shall act as auditor of a corporation if the person, (a) is a director, officer or employee of the corporation; (b) is a condominium manager who provides condominium management services to the corporation under an agreement between the corporation and either the manager or a condominium management provider; (c) has an interest in a contract to which the corporation is a party; or (d) is a partner, employer or employee of a person mentioned in clause (a) or (b). 1998, c. 19, s. 61; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (10). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 57 - no effect - see 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 82 (1, 2) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (10), 82 (1, 2) - 01/11/2017 62 The remuneration of an auditor shall be fixed, (a) by the owners if the auditor is appointed by the owners; or (b) by the board if authorized by the owners to do so or if the auditor is appointed by the board. 1998, c. 19, s. 62. 63 (1) The owners may remove an auditor before the expiration of the auditor’s term of office at a meeting duly called for that purpose. 1998, c. 19, s. 63 (1). (2) If the owners remove an auditor under subsection (1), they shall, at the same meeting, appoint a person qualified to be an auditor to act as auditor for the remainder of the term of the auditor who was removed. 1998, c. 19, s. 63 (2). (3) Repealed: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 58. Notice to auditors (4) At least 30 days before giving the owners notice of a meeting for the purpose of removing an auditor, the person calling the meeting shall give to the auditor, (a) written notice of the intention to call the meeting, specifying the date on which the notice of the meeting is proposed to be mailed; (b) a statement of the name of the auditor who is proposed to be removed and the reasons for the removal; and (c) a copy of all material proposed to be sent to the owners in connection with the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 63 (4). Right to make representations (5) An auditor may make written representations to the corporation concerning the proposed removal of the auditor or the appointment of another person to fill the office of auditor. 1998, c. 19, s. 63 (5). (6) In order to make representations under subsection (5), an auditor shall send them to the person calling the meeting at least three days before the mailing of the notice of the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 63 (6). (7) The person calling the meeting shall, at the expense of the corporation, include in the notice of the meeting, (a) a statement of the name of the auditor who is proposed to be removed and the reasons for the removal; and (b) a copy of all representations received. 1998, c. 19, s. 63 (7). 64 (1) A resignation of an auditor becomes effective at the time a written resignation is delivered to the corporation or at the time specified in the resignation, whichever is later. 1998, c. 19, s. 64 (1). (2) In a resignation, the auditor may make written representations to the corporation concerning the resignation and in that case the corporation shall attach a copy of the representations to the notice of the next meeting of owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 64 (2). 65 (1) If a vacancy arises in the office of auditor, the directors may appoint any person qualified to be an auditor to hold office as auditor to fill the vacancy. 1998, c. 19, s. 65 (1). Term of replacement (2) An auditor appointed under subsection (1) shall hold office until the close of the next annual general meeting or until a successor is appointed, whichever is later. 1998, c. 19, s. 65 (2). 66 (1) A corporation shall have its financial statements prepared in the prescribed manner and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as are prescribed. 1998, c. 19, s. 66 (1). (1) A corporation shall have its financial statements prepared in the prescribed manner and in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations as are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 59 (1). (2) The financial statements shall include, (2) Unless the regulations provide otherwise, the financial statements shall include, (a) a balance sheet; (b) a statement of general operations; (c) a statement of changes in financial position; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clauses 66 (2) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act are repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 59 (3)) (a) the budget of the corporation for the fiscal year to which the financial statements apply; (b) a statement of financial position; (c) a statement of operations; (c.1) a statement of changes in net assets; (c.2) a statement of cash flows; (d) a statement of reserve fund operations; (e) prescribed information relating to the reserve fund study and the operation of the reserve fund; (f) an indication of the aggregate remuneration paid to the directors in that capacity and the aggregate remuneration paid to the officers in that capacity; and (g) the additional statements or information that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 66 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (3) The board shall approve the financial statements before placing them before an annual general meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 66 (3). Form of approval (4) The approval shall be evidenced by the signature at the bottom of the balance sheet by two of the directors duly authorized to sign. 1998, c. 19, s. 66 (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 59 - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 67 (1) The auditor shall, every year, make the examination that is necessary in order to make an annual report on the financial statements to the corporation on behalf of the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 67 (1). (2) The auditor has right of access at all times to all records, documents, accounts and vouchers of the corporation and is entitled to require from the directors, officers and employees of the corporation or from persons under contract to the corporation to manage the property or its assets the information and explanations that, in the auditor’s opinion, are necessary in order to make the report. 1998, c. 19, s. 67 (2). (3) The auditor’s report shall be prepared in the prescribed manner and in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards as are prescribed. 1998, c. 19, s. 67 (3). (3) The auditor’s report shall be prepared in the prescribed manner and in accordance with Canadian auditing standards as are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 60. Contents of report (4) The auditor shall include in the report the statements that the auditor considers necessary if the corporation’s financial statements are not in accordance with the requirements of this Act and the regulations made under it. 1998, c. 19, s. 67 (4). (4) In the report the auditor shall, (a) state whether the statement of reserve fund operations and any other prescribed information that relates to the operation of the reserve fund and that is contained in the financial statements do not fairly present the information contained in the materials that the auditor has received under clause 94 (9) (b); and (b) include the other prescribed statements that the auditor considers necessary relating to the corporation’s financial statements and the prescribed requirements of this Act and the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 60. Same, reserve fund study (5) The auditor shall state in the report whether the statement of reserve fund operations and any other prescribed information relating to the operation of the reserve fund and contained in the financial statements do not fairly present the information contained in the reserve fund studies that the auditor has received. 1998, c. 19, s. 67 (5). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 67 (5) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 60) Presentation of report (6) The auditor shall present the auditor’s report to the audit committee described in subsection 68 (1) or to the board if there is no audit committee. 1998, c. 19, s. 67 (6). (7) Except with respect to the contents of the report, no action or other proceeding for damages shall be instituted against an auditor or a former auditor for any oral or written statement made in good faith in the execution or intended execution of the duty as auditor under this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 67 (7). 68 (1) If the number of directors of the corporation is more than six, the directors may elect annually from among their number a committee to be known as the audit committee to hold office until the next annual general meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 68 (1). (2) The audit committee shall be composed of at least three directors and the majority of committee members shall not consist of officers or employees of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 68 (2). Review of statements (3) On receiving the financial statements, the auditor’s report and an amended auditor’s report, if any, the audit committee shall review them and submit them to the board. 1998, c. 19, s. 68 (3). Auditor to appear (4) The auditor has the right to appear before and be heard at any meeting of the audit committee and shall appear before the committee when the committee so requires. 1998, c. 19, s. 68 (4). Meeting at auditor’s request (5) At the request of the auditor, the audit committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider all matters the auditor believes should be brought to the attention of the board or the committee members. 1998, c. 19, s. 68 (5). 69 (1) The board shall place before each annual general meeting, (a) the financial statements as approved by the board; (b) the auditor’s report; and (c) all further information respecting the financial position of the corporation that the by-laws of the corporation require. 1998, c. 19, s. 69 (1). Copy with notice of meeting (2) The corporation shall attach to the notice of the annual general meeting a copy of the financial statements and the auditor’s report. 1998, c. 19, s. 69 (2). 70 (1) The auditor is entitled to attend a meeting of owners and to be heard on any part of the business of the meeting that concerns the office of the auditor. 1998, c. 19, s. 70 (1). Notice of meetings (2) The corporation shall give the auditor notice of all meetings of owners and all other communications relating to the meetings that the owners are entitled to receive. 1998, c. 19, s. 70 (2). Attendance required (3) The corporation or an owner may require that an auditor or a former auditor attend a meeting of owners for the purpose of answering inquiries described in subsection (6) by giving written notice to the person whose attendance is required, at least five days before the meeting, that the person’s presence is required. 1998, c. 19, s. 70 (3). Notice to corporation (4) An owner who gives written notice to an auditor or former auditor under subsection (3) shall give a copy of the notice to the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 70 (4). Remuneration for attendance (5) If an auditor or a former auditor is required to attend a meeting of owners, the corporation shall compensate the auditor or former auditor, as the case may be, for expenses and pay the reasonable remuneration that it deems appropriate. 1998, c. 19, s. 70 (5). Duty to answer questions (6) At a meeting of owners, the auditor or former auditor, as the case may be, if present, shall answer inquiries concerning the basis upon which the person formed the opinion stated in the person’s reports. 1998, c. 19, s. 70 (6). 71 (1) The board shall amend the corporation’s financial statements if facts come to the attention of the directors or officers of a corporation after the annual general meeting and the facts require a material adjustment to the financial statements that were presented at the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 71 (1). Copy of amended statements (2) Immediately after making an amendment, the corporation shall send to the auditor a statement of the facts that gave rise to the amendment and a copy of the amended financial statements. 1998, c. 19, s. 71 (2). Amendment of auditor’s report (3) On receiving the statements furnished under subsection (2), the auditor shall amend the auditor’s report if the auditor is of the opinion that it is necessary and in that case shall present it to the audit committee or to the board if there is no audit committee. 1998, c. 19, s. 71 (3). Delivery of amended report (4) The board shall mail or deliver a copy of the amended report to the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 71 (4). Same, by auditor (5) If the board does not mail or deliver a copy of the amended report to the owners within a reasonable time, the auditor shall mail or deliver a copy of the amended report to the owners and the corporation shall reimburse the auditor for the reasonable costs incurred in the mailing or the delivery. 1998, c. 19, s. 71 (5). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, Part V of the Act is amended by adding the following section immediately after the heading “Disclosure Requirements”: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 61) 71.1 (1) The Minister shall ensure that one or more condominium guides are prepared, each of which shall set out, if the Minister considers appropriate, (a) information for purchasers of units or proposed units; (b) information about the rights and obligations of owners, occupiers of units and the board in a corporation; and (c) such other matters that the Minister considers appropriate. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 61. Different versions (2) A condominium guide may be prepared in different versions depending on the type of corporation, the persons or the circumstances to which it applies, all as the Minister may determine. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 61. Delegation to condominium authority (3) If the condominium authority exists, the Minister may require the authority to prepare any of the condominium guides, subject to the Minister’s approval. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 61. 72 (1) The declarant shall deliver to every person who purchases a unit or a proposed unit from the declarant a copy of the current disclosure statement made by the declarant for the corporation of which the unit or proposed unit forms part. 1998, c. 19, s. 72 (1). Disclosure statement and guide (1) The declarant shall deliver to every person who purchases a unit or a proposed unit from the declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant a copy of, (a) the current disclosure statement made by the declarant for the corporation of which the unit or proposed unit forms part; and (b) the applicable condominium guide under section 71.1. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (1). Purchaser not bound (2) An agreement of purchase and sale of a unit or a proposed unit entered into by a declarant is not binding on the purchaser until the declarant has delivered to the purchaser a copy of the current disclosure statement. 1998, c. 19, s. 72 (2). (2) An agreement of purchase and sale of a unit or a proposed unit entered into by a declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant is not binding on the purchaser until the declarant has delivered to the purchaser a copy of the current disclosure statement and the condominium guide in accordance with subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (1). (3) A disclosure statement shall specify the date on which it is made and shall contain, (3) A disclosure statement shall be prepared in accordance with the regulations and shall contain, (a) a table of contents prepared in accordance with subsection (4) and located at the beginning of the disclosure statement; (a) a summary prepared in accordance with the prescribed requirements; (a.1) a statement specifying the date on which it is made; (b) a statement indicating, (i) whether the corporation is a freehold condominium corporation or a leasehold condominium corporation, and (ii) if the corporation is a freehold condominium corporation, the type of freehold condominium corporation that it is; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 72 (3) (b) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of subclause (i), by adding “and” at the end of subclause (ii) and by adding the following subclause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (4)) (iii) whether the corporation is a phased condominium corporation; (c) a statement of the name and municipal address of the declarant and the mailing address of the property or the proposed property and its municipal address if available; (d) a general description of the property or proposed property including the types and number of buildings, units and recreational and other amenities together with all conditions that apply to the provision of amenities; (e) if the declarant has made an application for approval described in subsection 9 (4), a summary of the reports, if any, that the approval authority has required be made under subsection 9 (4) and the agreements, if any, that the approval authority has imposed under subsection 9 (5) as a condition of approval; (f) a statement indicating whether the property or part of the property is or may be subject to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act or whether the declarant has enrolled or intends to enrol the proposed units and common elements in the Plan within the meaning of that Act in accordance with the regulations made under that Act; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 72 (3) (f) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (14)) (f) a statement indicating whether the property or part of the property, and the real property, if any, that is prescribed are or may be subject to the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 or whether the declarant has enrolled or intends to enrol the proposed units, common elements and the real property, if any, that is prescribed, in the Plan, within the meaning of that Act, in accordance with the regulations made under that Act; (f.1) if the disclosure statement is for a unit or proposed unit in a residential condominium conversion project, (i) a statement that the project is a residential condominium conversion project, (ii) a list of the pre-existing elements as identified in the pre-existing elements fund study, (iii) a copy of the pre-existing elements fund study, (iv) a statement that subclause 13 (1) (a) (i) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act does not apply to the pre-existing elements, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subclause 72 (3) (f.1) (iv) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (15)) (iv) a statement that the prescribed provisions of the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 or the regulations made under that Act do not apply to the pre-existing elements, (v) a copy of the text of subclause 13 (1) (a) (i) and subsection 17.2 (1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, and Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subclause 72 (3) (f.1) (v) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (15)) (v) a copy of the text of the provisions mentioned in subclause (iv), and (vi) a statement that the Registrar, as defined in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, has confirmed that the conditions set out in subsection 17.2 (1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act have been satisfied; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subclause 72 (3) (f.1) (vi) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (15)) (vi) a statement that the registrar appointed under section 38 of the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 has confirmed that the conditions set out in the prescribed provisions of that Act or the regulations made under that Act have been satisfied; (g) a statement whether a building on the property or a unit or a proposed unit has been converted from a previous use; (h) a statement whether one or more units or proposed units may be used for commercial or other purposes not ancillary to residential purposes; (i) a statement of the portion of units or proposed units which the declarant intends to market in blocks of units to investors; (j) a statement of the portion of units or proposed units, to the nearest anticipated 25 per cent, that the declarant intends to lease; (k) if construction of amenities is not completed, a schedule of the proposed commencement and completion dates; (l) a list of the amenities that the declarant proposes to provide to the purchaser during a period of interim occupancy of a proposed unit under section 80; (m) a copy of the existing or proposed declaration, by-laws, rules and insurance trust agreement, if any; (n) a brief description of the significant features of all agreements or proposed agreements mentioned in section 111, 112, 113 or 114 and of all agreements or proposed agreements between the corporation and another corporation; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 72 (3) (n) of the Act is amended by adding “21.1” after “section”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (6)) (o) a statement of whether, to the knowledge of the declarant, the corporation intends to amalgamate with another corporation or whether the declarant intends to cause the corporation to amalgamate with another corporation within 60 days of the date of registration of the declaration and description for the corporation; (p) if an amalgamation is intended under clause (o), a copy of the proposed declaration, description, by-laws and rules for the amalgamated corporation, if available; (q) a copy of the budget statement described in subsection (6); Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 72 (3) (q) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (7)) (q) a copy of the budget statement described in subsection (6), unless the regulations provide otherwise; (q.1) a statement, prepared in accordance with the regulations, of the circumstances, as may be prescribed, that a declarant knows or ought to know may result in an increase in the common expenses mentioned in any part of subsection (6) after the one-year period immediately following the registration of the declaration and description; (q.2) a statement, prepared in accordance with the regulations, of the amount of any potential increase mentioned in clause (q.1) that is likely to take place as a result of any of the circumstances mentioned in that clause; (r) a copy of the budget of the corporation for the current fiscal year if more than one year has passed since the registration of the declaration and description for the corporation; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 72 (3) (r) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (8)) (r) if more than one year has passed since the registration of the declaration and description for the corporation, a copy of the budget of the corporation for the current fiscal year and a copy of all amendments, if any, made to that budget; (s) a statement setting out the fees or charges, if any, that the corporation is required to pay to the declarant or another person; and (t) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 72 (3); 2001, c. 9, Sched. D, s. 3 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (5). (4) The table of contents in the disclosure statement shall be in the prescribed form, shall indicate whether the declaration, by-laws, rules or the proposed declaration, by-laws or rules of the corporation or any other material in the disclosure statement deal with the following matters and, if so, shall indicate where the matters are dealt with: 1. A statement indicating, i. whether the corporation is a leasehold condominium corporation or a freehold condominium corporation, and ii. if the corporation is a freehold condominium corporation, the type of freehold condominium corporation that it is. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 1 of subsection 72 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of subparagraph i, by adding “and” at the end of subparagraph ii and by adding the following subparagraph: This amendment applies only if it comes into force before the day this subsection is repealed by S.O. 2015, chapter 28, Schedule 1, subsection 62 (11). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (9), (10)) iii. whether the corporation is a phased condominium corporation. 2. The property or part of the property is or may be subject to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act or the proposed units and common elements are enrolled or are intended to be enrolled in the Plan within the meaning of that Act in accordance with the regulations made under that Act. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 2 of subsection 72 (4) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (16)) 2. The property or part of the property and the real property, if any, that is prescribed are or may be subject to the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 or the proposed units and common elements and the real property, if any, that is prescribed are enrolled or are intended to be enrolled in the Plan, within the meaning of that Act, in accordance with the regulations made under that Act. 3. A building on the property or a unit or a proposed unit has been converted from a previous use. 4. One or more units or proposed units may be used for commercial or other purposes not ancillary to residential purposes. 5. A provision exists with respect to pets on the property or the proposed property. 6. There exist restrictions or standards with respect to the occupancy or use of units or proposed units or the use of common elements or proposed common elements that are based on the nature or design of the facilities and services on the property or on other aspects of the buildings located on the property. 7. A statement of the portion of units or proposed units, to the nearest anticipated 25 per cent, that the declarant intends to lease. 8. A statement whether the proportion, expressed in percentages, of the common interest appurtenant to any unit or proposed unit differs in an amount of 10 per cent or more from that appurtenant to any other unit or proposed unit of the same type, size and design. 9. A statement whether the proportion, expressed in percentages, in which the owner of any unit or proposed unit is required to contribute to the common expenses differs in an amount of 10 per cent or more from that required of the owner of any other unit or proposed unit of the same type, size and design. 10. A statement whether any unit or proposed unit is exempt from a cost attributable to the rest of the units or proposed units. 11. Part or the whole of the common elements or the proposed common elements are subject to a lease or licence. 12. A statement whether parking is allowed in or on a unit, on the common elements or on a part of the common elements of which an owner has exclusive use and a statement of the restrictions on parking. 13. Any other statement specified in the regulations made under this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 72 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 72 (4) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (11)) Copy of budget (5) On the request of the declarant, the corporation shall, promptly and without charge, provide a copy of its budget for the current fiscal year to the declarant. 1998, c. 19, s. 72 (5). Copy of budget, etc. (5) On the request of the declarant, the corporation shall, promptly and without charge, provide the declarant with a copy of its budget for the current fiscal year and a copy of all amendments, if any, made to that budget. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (12). Budget statement (6) The budget statement is a statement for the one-year period immediately following the registration of the declaration and description and shall contain, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 72 (6) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (13)) (6) The budget statement is a statement for the one-year period immediately following the registration of the declaration and description, and it shall cover the corporation’s general and reserve fund accounts, shall be prepared in accordance with the regulations and shall contain, subject to the regulations, (a) a statement of the common expenses of the corporation; (b) a statement of the proposed amount of each expense of the corporation, including the cost of the reserve fund study required for the year, the cost of the performance audit under section 44 and the cost of preparing audited financial statements if subsection 43 (7) requires the declarant to deliver them within one year following the registration of the declaration and description; (c) particulars of the type, frequency and level of the services to be provided; (d) a statement of the projected monthly common expense contribution for each type of unit; (e) a statement of the portion of the common expenses to be paid into a reserve fund; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 72 (6) (e) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (14)) (e) a statement of the portion of the common expenses to be paid into a reserve fund, which shall be determined in accordance with the regulations; (f) a statement of the status of all pending lawsuits material to the property of which the declarant has actual knowledge and that may affect the property after the registration of a deed to the unit from the declarant to the purchaser; (g) a statement of the amounts of all current or expected fees, charges, rents or other revenue to be paid to or by the corporation or by any of the owners for the use of the common elements or other facilities related to the property, unless a turn over meeting has been held under section 43; (h) a statement of all services not included in the budget that the declarant provides, or expenses that the declarant pays and that might reasonably be expected to become, at any subsequent time, a common expense and the projected common expense contribution attributable to each of those services or expenses for each type of unit; (i) a statement of the projected amounts in all reserve funds at the end of the current fiscal year; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 72 (6) of the Act is amended by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (15)) (i.1) a statement, prepared in accordance with the regulations, as to whether there will be any increase, as may be prescribed, in the amounts mentioned in this subsection and setting particulars of those increases; (j) a summary of the most recent reserve fund study, if any; and (k) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 72 (6); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). 2001, c. 9, Sched. D, s. 3 (1) - 29/06/2001 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (1-4, 6-15) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 62 (5) - 01/01/2018; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (14-16) - not in force; 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 79 (13, 14) - no effect 72.1 If a person enters into an agreement to purchase a unit or a proposed unit from a declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant, the declarant shall deliver to the purchaser, no later than 10 days before delivering to the purchaser a deed to the unit being purchased that is in registerable form, a copy of the budget mentioned in subsection 83.1 (3) for the corporation, unless the regulations provide otherwise. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 63. 73 (1) A purchaser who receives a disclosure statement under subsection 72 (1) may, in accordance with this section, rescind the agreement of purchase and sale before accepting a deed to the unit being purchased that is in registerable form. 1998, c. 19, s. 73 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 73 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “and the condominium guide” after “statement”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 64 (1)) Notice of rescission (2) To rescind an agreement of purchase and sale under this section, a purchaser or the purchaser’s solicitor shall give a written notice of rescission to the declarant or to the declarant’s solicitor who must receive the notice within 10 days of the later of, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 73 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “the later of” in the portion before clause (a) and substituting “the latest of”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 64 (2)) (a) the date that the purchaser receives the disclosure statement; and Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 73 (2) (a) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 64 (2)) (b) the date that the purchaser receives a copy of the agreement of purchase and sale executed by the declarant and the purchaser. 1998, c. 19, s. 73 (2). (b) the date that the purchaser receives a copy of the applicable condominium guide under section 71.1; and (c) the date that the purchaser receives a copy of the agreement of purchase and sale executed by the declarant and the purchaser. Refund upon rescission (3) If a declarant or the declarant’s solicitor receives a notice of rescission from a purchaser under this section, the declarant shall promptly refund, without penalty or charge, to the purchaser, all money received from the purchaser under the agreement and credited towards the purchase price, together with interest on the money calculated at the prescribed rate from the date that the declarant received the money until the date the declarant refunds it. 1998, c. 19, s. 73 (3). 74 (1) Whenever there is a material change in the information contained or required to be contained in a disclosure statement delivered to a purchaser under subsection 72 (1) or a revised disclosure statement or a notice delivered to a purchaser under this section, the declarant shall deliver a revised disclosure statement or a notice to the purchaser. 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (1). “material change” means a change or a series of changes that a reasonable purchaser, on an objective basis, would have regarded collectively as sufficiently important to the decision to purchase a unit or proposed unit in the corporation that it is likely that the purchaser would not have entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for the unit or the proposed unit or would have exercised the right to rescind such an agreement of purchase and sale under section 73, if the disclosure statement had contained the change or series of changes, but does not include, (a) a change in the contents of the budget of the corporation for the current fiscal year if more than one year has passed since the registration of the declaration and description for the corporation, (b) a substantial addition, alteration or improvement within the meaning of subsection 97 (6) that the corporation makes to the common elements after a turn-over meeting has been held under section 43, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause (b) of the definition of “material change” in subsection 74 (2) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 65 (1)) (b) a substantial modification, within the meaning of subsection 97 (9), that is an addition, alteration or improvement that the corporation makes to the common elements after a turn-over meeting has been held under section 43, (c) a change in the portion of units or proposed units that the declarant intends to lease, (d) a change in the schedule of the proposed commencement and completion dates for the amenities of which construction had not been completed as of the date on which the disclosure statement was made, or (e) a change in the information contained in the statement described in subsection 161 (1) of the services provided by the municipality or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the case may be, as described in that subsection, if the unit or the proposed unit is in a vacant land condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “material change” in subsection 74 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of clause (d) and by adding the following clauses: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 65 (2)) (f) except as is otherwise prescribed, an increase of less than 10 per cent in the common expenses mentioned in any part of subsection 72 (6), determined in accordance with the regulations, (g) except as is otherwise prescribed, an increase in the common expenses mentioned in any part of subsection 72 (6) if it is the result of the application, in the prescribed manner, of any prescribed taxes, levies or charges, or (h) anything that is prescribed. Contents of revised statement (3) The revised disclosure statement or notice required under subsection (1) shall clearly identify all changes that in the reasonable belief of the declarant may be material changes and summarize the particulars of them. 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (3). (3) The revised disclosure statement or notice required under subsection (1) shall be prepared in accordance with the regulations, shall clearly identify all changes that, in the reasonable belief of the declarant, are or may be material changes and shall summarize the particulars of them in the prescribed manner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 65 (3). (4) The declarant shall deliver the revised disclosure statement or notice to the purchaser within a reasonable time after the material change mentioned in subsection (1) occurs and, in any event, no later than 10 days before delivering to the purchaser a deed to the unit being purchased that is in registerable form. 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 74 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “within a reasonable time” and substituting “as soon as reasonably possible”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 65 (4)) Purchaser’s application to court (5) Within 10 days after receiving a revised disclosure statement or a notice under subsection (1), a purchaser may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for a determination whether a change or a series of changes set out in the statement or notice is a material change. 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (5); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (5). Rescission after material change (6) If a change or a series of changes set out in a revised disclosure statement or a notice delivered to a purchaser constitutes a material change or if a material change occurs that the declarant does not disclose in a revised disclosure statement or notice as required by subsection (1), the purchaser may, before accepting a deed to the unit being purchased that is in registerable form, rescind the agreement of purchase and sale within 10 days of the latest of, (a) the date on which the purchaser receives the revised disclosure statement or the notice, if the declarant delivered a revised disclosure statement or notice to the purchaser; (b) the date on which the purchaser becomes aware of a material change, if the declarant has not delivered a revised disclosure statement or notice to the purchaser as required by subsection (1) with respect to the change; and (c) the date on which the Superior Court of Justice makes a determination under subsection (5) or (8) that the change is material, if the purchaser or the declarant, as the case may be, has made an application for the determination. 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (6); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (5). (7) To rescind an agreement of purchase and sale under this section, a purchaser or the purchaser’s solicitor shall give a written notice of rescission to the declarant or to the declarant’s solicitor. 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (7). Declarant’s application to court (8) Within 10 days after receiving a notice of rescission, the declarant may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for a determination whether the change or the series of changes on which the rescission is based constitutes a material change, if the purchaser has not already made an application for the determination under subsection (5). 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (8); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (5). (9) A declarant who receives a notice of rescission from a purchaser under this section shall refund, without penalty or charge, to the purchaser, all money received from the purchaser under the agreement and credited towards the purchase price, together with interest on the money calculated at the prescribed rate from the date that the declarant received the money until the date the declarant refunds it. 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (9). Time of refund (10) The declarant shall make the refund, (a) within 10 days after receiving a notice of rescission, if neither the purchaser nor the declarant has made an application for a determination described in subsection (5) or (8) respectively; or (b) within 10 days after the court makes a determination that the change is material, if the purchaser has made an application under subsection (5) or the declarant has made an application under subsection (8). 1998, c. 19, s. 74 (10). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 74 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 65 (5)) (11) A person who is or was a purchaser may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (12). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 65 (5). (12) The court, if satisfied that the declarant has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with subsection (1), (3), (4), (9) or (10), (a) shall order that the declarant pay damages to the person for the loss that the person incurred as a result of the declarant’s acts of non-compliance with subsection (1), (3), (4), (9) or (10), as the case may be; (b) shall order that the declarant pay the person’s costs of the application; (c) may order the declarant to pay to the person an additional amount not to exceed $10,000; and (d) may order the declarant to comply with subsection (1), (3), (4), (9) or (10), as the case may be. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 65 (5). 75 (1) The declarant is accountable to the corporation under this section for the budget statement that covers the one-year period immediately following the registration of the declaration and description. 1998, c. 19, s. 75 (1). Declarant’s accountability for first year (1) The declarant is accountable to the corporation under this section for, (a) the statement mentioned in clause 72 (6) (e) that is required to be contained in the budget statement described in subsection 72 (6); and (b) the portion of the budget of the corporation for its first fiscal year required by subsection 83.1 (3) that represents the one-year period immediately after the registration of the declaration and description and that is determined in accordance with the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 66 (1) Reserve fund contributions (1.1) If the budget statement described in subsection 72 (6) does not comply with clause 72 (6) (e), the declarant shall pay to the corporation the amount required for compliance with that clause, as determined in accordance with the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 66 (1). (2) The declarant shall pay to the corporation the amount by which the total actual amount of common expenses incurred for the period covered by the budget statement, except for those attributable to the termination of an agreement under section 111 or 112, exceeds the total budgeted amount. 1998, c. 19, s. 75 (2). (2) The declarant shall pay to the corporation the amount by which the total actual amount of common expenses incurred for the one-year period mentioned in clause (1) (b), except for the following, exceeds the total budgeted amount for that period: 1. The expenses attributable to the termination of an agreement under section 111 or 112. 2. The amount, or any part of it, that the declarant is required to pay under subsection (1.1). 3. Any other prescribed amount. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 66 (1). (3) The declarant shall pay to the corporation the amount by which the total actual amount of fees, charges, rents and other revenue paid or to be paid to the corporation, during the period covered by the budget statement, for the use of any part of the common elements or assets or of any other facilities related to the property, is less than the total budgeted amount. 1998, c. 19, s. 75 (3). (3) The declarant shall pay to the corporation the amount by which the total actual amount of fees, charges, rents and other revenue paid or to be paid to the corporation, during the one-year period mentioned in clause (1) (b), for the use of any part of the common elements or assets or of any other facilities related to the property, is less than the total budgeted amount for that period. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 66 (1). Set-off (4) If the total actual amount of revenue described in subsection (3) exceeds the total budgeted amount, the declarant may deduct the excess from any amount payable under subsection (2). 1998, c. 19, s. 75 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 75 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “subsection (2)” at the end and substituting “subsection (1.1) or (2)”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 66 (2)) Notice of payment (5) After receiving the audited financial statements for the period covered by the budget statement, the board shall compare the actual amount of common expenses and revenue described in subsections (2) and (3) for the period covered by the budget statement with the budgeted amounts and shall, within 30 days of receiving the audited financial statements, give written notice to the declarant of the amount that the declarant is required to pay to the corporation under this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 75 (5). (5) After receiving the audited financial statements for the corporation’s first fiscal year, the board shall, (a) if it has not already done so, determine the amount, if any, that the declarant is required to pay to the corporation under subsection (1.1); (b) compare the actual amount of common expenses and revenue described in subsections (2) and (3) for the one-year period mentioned in clause (1) (b) with the budgeted amounts for that period; and (c) within 90 days of receiving the audited financial statements, give written notice to the declarant of the amount that the declarant is required to pay to the corporation under this section. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 66 (3). Time for payment (6) Within 30 days of receiving the notice, the declarant shall pay the corporation the amount that it is required to pay under this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 75 (6). 76 (1) The corporation shall give to each person who so requests a status certificate with respect to a unit in the corporation, in the prescribed form, that specifies the date on which it was made and that contains, (a) a statement of the common expenses for the unit and the default, if any, in payment of the common expenses; (b) a statement of the increase, if any, in the common expenses for the unit that the board has declared since the date of the budget of the corporation for the current fiscal year and the reason for the increase; (c) a statement of the assessments, if any, that the board has levied against the unit since the date of the budget of the corporation for the current fiscal year to increase the contribution to the reserve fund and the reason for the assessments; (d) a statement of the address for service of the corporation; (e) a statement of the names and address for service of the directors and officers of the corporation; (f) a copy of the current declaration, by-laws and rules; (g) a copy of all applications made under section 109 to amend the declaration for which the court has not made an order; (h) a statement of all outstanding judgments against the corporation and the status of all legal actions to which the corporation is a party; (h.1) the financial implications, as may be prescribed, of the judgments and legal actions mentioned in clause (h); (i) a copy of the budget of the corporation for the current fiscal year, the last annual audited financial statements and the auditor’s report on the statements; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 76 (1) (i) of the Act is amended by adding “all amendments, if any, to that budget” after “fiscal year”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 67 (3)) (j) a list of all current agreements mentioned in section 111, 112 or 113 and all current agreements between the corporation and another corporation or between the corporation and the owner of the unit; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 76 (1) (j) of the Act is amended by striking out “section 111” and substituting “section 21.1, 111”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 67 (4)) (k) a statement that the person requesting the status certificate has the rights described in subsections (7) and (8) with respect to the agreements mentioned in clause (j); (l) a statement whether the parties have complied with all current agreements mentioned in clause 98 (1) (b) with respect to the unit; (m) a statement with respect to, (i) the most recent reserve fund study and updates to it, (ii) the amount in the reserve fund no earlier than at the end of a month within 90 days of the date of the status certificate, and (iii) current plans, if any, to increase the reserve fund under subsection 94 (8); (n) a statement of those additions, alterations or improvements to the common elements, those changes in the assets of the corporation and those changes in a service of the corporation that are substantial and that the board has proposed but has not implemented, together with a statement of the purpose of them; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 76 (1) (n) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 67 (5)) (n) a statement of those modifications, within the meaning of subsection 97 (2), that are substantial within the meaning of subsection 97 (9) and that the board has proposed but has not implemented, together with a statement of the purpose of them; (o) a statement of the number of units for which the corporation has received notice under section 83 that the unit was leased during the fiscal year preceding the date of the status certificate; (p) a certificate or memorandum of insurance for each of the current insurance policies; (q) a statement of the amounts, if any, that this Act requires be added to the common expenses payable for the unit; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 76 (1) (q) of the Act is amended by adding “the contribution to” after “added to”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 67 (6)) (r) a statement whether the Superior Court of Justice has made an order appointing an inspector under section 130 or an administrator under section 131; (s) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 76 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (5); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 67 (1), 146 (1). Fee for certificate (2) The corporation may charge the prescribed fee for providing the status certificate. 1998, c. 19, s. 76 (2). Time for giving certificate (3) The corporation shall give the status certificate within 10 days after receiving a request for it and payment of the fee charged by the corporation for it. 1998, c. 19, s. 76 (3). Omission of information (4) If a status certificate that a corporation has given under subsection (1) omits material information that it is required to contain, it shall be deemed to include a statement that there is no such information. 1998, c. 19, s. 76 (4). Default in giving certificate (5) A corporation that does not give a status certificate within the required time shall be deemed to have given a certificate on the day immediately after the required time has expired stating that, (a) there has been no default in the payment of common expenses for the unit; (b) the board has not declared any increase in the common expenses for the unit since the date of the budget of the corporation for the current fiscal year; and (c) the board has not levied any assessments against the unit since the date of the budget of the corporation for the current fiscal year to increase the contribution to the reserve fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 76 (5). Effect of certificate (6) The status certificate binds the corporation, as of the date it is given or deemed to have been given, with respect to the information that it contains or is deemed to contain, as against a purchaser or mortgagee of a unit who relies on the certificate. 1998, c. 19, s. 76 (6). Examination of agreements (7) Upon receiving a written request and reasonable notice, the corporation shall permit a person who has requested a status certificate and paid the fee charged by the corporation for the certificate, or an agent of the person duly authorized in writing, to examine the agreements mentioned in clause (1) (k) at a reasonable time and at a reasonable location. 1998, c. 19, s. 76 (7). Copies of agreements (8) The corporation shall, within a reasonable time, provide copies of the agreements to a person examining them, if the person so requests and pays a reasonable fee to compensate the corporation for the labour and copying charges. 1998, c. 19, s. 76 (8). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 67 (1) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 67 (2-6) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 77 On the request of any person, the corporation shall, without fee, provide the names and address for service of, (a) the directors and officers of the corporation; (b) the condominium management provider or the condominium manager, if any, with whom the corporation has entered into an agreement to receive condominium management services; (c) any other person responsible for the management of the property; and (d) the person to whom the corporation has delegated the responsibility for providing status certificates. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (11). 78 (1) Every agreement of purchase and sale of a proposed unit entered into by a declarant before the registration of the declaration and description that creates the unit shall be deemed to contain the following covenants by the declarant: Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 78 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before paragraph 1 and substituting the following: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 69 (1)) (1) Every agreement of purchase and sale of a unit or proposed unit entered into by a declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant shall be deemed to contain the following covenants by the declarant, which shall apply despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument: 1. If the proposed unit is for residential purposes, a covenant to take all reasonable steps to sell the other residential units included in the property without delay, except for the units that the declarant intends to lease. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 1 of subsection 78 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “the proposed unit” and substituting “the unit or proposed unit”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 69 (2)) 2. A covenant to take all reasonable steps to deliver to the purchaser without delay a deed to the unit that is in registerable form. 3. A covenant to hold in trust for the corporation the money, if any, that the declarant collects from the purchaser on behalf of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 78 (1). No acquisition of property, etc. (1.1) Every agreement of purchase and sale of a unit or a proposed unit entered into by a declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant shall be deemed to contain the following covenants, which, subject to the regulations, shall apply despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument: 1. The purchaser under the agreement of purchase and sale shall not acquire an interest or right in property described in subsection (1.2) if the property is intended for or is for the collective use or enjoyment of the owners in the corporation of which the unit or proposed unit forms part. 2. The declarant shall not charge and the purchaser under the agreement of purchase and sale shall not pay any amount that is or is intended to be a projected or actual contribution to the reserve fund of the corporation, unless otherwise permitted under this Act. 3. Subject to subsection 23 (6), the purchaser under the agreement of purchase and sale shall not directly or indirectly indemnify, reimburse, or otherwise compensate the declarant or a declarant affiliate for any remedies exercised by or on behalf of a corporation against the declarant or declarant affiliate. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 69 (3). (1.2) The property mentioned in paragraph 1 of subsection (1.1) is any real or personal property, other than real or personal property owned by the corporation, as may be prescribed, or the common elements. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 69 (3). Other agreement (1.3) Subject to the regulations, a provision of an agreement to which a purchaser is a party is void if it contravenes the covenant described in subsection (1.1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 69 (3). No merger of covenants (2) The covenants shall be deemed not to merge by operation of law on delivery to the purchaser of a deed that is in registerable form. 1998, c. 19, s. 78 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 78 (2) of the Act is amended by adding “described in subsection (1) or (1.1)” after “covenants”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 69 (4)) (3) If the declarant breaches a covenant described in subsection (1), the purchaser under the agreement of purchase and sale may make an application for an order under section 134 and an order may be made under that section. 1998, c. 19, s. 78 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 78 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “or (1.1)” after “subsection (1)”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 69 (5)) 79 (1) A declarant who has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of a proposed unit shall take all reasonable steps to complete the buildings required by the agreement subject to all prescribed requirements and to register, without delay, a declaration and description in respect of the property in which the proposed unit will be included. 1998, c. 19, s. 79 (1). (1) If a declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of a proposed unit, the declarant shall take all reasonable steps to complete the buildings required by the agreement subject to all prescribed requirements and to register, without delay, a declaration and description in respect of the property in which the proposed unit will be included. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 70. No right to terminate (2) Despite any provision to the contrary in the agreement of purchase and sale, the declarant is not entitled to terminate an agreement of purchase and sale of a proposed unit by reason only of the failure to register the declaration and description within a period of time specified in the agreement, unless the purchaser consents to the termination in writing. 1998, c. 19, s. 79 (2). (2) Despite any provision to the contrary in the agreement of purchase and sale, the declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant is not entitled to terminate an agreement of purchase and sale of a proposed unit by reason only of the failure to register the declaration and description within a period of time specified in the agreement, unless the purchaser consents to the termination in writing. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 70. Application to court (3) Despite subsection (2), if a declaration and description have not been registered, the declarant may, upon 15 days written notice to the purchasers of all proposed units in the property affected by the declaration and description, make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order terminating the agreements of purchase and sale of the purchasers. 1998, c. 19, s. 79 (3); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (5). Subsequent registration (4) The court may, in the order, provide that a declaration and description shall not be registered in respect of the property in which the proposed units will be included during a period specified in the order. 1998, c. 19, s. 79 (4). (5) On an application for an order, the court shall consider whether, (a) the declarant has taken all reasonable steps to register a declaration and description; (b) a declaration and description can be registered within a reasonable period of time; and (c) the failure and inability to register a declaration and description is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the declarant. 1998, c. 19, s. 79 (5). Registration of order (6) The order is ineffective until a certified copy of it is registered. 1998, c. 19, s. 79 (6). 80 (1) An agreement of purchase and sale may permit or require interim occupancy of a proposed unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (1). “interim occupancy” means the occupancy of a proposed unit before the purchaser receives a deed to the unit that is in registerable form. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (2). Right to pay in full (3) Despite any provision to the contrary in the agreement of purchase and sale, before the expiry of the time period mentioned in subsection 73 (2) for rescinding the agreement, a purchaser may elect to pay in full, on assuming interim occupancy of the proposed unit, the balance of the purchase price remaining after deducting the amounts paid under the agreement before assuming interim occupancy. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (3). Occupancy fee (4) If the purchaser assumes interim occupancy of a proposed unit or is required to do so under the agreement of purchase and sale, the declarant may charge the purchaser a monthly occupancy fee which shall not be greater than the total of the following amounts: 1. Where applicable, interest calculated on a monthly basis on the unpaid balance of the purchase price at the prescribed rate. 2. An amount reasonably estimated on a monthly basis for municipal taxes attributable to the unit. 3. The projected monthly common expense contribution for the unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 3 of subsection 80 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “subject to the regulations” at the end. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 71 (1)) Reserve fund contribution (5) If the declarant charges the purchaser a monthly occupancy fee for interim occupancy of a proposed unit for residential purposes for longer than six months and the monthly occupancy fee includes a projected contribution to the reserve fund of the corporation, then, with respect to the occupancy fee for each month after the sixth month, the declarant shall hold in trust and remit to the corporation upon registering the declaration and description the portion of the monthly occupancy fee that represents the projected contribution to the reserve fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (5). (5) If the declarant charges the purchaser a monthly occupancy fee for interim occupancy of a proposed unit of a prescribed class for longer than six months or such other period that is prescribed and if the monthly occupancy fee includes a projected contribution to the reserve fund of the corporation, then, with respect to the occupancy fee for each month after the sixth month or such other period that is prescribed, the declarant shall hold in trust and remit to the corporation upon registering the declaration and description the portion of the monthly occupancy fee that represents the projected contribution to the reserve fund in accordance with the regulations, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 71 (2). Rights and duties of declarant (6) If a purchaser assumes interim occupancy of a proposed unit, the declarant, (a) shall provide those services that the corporation will have a duty to provide to owners after the registration of the declaration and description that creates the unit; (b) shall repair and maintain the proposed property and the proposed unit in the same manner as the corporation will have a duty to repair after damage and maintain after the registration of the declaration and description that creates the unit; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 80 (6) (b) of the Act is amended by striking out “after damage”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 71 (3)) (c) has the same right of entry that the corporation will have after the registration of the declaration and description that creates the unit; (d) may withhold consent to an assignment of the right to occupy the proposed unit; (e) may charge a reasonable fee for consenting to an assignment of the right to occupy the proposed unit; and (f) shall, within 30 days of the registration of the declaration and description that creates the unit, notify the purchaser in writing of the date and instrument numbers of the registration, unless within that time the purchaser receives a deed to the unit that is in registerable form. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (6). Application of Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (7) The rights and duties described in subsection (6) apply despite any provision to the contrary in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (11); 2006, c. 17, s. 248 (3). Refund of municipal taxes (8) The declarant shall, on delivering to the purchaser a deed that is in registerable form or as soon as is practicable after delivery, refund to the purchaser the portion of the monthly occupancy fee that the purchaser has paid on account of municipal taxes attributable to the proposed unit in excess of the amount actually assessed against the unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (8). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 80 (8) of the Act is amended by striking out “as soon as is practicable” and substituting “as soon as is reasonably possible”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 71 (4)) Municipal taxes payable (9) If the portion of the monthly occupancy fee that the purchaser has paid on account of municipal taxes attributable to the proposed unit is insufficient to pay the amount actually assessed against the unit, the declarant may require the purchaser to pay the difference between the two amounts. 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (9). (10) Sections 149, 150, 151, 165, 166 and 167 and Part VII of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 do not apply to interim occupancy and monthly occupancy fees charged under this section. 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (6); 2006, c. 17, s. 248 (4). (11) Spent: 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (11). 1998, c. 19, s. 80 (11), (12) - 17/06/1998 81 (1) A declarant shall ensure that a trustee of a prescribed class or the declarant’s solicitor receives and holds in trust all money, together with interest earned on it, as soon as a person makes a payment, (a) with respect to reserving a right to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale for the purchase of a proposed unit; (b) on account of an agreement of purchase and sale of a proposed unit; or (c) on account of a sale of a proposed unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 81 (1). (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to money received, (a) on account of the purchase of personal property included in the proposed unit that is not to be permanently affixed to the land; or (b) as an occupancy fee under subsection 80 (4). 1998, c. 19, s. 81 (2). Reservation money (3) If a person has paid money to reserve a right to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale for the purchase of a proposed unit and subsequently enters into such an agreement with the declarant, the declarant shall, on entering into the agreement, credit the money received to the purchase price under the agreement, despite any provision of the agreement. 1998, c. 19, s. 81 (3). (3) If a person has paid money to reserve a right to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale for the purchase of a proposed unit and subsequently enters into such an agreement with the declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant, the declarant shall, in accordance with the regulations and within the prescribed period of time on entering into the agreement, credit the money received to the purchase price under the agreement, despite any provision of the agreement. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 72. (4) Upon receiving money that is required to be held in trust under subsection (1), a trustee of a prescribed class shall hold the money in trust in a separate account in Ontario designated as a trust account at a bank listed in Schedule I or II to the Bank Act (Canada), a trust corporation, a loan corporation or a credit union. 1998, c. 19, s. 81 (4); 2002, c. 8, Sched. I, s. 7 (1). (4) Upon receiving money that is required to be held in trust under subsection (1), a trustee of a prescribed class shall hold the money in trust in a separate account in Ontario designated as a trust account at, (a) a bank within the meaning of section 2 of the Bank Act (Canada); (b) a corporation registered under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act; or (c) a credit union within the meaning of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 72. Declarant’s solicitor (5) Upon receiving money that is required to be held in trust under subsection (1), the declarant’s solicitor shall hold the money in trust in a trust account in Ontario. 1998, c. 19, s. 81 (5). Evidence of compliance (6) Within 10 days of the payment of the money under subsection (1), the declarant shall provide to the person who paid the money written evidence, in the form prescribed by the Minister, of compliance with subsection (1) and one of subsections (4) and (5). 1998, c. 19, s. 81 (6). Duration of trust (7) Despite the registration of a declaration and description, the person who holds money in trust under subsection (1) shall hold it in trust until, (a) the person holding the money in trust disposes of it to the person entitled to it, where the disposal is done in accordance with this Act and an agreement that the person who paid the money has entered into with respect to the proposed unit; or (b) the declarant ensures that security of a prescribed class is provided for the money, except if the money has been received under clause (1) (a) and has not been credited to the purchase price under the agreement. 1998, c. 19, s. 81 (7). 2002, c. 8, Sched. I, s. 7 (1) - 5/01/2005 82 (1) The declarant shall pay interest at the prescribed rate to the purchaser on all money that a person pays on account of the purchase price of a proposed unit or that the declarant credits to the purchase price of a proposed unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 82 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 82 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “that the declarant” and substituting “that the declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 73 (1)) Money released from trust (2) The interest is payable on the money even if, under clause 81 (7) (b), the declarant provides security of a prescribed class for the money. 1998, c. 19, s. 82 (2). (3) The interest shall be calculated from the day the person pays the money received until the day the proposed unit is available for possession or occupancy in accordance with the purchaser’s agreement of purchase and sale with the declarant. 1998, c. 19, s. 82 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 82 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant” at the end. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 73 (2)) Time of payment (4) The interest shall be paid to the purchaser by way of payment or set-off, (a) on the day the declarant delivers to the purchaser a deed to the proposed unit that is in registerable form, if the declarant so elects; or (b) on the day the proposed unit is available for possession or occupancy in accordance with the purchaser’s agreement of purchase and sale with the declarant, otherwise. 1998, c. 19, s. 82 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 82 (4) (b) of the Act is amended by striking out “otherwise” and substituting “or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant, otherwise”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 73 (3)) (5) A declarant who elects to pay the interest to the purchaser on the day of delivering to the purchaser a deed to the proposed unit that is in registerable form shall, on that day, pay interest to the purchaser at the prescribed rate on the interest that the declarant is required to pay under subsection (1). 1998, c. 19, s. 82 (5). (6) The declarant shall pay the interest payable under subsection (5) from the day the proposed unit is available for possession or occupancy in accordance with the purchaser’s agreement of purchase and sale with the declarant until the day of payment. 1998, c. 19, s. 82 (6). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 82 (6) of the Act is amended by striking out “with the declarant” and substituting “with the declarant or a person acting on behalf of or for the benefit of the declarant”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 73 (4)) Terminated agreements (7) If an agreement of purchase and sale provides that a purchaser is entitled to a return of money paid under the agreement upon termination of the agreement and the agreement is terminated, the declarant shall pay interest at the prescribed rate to the purchaser on the money returned. 1998, c. 19, s. 82 (7). Excess interest (8) The declarant is entitled to the excess of all interest earned on money held in trust over the interest it is required to pay under this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 82 (8). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the Act is amended by adding the following sections: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74) 82.1 (1) A corporation may sell the property if, (a) the owners of at least 80 per cent of the units, at the date of the vote, vote in favour of the sale; (b) at least 80 per cent of those persons who, at the date of the vote, have registered claims against the property that were created after the registration of the declaration and description that made this Act applicable to the units being sold, consent in writing to the sale; and (c) all other conditions, if any, that are prescribed have been satisfied. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. (2) When a sale takes place, the board shall deliver to the purchaser the following documents signed by the authorized officers of the corporation: a deed and a certificate in the form prescribed by the Minister, (a) stating that the persons who, under subsection (1), are required to vote in favour of the sale or consent in writing to the sale have done so; and (b) containing all other statements and material, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. Net proceeds (3) Subject to subsection (4), the owners at the time of the registration of the deed, as determined by the regulations, shall share the net proceeds of the sale in the same proportions as their common interests, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. (4) The portion of the net proceeds of the sale that is attributable to a portion of the common elements that is for the use of the owners of certain designated units, where the owners are those at the time of the registration of the deed, as determined by the regulations, and not all the owners at that time, shall be divided among the owners of the designated units in the proportions in which their interests are affected, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. 82.2 (1) A corporation that has made a sale under section 82.1 and every owner in the corporation shall be deemed to have made an agreement in accordance with the prescribed requirements, if any, that an owner who has dissented on the vote authorizing the sale may, within 30 days of the vote, submit to mediation a dispute over the fair market value of the units that have been sold, determined as of the time of the sale. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. Application of s. 132 (2) If an owner submits a dispute to mediation in accordance with the agreement mentioned in subsection (1), section 132 applies to the dispute with necessary modifications as if it were a disagreement under that section. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. (3) An owner who submits a dispute to mediation in accordance with the agreement mentioned in subsection (1) shall give the corporation notice of intention in accordance with the prescribed requirements, if any, within 10 days after the vote authorizing the sale. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. Entitlement to amount (4) An owner who serves a notice of intention in accordance with subsection (3) is entitled to receive from the net proceeds of the sale the amount the owner would have received if the sale price had been the fair market value as determined by the arbitration. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. (5) The corporation shall pay to each of the owners who served a notice of intention in accordance with subsection (3), the deficiency in the amount to which the owner is entitled if the net proceeds of the sale are inadequate to pay the amount, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. (6) The owners, other than those who dissented on the vote authorizing the sale, are liable for the amount of the deficiency payments determined by the proportions of their common interests. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. Common expenses of other owners (7) The corporation shall add the amount of the liability of each of the owners who voted in favour of the sale to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the unit of that owner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 74. 83 (1) The owner of a unit who leases the unit or renews a lease of the unit shall, within 10 days of entering into the lease or the renewal, as the case may be, (a) notify the corporation that the unit is leased; (b) provide the corporation with the lessee’s name, the owner’s address and a copy of the lease or renewal or a summary of it in the form prescribed by the Minister; and (c) provide the lessee with a copy of the declaration, by-laws and rules of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 83 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 75 (1). Termination of lease (2) If a lease of a unit is terminated and not renewed, the owner of the unit shall notify the corporation in writing within 10 days of the termination. 1998, c. 19, s. 83 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 75 (2). Record of notices (3) A corporation shall maintain a record of the notices that it receives under this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 83 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, Part VI of the Act is amended by adding the following section immediately before the heading “Common Expenses”: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76) 83.1 (1) A corporation shall have a budget for each of its fiscal years that is prepared in accordance with this section. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. (2) The fiscal year of a corporation shall end on, (a) in the case of the first fiscal year after the registration of the declaration and description, the last day of the month in which the first anniversary of that registration takes place or such other day as is prescribed; and (b) in the case of a fiscal year after the first fiscal year after the registration of the declaration and description, (i) the day specified by a by-law of the corporation passed after a new board is elected at a turn-over meeting held under section 43, (ii) the day specified by a resolution of the board, if there is no by-law as described in subclause (i), or (iii) the next following anniversary of the end of the first fiscal year, if there is no by-law or resolution as described in subclauses (i) and (ii). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. Budget for first fiscal year (3) Within the prescribed periods of time, the declarant shall ensure that the budget of the corporation for its first fiscal year is prepared in accordance with the regulations and shall deliver it to, (a) the first board mentioned in subsection 42 (1); or (b) the corporation, if the first board has not been appointed in accordance with subsection 42 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. Budget for subsequent years (4) At least 30 days before the start of each fiscal year of the corporation after its first fiscal year, the board shall prepare a budget for the ensuing fiscal year that covers the corporation’s general and reserve fund accounts and that is prepared in accordance with the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. (5) Within 15 days of preparing a budget described in subsection (4), the board shall provide a notice to the owners that is in the prescribed form, if any, containing a copy of the budget. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. (6) The board shall not implement a budget of the corporation until it has provided the notice mentioned in subsection (5). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. (7) Subject to subsection (9), the board may amend a budget of the corporation for any fiscal year at any time before the end of the fiscal year. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. (8) Within 15 days of amending a budget of the corporation, the board shall provide a notice to the owners that is in the prescribed form, if any, containing a copy of the budget. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. (9) The board shall not implement an amendment to a budget of the corporation until it has complied with subsection (8). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. Notice of non-budgeted amounts (10) If the board proposes that the corporation incur a prescribed expense in a fiscal year that exceeds, in the manner determined by the regulations, the budgeted amount for the expense in the applicable budget or amendment to a budget for that fiscal year, the board shall provide the prescribed notice of the expense to the owners within the prescribed time and in accordance with the prescribed requirements. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 76. 84 (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the owners shall contribute to the common expenses in the proportions specified in the declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 84 (1). Common surplus (2) A common surplus in a corporation shall be applied either against future common expenses or paid into the reserve fund, and except on termination, shall not be distributed to the owners or mortgagees of the units. 1998, c. 19, s. 84 (2). No avoidance (3) An owner is not exempt from the obligation to contribute to the common expenses even if, (a) the owner has waived or abandoned the right to use the common elements or part of them; (b) the owner is making a claim against the corporation; or (c) the declaration, by-laws or rules restrict the owner from using the common elements or part of them. 1998, c. 19, s. 84 (3). (3) Subject to subsection (6), an owner is not exempt from the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit even if, (a) the owner has waived or abandoned the right to use, (i) the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation, or part of them, or (ii) any land, any part of a property or proposed property, any assets of a corporation or any facilities or services that are subject to an agreement mentioned in subsection 21.1 (1) or 113 (1); (c) the declaration, by-laws or rules restrict the owner from using, as the case may be, (ii) any land, any part of a property or proposed property, any assets of a corporation or any facilities or services that are subject to an agreement mentioned in subsection 21.1 (1) or 113 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. Addition to contribution (4) If the corporation makes a prescribed addition to the amount of the contribution to the common expenses payable for an owner’s unit, the corporation shall provide the prescribed notice to the owner within 15 days of making the addition. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. Reaction of owner (5) Within 30 days of receiving the notice or within such other time period that is determined by the regulations, the owner shall, (a) pay the amount of the addition to the corporation in the prescribed manner; (b) if the owner transfers the unit within the 30 days or the other time period, as applicable, (i) ensure that the amount of the addition is held in escrow, in accordance with the regulations, when the transaction for the transfer closes until it is to be paid to the person entitled to it, as determined in accordance with the regulations, and (ii) give notice to the corporation, in accordance with the regulations and as soon as reasonably possible after the transfer, that the amount of the addition is being so held in escrow; (c) apply, in accordance with Part I.2, to the Condominium Authority Tribunal established under that Part for resolution of the requirement to pay the addition as a matter in dispute, if the Tribunal has been established under that Part and the application may be made under that Part; or (d) apply to the Superior Court of Justice for resolution of the requirement to pay the addition, if the Condominium Authority Tribunal has not been established under Part I.2 or the application described in clause (c) may not be made under that Part. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. Exemption during dispute resolution (6) Subject to subsection (10), an owner who complies with clause (5) (c) or (d) is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the common expenses with respect to the amount of the addition, unless a settlement agreement or a final order of the Condominium Authority Tribunal or of a court provides otherwise, as is determined by the regulations, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. Addition owing (7) If an owner who, under subsection (6), is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the common expenses with respect to the amount of the addition ceases to be exempt from the obligation with respect to any part or all of the addition, the corporation shall send the owner a notice specifying a time by which the owner is required to pay, in accordance with the regulations, if any, the amount that ceases to be exempt from the obligation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. Notice of additions to contribution (8) Subject to any other provision of this Act or the regulations dealing with a notice of a contribution to the common expenses, if, pursuant to this Act or the regulations, an amount is added to the contribution to the common expenses payable for an owner’s unit, the corporation shall send the owner a notice specifying a time by which the owner is required to pay the amount in accordance with the regulations, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. (9) An owner who does not comply with clause (5) (a), (c) or (d) shall be deemed to be in default in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit with respect to the amount of the addition. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. (10) An owner who does not comply with clause (5) (b) shall be deemed to have been in default, as of the date specified in subsection (11), in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit with respect to the amount of the addition. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. Date of default (11) The date of the default mentioned in subsection (10) shall be a date that is before the closing of the transaction for the transfer mentioned in clause (5) (b) and that is determined in accordance with the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 77. 85 (1) If an owner defaults in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit, the corporation has a lien against the owner’s unit and its appurtenant common interest for the unpaid amount together with all interest owing and all reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses incurred by the corporation in connection with the collection or attempted collection of the unpaid amount. 1998, c. 19, s. 85 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 78 (1). Expiration of lien (2) The lien expires three months after the default that gave rise to the lien occurred unless the corporation within that time registers a certificate of lien in a form prescribed by the Minister. 1998, c. 19, s. 85 (2). Certificate of lien (3) A certificate of lien when registered covers, (a) the amount owing under all of the corporation’s liens against the owner’s unit that have not expired at the time of registration of the certificate; (b) the amount by which the owner defaults in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit after the registration of the certificate; and (c) all interest owing and all reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses that the corporation incurs in connection with the collection or attempted collection of the amounts described in clauses (a) and (b), including the costs of preparing and registering the certificate of lien and a discharge of it. 1998, c. 19, s. 85 (3); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 78 (1). Notice to owner (4) At least 10 days before the day a certificate of lien is registered, the corporation shall give written notice of the lien to the owner whose unit is affected by the lien. 1998, c. 19, s. 85 (4). Lien enforcement (6) The lien may be enforced in the same manner as a mortgage. 1998, c. 19, s. 85 (6). Discharge of lien (7) Upon payment of the amounts described in subsection (3), the corporation shall prepare and register a discharge of the certificate of lien in the form prescribed by the Minister and shall advise the owner in writing of the particulars of the registration. 1998, c. 19, s. 85 (7). 86 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a lien mentioned in subsection 85 (1) has priority over every registered and unregistered encumbrance even though the encumbrance existed before the lien arose but does not have priority over, (a) a claim of the Crown other than by way of a mortgage; (b) a claim for taxes, charges, rates or assessments levied or recoverable under the Municipal Act, 2001, the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the Education Act, the Local Roads Boards Act or the Statute Labour Act; or (c) a lien or claim that is prescribed. 1998, c. 19, s. 86 (1); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 7. Competing liens (1.1) If two or more corporations have a lien mentioned in subsection 85 (1) or 139 (5) against the same real property that is prescribed, priority between the liens shall be determined in accordance with the regulations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 79 (1). Exception, non-residential lien (2) A lien in respect of a unit for non-residential purposes does not have priority under this section in respect of the amount by which the owner of the unit has defaulted in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit before the coming into force of this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 86 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 79 (2). Notice of lien (3) The corporation shall, on or before the day a certificate of lien is registered, give written notice of the lien to every encumbrancer whose encumbrance is registered against the title of the unit affected by the lien. 1998, c. 19, s. 86 (3). Service of notice (4) The corporation shall give the notice by personal service or by sending it by registered prepaid mail addressed to the encumbrancer at the encumbrancer’s last known address. 1998, c. 19, s. 86 (4). Effect of no notice (5) Subject to subsection (6), the lien loses its priority over an encumbrance unless the corporation gives the required notice to the encumbrancer. 1998, c. 19, s. 86 (5). Priority if notice late (6) If a corporation gives notice of a lien to an encumbrancer after the day the certificate of lien is registered, the lien shall have priority over the encumbrance to the extent of, (a) the arrears of contributions to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit that accrued during the three months before the day notice is given and that continue to accrue subsequent to that day; and (b) all interest owing on the arrears and all reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses incurred by the corporation in connection with the collection or attempted collection of the arrears. 1998, c. 19, s. 86 (6); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 79 (3). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 79 (1) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 79 (2, 3) - 01/11/2017 87 (1) If an owner who has leased a unit defaults in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit, the corporation may, by written notice to the lessee, require the lessee to pay to the corporation the lesser of the amount of the default and the amount of the rent due under the lease. 1998, c. 19, s. 87 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 80 (1). Service on lessee (2) The corporation shall give the notice to the lessee by personal service or by sending it by prepaid mail addressed to the lessee at the address of the unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 87 (2). (3) If the corporation gives a notice to a lessee, it shall give a copy of the notice to the owner of the unit that the lessee has leased. 1998, c. 19, s. 87 (3). Rent paid to corporation (5) Upon receiving a notice under subsection (1), the lessee shall make the required payment to the corporation even if an encumbrancer of the unit has acquired the right of the lessor to receive rent under the lease. 1998, c. 19, s. 87 (5). No default in lease (6) The payment to the corporation shall constitute payment towards rent under the lease and the lessee shall not by reason only of the payment to the corporation be considered to be in default of an obligation in the lease. 1998, c. 19, s. 87 (6). 88 (1) Every mortgage of a unit shall be deemed to contain a provision that, (a) the mortgagee has the right to collect the contribution to the common expenses payable for the unit and shall promptly pay the amount so collected to the corporation on behalf of the owner of the unit; (b) the owner’s default in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit constitutes default under the mortgage; (c) the mortgagee has the right to pay, (i) the amounts of the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit that from time to time fall due and are unpaid in respect of the mortgaged premises, (ii) all interest owing and all reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses that the corporation incurs in connection with the collection or attempted collection of the amounts described in subclause (i), including, where applicable, the costs of preparing and registering a certificate of lien and a discharge of it; (d) payments made by the mortgagee under clause (c), together with interest and all reasonable costs, charges and expenses incurred in respect of the payments, are to be added to the debt secured by the mortgage and to be payable, with interest at the rate payable on the mortgage; and (e) if after demand the owner fails to fully reimburse the mortgagee, the mortgage immediately becomes due and payable at the option of the mortgagee. 1998, c. 19, s. 88 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 81 (1-3). Statement of common expenses (2) A corporation shall, on request and free of charge, provide to the mortgagee of a unit a written statement setting out the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit and, if there is a default in the payment of them, the amounts described in subsection 85 (3) in respect of the unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 88 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 81 (4). 89 (1) Subject to sections 91 and 123, the corporation shall repair the units and common elements after damage. 1998, c. 19, s. 89 (1). Extent of obligation (2) The obligation to repair after damage includes the obligation to repair and replace after damage or failure but, subject to subsection (5), does not include the obligation to repair after damage improvements made to a unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 89 (2). Determination of improvements (3) For the purpose of this section, the question of what constitutes an improvement to a unit shall be determined by reference to a standard unit for the class of unit to which the unit belongs. 1998, c. 19, s. 89 (3). Standard unit (4) A standard unit for the class of unit to which the unit belongs shall be, (a) the standard unit described in a by-law made under clause 56 (1) (h), if the board has made a by-law under that clause; (b) the standard unit described in the schedule mentioned in clause 43 (5) (h), if the board has not made a by-law under clause 56 (1) (h). 1998, c. 19, s. 89 (4). Transition, existing corporations (5) A corporation that was created before the day this section comes into force and that had the obligation of repairing after damage improvements made to a unit before the registration of the declaration and description shall continue to have the obligation unless it has, by by-law, established what constitutes a standard unit for the class of unit to which the unit belongs. 1998, c. 19, s. 89 (5). 89 (1) Subject to sections 91 and 123, the corporation shall repair the common elements and the assets, if any, of the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 82. Same, units (2) Subject to sections 91 and 123, each owner shall repair the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 82. 90 (1) Subject to section 91, the corporation shall maintain the common elements and each owner shall maintain the owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 90 (1). Normal repairs included (2) The obligation to maintain includes the obligation to repair after normal wear and tear but does not include the obligation to repair after damage. 1998, c. 19, s. 90 (2). 90 (1) Subject to section 91, the corporation shall maintain the common elements and the assets, if any, of the corporation and each owner shall maintain the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 82. Same, not repair (2) The obligation to maintain does not include the obligation to repair. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 82. 91 The declaration may alter the obligation to maintain or to repair after damage as set out in this Act by providing that, (a) subject to section 123, each owner shall repair the owner’s unit after damage; (b) the owners shall maintain the common elements or any part of them; (c) each owner shall maintain and repair after damage those parts of the common elements of which the owner has the exclusive use; and (d) the corporation shall maintain the units or any part of them. 1998, c. 19, s. 91. 91 The declaration may alter the obligation to repair or to maintain as set out in this Act by providing that, subject to the regulations, (a) subject to section 123, the corporation shall repair the units or any part of them; (b) subject to section 123, the owners shall repair the common elements or any part of them; (c) the corporation shall maintain the units or any part of them; (d) the owners shall maintain the common elements or any part of them; (e) the corporation shall carry out an obligation to repair or to maintain on behalf of or for the benefit of an owner and may add the cost of the work to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit; (f) the corporation shall be responsible for the costs to remove or restore parts of a unit or other real property or personal property of an owner in order to carry out an obligation of the corporation to repair or to maintain; and (g) the corporation or the owners shall have the other obligations or responsibilities to repair or to maintain that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 82. 92 (1) If the declaration provides that the owner has an obligation to repair after damage and the owner fails to carry out the obligation within a reasonable time after damage occurs, the corporation shall do the work necessary to carry out the obligation. 1998, c. 19, s. 92 (1). (1) If an owner has an obligation under this Act to repair and fails to carry out the obligation within a reasonable time, the corporation shall do the work necessary to carry out the obligation unless the regulations provide otherwise. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 83 (1). Same, maintenance (2) If the declaration provides that the owner has an obligation to maintain the common elements or any part of them and the owner fails to carry out the obligation within a reasonable time, the corporation may do the work necessary to carry out the obligation. 1998, c. 19, s. 92 (2). (2) If an owner has an obligation under this Act to maintain the common elements or any part of them and the owner fails to carry out the obligation within a reasonable time, the corporation may do the work necessary to carry out the obligation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 83 (1). Same, maintenance of units (3) If an owner has an obligation under this Act to maintain the owner’s unit and fails to carry out the obligation within a reasonable time and if the failure presents a potential risk of damage to the property or the assets of the corporation or a potential risk of personal injury to persons on the property, the corporation may do the work necessary to carry out the obligation. 1998, c. 19, s. 92 (3). (3) If an owner has an obligation under this Act to maintain the owner’s unit and fails to carry out the obligation within a reasonable time and if the circumstances set out in the regulations exist, the corporation may do the work necessary to carry out the obligation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 83 (1). (4) An owner shall be deemed to have consented to the work done by a corporation under this section and the cost of the work shall be added to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 92 (4); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 83 (2). 93 (1) The corporation shall establish and maintain one or more reserve funds. 1998, c. 19, s. 93 (1). Purpose of fund (2) A reserve fund shall be used solely for the purpose of major repair and replacement of the common elements and assets of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 93 (2). (2) A reserve fund shall be used solely for, (a) the purpose of major repair of a unit, the common elements or assets, if any, of the corporation, if the corporation has the obligation to repair in that regard under this Act; (b) subject to the regulations, the purpose of complying, in accordance with the regulations, with the requirements imposed by any general or special Act or regulations or by-laws made under that Act; or (c) such other purposes, if any, that are prescribed, subject to the requirements, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 84 (1). “major repair” means repair as determined in accordance with the regulations, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 84 (1). Designation not required (3) A fund set up for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) shall be deemed to be a reserve fund even though it may not be so designated. 1998, c. 19, s. 93 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 93 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “the purpose” and substituting “any of the purposes”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 84 (2)) Contributions to fund (4) The corporation shall collect contributions to the reserve fund from the owners, as part of their contributions to the common expenses. 1998, c. 19, s. 93 (4). (4) The corporation shall collect contributions to the reserve fund from the owners, as part of the contributions to the common expenses payable for their units, to ensure that the amount of money in the fund and the amount of contributions to the common expenses that the corporation collects are adequate, as determined by the regulations, for the purposes of the fund mentioned in subsection (2). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 84 (3). Amount of contributions (5) Unless the regulations made under this Act specify otherwise, until the corporation conducts a first reserve fund study and implements a proposed plan under section 94, the total amount of the contributions to the reserve fund shall be the greater of the amount specified in subsection (6) and 10 per cent of the budgeted amount required for contributions to the common expenses exclusive of the reserve fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 93 (5). Outside opinion (5) If the amount of money in a reserve fund is below the prescribed amount, the corporation shall, within the prescribed period of time, if any, obtain a written opinion, in accordance with the regulations, if any, from a reserve fund study provider with respect to the reserve fund and whether the provider recommends that the corporation obtain a reserve fund study before the time at which it is next required to obtain such a study. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 84 (3). Same, after first reserve fund study (6) The total amount of the contributions to the reserve fund after the time period specified in subsection (5) shall be the amount that is reasonably expected to provide sufficient funds for the major repair and replacement of the common elements and assets of the corporation, calculated on the basis of the expected repair and replacement costs and the life expectancy of the common elements and assets of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 93 (6). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 93 (6) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 84 (3)) Income earned (7) Interest and other income earned from the investment of money in the reserve fund shall form part of the fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 93 (7). 94 (1) The corporation shall conduct periodic studies to determine whether the amount of money in the reserve fund and the amount of contributions collected by the corporation are adequate to provide for the expected costs of major repair and replacement of the common elements and assets of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (1). (1) The corporation shall obtain periodic studies, when required to do so, to determine whether the amount of money in the fund and the amount of contributions to the common expenses that the corporation collects are adequate, as determined by the regulations, for the purposes of the fund mentioned in subsection 93 (2). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 85 (1). Permissive studies (1.1) In addition to obtaining a reserve fund study when it is required to do so, the corporation may obtain a reserve fund study at other times to make the determination described in subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 85 (1). Contents of study (2) A reserve fund study shall be of the prescribed class, shall include the material that is prescribed for its class and shall be performed in accordance with the standards that are prescribed for its class. 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (2). (3) For the purposes of this Act, an update to a reserve fund study shall constitute a class of reserve fund study. 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (3). Time of study (4) A corporation created on or after the day this section comes into force shall conduct a reserve fund study within the year following the registration of the declaration and description and subsequently at the prescribed times. 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (4); 2001, c. 9, Sched. D, s. 3 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 94 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “conduct” and substituting “obtain”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 85 (2)) Same, existing corporations (5) A corporation created before the day this section comes into force shall conduct a reserve fund study at the prescribed times. 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (5). Person conducting study (6) A reserve fund study shall be conducted by a person of a prescribed class who shall have no affiliation with the board or with the corporation that is contrary to the regulations made under this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (6). (6) A reserve fund study shall be conducted by a reserve fund study provider. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 85 (3). (7) The cost of conducting the study shall be a common expense which the board may charge to the reserve fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (7). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 94 (7) of the Act is amended by striking out “conducting” and substituting “obtaining”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 85 (4)) Plan for future funding (8) Within 120 days of receiving a reserve fund study, the board shall review it and propose a plan for the future funding of the reserve fund that the board determines will ensure that, within a prescribed period of time and in accordance with the prescribed requirements, the fund will be adequate for the purpose for which it was established. 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (8). Plan for funding (8) Within 120 days of receiving a reserve fund study, the board shall review it and propose a plan, in accordance with the regulations, if any, for the future funding of the reserve fund that the board determines will ensure that the amount of money in the fund will be adequate, as determined by the regulations, for the purposes of the fund mentioned in subsection 93 (2). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 85 (5). Copy of plan (9) Within 15 days of proposing a plan, the board shall, (a) send to the owners a notice containing a summary of the study, a summary of the proposed plan and a statement indicating the areas, if any, in which the proposed plan differs from the study; and (b) send to the auditor a copy of the study, a copy of the proposed plan and a copy of the notice sent to the owners under clause (a). 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (9). Implementation of proposed plan (10) The board shall implement the proposed plan after the expiration of 30 days following the day on which the board complies with subsection (9). 1998, c. 19, s. 94 (10). 95 (1) No part of a reserve fund shall be used except for the purpose mentioned in subsection 93 (2). 1998, c. 19, s. 95 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 95 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “the purpose” and substituting “the purposes”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 86 (1)) Board’s use (2) The board does not require the consent of the owners to make an expenditure out of a reserve fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 95 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 95 (2) of the Act is amended by adding “Subject to the regulations” at the beginning. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 86 (2)) No distribution (3) The amount of a reserve fund shall constitute an asset of the corporation and shall not be distributed to the mortgagees of the units or, except on termination of the corporation, to the owners of the units. 1998, c. 19, s. 95 (3). 96 (1) All warranties given with respect to work and materials furnished for a unit shall be for the benefit of an owner. 1998, c. 19, s. 96 (1). Enforcement by corporation (2) The corporation may enforce the warranties mentioned in subsection (1) on behalf of an owner if the corporation does work on behalf of the owner under section 92. 1998, c. 19, s. 96 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 96 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “section 92” at the end and substituting “section 91 or 92”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 87 (1)) (3) All warranties given with respect to work and materials furnished for the common elements shall be for the benefit of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 96 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 96 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “or the assets, if any, of the corporation” after “common elements”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 87 (2)) 97 (1) If the corporation has an obligation to repair the units or common elements after damage or to maintain them and the corporation carries out the obligation using materials that are as reasonably close in quality to the original as is appropriate in accordance with current construction standards, the work shall be deemed not to be an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements or a change in the assets of the corporation for the purpose of this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (1). Changes made without notice (2) A corporation may, by resolution of the board and without notice to the owners, make an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements, a change in the assets of the corporation or a change in a service that the corporation provides to the owners if, (a) it is necessary to make the addition, alteration, improvement or change to comply with an agreement mentioned in section 113 or the requirements imposed by any general or special Act or regulations or by-laws made under that Act; (b) in the opinion of the board, it is necessary to make the addition, alteration, improvement or change to ensure the safety or security of persons using the property or assets of the corporation or to prevent imminent damage to the property or assets; or (c) subject to the regulations made under this Act, the estimated cost, in any given month or other prescribed period, if any, of making the addition, alteration, improvement or change is no more than the greater of $1,000 and 1 per cent of the annual budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (2). Changes made on notice (3) A corporation may make an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements, a change in the assets of the corporation or a change in a service that the corporation provides to the owners if, (a) the corporation has sent a notice to the owners that, (i) describes the proposed addition, alteration, improvement or change, (ii) contains a statement of the estimated cost of the proposed addition, alteration, improvement or change indicating the manner in which the corporation proposes to pay the cost, (iii) specifies that the owners have the right, in accordance with section 46 and within 30 days of receiving the notice, to requisition a meeting of owners, and (iv) contains a copy of section 46 and this section; and (b) one of the following conditions has been met: 1. The owners have not requisitioned a meeting in accordance with section 46 within 30 days of receiving a notice under clause (a). 2. The owners have requisitioned a meeting in accordance with section 46 within 30 days of receiving a notice under clause (a) but have not voted against the proposed addition, alteration, improvement or change at the meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (3). Approval of substantial change (4) Despite subsection (3), the corporation shall not make a substantial addition, alteration, improvement to the common elements, a substantial change in the assets of the corporation or a substantial change in a service that the corporation provides to the owners unless the owners who own at least 662/3 per cent of the units of the corporation vote in favour of approving it. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (4). (5) The vote shall be taken at a meeting duly called for the purpose of subsection (4). 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (5). Meaning of substantial change (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), an addition, alteration, improvement or change is substantial if, (a) its estimated cost, based on its total cost, regardless of whether part of the cost is incurred before or after the current fiscal year, exceeds the lesser of, (i) 10 per cent of the annual budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year, and (ii) the prescribed amount, if any; or (b) the board elects to treat it as substantial. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (6). Cost of changes (7) The cost of an addition, alteration, improvement or change that the corporation makes under this section shall form part of the common expenses. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (7). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the heading immediately before section 97 and section 97 of the Act are repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88) 97 (1) No person shall make a modification except in accordance with this section or section 98. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. “cost” means the cost as determined in accordance with the regulations, if any; (“coût”) “modification” means, subject to subsection (3) and the regulations, (a) an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements, (b) a change in the assets, if any, of the corporation, (c) a change in the services that the corporation provides to the owners, or (d) any combination or series of additions, alterations, improvements or changes described in clause (a), (b) or (c) that collectively relate to each other, as determined by the regulations. (“modification”) 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88 Interpretation, modification (3) Subject to sections 93, 94 and 95 and the regulations, if a corporation has an obligation to repair the units, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation or to maintain them and if the corporation carries out the obligation using materials that are as reasonably close in quality to the original as is appropriate, as determined in accordance with current construction standards, the work shall be deemed not to be a modification. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. Cost assessment (4) The board shall conduct an assessment of the cost to the corporation, in accordance with the regulations, of any modifications that a corporation proposes to make under clause (5) (c) or subsection (6) or (7). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. Modifications made without notice (5) A corporation may, without notice to the owners, make a modification if, (a) it is necessary to make the modification to comply with an agreement mentioned in section 21.1 or 113 or the requirements imposed by any general or special Act or regulations or by-laws made under that Act; (b) in the opinion of the board, it is necessary to make the modification to ensure the safety or security of persons using the property or assets, if any, of the corporation or to prevent imminent damage to the property or assets; (c) unless the regulations provide otherwise, (i) the estimated cost, if any, to the corporation of making the modification, based on its total cost, regardless of whether part of the cost is incurred before or after the current fiscal year, is no more than the lesser of 3 per cent of the annual budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year and $30,000, and (ii) the owners, on an objective basis, would not regard the modification as causing a material reduction or elimination of their use or enjoyment of the units that they own or the common elements or assets, if any, of the corporation, as determined by the regulations; or (d) the modification is for any prescribed purposes, subject to the requirements, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. Modifications made on notice (6) A corporation may make a modification to which subsection (5) does not apply if, (a) the corporation has sent a notice to the owners in accordance with the prescribed requirements, if any, that, (i) describes the proposed modification, (ii) contains, (A) the prescribed statement, if the owners, on an objective basis, would regard the proposed modification as causing a material reduction or elimination of their use or enjoyment of the units that they own or the common elements or assets, if any, of the corporation, as determined by the regulations, or (B) the prescribed statement of the estimated cost to the corporation of making the proposed modification, indicating the manner in which the corporation proposes to pay the cost, (iv) contains a copy of the text of section 46 and this section; and (b) the owners, (i) have not requisitioned a meeting in accordance with section 46 within 30 days of receiving a notice under clause (a), (ii) have requisitioned a meeting in accordance with section 46 within 30 days of receiving a notice under clause (a) but a quorum is not present at the first attempt to hold the meeting, or (iii) have requisitioned a meeting in accordance with section 46 within 30 days of receiving a notice under clause (a), a quorum is present at the first attempt to hold the meeting and the owners have not voted against the proposed modification at the meeting. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. Approval of substantial modification (7) Despite subsection (6), a corporation shall not make a substantial modification unless the owners who own at least 66 ⅔ per cent of the units in the corporation vote in favour of approving it. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. (8) The vote shall be taken at a meeting duly called for the purpose of subsection (7). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. Interpretation, substantial modification (9) For the purposes of subsection (7), a modification is substantial if, (a) the estimated cost to the corporation of making the modification, based on its total cost, regardless of whether part of the cost is incurred before or after the current fiscal year, exceeds the lesser of, (b) the board elects to treat it as substantial. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. Cost of modifications (10) The cost of a modification that the corporation makes under this section shall form part of the common expenses. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. 98 (1) An owner may make an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements that is not contrary to this Act or the declaration if, (a) the board, by resolution, has approved the proposed addition, alteration or improvement; (b) the owner and the corporation have entered into an agreement that, (i) allocates the cost of the proposed addition, alteration or improvement between the corporation and the owner, (ii) sets out the respective duties and responsibilities, including the responsibilities for the cost of repair after damage, maintenance and insurance, of the corporation and the owner with respect to the proposed addition, alteration or improvement, and (iii) sets out the other matters that the regulations made under this Act require; (c) subject to subsection (2), the requirements of section 97 have been met in cases where that section would apply if the proposed addition, alteration or improvement were done by the corporation; and (d) the corporation has included a copy of the agreement described in clause (b) in the notice that the corporation is required to send to the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 98 (1). No notice or approval (2) Clauses (1) (c) and (d) do not apply if the proposed addition, alteration or improvement relates to a part of the common elements of which the owner has exclusive use and if the board is satisfied on the evidence that it may require that the proposed addition, alteration or improvement, (a) will not have an adverse effect on units owned by other owners; (b) will not give rise to any expense to the corporation; (c) will not detract from the appearance of buildings on the property; (d) will not affect the structural integrity of buildings on the property according to a certificate of an engineer, if the proposed addition, alteration or improvement involves a change to the structure of the buildings; and (e) will not contravene the declaration or any prescribed requirements. 1998, c. 19, s. 98 (2). When agreement effective (3) An agreement described in clause (1) (b) does not take effect until, (a) the conditions set out in clause (1) (a) and subsection (2) have been met or the conditions set out in clauses (1) (a), (c) and (d) have been met; and (b) the corporation has registered it against the title to the owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 98 (3). Lien for default under agreement (4) The corporation may add the costs, charges, interest and expenses resulting from an owner’s failure to comply with an agreement to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit and may specify a time for payment by the owner. 1998, c. 19, s. 98 (4). Agreement binds unit (5) An agreement binds the owner’s unit and is enforceable against the owner’s successors and assigns. 1998, c. 19, s. 98 (5). 98 (1) An owner may make a modification if, (a) the board, by resolution, has approved the proposed modification; (i) allocates the cost of the proposed modification between the corporation and the owner, (ii) sets out the respective duties and responsibilities, including the responsibilities for the cost of repair, maintenance and insurance, of the corporation and the owner with respect to the proposed modification, and (iii) sets out the other matters that the regulations require; (c) subject to subsection (3), the requirements of section 97 have been met in accordance with the regulations in the cases where the regulations specify that those requirements are to apply; and (d) the corporation has included a copy of the agreement described in clause (b) in a notice that the corporation is required to send to the owners, if the corporation is required to send that notice. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. “modification” means an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation that is not contrary to this Act, the declaration, the by-laws or the rules. (“modification”) 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. (3) Clauses (1) (c) and (d) do not apply if the proposed modification relates to a part of the common elements of which the owner has exclusive use and if the board is satisfied, on the evidence that it may require, that, (a) the other owners, on an objective basis, would not regard the proposed modification as causing a material reduction or elimination of their use or enjoyment of units that they own or the common elements or assets, if any, of the corporation, as determined by the regulations; (b) the proposed modification will not give rise to any expense to the corporation; (c) the proposed modification will not detract from the appearance of buildings on the property; (d) the proposed modification will not affect the structural integrity of buildings on the property according to a certificate of an engineer, if the proposed modification involves a change to the structure of the buildings; and (e) the proposed modification will not contravene the declaration, the by-laws, the rules or the prescribed requirements, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. (b) the corporation has registered it against the title to the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. If default under agreement (5) The corporation may add the costs, charges, interest and expenses resulting from an owner’s failure to comply with the agreement to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. (6) The agreement binds the owner’s unit and any easement or covenant, whether positive or negative in nature, in the agreement shall run with the unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. 2. The owner or any subsequent owner of the unit. 3. Subject to the regulations, the corporation and any of its successors and assigns. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 88. 99 (1) The corporation shall obtain and maintain insurance, on its own behalf and on behalf of the owners, for damage to the units and common elements that is caused by major perils or the other perils that the declaration or the by-laws specify. 1998, c. 19, s. 99 (1). “major perils” means the perils of fire, lightning, smoke, windstorm, hail, explosion, water escape, strikes, riots or civil commotion, impact by aircraft or vehicles, vandalism or malicious acts. 1998, c. 19, s. 99 (2). Exclusion ineffective (3) An exclusion in the insurance required by this section is not effective with respect to damage resulting from faulty or improper material, workmanship or design that would be insured, but for the exclusion. 1998, c. 19, s. 99 (3). Improvements not included (4) The obligation to insure under subsection (1) does not include insurance for damage to improvements made to a unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 99 (4). Amount of recovery (7) Subject to a reasonable deductible, the insurance required under this section shall cover the replacement cost of the property damaged by the perils to which the insurance applies. 1998, c. 19, s. 99 (7). Breach of policy (8) Despite anything in an insurance policy issued under this section, no act of any person shall be deemed to be a breach of the conditions of the policy if the act is prejudicial to the interests of the corporation or the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 99 (8). (9) An insurance policy issued under this section shall be deemed to include a clause that the insurer shall not terminate the insurance contract unless the insurer gives the corporation and the insurance trustee, if any, at least 60 days notice by registered mail. 1998, c. 19, s. 99 (9). 100 (1) Despite anything contained in an insurance trust agreement that the corporation has entered into with an insurance trustee, if the proceeds of an insurance policy issued under section 99 are less than 15 per cent of the replacement cost of the property covered by the policy, the insurer shall pay the proceeds to the corporation or the person whom the corporation specifies. 1998, c. 19, s. 100 (1). Use of insurance proceeds (2) Upon the proceeds being available, the corporation shall promptly use them for the repair or replacement of the damaged units and common elements, unless the owners have voted to terminate because of substantial damage in accordance with section 123. 1998, c. 19, s. 100 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 100 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “the repair or replacement of the damaged units” and substituting “the repair of the damage to the damaged units”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 90) Payment from Ontario New Home Warranties Plan (3) A corporation that receives a payment out of the guarantee fund under subsection 14 (3) or (4) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for remedial work to the common elements shall promptly use the payment for the remedial work, unless, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 100 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (17)) Payment from Ontario New Home Warranties and Protection Plan (3) A corporation that receives a payment out of the guarantee fund under the prescribed provisions of the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 or the regulations made under that Act for remedial work to the common elements shall promptly use the payment for the remedial work, unless, (a) the owners have voted to terminate because of substantial damage in accordance with section 123; or (b) the corporation has already completed and paid for the remedial work. 1998, c. 19, s. 100 (3). Limitation, mortgage (4) Despite any provision in a mortgage or subsection 6 (2) of the Mortgages Act, a mortgagee may not require that proceeds received under an insurance policy on the property or on a part of the property or a payment received out of the guarantee fund under subsection 14 (3) or (4) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act be applied towards the discharge of the mortgage; a requirement that contravenes this subsection is void. 1998, c. 19, s. 100 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 100 (4) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (18)) (4) Despite any provision in a mortgage or subsection 6 (2) of the Mortgages Act, a mortgagee may not require that proceeds received under an insurance policy on the property or on a part of the property or a payment received out of the guarantee fund under the prescribed provisions of the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017, or the regulations made under that Act, be applied towards the discharge of the mortgage; a requirement that contravenes this subsection is void. 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (18). 2017, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 75 (17, 18) - not in force 101 (1) Insurance that a corporation obtains and maintains under section 99 shall be deemed not to be other insurance for the purpose of any prohibition of or condition against other insurance in a policy of an owner insuring against loss of or damage to the owner’s unit or the owner’s interest in the common elements and covering only to the extent that the insurance placed by the corporation is inapplicable, inadequate or ineffective. 1998, c. 19, s. 101 (1). No reciprocal contribution (2) Despite section 150 of the Insurance Act, an insurance policy issued under section 99 and any other insurance policy, except another policy under section 99, are not liable to be brought into contribution with each other. 1998, c. 19, s. 101 (2). 102 The corporation shall obtain and maintain, (a) insurance against its liability resulting from a breach of duty as occupier of the common elements or land that the corporation holds as an asset; and (b) insurance against its liability arising from the ownership, use or operation, by or on its behalf, of boilers, machinery, pressure vessels and motor vehicles. 1998, c. 19, s. 102. 103 (1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict the capacity of a corporation, an owner or any other person to obtain and maintain insurance in respect of an insurable interest. 1998, c. 19, s. 103 (1). (2) For the purposes of sections 99 and 102, the corporation shall be deemed to have an insurable interest in the units and common elements. 1998, c. 19, s. 103 (2). 104 An insurer under an insurance policy required by this Act shall provide the corporation with a certificate or memorandum of insurance declaring the coverage carried by the corporation on behalf of all owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 104. 105 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and (3), if an insurance policy obtained by the corporation in accordance with this Act contains a deductible clause that limits the amount payable by the insurer, the portion of a loss that is excluded from coverage shall be a common expense. 1998, c. 19, s. 105 (1). Owner’s responsibility (2) If an owner, a lessee of an owner or a person residing in the owner’s unit with the permission or knowledge of the owner through an act or omission causes damage to the owner’s unit, the amount that is the lesser of the cost of repairing the damage and the deductible limit of the insurance policy obtained by the corporation shall be added to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 105 (2). Same, by-law (3) The corporation may pass a by-law to extend the circumstances in subsection (2) under which an amount shall be added to the common expenses payable for an owner’s unit if the damage to the unit was not caused by an act or omission of the corporation or its directors, officers, agents or employees. 1998, c. 19, s. 105 (3). Owner’s insurable interest (4) The amount payable by an owner under this section or as a result of a by-law passed under this section constitutes an insurable interest of the owner. 1998, c. 19, s. 105 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 105 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 91) 105 (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), if an insurance policy obtained and maintained by the corporation in accordance with this Act contains a deductible clause that limits the amount payable by the insurer, the portion of a loss that is excluded from coverage shall be a common expense. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 91. (2) Subject to subsection (4), if an owner, a lessee of an owner, a person residing in the owner’s unit with the permission or knowledge of the owner, or any other person or thing that is prescribed, through an act or omission causes damage to a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation, subject to subsection (3), and if the corporation has obtained and maintained coverage for the damage under an insurance policy, the amount that is the lesser of the cost of repairing the damage and the deductible limit of the insurance policy shall be added to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 91. (3) Subject to subsection (4), subsection (2) does not apply if the damage to a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation was caused by an act or omission of the corporation or its directors, officers, agents or employees. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 91. Alteration by declaration (4) After a new board of a corporation is elected at a turn-over meeting held under section 43, a declaration may alter the circumstances in subsection (2) under which an amount shall be added to the contribution to the common expenses payable for an owner’s unit if, (a) the alteration is done in accordance with the restrictions or requirements, if any, that are prescribed; and (b) the corporation has met all other requirements of this Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 91. (5) The amount payable by an owner under this section or as a result of a provision of a declaration that makes the alteration described in subsection (4) constitutes an insurable interest of the owner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 91. 105.1 Subject to the regulations, the board shall provide the owners, in accordance with the regulations, with a notice containing information relating to the insurance mentioned in each of sections 39, 99, 102 and 105 and the regulations, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 92. 106 If any provision of an insurance policy required by section 99 or 102 or any part of the Insurance Act conflicts with anything in this Act, the provisions of this Act apply. 1998, c. 19, s. 106. 107 (1) The corporation shall not amend the declaration or the description except in accordance with this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (1). (2) The corporation may amend the declaration or the description if, (a) the board, by resolution, has approved the proposed amendment; (b) the declarant has consented to the proposed amendment in writing if, (i) at the time the board approved the proposed amendment, the declarant had not transferred all of the units except for the part of the property described in subsection 22 (5), and (ii) less than three years have elapsed from the later of the date of registration of the declaration and description and the date that the declarant first entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a unit in the corporation; (c) the board has held a meeting of owners in accordance with subsections (3) and (4); (d) the owners of at least 90 per cent of the units at the time the board approved the proposed amendment have consented to it in writing, if it makes a change in a matter described in clause 7 (2) (c), (d) or (f) or 7 (4) (e); Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 107 (2) (d) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 93 (1)) (d) the owners of at least 90 per cent of the units, or such other percentage that is prescribed, at the time the board approved the proposed amendment have consented to it in writing, if it makes a change in a matter described in clause 7 (2) (c), (d) or (f) or 7 (4) (e), subsection 105 (4) or a matter described in the regulations, if any; (e) the owners of at least 80 per cent of the units at the time the board approved the proposed amendment have consented to it in writing, in all cases apart from a case described in clause (d); and Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 107 (2) (e) of the Act is amended by adding “or such other percentage that is prescribed” after “80 per cent of the units”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 93 (2)) (f) the corporation has, in accordance with subsection 47 (5), sent a notice of the proposed amendment to all mortgagees whose names, at the time the board approved the proposed amendment, appeared in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or were required by that section to have appeared in that record. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 93 (3). Meeting of owners (3) The board shall call a meeting of owners for the purpose of considering the proposed amendment. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (3). (4) The board shall give the owners a notice of the meeting which shall include a copy of the proposed amendment. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (4). (4.1) An owner is not entitled to consent under this section if any contributions to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit are in arrears for 30 days or more. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 93 (4). (5) The corporation shall register a copy of an amendment made under this section but shall not register the copy until after the expiration of 30 days following the time at which it gave the notice described in clause (2) (f). 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (5). Form of registration (6) The registered copy of the amendment shall include a certificate, in the form prescribed by the Minister, made by the officers authorized to act on behalf of the corporation that certifies that the amendment complies with the requirements of this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (6). When amendment effective (7) An amendment made under this section is ineffective until the copy of the amendment has been registered. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (7). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 93 (1, 2) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 93 (3, 4) - 01/11/2017 108 Despite section 107, the board may change the address for service or the mailing address of the corporation by registering a notice of change of address in the form prescribed by the Minister. 1998, c. 19, s. 108; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 94. 109 (1) The corporation or an owner may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order to amend the declaration or description. 1998, c. 19, s. 109 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). (2) The applicant shall give at least 15 days notice of an application to the corporation and to every owner and mortgagee whose name, on the 30th day before the application is made, appears in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or is required by that section to appear in that record, but the applicant is not required to give notice to the applicant. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 95. Grounds for order (3) The court may make an order to amend the declaration or description if satisfied that the amendment is necessary or desirable to correct an error or inconsistency that appears in the declaration or description or that arises out of the carrying out of the intent and purpose of the declaration or description. 1998, c. 19, s. 109 (3). (4) An amendment under this section is ineffective until a certified copy of the order has been registered. 1998, c. 19, s. 109 (4). 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7) - 05/05/2001 110 (1) The corporation or an interested person may apply to the Director of Titles appointed under section 9 of the Land Titles Act for an order to amend the declaration or description to correct an error or inconsistency that is apparent on the face of the declaration or description, as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 110 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (1) is amended by striking out “appointed under section 9 of the Land Titles Act”. See: 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, ss. 4, 6. (2) The applicant shall give notice of the application in the form and manner that the Director of Titles directs to the corporation and to every owner and mortgagee whose name appears in the record of the corporation required by section 46.1 or is required by that section to appear in that record and whose interest would be affected by the amendment, but the applicant is not required to give notice to the applicant. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 96. (3) The Director of Titles shall make an order to amend the declaration or description if satisfied that the amendment will correct an error or inconsistency that is apparent on the face of the declaration or description, as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 110 (3). 111 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a corporation may, by resolution of the board, terminate an agreement under which it receives condominium management services and that it has entered into with a person before the owners elected a new board at a meeting held in accordance with subsection 43 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (12). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 111 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “and despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument” after “subsection (2)”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 97 (1)) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 111 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: This amendment applies only if subsection 97 (1) of Schedule 1 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 comes into force on or before the day subsection 80 (14) of Schedule 2 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 comes into force. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (14), (15)) (1) Subject to subsection (2) and despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument, a corporation may, by resolution of the board, terminate an agreement under which it receives condominium management services and that it has entered into with a person before the owners elected a new board at a meeting held in accordance with subsection 43 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (14). (2) To terminate an agreement, the board shall give at least 60 days notice in writing of the date of termination to the person with whom the corporation entered into the agreement. 1998, c. 19, s. 111 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 111 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 97 (2)) (3) If a corporation terminates an agreement under this section, the corporation and its directors, officers and owners are not liable for, 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 97 - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (12, 13) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (14, 15) - not in force 112 (1) Subject to subsection (4), a corporation may, by resolution of the board within 12 months following the election of a new board at a meeting held in accordance with subsection 43 (1), terminate an agreement mentioned in subsection (2) that the corporation has entered into with a person other than another corporation before the election of the new board. 1998, c. 19, s. 112 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 112 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 98 (1)) (1) Subject to subsection (4) and the regulations and despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument, a corporation may, by resolution of the board within 12 months following the election of a new board at a meeting held in accordance with subsection 43 (1), terminate an agreement described in subsection (2) that the corporation has entered into with a person before the election of the new board, other than an agreement mentioned in section 21.1. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 98 (1). (2) Subsection (1) applies to the following agreements: 1. An agreement for the provision of goods or services on a continuing basis. 2. An agreement for the provision of facilities to the corporation on other than a non-profit basis. 3. A lease of all or part of the common elements for business purposes. 1998, c. 19, s. 112 (2). (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a telecommunications agreement within the meaning of section 22. 1998, c. 19, s. 112 (3). (4.1) If a corporation terminates an agreement under this section, the corporation and its directors, officers and owners are not liable for, Exception, easements (5) Nothing in this section permits the termination of an easement created by an instrument in writing except in accordance with the instrument. 1998, c. 19, s. 112 (5). 113 (1) If a corporation and a person have entered into an agreement for the mutual use, provision or maintenance or the cost-sharing of facilities or services before the owners elected a new board at a meeting held in accordance with subsection 43 (1), any party to the agreement may, within 12 months following the election, make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (3). 1998, c. 19, s. 113 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 113 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 99) Shared facilities agreements (1) If a corporation and a person have entered into an agreement to share in the provision, use, maintenance, repair, insurance, operation or administration of any land, any part of a property or proposed property, any assets of a corporation or any facilities or services before the owners elected a new board at a meeting held in accordance with subsection 43 (1), any party to the agreement may, within 12 months following the election, make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (3), unless the regulations provide otherwise. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 99. (3) The court may make an order amending or terminating the agreement or any of its provisions or may make any other order that the court deems necessary if it is satisfied that, (a) the disclosure statement did not clearly and adequately disclose the provisions of the agreement; and (b) the agreement or any of its provisions produces a result that is oppressive or unconscionably prejudicial to the corporation or any of the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 113 (3). 114 Despite anything contained in an insurance trust agreement that a corporation has entered into with an insurance trustee and anything in the declaration, the corporation may terminate the agreement by giving at least 60 days notice in writing of the termination date to the trustee. 1998, c. 19, s. 114. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 114 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 100) 114 (1) Despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument, a corporation may terminate an insurance trust agreement that the corporation has entered into with an insurance trustee by giving at least 60 days notice in writing of the termination date to the trustee. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 100. (c) any other prescribed consequences. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 100. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 100 - not in force 115 (1) A person who receives money on behalf of or for the benefit of the corporation, including money received from owners as contributions to the common expenses or the reserve fund, shall hold the money, together with interest and other proceeds earned from investing it, in trust for the performance by the corporation of its duties and obligations. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 115 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (1)) (1) A person who receives money on behalf of or for the benefit of the corporation, including money received from owners as contributions to the common expenses or the reserve fund, shall, in accordance with the regulations, hold the money, together with interest and other proceeds earned from investing it, in trust for the performance by the corporation of its duties and obligations. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (1). Corporation’s accounts (2) A corporation shall maintain one or more accounts in its name designated as general accounts and one or more accounts in its name designated as reserve fund accounts. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 115 (2) of the Act is amended by adding “In accordance with the requirements, if any, that are prescribed” at the beginning. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (2)) Location of accounts (3) Each of the accounts shall be located in Ontario at a bank listed under Schedule I or II to the Bank Act (Canada), a trust corporation, a loan corporation or a credit union authorized by law to receive money on deposit. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (3); 2002, c. 8, Sched. I, s. 7 (2). (3) Each of the accounts shall be located in Ontario or such other location that is prescribed in, (c) a credit union within the meaning of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (3). Deposit of money (4) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), the person who receives money on behalf of or for the benefit of the corporation shall pay the money, together with interest and other proceeds earned from investing it, into, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 115 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “in accordance with the requirements, if any, that are prescribed” after “shall” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (4)) (a) a general account of the corporation, if the money was not received as contributions from owners to the reserve fund; or (b) a reserve fund account of the corporation, if the money was received as contributions from owners to the reserve fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (4). (5) In subsections (6) and (7), “eligible security” means a bond, debenture, guaranteed investment certificate, deposit receipt, deposit note, certificate of deposit, term deposit or other similar instrument that, (a) is issued or guaranteed by the government of Canada or the government of any province of Canada, (b) is issued by an institution located in Ontario insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario, or (c) is a security of a prescribed class. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (5); 2009, c. 34, Sched. E, s. 1. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the definition of “eligible security” in subsection 115 (5) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (5)) “eligible security” means a bond, debenture, guaranteed investment certificate, deposit receipt, deposit note, certificate of deposit, term deposit or other instrument that is prescribed that, (a) is issued or guaranteed by the Government of Canada or the government of any province or territory of Canada, (b) is issued by an institution located in Ontario and is insured in accordance with the regulations by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario, or (c) is a security of a prescribed class. (6) The board may invest all or any part of the money in the corporation’s general accounts in eligible securities if, (a) they are convertible to cash within 90 days following a request by the board; and (b) they are, (i) registered in the name of the corporation, or (ii) held in a segregated account under the name of the corporation by a member of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada and insured by the Canadian Investor Protection Fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (6). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subclause 115 (6) (b) (ii) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (6)) (ii) held in a segregated account under the name of the corporation by a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada and covered by the Canadian Investor Protection Fund in accordance with the regulations, if any. Same, reserve fund accounts (7) Subject to subsection (8), the board may invest all or any part of the money in the corporation’s reserve fund accounts in eligible securities if they are, (a) registered in the name of the corporation; or (b) held in a segregated account under the name of the corporation by a member of the Canadian Investment Dealers Association and insured by the Canadian Investor Protection Fund. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (7). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 115 (7) (b) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (7)) (b) held in a segregated account under the name of the corporation by a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada and covered by the Canadian Investor Protection Fund in accordance with the regulations, if any. (8) Before investing any part of the money in the corporation’s reserve fund accounts, the board shall develop an investment plan based on the anticipated cash requirements of the reserve fund as set out in the most recent reserve fund study. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (8). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 115 (8) of the Act is amended by adding “in accordance with the regulations” after “plan”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 101 (8)) (9) A person who receives money under subsection (1) shall keep records relating to the receipt and disposition of all money under this section and shall, upon reasonable notice and at all reasonable times, make the records available for examination by the corporation, an owner or a mortgagee. 1998, c. 19, s. 115 (9). 2009, c. 34, Sched. E, s. 1 - 15/12/2009 116 An owner may make reasonable use of the common elements subject to this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. 1998, c. 19, s. 116. 116 An owner may make reasonable use of the common elements and the assets, if any, of the corporation, subject to this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 102. 117 No person shall permit a condition to exist or carry on an activity in a unit or in the common elements if the condition or the activity is likely to damage the property or cause injury to an individual. 1998, c. 19, s. 117. 117 (1) No person shall, through an act or omission, cause a condition to exist or an activity to take place in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the condition or the activity, as the case may be, is likely to damage the property or the assets or to cause an injury or an illness to an individual. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 102. (2) No person shall carry on an activity or permit an activity to be carried on in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the activity results in the creation of or continuation of, (a) any unreasonable noise that is a nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation; or (b) any other prescribed nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 102. 118 No corporation or employee or agent of a corporation shall restrict reasonable access to the property by candidates, or their authorized representatives, for election to the House of Commons, the Legislative Assembly or an office in a municipal government or school board if access is necessary for the purpose of canvassing or distributing election material. 1998, c. 19, s. 118. 119 (1) A corporation, the directors, officers and employees of a corporation, a declarant, the lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation, an owner, an occupier of a unit and a person having an encumbrance against a unit and its appurtenant common interest shall comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. 1998, c. 19, s. 119 (1). Responsibility for occupier (2) An owner shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that an occupier of the owner’s unit and all invitees, agents and employees of the owner or occupier comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. 1998, c. 19, s. 119 (2). Enforcing compliance (3) A corporation, an owner and every person having a registered mortgage against a unit and its appurtenant common interest have the right to require that a person who is required to comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules shall do so. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 103. Proposed unit (4) Until the declarant registers a declaration and description and the by-laws and rules of the corporation come into force, an occupier of a proposed unit shall comply with this Act, the declaration and the by-laws and rules proposed by the declarant; the declarant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the occupier complies with this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 119 (4). Right against occupier (5) Until the declarant registers a declaration and description and the by-laws and rules of the corporation come into force, an occupier of a proposed unit has the right to require the occupiers of the other units in the proposed corporation to comply with this Act, the declaration and the by-laws and rules proposed by the declarant. 1998, c. 19, s. 119 (5). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 103 - 01/11/2017 120 (1) Subject to the regulations, two or more leasehold condominium corporations or two or more freehold condominium corporations of the same type may amalgamate by registering a declaration and description amalgamating the corporations if, (a) the board of each amalgamating corporation has held a meeting in accordance with subsections (2) and (3); (b) the owners of at least 90 per cent of the units of each corporation as of the date of that corporation’s meeting have, within 90 days of the meeting, consented in writing to the registration of the declaration and description; and Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 120 (1) (b) of the Act is amended by striking out “within 90 days of the meeting” and substituting “within 120 days of the meeting or such other time that is prescribed”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 104 (1)) (c) the corporations have complied with all prescribed requirements. 1998, c. 19, s. 120 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (2) The board of each amalgamating corporation shall call a meeting of owners for the purpose of considering a declaration and description amalgamating the corporations. 1998, c. 19, s. 120 (2). (3) The board shall give the owners a notice of the meeting which shall include, (a) a copy of the proposed declaration and description of the amalgamated corporation and a copy of the proposed budget for the corporation’s first year of operation; (b) a copy of all proposed by-laws and rules of the amalgamated corporation; (c) a certificate as to the status for each amalgamating corporation in the form prescribed by the Minister; (d) for each amalgamating corporation, the auditor’s report on the last annual financial statements of the corporation, if it is not included in the certificate mentioned in clause (c); and (e) all additional statements and information that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 120 (3); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (3.1) An owner is not entitled to consent under clause (1) (b) if any contributions to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit are in arrears for 30 days or more during the 120 days or other time period mentioned in that clause. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 104 (2). (3.2) An owner who, under subsection (3.1), is not entitled to consent may consent after the corporation receives payment of the arrears with respect to the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 104 (2). Signing of declaration (4) The declaration of an amalgamated corporation shall not be registered unless the officers of each amalgamating corporation who are duly authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation have signed the declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 120 (4). Part VIII not applicable (5) Part VIII does not apply to an amalgamation carried out under this section but does apply to an amalgamated corporation after the registration of its declaration and description. 1998, c. 19, s. 120 (5). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 104 (1) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 104 (2) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 121 (1) On registration of a declaration and description for an amalgamated corporation, (a) the amalgamating corporations are amalgamated and continue as one corporation; (b) the units and common interests of the amalgamating corporations are continued as units and common interests in the amalgamated corporation; (c) all encumbrances, easements and leases that affected the units or common elements of the amalgamating corporations are continued as encumbrances, easements and leases respectively that affect the units or common elements, as the case may be, of the amalgamated corporation; (d) all declarations, descriptions, by-laws and rules of the amalgamating corporations cease to apply; (e) the directors of the amalgamating corporations constitute the first directors of the amalgamated corporation; (f) the proposed by-laws and rules mentioned in clause 120 (3) (b) shall be the by-laws and rules respectively of the amalgamated corporation until the corporation amends or replaces them; (g) the amalgamated corporation possesses all the assets, rights and privileges and is subject to all liabilities, including civil, criminal and quasi-criminal, and all contracts, agreements, warranties and debts of each of the amalgamating corporations; (h) a conviction against, or ruling, order or judgment in favour of or against an amalgamating corporation may be enforced by or against the amalgamated corporation; and (i) the amalgamated corporation shall be deemed to be the party plaintiff or the party defendant, as the case may be, in all civil actions commenced by or against an amalgamating corporation before the amalgamation becomes effective. 1998, c. 19, s. 121 (1). First auditors (2) Immediately following the registration of a declaration and description for an amalgamated corporation, the directors shall appoint one or more auditors who shall hold office until the close of the meeting of owners described in subsection (3). 1998, c. 19, s. 121 (2). Subsequent directors (3) The first directors of an amalgamated corporation shall hold office until the owners elect their successors at a meeting which the first directors shall call and hold within 60 days following the registration of the declaration and description for the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 121 (3). Subsequent auditors (4) At the meeting the owners shall, subject to section 60 with necessary modifications, appoint successors for the auditors mentioned in subsection (2). 1998, c. 19, s. 121 (4). 122 (1) A corporation shall register a notice terminating the government of the property by this Act if, (a) the owners of at least 80 per cent of the units, at the date of the vote, vote in favour of termination; and (b) at least 80 per cent of those persons who, at the date of the vote, have registered claims against the property, that were created after the registration of the declaration and description that made this Act applicable to the property, consent in writing to the termination. 1998, c. 19, s. 122 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 105 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 122 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause (a), by adding “and” at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 105 (2)) (c) all other conditions, if any, that are prescribed have been satisfied. Notice of termination (2) The notice of termination shall be in the form prescribed by the Minister, shall be signed by the authorized officers of the corporation and shall include a certificate stating that the persons described in clause (1) (b) have consented in writing to the termination. 1998, c. 19, s. 122 (2). (2) The notice of termination shall be in the form prescribed by the Minister, shall be signed by the authorized officers of the corporation and shall include, (a) a certificate stating that the persons described in clause (1) (b) have consented in writing to the termination; and (b) all other material, if any, that is prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 105 (3). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 105 (1) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 105 (2, 3) - not in force 123 (1) The registration of a notice under subsection (7) terminates the government of the property by this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 106 (1). “substantial damage” means damage for which the cost of repair is estimated to equal or exceed 25 per cent of the replacement cost of all the buildings and structures located on the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (2). Estimates of damage (3) If damage occurs to a building or a structure located on the property that, in the opinion of the board, may constitute substantial damage, the board shall have at least two persons, who shall have no affiliation with the board and who, in the opinion of the board, are qualified, make estimates of the damage within 30 days after the occurrence of the damage. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (3). Determination by board (4) The board shall determine whether, based on the estimates, there has been substantial damage. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (4). Notice of determination (5) If the board determines that there has been substantial damage, it shall give notice of its determination to the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (5). Contents of notice (6) The notice shall specify that, (a) the owners have the right, in accordance with section 46 and within 30 days of receiving the notice, to requisition a meeting of owners; and (b) the board is required to register a notice terminating the government of the property by this Act if the condition described in subsection (7) is met. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (6). (6) The notice shall, (a) specify that, (i) the owners have the right, in accordance with section 46 and within 30 days of receiving the notice, to requisition a meeting of owners, and (ii) the board is required to register a notice terminating the government of the property by this Act if the conditions described in subsection (7) are satisfied; and (b) contain a copy of the text of section 46 and this section. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 106 (2). Vote for termination (7) The board shall register a notice terminating the government of the property by this Act if the owners of at least 80 per cent of the units, at the date of the vote, vote in favour of termination. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (7). (7) The board shall register a notice terminating the government of the property by this Act if, (a) the owners have requisitioned a meeting in accordance with section 46 within 30 days of receiving a notice under subsection (5); (b) the owners of at least 80 per cent of the units, at the date of the vote, vote in favour of termination; and (c) all other conditions, if any, that are prescribed have been satisfied. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 106 (2). Form of notice (8) The notice shall be in the form prescribed by the Minister and shall be signed by the authorized officers of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (8). Time of registration (9) The board shall register the notice within 30 days of a vote in favour of termination under subsection (7). 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (9). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 123 (9) of the Act is amended by adding “if any” after “subsection (7)”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 106 (3)) Repairs if no termination (10) If there is no vote in favour of termination under subsection (7), the corporation shall, within a reasonable time, repair the damage to the building or structure located on the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 123 (10). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 123 (10) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 106 (4)) (10) If the conditions under subsection (7) have not been satisfied, the corporation shall, within a reasonable time, repair the damage to the building or structure located on the property. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 106 (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 106 (1) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 106 (2)-(4) - not in force 124 (1) If the corporation sells the property or a part of the common elements, this Act ceases to govern the property or the part of the common elements being sold. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 107 (1). Authorization of sale (2) The corporation shall not sell the property or a part of the common elements unless, (b) at least 80 per cent of those persons who, at the date of the vote, have registered claims against the property being sold, that were created after the registration of the declaration and description that made this Act applicable to the property being sold, consent in writing to the sale; and (c) if the sale is for only part of the common elements and includes common elements that are for the use of the owners of certain designated units and not all the owners, the owners of the designated units consent in writing to the sale. 1998, c. 19, s. 124 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 124 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause (b), by adding “and” at the end of clause (c) and by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 107 (2)) (d) all other conditions, if any, that are prescribed have been satisfied. (2.1) An owner is not entitled to consent under clause (2) (c) if any contributions to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit are in arrears for 30 days or more. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 107 (3). (3) When a sale takes place, the board shall deliver to the purchaser the following documents signed by the authorized officers of the corporation: a deed and a certificate in the form prescribed by the Minister stating that the persons who, under subsection (2), are required to vote in favour of the sale or consent in writing to the sale have done so. 1998, c. 19, s. 124 (3). (3) When a sale takes place, the board shall deliver to the purchaser a deed and a certificate that, (a) are signed by the authorized officers of the corporation and are in the form prescribed by the Minister; (b) state that the persons who, under subsection (2), are required to vote in favour of the sale or consent in writing to the sale have done so; and (c) contain all other statements and material, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 107 (4). (4) Subject to subsection (5), the owners at the time of the registration of the deed shall share the net proceeds of the sale in the same proportions as their common interests. 1998, c. 19, s. 124 (4). (4) Subject to subsection (5) and section 125, the owners at the time of the registration of the deed, as determined by the regulations, shall share the net proceeds of the sale in the same proportions as their common interests, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 107 (4). (5) The portion of the proceeds of the sale that is attributable to a portion of the common elements that is for the use of the owners of certain designated units, and not all the owners, shall be divided among the owners of the designated units in the proportions in which their interests are affected. 1998, c. 19, s. 124 (5). (5) The portion of the net proceeds of the sale that is attributable to a portion of the common elements that is for the use of the owners of certain designated units, where the owners are those at the time of the registration of the deed, as determined by the regulations, and not all the owners at that time, shall be divided among the owners of the designated units in the proportions in which their interests are affected, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 107 (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 107 (1, 3) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 107 (2, 4) - not in force 125 (1) A corporation that has made a sale under section 124 and every owner in the corporation shall be deemed to have made an agreement that an owner who has dissented on the vote authorizing the sale may, within 30 days of the vote, submit to mediation a dispute over the fair market value of the property or the part of the common elements that has been sold, determined as of the time of the sale. 1998, c. 19, s. 125 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 125 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “in accordance with the prescribed requirements, if any” after “agreement”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 108 (1)) (2) If an owner submits a dispute to mediation in accordance with the agreement mentioned in subsection (1), section 132 applies to the dispute with necessary modifications as if it were a disagreement under that section. 1998, c. 19, s. 125 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 108 (2). (3) An owner who submits a dispute to mediation shall give the corporation notice of intention within 10 days after the vote authorizing the sale. 1998, c. 19, s. 125 (3). (3) An owner who submits a dispute to mediation in accordance with the agreement mentioned in subsection (1) shall give the corporation notice of intention in accordance with the prescribed requirements, if any, within 10 days after the vote authorizing the sale. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 108 (3). (4) An owner who serves a notice of intention is entitled to receive from the proceeds of the sale the amount the owner would have received if the sale price had been the fair market value as determined by the arbitration. 1998, c. 19, s. 125 (4). (4) An owner who serves a notice of intention in accordance with subsection (3) is entitled, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed, to receive from the net proceeds of the sale the amount the owner would have received if the sale price had been the fair market value as determined by the arbitration. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 108 (3). (5) The corporation shall pay to each of the owners who served a notice of intention, the deficiency in the amount to which the owner is entitled if the proceeds of the sale are inadequate to pay the amount. 1998, c. 19, s. 125 (5). (5) The corporation shall pay to each of the owners who served a notice of intention in accordance with subsection (3), the deficiency in the amount to which the owner is entitled if the net proceeds of the sale are inadequate to pay the amount, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 108 (3). (6) The owners other than those who dissented on the vote authorizing the sale are liable for the amount of the deficiency payments determined by the proportions of their common interests. 1998, c. 19, s. 125 (6). (7) The corporation shall add the amount of the liability of each of the owners who voted in favour of the sale to the common expenses appurtenant to the units of those owners and may specify a time for payment by each of those owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 125 (7). (7) The corporation shall add the amount of the liability of each of the owners who voted in favour of the sale to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the unit of that owner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 108 (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 108 (1, 3, 4) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 108 (2) - 01/11/2017 126 (1) Upon expropriation of the property or a part of the common elements under the Expropriations Act, this Act ceases to govern the property or the part of the common elements, as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 126 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 126 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “as determined in accordance with the regulations, if any” after “Expropriations Act”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 109 (1)) (2) Subject to subsection (3), if part of the common elements is expropriated under the Expropriations Act, the owners shall share the proceeds in the same proportions as their common interests. 1998, c. 19, s. 126 (2). (2) Subject to subsection (3), if part of the common elements is expropriated under the Expropriations Act in accordance with subsection (1), the owners, at the time determined by the regulations, shall share the proceeds in the same proportions as their common interests, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 109 (2). (3) The portion of the proceeds received on expropriation under the Expropriations Act that is attributable to a portion of the common elements that is for the use of the owners of certain designated units, and not all the owners, shall be divided among the owners of the designated units in the proportions in which their interests are affected. 1998, c. 19, s. 126 (3). (3) The portion of the proceeds received on expropriation under the Expropriations Act done in accordance with subsection (1) that is attributable to a portion of the common elements that is for the use of the owners of certain designated units, where the owners are those at the time determined by the regulations, and not all the owners at that time, shall be divided among the owners of the designated units in the proportions in which their interests are affected, subject to the conditions, if any, that are prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 109 (2). 127 (1) Upon registration of a notice of termination under section 122 or 123, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 127 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 110 (1)) (1) Upon registration of a notice of termination under section 122 or 123, then, subject to the regulations, (a) this Act ceases to govern the property; (b) the owners are tenants in common of the land and interests appurtenant to the land described in the description in the same proportions as their common interests; (c) claims against the land and the interests appurtenant to the land described in the description, that were created before the registration of the declaration and description that made this Act applicable to the land, are as effective as if the declaration and description had not been registered; (d) encumbrances against each unit and common interest, that were created after the registration of the declaration and description that made this Act applicable to the unit, are claims against the interests of the owner in the land and interests appurtenant to the land described in the description and have the same priority as they had before the registration of the notice of termination; and (e) all other claims against the property that were created after the registration of the declaration and description that made this Act applicable to the property are extinguished. 1998, c. 19, s. 127 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 127 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause (d), by adding “and” at the end of clause (e) and by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 110 (2)) (f) the other consequences, if any, that are prescribed shall come into effect. Same, sale or expropriation (2) Upon the registration of a deed and a certificate under section 124 or upon expropriation under section 126, (2) Upon the registration, in accordance with the regulations, of a deed and a certificate mentioned in subsection 124 (3) or upon expropriation under section 126, then, subject to the regulations, (a) this Act ceases to govern the property being sold or expropriated, as the case may be; (b) claims against the land and interests appurtenant to the land, that were created before the registration of the declaration and description that made this Act applicable to the land, are as effective as if the declaration and description had not been registered; and (c) claims against the property being sold or expropriated, as the case may be, that were created after the registration of the declaration and description that made this Act applicable to that property, are extinguished. 1998, c. 19, s. 127 (2). (d) the other consequences, if any, that are prescribed shall come into effect. 128 (1) A corporation, an owner, or a person having an encumbrance against a unit and common interest, may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order terminating the government of the property by this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 128 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 111 (1). (2) The court may order that the government of the property by this Act be terminated if the court is of the opinion that the termination would be just and equitable, having regard to, (a) the scheme and intent of this Act; (b) the probability of unfairness to the owners if the court does not order termination; (c) the probability of confusion and uncertainty in the affairs of the corporation or of the owners if the court does not order termination; and (d) the best interests of the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 128 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 111 (2). Contents of order (3) The court may include in the order all provisions that it considers appropriate in the circumstances. 1998, c. 19, s. 128 (3). (4) If the court makes an order terminating the government of the property by this Act, the applicant shall register the order. 1998, c. 19, s. 128 (4). (4) If the court makes an order terminating the government of the property by this Act, the applicant shall register the order in accordance with the regulations, if any. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 111 (3). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 111 (1, 2) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 111 (3) - not in force 129 When the owners and the property cease to be governed by this Act, (a) the assets of the corporation shall be used to pay all claims for the payment of money against the corporation; and (b) the remainder of the assets of the corporation shall be distributed among the owners in the same proportions as the proportions of their common interests. 1998, c. 19, s. 129. 129 When the owners and the property cease to be governed by this Act, then, subject to the regulations, (a) the assets of the corporation, at the time determined by the regulations, shall be used to pay all claims for the payment of money against the corporation, at the time determined by the regulations; (b) the remainder of the assets of the corporation, at the time determined by the regulations, shall be distributed among the owners, at the time determined by the regulations, in the same proportions as the proportions of their common interests; and (c) the other consequences, if any, that are prescribed and that relate to the assets shall come into effect. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 112. 130 (1) Upon application by the corporation, a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation, an owner or a mortgagee of a unit, the Superior Court of Justice may make an order appointing an inspector to, (a) investigate the items that the declarant is required to give to the board under subsections 43 (4), (5) and (7); (b) investigate the corporation’s records mentioned in subsection 55 (1); (c) investigate the affairs of a person mentioned in subsection 115 (1); or (d) conduct an audit of the accounts and records mentioned in section 43, 55 or 115. 1998, c. 19, s. 130 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). (2) The court may make the order if it is satisfied that the application is made in good faith and that the order is in the best interests of the applicant. 1998, c. 19, s. 130 (2). (3) Those provisions of section 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 that the order states apply to the inspector’s investigation or audit. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 48. (4) In the order, the court, (a) shall require the inspector to make a written report within a specified time to the applicant for the order and to the corporation on the activities that the order requires the inspector to perform; and (b) may make an order as to the costs of the investigation or audit or any other matter as it deems proper. 1998, c. 19, s. 130 (4). Summary of report (5) The board shall send a summary of the report to the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 130 (5). 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 48 - 1/06/2011 131 (1) Upon application by the corporation, a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation, an owner or a mortgagee of a unit, the Superior Court of Justice may make an order appointing an administrator for a corporation under this Act if at least 120 days have passed since a turn-over meeting has been held under section 43. 1998, c. 19, s. 131 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 131 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “subject to the regulations” after “if”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 113) (2) The court may make the order if the court is of the opinion that it would be just or convenient, having regard to the scheme and intent of this Act and the best interests of the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 131 (2). (a) specify the powers of the administrator; (b) state which powers and duties, if any, of the board shall be transferred to the administrator; and (c) contain the directions and impose the terms that the court considers just. 1998, c. 19, s. 131 (3). Application for direction (4) The administrator may apply to the court for the opinion, advice or direction of the court on any question regarding the management or administration of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 131 (4). 132 (1) Every agreement mentioned in subsection (2) shall be deemed to contain a provision to submit a disagreement between the parties with respect to the agreement to, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 132 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “Subject to subsection (4.1)” at the beginning and by adding “including any question of law or equity” after “with respect to the agreement” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (1)) (a) mediation by a person selected by the parties unless the parties have previously submitted the disagreement to mediation; and (b) unless a mediator has obtained a settlement between the parties with respect to the disagreement, arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991, (i) 60 days after the parties submit the disagreement to mediation, if the parties have not selected a mediator under clause (a), or (ii) 30 days after the mediator selected under clause (a) delivers a notice stating that the mediation has failed. 1998, c. 19, s. 132 (1). (1) Subject to subsection (6), every agreement mentioned in subsection (2) shall be deemed to contain a provision to submit a disagreement between the parties with respect to the agreement, including any question of law or equity, to mediation and arbitration. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (2). 1. An agreement between a declarant and a corporation. 2. An agreement between two or more corporations. 3. An agreement described in clause 98 (1) (b) between a corporation and an owner. Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 132 (2) of the Act is amended by adding the following paragraph: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (3)) 3.1 An agreement for sharing as described in section 21.1, if it is prescribed. 4. An agreement that the corporation has entered into with a condominium management provider or a condominium manager and under which the corporation receives condominium management services. 1998, c. 19, s. 132 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (16). Disagreements on budget statement (3) The declarant and the board shall be deemed to have agreed in writing to submit a disagreement between the parties with respect to the budget statement described in subsection 72 (6) or the obligations of the declarant under section 75 to mediation and arbitration in accordance with clauses (1) (a) and (b) respectively. 1998, c. 19, s. 132 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 132 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “including any question of law or equity” after “section 75”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (4)) Disagreement on shared facilities (3) Subject to the regulations, even if the persons mentioned in section 21.1 have not entered into an agreement described in that section, they shall be deemed to have agreed in writing to submit a disagreement between them with respect to the sharing described in that section, including a disagreement with respect to any question of law or equity, to mediation and arbitration. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (7). Disagreements between corporation and owners (4) Every declaration shall be deemed to contain a provision that the corporation and the owners agree to submit a disagreement between the parties with respect to the declaration, by-laws or rules to mediation and arbitration in accordance with clauses (1) (a) and (b) respectively. 1998, c. 19, s. 132 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 132 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “Subject to subsection (4.1)” at the beginning and by adding “including a disagreement with respect to any question of law or equity” after “rules”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (5)) Disagreements on budget matters (4) The declarant and the board shall be deemed to have agreed in writing to submit a disagreement between the parties with respect to the budget statement described in subsection 72 (6), the budget mentioned in subsection 83.1 (3) or the obligations of the declarant under section 75, including any question of law or equity, to mediation and arbitration. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (7). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 132 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (6)) (4.1) Subsections (1) and (4) do not apply to any matter in dispute for which a person may apply for resolution under section 1.36 to the Condominium Authority Tribunal established under Part I.2 if the Tribunal has been established under that Part. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (6). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 132 (4.1) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (7)) Duty of mediator (5) A mediator appointed under clause (1) (a) shall confer with the parties and endeavour to obtain a settlement with respect to the disagreement submitted to mediation. 1998, c. 19, s. 132 (5). (5) Subject to subsection (6), every declaration shall be deemed to contain a provision that the corporation and the owners agree to submit a disagreement between the parties with respect to the declaration, by-laws or rules, including a disagreement with respect to any question of law or equity, to mediation and arbitration. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (7). (6) Each party shall pay the share of the mediator’s fees and expenses that, (a) the settlement specifies, if a settlement is obtained; or (b) the mediator specifies in the notice stating that the mediation has failed, if the mediation fails. 1998, c. 19, s. 132 (6). (6) Subsections (1) and (5) do not apply to any matter in dispute for which a person may apply for resolution under section 1.36 to the Condominium Authority Tribunal established under Part I.2 if the Tribunal has been established under that Part. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (7). Record of settlement (7) Upon obtaining a settlement between the parties with respect to the disagreement submitted to mediation, the mediator shall make a written record of the settlement which shall form part of the agreement or matter that was the subject of the mediation. 1998, c. 19, s. 132 (7). (7) If parties to a disagreement are deemed, under this section, to submit the disagreement to one or both of mediation and arbitration or if a party who is entitled under this Act to submit a disagreement to mediation or arbitration submits the disagreement to mediation or arbitration, the mediation and arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the process that is prescribed unless, (a) the parties agree in writing to a different process; (b) a by-law of the corporation made under clause 56 (1) (o) specifies a different process, if the disagreement is a disagreement described in that clause; or (c) a by-law of the corporation made under clause 56 (1) (q) specifies a different process, if the disagreement is a disagreement described in that by-law. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (7). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 132 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (6)) (8) If a disagreement is submitted to arbitration under this section, the arbitral tribunal shall not make an award requiring a person to vacate a property permanently. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (6). Copy of arbitration award (9) If a matter is submitted to arbitration under this section, the arbitral tribunal that makes an award as part of the arbitration shall ensure that a copy of the award is delivered to the following person or body within the prescribed time period and in accordance with the regulations: 1. The board of the condominium authority, if the authority exists. 2. The Minister, if there is no condominium authority. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (6). Same, copy for public (10) Upon receiving a copy described in subsection (9), the board of the condominium authority or the Minister, as the case may be, shall make it available to the public in the prescribed manner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (6). Payment of award on disagreements between corporation and owners (11) If a disagreement on a matter described in subsection (5) is submitted to arbitration under this section and an arbitral tribunal under the arbitration makes an order for compensation or costs, then, unless the corporation and the owner who is a party to the arbitration agree in writing otherwise, (a) the party against whom the tribunal makes the order shall pay the amount of the order within 30 days, unless the order specifies another time limit; (b) if the order requires the owner to pay compensation or costs to the corporation, the corporation may add the amount of the order to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit; and (c) if the order requires the corporation to pay compensation or costs to the owner and the corporation does not pay the amount of the order within the time limit mentioned in clause (a), the owner may set off the amount against the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 (8). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 114 - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (16) - 01/11/2017 133 (1) A declarant shall not, in a statement or information that the declarant is required to provide under this Act, (a) make a material statement or provide material information that is false, deceptive or misleading; or (b) omit a material statement or material information that the declarant is required to provide. 1998, c. 19, s. 133 (1). Right to damages (2) A corporation or an owner may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice to recover damages from a declarant for any loss sustained as a result of relying on a statement or on information that the declarant is required to provide under this Act if the statement or information, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 133 (2) of the Act is amended by adding “Subject to subsection (3)” at the beginning. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 115 (1)) (a) contains a material statement or material information that is false, deceptive or misleading; or (b) does not contain a material statement or material information that the declarant is required to provide. 1998, c. 19, s. 133 (2); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). (3) A corporation or owner is not entitled to make an application under subsection (2) to recover damages for a loss if the corporation or owner, as the case may be, is entitled to make an application to recover damages for the loss under subsection 43 (8) or 74 (11). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 115 (2). 134 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an owner, an occupier of a proposed unit, a corporation, a declarant, a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation or a mortgagee of a unit may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order enforcing compliance with any provision of this Act, the declaration, the by-laws, the rules or an agreement between two or more corporations for the mutual use, provision or maintenance or the cost-sharing of facilities or services of any of the parties to the agreement. 1998, c. 19, s. 134 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). (1) Subject to subsections (2), (2.1) and (2.4), an owner, an occupier of a proposed unit, a corporation, a declarant, a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation or a mortgagee of a unit may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order enforcing compliance with any provision of, (a) this Act, the declaration, the by-laws or the rules; or (b) an agreement that two or more corporations have entered into to share in the provision, use, maintenance, repair, insurance, operation or administration of any land, any part of a property or proposed property, any assets of a corporation or any facilities or services. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (1). Pre-condition for application (2) If the mediation and arbitration processes described in section 132 are required, a person is not entitled to apply for an order under subsection (1) until the person has failed to obtain compliance through using those processes. 1998, c. 19, s. 134 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (2). (2.1) Subject to subsections (2.2) and (2.3), a person is not entitled to apply for an order requiring an occupier of an owner’s unit or any or all of the invitees, agents and employees of the owner or occupier to vacate a property permanently unless the applicant gives reasonable notice of the application to the owner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (3). (2.2) Despite subsection 47 (4), if the applicant is not the corporation, the applicant shall give the notice in the prescribed manner. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (3). Exception, no notice (2.3) An applicant is not required to give the notice described in subsection (2.1) in the event of the circumstances that are prescribed, which may include an emergency or other event. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (3). (2.4) This section does not apply to any matter in dispute for which a person may apply for resolution under section 1.36 to the Condominium Authority Tribunal established under Part I.2, if the Tribunal has been established under that Part. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (3). (3) On an application, the court may, subject to subsection (4), Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 134 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “subject to subsection (4)” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (4)) (a) grant the order applied for; (b) require the persons named in the order to pay, (i) the damages incurred by the applicant as a result of the acts of non-compliance, and (ii) the costs incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order; or (c) grant such other relief as is fair and equitable in the circumstances. 1998, c. 19, s. 134 (3). Order terminating lease (4) The court shall not, under subsection (3), grant an order terminating a lease of a unit for residential purposes unless the court is satisfied that, (a) the lessee is in contravention of an order that has been made under subsection (3); or (b) the lessee has received a notice described in subsection 87 (1) and has not paid the amount required by that subsection. 1998, c. 19, s. 134 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 134 (4) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (5)) Addition to common expenses (5) If a corporation obtains an award of damages or costs in an order made against an owner or occupier of a unit, the damages or costs, together with any additional actual costs to the corporation in obtaining the order, shall be added to the common expenses for the unit and the corporation may specify a time for payment by the owner of the unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 134 (5). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (1, 3-5) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (2) - 01/11/2017 134.1 (1) The Registrar may propose to make an order directing a person to comply with subsection 1.30 (6), any provision of Part II.1 or subsection 132 (9) if the Registrar believes on reasonable grounds that the person has contravened those provisions. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. (2) If the Registrar proposes to make an order under subsection (1), the Registrar shall serve notice of the proposed order, together with written reasons, on the person. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. (3) The notice shall state that the person is entitled to a hearing by the Licence Appeal Tribunal if the person mails or delivers, within 15 days after the notice is served, a notice in writing requiring a hearing to the Registrar and the Tribunal. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. If no hearing (4) If the person does not require a hearing in accordance with subsection (3), the Registrar may make the order. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. (5) If the person requires a hearing in accordance with subsection (3), the Licence Appeal Tribunal shall hold the hearing and may order the Registrar to make the proposed order or to refrain from making the proposed order or may make an order of its own in substitution for that of the Registrar. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. (6) The Licence Appeal Tribunal may attach the conditions to its order that it considers proper. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. (7) The Registrar and the person who has required the hearing and all other persons that the Licence Appeal Tribunal specifies are parties to proceedings before the Tribunal under this section. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. (8) A decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal under subsection (5) is final and not subject to appeal to the Divisional Court. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. (9) If a compliance order is made against a corporation or a director or officer of a corporation under this section and there is no possibility of it being replaced under subsection (5), the corporation shall give notice of the order to the owners in the manner prescribed. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. 134.2 (1) A notice or order required to be given or served by the Registrar under section 134.1 is sufficiently given or served if it is, (a) delivered personally; (b) sent by registered mail; or (c) sent by another manner, if the Registrar can prove receipt of the notice or order. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. Deemed service (2) If service is made by registered mail, the service shall be deemed to be made on the third day after the day of mailing unless the person on whom service is being made establishes that the person did not, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond the person’s control, receive the notice or order until a later date. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. (3) Despite subsection (1), the Licence Appeal Tribunal may order any other method of service. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 117. 135 (1) An owner, a corporation, a declarant or a mortgagee of a unit may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order under this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 135 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). (2) On an application, if the court determines that the conduct of an owner, a corporation, a declarant or a mortgagee of a unit is or threatens to be oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the applicant or unfairly disregards the interests of the applicant, it may make an order to rectify the matter. 1998, c. 19, s. 135 (2). (3) On an application, the judge may make any order the judge deems proper including, (a) an order prohibiting the conduct referred to in the application; and (b) an order requiring the payment of compensation. 1998, c. 19, s. 135 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the Act is amended by adding the following sections: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 118) 135.1 (1) Despite subsections 134 (3) and 135 (3), the court shall not, under either of those subsections, make an order that requires a person to vacate a property permanently unless the court is satisfied that, (a) the person is in contravention of subsection 117 (1) and poses a serious risk, (i) to the health and safety of an individual, or (ii) of damage to the property or the assets, if any, of the corporation; (b) in respect of an order under subsection 134 (3), on the basis of the person’s acts of non-compliance, (i) the person is unsuited for the communal occupation of the property or the communal use of the property, and (ii) no other order will be adequate to enforce compliance; or (c) in respect of an order under subsection 135 (3), on the basis of the person’s conduct, (ii) no other order will be adequate to prohibit the conduct. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 118. (2) A person is not entitled to apply for an order described in subsection (1) against a tenant of a unit if the person is a landlord, within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, in respect of the unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 118. (3) If a corporation obtains an award of damages, compensation or costs against an owner or occupier of a unit in an order made under subsection 134 (3) or 135 (3), the damages, compensation or costs, together with any additional actual costs to the corporation in obtaining the order, shall be added to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 118. Additional costs of owner (4) If an owner of a unit obtains an award of damages, compensation or costs against a corporation in an order made under subsection 134 (3) or 135 (3), the owner is entitled to recover from the corporation the amount of the award, together with any additional actual costs to the owner in obtaining the order. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 118. (5) If the corporation does not pay the amount an owner is entitled to under subsection (4) within the prescribed time, the owner may set off the amount against the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 118. 135.2 (1) Nothing in this Act permits the termination of a tenancy governed by subsection 37 (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 118. (2) An order described in subsection 135.1 (1) is not an order for the termination of a tenancy described in subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 118. 136 Unless this Act specifically provides the contrary, nothing in this Act restricts the remedies otherwise available to a person for the failure of another to perform a duty imposed by this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 136. 136.1 (1) If the condominium authority knowingly contravenes this Act or the regulations, the authority is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $100,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 119. (2) A director, officer, employee or agent of the condominium authority who knowingly contravenes this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 119. (3) A director or officer of the condominium authority is guilty of an offence if the person, (a) knowingly causes, authorizes, permits or participates in the commission by the authority of an offence mentioned in subsection (1); or (b) fails to take reasonable care to prevent the authority from committing an offence mentioned in subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 119. (4) A person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (2) or (3) is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 119. 136.2 (1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person, (a) contravenes section 9.4, except if the person did not knowingly do so and, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have known that the person was contravening that section; or (b) contravenes or fails to comply with subsection 1.30 (6) or any provision of Part II.1, other than section 9.4. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 120. (2) It is an offence for a director or officer of a corporation to fail to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing an offence mentioned in subsection (1), whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 120. (3) A person convicted of an offence under this section is liable to a fine of, (a) not more than $50,000, if the person is a corporation; or (b) not more than $25,000, if the person is not a corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 120. 137 (1) Every corporation under this Act or any other Act and every other person who knowingly contravenes subsection 43 (1), (3), (4), (5), (7), 55 (1) or 72 (1), section 81, subsection 115 (1), (2), (3), (4) or (9), section 118, subsection 133 (1), section 143, subsection 147 (1), (3), 152 (1), (2) or 161 (2) or section 169 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of, (a) not more than $100,000, if the person is a corporation within the meaning of this Act or any other Act; or (b) not more than $25,000, if the person is not a corporation within the meaning of this Act or any other Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 137 (1). (2) It is an offence for a director or officer of a corporation within the meaning of this Act or any other Act to knowingly cause, authorize, permit, participate in or acquiesce in the commission by the corporation of an offence mentioned in subsection (1). 1998, c. 19, s. 137 (2). (3) No proceeding under this section shall be commenced after the second anniversary of the day on which the facts upon which the proceeding is based first came to the knowledge of the Director designated under the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services Act. 2006, c. 34, s. 7. (4) The court hearing the proceeding may make an order requiring a person convicted of an offence to comply with the provisions of the Act that the person has contravened, if the court has competent jurisdiction to make the order. 1998, c. 19, s. 137 (4). 137 (1) A corporation under this Act or any other Act and any other person or entity that contravenes or fails to comply with subsection 43 (1), (3), (4), (5), (7), 55 (1) or 72 (1), section 72.1 or 81, subsection 115 (1), (2), (3), (4) or (9), section 118, subsection 133 (1), section 143, subsection 147 (1), (3), 152 (1), (2) or 161 (2), section 169 or a regulation made under paragraph 4.1 of subsection 177 (1) is guilty of an offence. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 121. (2) An officer or director of a corporation within the meaning of this Act or any other Act who fails to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing an offence mentioned in subsection (1), is guilty of an offence, whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 121. Other individuals (3) Any of the following individuals who act on behalf of an entity and who fail to take reasonable care to prevent the entity from committing an offence mentioned in subsection (1), are guilty of an offence, whether or not the entity has been prosecuted or convicted: 1. A partner or general manager and assistant general manager of an entity that is a partnership. 2. Any other individual designated for the purpose of this subsection by a by-law or resolution of any entity. 3. Any other individual who performs functions normally performed by an individual described in paragraph 2. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 121. (4) A person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is liable to, (a) a fine of not more than $250,000, if the person is a corporation within the meaning of this Act or any other Act; or (b) a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both, if the person is an individual. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 121. (5) No proceeding under this section shall be commenced after the second anniversary of the day on which the facts upon which the proceeding is based first came to the knowledge of the Director designated under the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services Act. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 121. (6) The court hearing the proceeding may make an order requiring a person convicted of an offence to comply with the provisions of this Act that the person has contravened, if the court has competent jurisdiction to make the order. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 121. Orders for compensation, restitution (7) If a corporation under this Act or any other Act or any other person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) or (2), the court making the conviction may, in addition to any other penalty, order the person convicted to pay compensation or make restitution. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 121. 2006, c. 34, s. 7 - 20/12/2006 138 (1) Subject to the regulations, a declarant may register a declaration and description that create common elements but do not divide the land into units. 1998, c. 19, s. 138 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (2) The type of corporation created by the registration of a declaration and description under subsection (1) shall be known as a common elements condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 138 (2). Requirements for registration (3) A declaration and description for a common elements condominium corporation shall not be registered unless the registration would create a freehold condominium corporation that is not a vacant land condominium corporation or, except as provided in the regulations made under this Act, a phased condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 138 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 138 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “or, except as provided in the regulations made under this Act, a phased condominium corporation” at the end. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 122 (1)) (4) Subject to this Part and the regulations, Parts I to IX, XI and XIV apply with necessary modifications to a common elements condominium corporation, except that, (a) references to a unit or a proposed unit shall be deemed to be references to a common interest in the corporation or a proposed common interest in the corporation, respectively; (b) references to a mortgagee of a unit shall be deemed to be references to a mortgagee of a common interest appurtenant to an owner’s parcel of land mentioned in subsection 139 (1); and (c) references to a common interest appurtenant to a unit shall be deemed to be references to a common interest appurtenant to an owner’s parcel of land mentioned in subsection 139 (1). 1998, c. 19, s. 138 (4); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 122 (2). Other corporations (5) This Part does not apply to a corporation that is not a common elements condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 138 (5). 139 (1) A declaration for a common elements condominium corporation shall not be registered unless each of the owners of a common interest in the corporation, (a) also owns the freehold estate in a parcel of land, (i) that is not included in the land described in the description, (ii) that, subject to the regulations, is situated within the boundaries of the land titles and registry divisions of the land registry office in which the description of the corporation is registered, and (iii) to which the Land Titles Act applies or for which a certificate of title has been registered under the Certification of Titles Act as that Act read immediately before subsection 2 (1) of Schedule 17 to the Good Government Act, 2009 came into force; and (b) has signed a certificate in a form prescribed by the Minister stating the owner consents to the registration of the declaration and the notice described in subclause (2) (b) (i). 1998, c. 19, s. 139 (1); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 17, s. 4; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Non-severable from common interest (2) Upon the registration of a declaration and description for a common elements condominium corporation, (a) the common interest of an owner in the corporation attaches to the owner’s parcel of land; and (b) the declarant shall register against each owner’s parcel of land, (i) a notice in the form prescribed by the Minister that sets out the information contained in clause (a), and (ii) a copy of the certificate described in clause (1) (b). 1998, c. 19, s. 139 (2). Division of parcel (3) Subject to the regulations, if an owner’s parcel of land is divided into two or more new parcels, the owners of the new parcels are joint owners of the common interest attached to the original parcel. 1998, c. 19, s. 139 (3); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Common interest preserved (4) Despite any other Act, upon the sale of the parcel of land of an owner in a common elements condominium corporation or the enforcement of an encumbrance registered against the parcel, the common interest of the owner in the corporation is not terminated or severed from the parcel, but continues to be attached to the parcel. 1998, c. 19, s. 139 (4). (5) If an owner defaults in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses of a common elements condominium corporation, the corporation has a lien against the owner’s parcel of land. 1998, c. 19, s. 139 (5). (6) The lien is a lien for the purposes of sections 85 and 86. 1998, c. 19, s. 139 (6). (7) Despite section 86, the lien does not have priority over an encumbrance registered against an owner’s parcel of land before the common interest of the owner attached to it unless the encumbrancer agrees in writing otherwise. 1998, c. 19, s. 139 (7). 2009, c. 33, Sched. 17, s. 4 - 15/12/2009 140 In addition to the requirements of subsection 7 (2), a declaration for a common elements condominium corporation shall contain, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 140 of the Act is amended by adding “and subject to the regulations” after “subsection 7 (2)” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 123) (a) a statement that the common elements are intended for the use and enjoyment of the owners; (b) a legal description of the parcels of land mentioned in subsection 139 (1); and (c) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 140; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 123 - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 141 Clauses 8 (1) (c), (d), (f) and 8 (3) (b) do not apply to a description for a common elements condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 141. 142 Section 50 of the Planning Act does not apply in respect of dealings with common interests in a common elements condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 142. 143 In addition to the requirements of subsection 72 (3), a disclosure statement for a common interest in a common elements condominium corporation shall contain, (a) a statement that the common interest attaches to the owner’s parcel of land described in the declaration of the corporation and cannot be severed from the parcel upon the sale of the parcel or the enforcement of an encumbrance registered against the parcel; and (b) all other material that the regulations made under this Act require. 1998, c. 19, s. 143. 143 In addition to the requirements of subsection 72 (3), a disclosure statement for a common interest in a common elements condominium corporation shall contain a statement that the common interest attaches to the owner’s parcel of land described in the declaration of the corporation and cannot be severed from the parcel upon the sale of the parcel or the enforcement of an encumbrance registered against the parcel. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 124. 144 (1) Sections 89 and 90 and clauses 91 (a) and (d) do not apply to a common elements condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 144 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 144 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “(d)” and substituting “(c)”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 125 (1)) Repair after damage and maintenance (2) Subject to clauses 91 (b) and (c) and section 123, the corporation shall repair and replace the common elements after damage or failure and shall maintain them. 1998, c. 19, s. 144 (2). (2) Subject to sections 91 and 123, the corporation shall repair the common elements and the assets, if any, of the corporation and shall maintain them. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 125 (2). (3) References to a unit in sections 99 to 105 shall be deemed not to apply to a common elements condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 144 (3). 145 (1) Subject to the regulations, the declarant may create additional units or common elements in a corporation in accordance with this Part after the registration of the declaration and description if, (a) the corporation is a freehold condominium corporation; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 145 (1) (a) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 126 (1)) (b) except as provided in the regulations made under this Act, the corporation is not a vacant land condominium corporation or a common elements condominium corporation; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 145 (1) (b) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 126 (1)) (c) the declaration indicates that the corporation is a phased condominium corporation; (d) the description contains a legal description of the land that will be the servient tenement within the meaning of section 151; and (e) the board has been elected at a meeting of owners held at a time when the declarant did not own a majority of the units. 1998, c. 19, s. 145 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (2) A corporation that meets the criteria described in subsection (1) shall be known as a phased condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 145 (2). (3) In this Part, “phase” means the additional units and common elements in a phased condominium corporation that are created in accordance with this Part upon the registration of an amendment to both the declaration and description. 1998, c. 19, s. 145 (3). (4) Subject to this Part, Parts I to IX and XIV apply with necessary modifications to a phased condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 145 (4). (4) Subject to this Part, the other Parts of this Act apply with necessary modifications to a phased condominium corporation unless those other Parts specifically provide that they do not apply to a particular type of phased condominium corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 126 (2). (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), a reference to the registration of the declaration and description in section 13, subsection 14 (1), 22 (4), 56 (11), 58 (9), 78 (1), 80 (6), 122 (1) or (2), 124 (2) or (3), 127 (1) or (2) shall be deemed, if applicable, to be a reference to the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase. 1998, c. 19, s. 145 (5). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 145 (5) of the Act is amended by adding “subsection 2 (2.1)” after “description in”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 126 (3)) (6) This Part does not apply to a corporation that is not a phased condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 145 (6). 146 (1) A phase that contains units may be created only in the blocks of numbers of units, during the time periods and in accordance with the requirements that are prescribed. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (1). Phase containing common elements (2) A phase that contains common elements may be created only during the time periods and in accordance with the requirements that are prescribed. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (2). Method of creation (3) To create a phase, the declarant shall register an amendment to both the declaration and description. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (3). Amendment to declaration (4) The amendment to the declaration required for creating a phase shall include, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 146 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “Subject to the regulations” at the beginning of the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 127 (1)) (a) the consent of every person having a registered mortgage against the land included in the phase or interests appurtenant to the land, as the land and the interests are described in the amendment to the description required for creating the phase; (b) a statement of the proportions, expressed in percentages, of the common interests appurtenant to the units in the corporation after the creation of the phase; (c) a statement of the proportions, expressed in percentages allocated to the units in the corporation, in which the owners after the creation of the phase are to contribute to the common expenses; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 146 (4) of the Act is amended by adding the following clause: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 127 (2)) (c.1) a statement of how the proportions mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) are determined; (d) a specification of all parts of the common elements contained in the phase that are to be used by the owners of one or more designated units and not by all the owners; (e) a statement of all conditions that the approval authority, in approving or exempting under section 9 the amendment to the description required for creating the phase, requires the amendment to the declaration to mention; and (f) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (4); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Amendment to description (5) The amendment to the description required for creating a phase shall include, (a) the material mentioned in subsection 8 (1) prepared with respect to the phase; (b) a legal description of the land that will be the servient tenement within the meaning of section 151; and (c) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (5); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (6) Subsection 8 (2) and clause 8 (3) (b) apply with necessary modifications to the amendment. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (6). Consent of owners not required (7) Section 107 does not apply to amendments to the declaration that comply with subsection (4) or to amendments to the description that comply with subsections (5) and (6). 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (7). Completion of buildings (8) The amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase shall not be registered unless all facilities and services have been installed or provided as the municipality in which the land of the corporation is situated, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if the land is not situated in a municipality, determines are necessary to ensure the independent operation of the corporation if no subsequent phases are created. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (8). (9) Despite subsection (8), a declarant may register the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, even though certain facilities and services have not been installed or provided, if the municipality or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the case may be, agrees that the declarant provide to a specified person a bond or other security that is sufficient to ensure the installation or provision of the facilities and services. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (9). Partial release (10) The person holding the bond or other security may provide a partial release of it to the declarant with the consent of the municipality or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (10). (11) The person holding the bond or other security shall not release it in full until, (a) all the facilities and services covered by the bond, or other security have been installed or provided in accordance with the regulations; and (b) the municipality or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the case may be, consents. 1998, c. 19, s. 146 (11); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). 147 (1) In addition to the requirements of subsection 72 (3), a disclosure statement for a unit or a proposed unit in a phased condominium corporation shall contain, (a) a statement whether the declarant intends to create one or more phases after the creation of the unit or proposed unit; (b) a statement that the declarant is not required to create a phase after the creation of the unit or proposed unit; (c) a statement that sets out the projected year of registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating each phase that the declarant intends to create after the creation of the unit or proposed unit; (d) a statement that sets out, for each phase that the declarant intends to create after the creation of the unit or proposed unit, (i) the approximate number of the units included in the phase and a legal description of the land included in the phase, (ii) the approximate location of the buildings and structures to be contained in the phase and a description of the facilities and services to be contained in the phase, (iii) a statement of the proportions, expressed in percentages, of the common interests and common expenses attributable to the units after the creation of the phase, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subclause 147 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 128 (1)) (iii) the statements described in clauses 146 (4) (b) and (c), (iii.1) the statement described in clause 146 (4) (c.1), (iv) a statement of the facilities and services that the owners will share after the creation of the phase, and (v) a statement that there are no representations with respect to the quality of materials or appearance of buildings other than those specifically set out as representations in the disclosure statement; and (e) all other material that the regulations made under this Act require. 1998, c. 19, s. 147 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 147 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “and” at the end of clause (c), by striking out “and” at the end of subclause (d) (v) and by repealing clause (e). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 128 (2)) Not material changes (2) A change in the matters described in subclause (1) (d) (i) and a change in the matters described in subclause (1) (d) (iii) if it is the result only of a change in the number of units included in the phase shall be deemed not to be a material change within the meaning of section 74. 1998, c. 19, s. 147 (2). No merger of statements (3) The statements described in clause (1) (d) and made by a declarant in a disclosure statement with respect to a phase that is created after the creation of the unit or proposed unit to which the disclosure statement related are enforceable against the declarant and shall be deemed not to merge by operation of law when a deed that is in registerable form is delivered to the purchaser of the unit or proposed unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 147 (3). Obligations for phase (4) If a unit or proposed unit is part of a phase, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 147 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “subject to the regulations” after “phase” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 128 (3)) (a) a reference to the registration of the declaration and description in subsection 72 (3) or (6), 74 (2) or 75 (1) shall be deemed to be a reference to the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating the phase; and (b) the reference in subsection 75 (2) to the termination of an agreement under section 111 or 112 shall be deemed to be a reference to the termination of an agreement under section 111 or 112 that affects the property contained in the phase. 1998, c. 19, s. 147 (4). Copy of disclosure statement (5) Within 15 days of registering the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the declarant shall send to the corporation a copy of the most current disclosure statement delivered to the purchasers of units in the phase. 1998, c. 19, s. 147 (5). 148 In addition to the requirements of subsection 76 (1), a status certificate for a unit in a phased condominium corporation shall contain a copy of the disclosure statement that the corporation has received from the declarant under subsection 147 (5) with respect to the phase that contains the unit unless the declarant, (a) has completed all phases described in the disclosure statement; and (b) no longer owns any of the units in the phases except for the part of the property designed to control, facilitate or provide telecommunications to, from or within the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 148. 149 (1) The declarant shall not register the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase until at least 60 days after delivering to the corporation, (a) a copy of the disclosure statement delivered to a purchaser of a unit in the corporation most recently before the registration of the declaration and description; (b) a copy of the proposed amendments to the declaration and description required for creating the phase; and (c) a statement specifying all differences between the proposed amendments to the declaration and description required for creating the phase and the following matters with respect to the phase that were described in the disclosure statement mentioned in clause (a): Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause 149 (1) (c) of the Act is amended by striking out “a statement specifying” at the beginning of the portion before subclause 1 and substituting “a statement that is prepared in accordance with the regulations and that specifies”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 129) 1. The matters described in subclauses 147 (1) (d) (ii) and (iv). 2. The matters described in subclause 147 (1) (d) (iii) if they differ from the proposed amendments to the declaration and description required for creating the phase for a reason other than a change in the number of units included in the phase. 1998, c. 19, s. 149 (1). Application for injunction (2) Before the earlier of the registration date of the proposed amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase and 60 days after receiving the documents described in clauses (1) (a), (b) and (c), the corporation may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an injunction to prevent the registration if any of the differences described in clause (1) (c) are material and detrimentally affect the corporation or the use and enjoyment of the property by the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 149 (2); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). Grounds for injunction (3) If the court is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist, it may grant the injunction or award damages to the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 149 (3). Restriction on declarant (5) If the corporation makes an application for an injunction under subsection (2), the declarant is not entitled to register a declaration and description to create a corporation on the land to be included in the phase, instead of registering the amendments required for creating the phase, unless 120 days have passed after the court has made a final disposition of the application for the injunction. 1998, c. 19, s. 149 (5). 150 (1) Within 15 days of registering the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the declarant shall send a copy of the amendments to the corporation and the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 150 (1). Damages from declarant (2) A person who purchased a unit or proposed unit in the corporation before the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase is entitled to recover damages from the declarant for a difference between the following matters disclosed in the disclosure statement delivered to the person and the registered amendments if the difference is material and detrimentally affects the use and enjoyment of the person’s unit: 2. The matters described in subclause 147 (1) (d) (iii) if they differ from the registered amendments for a reason other than a change in the number of units included in the phase. 1998, c. 19, s. 150 (2). (3) Upon application by the person, the Superior Court of Justice may make an order requiring the declarant to pay to the person the damages to which the person is entitled under subsection (2). 1998, c. 19, s. 150 (3); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). 151 (1) Upon registration of a declaration and description for a phased condominium corporation or the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the following easements are created, where necessary, for the benefit of the units and common elements: 1. An easement for the provision of services over the servient tenement. 2. An easement for support from the servient tenement. 3. An easement for access to and for the installation and maintenance of the services and facilities that the corporation is entitled to use over the servient tenement. 4. An easement for access to public roads over the servient tenement. 1998, c. 19, s. 151 (1). “servient tenement” means the land owned by the declarant that is not included in the phase, including the buildings and structures on the land. 1998, c. 19, s. 151 (2). 152 (1) In addition to the items mentioned in subsection 43 (4), the declarant shall give to the board at the first meeting held under section 43, (a) a copy of the statements described in subsection 147 (1); and (b) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 152 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Obligation upon creation of phase (2) Upon the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the declarant shall turn over to the board all materials mentioned in subsections (1) and 43 (4) and clauses 43 (5) (a) to (h) and (l) and (m) that relate to the phase and that the declarant has not previously turned over to the board. 1998, c. 19, s. 152 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 152 (2) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 130) (2) Upon the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the declarant shall turn over to the board the following materials that relate to the phase and that the declarant has not previously turned over to the board: 1. All materials mentioned in subsections (1) and 43 (4) and clauses 43 (5) (a) to (g) and (l) and (m). 2. Subject to the regulations, the materials mentioned in clause 43 (5) (h), as that clause read immediately before the day subsection 36 (7) of Schedule 1 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 comes into force. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 130. Non-application of s. 43 (3) Subsections 43 (4) and (5) do not apply to the declarant if the board is required to hold a meeting of owners under section 43 after the declarant has turned over to the board the materials mentioned in subsection (2). 1998, c. 19, s. 152 (3). (4) The corporation may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (5). 1998, c. 19, s. 152 (4); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). (5) If the court is satisfied that the declarant is required to comply with subsection (2) and has not done so without reasonable excuse, the court, (a) shall order that the declarant pay damages to the corporation for the loss it incurred as a result of the declarant’s acts of non-compliance with subsection (2); (d) may order the declarant to comply with subsection (2). 1998, c. 19, s. 152 (5). (6) If, 30 days after the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the declarant owns a majority of the units in the corporation, the board shall, at the request of the declarant, call a meeting of owners to elect a new board which shall hold office until a board is elected as required by subsection 43 (1). 1998, c. 19, s. 152 (6). 153 (1) If the declarant registers the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase and the phase contains one or more units for residential purposes, the board shall have a performance audit of the common elements contained in the phase conducted on behalf of the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 153 (1). (2) Section 44 applies to the performance audit, except that, (a) references in that section to the registration of the declaration and description shall be deemed to be references to the registration of the amendments; and (b) references in that section to the common elements shall be deemed to be references to the common elements contained in the phase. 1998, c. 19, s. 153 (2). (3) Within 90 days of the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the corporation shall have the financial statements required by subsection 66 (2) prepared and sections 66 to 71 apply to them. 1998, c. 19, s. 153 (3). (4) Within the prescribed time following the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the corporation shall conduct a reserve fund study in accordance with section 94 with respect to the phase. 1998, c. 19, s. 153 (4). 154 (1) Subject to subsection (2), after the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, a corporation may, by resolution of the board, terminate an agreement under which it receives condominium management services in respect of the property contained in the phase and that the declarant entered into on behalf of the corporation before the registration of the amendments. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (17). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 154 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “and despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument” after “subsection (2)”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 131 (1)) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 154 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: This amendment applies only if subsection 131 (1) of Schedule 1 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 comes into force on or before the day subsection 80 (19) of Schedule 2 to the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 comes into force. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (19), (20)) (1) Subject to subsection (2) and despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument, after the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, a corporation may, by resolution of the board, terminate an agreement under which it receives condominium management services in respect of the property contained in the phase and that the declarant entered into on behalf of the corporation before the registration of the amendments. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (19). (2) To terminate an agreement, the board shall give at least 60 days notice in writing of the date of termination to the person with whom the declarant entered into the agreement. 1998, c. 19, s. 154 (2). (3) Subject to subsection (4) and subsection 112 (5), within 12 months following the first election of the board under section 43 after the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the corporation may, by resolution of the board, terminate an agreement described in subsection 112 (2), that the declarant has entered into on behalf of the corporation before the registration of the amendments and that affects the property contained in the phase. 1998, c. 19, s. 154 (3). (3) Subject to subsection (4), subsection 112 (5) and the regulations and despite anything in the declaration, a by-law, an agreement or an instrument, within 12 months following the first election of the board under section 43 after the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, the corporation may, by resolution of the board, terminate an agreement described in subsection 112 (2) that the declarant has entered into on behalf of the corporation before the registration of the amendments and that affects the property contained in the phase, other than an agreement mentioned in section 21.1. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 131 (2). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 154 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “under subsection (1) or (3)” after “To terminate an agreement”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 131 (3)) (4.1) If a corporation terminates an agreement under subsection (1) or (3), the corporation and its directors, officers and owners are not liable for, (c) any other prescribed consequences. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 131 (4). (5) If a declarant on behalf of a corporation has entered into an agreement for the mutual use, provision or maintenance or the cost-sharing of facilities or services before the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase, and the agreement affects the property contained in the phase, any party to the agreement may, within 12 months following the first election of the board under section 43 after the registration of the amendments, make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (6). 1998, c. 19, s. 154 (5); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). (5) If a declarant on behalf of a corporation has entered into an agreement to share in the provision, use, maintenance, repair, insurance, operation or administration of any land, any part of a property or proposed property, any assets of a corporation or any facilities or services before the registration of the amendments to the declaration and description required for creating a phase and if the agreement affects the property contained in the phase, any party to the agreement may, within 12 months following the first election of the board under section 43 after the registration of the amendments, make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (6) unless the regulations provide otherwise. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 131 (5). (6) The court may make an order described in subsection 113 (3) if the requirements of that subsection are met. 1998, c. 19, s. 154 (6). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 131 - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (17, 18) - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 2, s. 80 (19, 20) - not in force 155 (1) Subject to the regulations, a declarant may register a declaration and description that create a corporation in which, at the time of the registration, (a) one or more units are not part of a building or structure and do not include any part of a building or structure; and (b) none of the units are located above or below any other unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 155 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (2) The type of corporation created by the registration of declaration and description under subsection (1) shall be known as a vacant land condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 155 (2). (3) A declaration and description for a vacant land condominium corporation shall not be registered unless the registration would create a freehold condominium corporation that is not a common elements condominium corporation or, except as provided in the regulations made under this Act, a phased condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 155 (3). (4) Subject to this Part, Parts I to IX and XIV apply with necessary modifications to a vacant land condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 155 (4). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 155 (4) of the Act is amended by adding “XI” after “IX”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 132 (2)) (5) This Part does not apply to a corporation that is not a vacant land condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 155 (5). 156 (1) If a unit in a vacant land condominium corporation is to include a building or structure constructed after the registration of the declaration and description, the declaration may contain restrictions with respect to, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 156 (1) of the Act is amended by adding “subject to the regulations” after “may” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 133) (a) the size, location, construction standards, quality of materials and appearance of the building or structure; (b) architectural standards and construction design standards of the building or structure; (c) the time of commencement and completion of construction of the building or structure; and (d) the minimum maintenance requirements for the building or structure. 1998, c. 19, s. 156 (1). Permitted restrictions (2) A restriction contained in the declaration shall be consistent with the conditions imposed by the approval authority in approving or exempting the description under section 9. 1998, c. 19, s. 156 (2). 157 (1) A description of a vacant land condominium corporation shall contain, (a) a plan of survey showing the perimeter of the horizontal surface of the land, the perimeter of the buildings and structures on the common elements and the boundaries of each unit; (b) subject to section 158, architectural plans of the buildings and structures included in the common elements and, if there are any, structural plans of them; (c) subject to section 158, a certificate of an architect that the buildings included in the common elements have been constructed in accordance with the regulations and, if there are structural plans, a certificate of an engineer that the buildings have been constructed in accordance with the regulations; (d) a description of all interests appurtenant to the land that are included in the property; and (e) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 157 (1); 2001, c. 9, Sched. D, s. 3 (3); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (2) Subsection 8 (1) and clause 8 (3) (b) do not apply to vacant land condominium corporations. 1998, c. 19, s. 157 (2). 158 (1) A declaration and description of a vacant land condominium corporation that show buildings, structures, facilities and services to be included in the common elements shall not be registered unless, (a) all buildings, structures, facilities and services shown in the declaration and description to be included in the common elements have been completed, installed and provided in accordance with the regulations; or (b) the declarant provides to a person or body, including an approval authority, specified by the municipality in which the land is situated, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if the land is not situated in a municipality, a bond or other security that is acceptable to the municipality or the Minister, as the case may be, and that is sufficient to ensure that, (i) the buildings and structures will be completed and installed in accordance with the regulations, (ii) the facilities and services will be installed and provided, and (iii) the items described in clauses 157 (1) (b) and (c) will be included in an amendment to the description. 1998, c. 19, s. 158 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (2) The person holding the bond or other security may provide a partial release of it to the declarant with the consent of the municipality or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 158 (2). (3) The person holding the bond or other security shall not release it in full until, (a) all the buildings, structures, facilities and services to be included in the common elements have been completed and installed in accordance with the regulations; and (b) the declarant has registered an amendment to the description consisting of the items described in clauses 157 (1) (b), (c) and (e). 1998, c. 19, s. 158 (3); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (4) Section 107 does not apply to an amendment to the description if the amendment complies with clause (3) (b). 1998, c. 19, s. 158 (4). 159 (1) The buildings and structures located on a unit or on the common elements of a vacant land condominium corporation, whether or not the buildings and structures had been constructed at the time of the registration of the declaration and description, are real property and form part of the unit or common elements respectively. 1998, c. 19, s. 159 (1). (2) The corporation is exempt from the obligation to obtain and maintain the insurance described in section 99 for buildings and structures located on a unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 159 (2). Owner to insure (3) The owner of a unit shall obtain and maintain the insurance for damage to the unit that, but for subsection (2), the corporation would have had to obtain with respect to the unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 159 (3). 160 In addition to the power to make, amend or repeal by-laws under subsection 56 (1), the board of a vacant land condominium corporation may, subject to section 56, make, amend or repeal by-laws, not contrary to the declaration, specifying minimum maintenance requirements for a unit or a building or structure located on a unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 160. 161 (1) Before delivering the first disclosure statement mentioned in section 72, the declarant with respect to a unit or a proposed unit in a vacant land condominium corporation shall request from the municipality in which the land is situated or from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if the land is not situated in a municipality, a statement of the services provided by the municipality or the Minister, as the case may be, including the construction and maintenance of roads. 1998, c. 19, s. 161 (1). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 161 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “mentioned in section 72” and substituting “and the condominium guide as required by section 72”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 134 (1)) (2) In addition to the material required under subsection 72 (3), a disclosure statement relating to the purchase of a unit or a proposed unit in a vacant land condominium corporation shall include, (a) whatever statement that the declarant has received from the municipality or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the case may be, in response to a request; and (b) all other material that the regulations made under this Act require. 1998, c. 19, s. 161 (2). (2) In addition to the material required under subsection 72 (3), a disclosure statement relating to the purchase of a unit or a proposed unit in a vacant land condominium corporation shall include whatever statement that the declarant has received from the municipality or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the case may be, in response to a request. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 134 (2). If no statement received (3) If the declarant has not received any statement in response to a request within 30 days of making it, the disclosure statement shall contain a statement that the declarant has requested a statement under subsection (1) but has not received any statement in response to the request. 1998, c. 19, s. 161 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 161 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “that is prepared in accordance with the regulations and” after “contain a statement”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 134 (3)) 162 (1) Subject to the regulations, sections 89, 90, 91 and 92 do not apply to a vacant land condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 162 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Extent of obligations (2) For the purpose of this section, the obligation to repair after damage includes the obligation to repair and replace after damage or failure and the obligation to maintain includes the obligation to repair after normal wear and tear but does not include the obligation to repair after damage. 1998, c. 19, s. 162 (2). (3) A vacant land condominium corporation shall maintain the common elements and repair them after damage. 1998, c. 19, s. 162 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 162 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “after damage”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 135 (2)) (4) The owner of a unit in a vacant land condominium corporation shall maintain the owner’s unit and repair it after damage. 1998, c. 19, s. 162 (4). (5) If an owner of a unit in a vacant land condominium corporation fails to maintain the owner’s unit within a reasonable time or to repair it within a reasonable time after damage, the corporation may maintain or repair the unit, as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 162 (5). (6) An owner shall be deemed to have consented to the repairs or maintenance carried out by the corporation and the cost of the work shall be added to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 162 (6); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 136. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 135 - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 136 - 01/11/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1) - 01/09/2017 163 (1) If the board of a vacant land condominium corporation determines under section 123 that substantial damage has occurred to a building located on a unit and the owners do not vote for termination under that section, the owner of the unit may elect, (a) not to repair the damage; or (b) to replace the building with a different building, subject to this Act, the declaration and the by-laws. 1998, c. 19, s. 163 (1). Owner’s duty (2) An owner of a unit who elects not to repair the damage shall, as closely as is reasonably possible, restore the land on which the building was located to the state that the land was in immediately before the construction of the building. 1998, c. 19, s. 163 (2). Restoration done by corporation (3) If the owner of the unit does not do the restoration within a reasonable time, the corporation may do it. 1998, c. 19, s. 163 (3). (4) The owner shall be deemed to have consented to the restoration done by the corporation and the cost of the restoration shall be added to the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 163 (4); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 136. 164 (1) Subject to the regulations, a declarant may register a declaration and description that divide the leasehold estate in the land described in the description into units and common elements. 1998, c. 19, s. 164 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (2) The type of corporation created by the registration of a declaration and description under subsection (1) shall be known as a leasehold condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 164 (2). (3) Subject to this Part, Parts I to IX and XIV apply with necessary modifications to a leasehold condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 164 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 164 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “XI” after “IX”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 137) (4) This Part does not apply to a corporation that is not a leasehold condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 164 (4). 165 (1) Each leasehold interest in a unit in a leasehold condominium corporation and its appurtenant common interest is valid even if the lessor is the owner of the leasehold interest and in that case the legal title and the leasehold interest shall be deemed not to merge. 1998, c. 19, s. 165 (1). Same term (2) All leasehold interests in units in a leasehold condominium corporation and their appurtenant common interests shall be for the same term. 1998, c. 19, s. 165 (2). Term before renewal (3) The term of the leasehold interests before a renewal under section 174 shall be not less than 40 years less a day and not more than 99 years as specified in the declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 165 (3). Lessor’s consent not required (4) The owner of a unit in a leasehold condominium corporation may, without the consent of the lessor, transfer, mortgage, lease or otherwise deal with the leasehold interest in the unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 165 (4). Transfer of unit (5) The owner of a unit in a leasehold condominium corporation may not transfer less than the whole leasehold interest in the unit and its appurtenant common interest. 1998, c. 19, s. 165 (5). Form of transfer (6) A leasehold interest in a unit in a leasehold condominium corporation shall be transferred in accordance with section 105 of the Land Titles Act, even if the land included in a leasehold condominium corporation is situated within the boundaries of a registry division. 1998, c. 19, s. 165 (6). (7) The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply to the leasehold interest of an owner of a unit in a leasehold condominium corporation and its appurtenant common interest but does apply to a lease of an owner’s leasehold interest in a unit. 1998, c. 19, s. 165 (8); 2006, c. 17, s. 248 (5). (8) Spent: 1998, c. 19, s. 165 (8). 166 (1) A declaration for a leasehold condominium corporation shall not be registered unless it is executed by the lessor. 1998, c. 19, s. 166 (1). (1) A declaration for a leasehold condominium corporation and an amendment to a declaration for a leasehold condominium corporation to make the corporation a phased condominium corporation shall not be registered unless it is executed by the lessor. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 138 (1). (2) In addition to the requirements of subsection 7 (2), a declaration for a leasehold condominium corporation shall contain, Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 166 (2) of the Act is amended by adding “and subject to the regulations” after “7 (2)” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 138 (2)) (a) a statement of the term of the leasehold interests of the owners; (b) a schedule setting out the amount of rent for the property payable by the corporation on behalf of the owners to the lessor and the times at which the rent is payable for at least the first five years immediately following the registration of the declaration and description; (c) a formula to determine the amount of rent for the property payable by the corporation on behalf of the owners to the lessor and the times at which the rent is payable during the remainder of the term of the owners’ leasehold interests following the time for which the schedule described in clause (b) states the amount of rent payable; (d) a schedule of all provisions of the leasehold interests that affect the property, the corporation and the owners; and (e) all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 166 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). Leasehold interests in property (3) Provisions of the leasehold interests in the property are not binding on the property, the corporation or the owners unless the declaration sets them out and states that they are binding. 1998, c. 19, s. 166 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 166 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “in accordance with the prescribed requirements” after “sets them out”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 138 (3)) Amendment of declaration (4) An amendment to the declaration that affects the leasehold interests in the property is not effective unless the lessor has consented in writing to the amendment. 1998, c. 19, s. 166 (4). (4) An amendment to the declaration that affects the leasehold interests in the property, other than an amendment to make the corporation a phased condominium corporation, is not effective unless the lessor has consented in writing to the amendment. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 138 (4). 167 (1) In addition to the requirements of section 8, a description for a leasehold condominium corporation shall contain all other material that the regulations require. 1998, c. 19, s. 167 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (2) In addition to the requirements of section 8 and subject to the regulations, a description for a leasehold condominium corporation shall not be registered unless the buildings and improvements to the property form part of the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 167 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 146 (1). (3) An amendment to the description that affects the leasehold interests in the property is not effective unless the lessor has consented in writing to the amendment. 1998, c. 19, s. 167 (3). 168 (1) A leasehold condominium corporation shall, on behalf of the owners, exercise all rights and perform all obligations of the owners with respect to the leasehold estate in the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 168 (1). (2) The owners shall not exercise the rights or perform the obligations mentioned in subsection (1). 1998, c. 19, s. 168 (2). (3) The lessor and the corporation shall be deemed to have agreed that either party may submit to mediation a disagreement on the interpretation of the provisions of the leasehold interests in the property that bind the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 168 (3). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 168 (3) of the Act is amended by adding “including any question of law or equity” at the end. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 139) (4) If the lessor or the corporation submits a disagreement to mediation, section 132 applies to it. 1998, c. 19, s. 168 (4). 169 In addition to the matters mentioned in subsection 72 (3), a disclosure statement in the case of a leasehold condominium corporation shall include, (a) a statement by the declarant whether the provisions of the leasehold interests in the property are in good standing and have not been breached; and 169 In addition to the matters mentioned in subsection 72 (3), a disclosure statement in the case of a leasehold condominium corporation shall include a statement by the declarant whether the provisions of the leasehold interests in the property are in good standing and have not been breached. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 140. 170 In addition to the material mentioned in subsection 76 (1), a status certificate in the case of a leasehold condominium corporation shall include, (a) a statement by the corporation whether the provisions of the leasehold interests in the property are in good standing and have not been breached; (b) a statement by the corporation whether the lessor has applied for a termination order under section 173; and 171 (1) The rent for the property that a leasehold condominium corporation is required to pay to the lessor on behalf of the owners and all other amounts necessary to comply with the provisions of the leasehold interest affecting the property are a common expense. 1998, c. 19, s. 171 (1). Contribution to common expenses (2) The corporation shall collect from each owner, as part of the contribution to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit, a portion of the rent and the amounts described in subsection (1) based on the proportion in which the owner is to contribute to the common expenses and that is allocated to the owner’s unit in the declaration. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 141. Payment to lessor (3) The corporation shall remit to the lessor, from the contributions collected from the owners under subsection (2), the amounts to which the lessor is entitled under the provisions of the leasehold interest affecting the property. 1998, c. 19, s. 171 (3). 172 A leasehold condominium corporation shall not register a notice of termination under section 122 or 123 or sell the property or a part of the common elements under section 124 unless the lessor has consented to and executed the notice or the agreement of purchase and sale, as the case may be. 1998, c. 19, s. 172. 173 (1) The lessor shall not terminate a leasehold interest in a unit in a leasehold condominium corporation unless the lessor has been granted an order terminating the leasehold interests in all of the units. 1998, c. 19, s. 173 (1). (2) The lessor may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order terminating all of the leasehold interests, if a leasehold condominium corporation, (a) has failed to remit to the lessor the amounts to which the lessor is entitled under the provisions of the leasehold interest affecting the property; or (b) has failed to comply with a court order. 1998, c. 19, s. 173 (2); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). (3) On an application, the court may make an order if it is satisfied that the order is just and equitable, having regard to the scheme and intent of this Act and the interests of all persons that would be affected by the order. 1998, c. 19, s. 173 (3). (4) The order may provide that all of the leasehold interests are terminated subject to the conditions set out in the order or may contain any other provision that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances. 1998, c. 19, s. 173 (4). (5) If the court makes an order terminating all of the leasehold interests, the lessor shall register the order. 1998, c. 19, s. 173 (5). 174 (1) At least five years before the end of the term of the leasehold interests in the units in a leasehold condominium corporation, the lessor shall give the corporation, (a) a written notice of intention to renew all the leasehold interests that sets out the provisions applicable to the renewal; or (b) a written notice of intention not to renew all the leasehold interests. 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (1). Term of renewal (2) A renewal of the leasehold interests shall be for at least 10 years or the greater term specified in the notice. 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (2). (3) Upon receiving the notice, the corporation shall send a copy of it to the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (3). Failure to give notice (4) If the lessor does not give the required notice, the lessor shall be deemed to have given the notice required to renew the leasehold interests for 10 years subject to the same provisions that govern the leasehold interests before the renewal and the corporation shall send a notice of that fact to the owners. 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (4). Owners’ vote for termination (5) The leasehold interests shall be renewed for the term and subject to the provisions specified in the notice or the deemed notice, as the case may be, unless the owners who own at least 80 per cent of the units cast a vote against the renewal no later than one year after the notice or the deemed notice, as the case may be, was given to the corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (5). (6) The corporation shall give notice to the lessor if, under subsection (5), the owners vote against the renewal. 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (6). Registration of notice (7) The lessor shall prepare a notice in the form prescribed by the Minister stating whether the leasehold interests have been renewed or not and register the notice in, (b) the registry division of the land registry office within the boundaries of which division the land described in the description is situated, if the land registry office does not have a land titles division. 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (7). New provisions upon renewal (8) If the leasehold interests are renewed subject to provisions that are different from those that applied before the renewal, the declaration shall be deemed to be amended to contain the provisions that apply upon the renewal and the corporation shall register a copy of the provisions as an amendment to the declaration. 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (8). Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 174 (8) of the Act is amended by adding “in accordance with the regulations” at the end. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 142) (9) Section 107 does not apply to an amendment to the declaration if the amendment complies with subsection (8). 1998, c. 19, s. 174 (9). 175 (1) In the case of a leasehold condominium corporation, upon the registration of a notice of termination under section 122 or 123, the registration of a deed to the property under section 124, expropriation under section 126, the registration of an order under section 128 or 173 (or such other date, if any, specified in the registered order) or the registration of a notice under section 174 that the leasehold interests in the units have not been renewed (or such other date, if any, specified in the registered notice), (b) the leasehold interests in the units are terminated; (c) claims against the leasehold interests that do not secure the payment of money are extinguished, unless the lessor consented to their registration, in which case they are continued against the lessor’s interest; and (d) claims against the leasehold interests that secure the payment of money are claims against the persons who were owners of the leasehold interests immediately before the termination of those interests, and not against the land. 1998, c. 19, s. 175 (1). (2) Section 127 does not apply to a leasehold condominium corporation. 1998, c. 19, s. 175 (2). Appointment of trustee (3) Despite section 129, before the time at which this Act ceases to govern the property, the corporation shall appoint a trustee to pay out the money remaining in the corporation’s reserve fund in accordance with this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 175 (3). Distribution of money (4) When this Act ceases to govern the property, the trustee shall pay out the money remaining in the reserve fund at that time in accordance with the following priorities: 1. To the lessor, the amount, if any, that is required to repair damage to the property that has not been repaired. 2. To each of the owners, a share of the balance in the same proportion as their common interests, subject to subsection (5). 1998, c. 19, s. 175 (4). Payment of secured claims (5) Before paying out a share of money payable to an owner, the trustee shall deduct from the share the amount of claims against the owner that secure the payment of money and shall remit the deduction to the persons entitled to the claims. 1998, c. 19, s. 175 (5). 176 This Act applies despite any agreement to the contrary. 1998, c. 19, s. 176. 176.1 (1) The Minister may, by order, establish fees that are payable for filing returns and notices under Part II.1 or for obtaining search reports, copies of documents and information or other services under that Part. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 143. Orders are not regulations (2) Part III (Regulations) of the Legislation Act, 2006 does not apply to an order made under subsection (1). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 143. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the condominium authority is responsible for the administration of Part II.1. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 143. 177 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, 0.1 requiring the condominium authority to collect and publish statistics on its activities and financial affairs in accordance with the requirements specified in the regulations; 0.2 providing that sections 1.36 to 1.47 apply only in respect of a property located in the geographic area specified in the regulations; 1. classifying corporations, properties or persons for the purposes of the regulations; 2. specifying prohibitions, restrictions and other requirements that apply to the registration of a declaration and description in respect of any type of corporation; 2.1 governing the form and content of a declaration or a description; 2.2 specifying provisions that are deemed to be included in declarations and descriptions registered before May 5, 2001; 2.3 governing what constitutes and what does not constitute an inconsistent provision for the purposes of subsection 7 (5), 56 (8) or 58 (4); 3. specifying requirements for the construction of the buildings described in a description for the purpose of a certificate mentioned in clause 8 (1) (e) or 157 (1) (c); 3.1 for the purposes of clause 22 (2) (a), governing what constitutes a network upgrade or an agreement for a network upgrade; 3.2 governing what constitutes an interest or a right mentioned in subsection 26.1 (1) or 78 (1.1); 3.3 governing the training that a person must complete for the purposes of clause 29 (2) (e), including, i. authorizing the board of the condominium authority or the Minister to designate training courses, ii. authorizing the board of the condominium authority or the Minister to designate organizations that are authorized to provide the courses designated in subparagraph i, and iii. requiring the condominium authority or the Minister to keep records relating to training; 4. specifying material to be included in a declaration, a description, a report of a performance audit mentioned in subsection 44 (8), a table of contents, a disclosure statement, a budget statement, a status certificate, an agreement described in clause 98 (1) (b) or a notice of meeting mentioned in subsection 120 (3); Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 4 of subsection 177 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “a table of contents” and substituting “a summary”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (2)) 4.1 governing material that is to be made available on a website that a declarant or declarant affiliate maintains or makes use of in relation to a property or proposed property; 4.2 governing when a person shall be deemed to be acting on behalf of or for the benefit of a declarant in respect of the purchase of a unit or a proposed unit under this Act or shall be deemed not to be so acting; 5. specifying deficiencies for the purpose of a performance audit under section 44 and governing the obligations of the person who conducts the audit; 6. requiring corporations to keep books, accounts and records and governing the books, accounts and records that corporations are required to keep; 6.1 setting out provisions that are deemed to be included in the declaration, the by-laws or the rules unless they are amended or repealed in accordance with this Act; 6.2 restricting provisions of the declaration, the by-laws or the rules of a corporation that a board, other than a board of the corporation described in subsection 11 (8), may approve, make, amend or repeal and governing the remedies available to persons affected by non-compliance with a regulation made under this paragraph; 6.3 if a regulation made under paragraph 6.2 restricts a board of a corporation to which that paragraph applies from approving, making, amending or repealing a provision of the declaration, the by-laws or the rules of the corporation, governing the circumstances where a decision of a board of a corporation described in subsection 11 (8) to approve, make, amend or repeal such a provision is not valid and governing the remedies available to persons affected by that decision; 6.4 governing the quorum required for the transaction of business at a meeting of owners to which clause 45.1 (1) (a.1) applies; 7. governing the determination of occupancy standards under section 57; 8. specifying the form and content of financial statements and audit reports; 8.1 specifying the manner of requesting or delivering statements and other material mentioned in section 26.3, 51, 72, 72.1, 74, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83.1, 115, 143, 147, 149, 150, 152, 161 or 169, requiring the person to whom the statements and material are delivered to provide an acknowledgment of the delivery and governing the acknowledgement; 8.2 for the purposes of subsection 11 (7) and sections 26.1 and 26.2, governing the circumstances where the decision of a board of a corporation under those provisions is not valid and governing the remedies available to persons affected by that decision; 8.3 for the purposes of subsection 51 (3) or 51.1 (2), governing the circumstances when two or more owners of a unit are deemed to be evenly divided on how to exercise the right to vote or consent in respect of the unit under that subsection; 8.4 governing the remedies available to a person who is or was a purchaser under section 72.1 if a declarant does not comply with that section; 9. prescribing rates of interest payable under this Act, including rates of interest that shall be paid on money required to be held in trust under this Act; 10. governing funds intended for the payment of common expenses; 10.1 for the purposes of subsection 92 (1), (2) or (3), governing what constitutes work necessary to carry out the obligation mentioned in that subsection; 11. classifying reserve fund studies for the purposes of section 94; 12. governing the contents of any or all classes of reserve fund studies, the standards that shall be observed in conducting them and the times at which they shall be conducted; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 12 of subsection 177 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “conducted” at the end and substituting “obtained”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (7)) 13. prescribing the persons who may conduct any or all classes of reserve fund studies and specifying the qualifications of the persons and the affiliations for the purposes of subsection 94 (6) that disentitle the persons from conducting the reserve fund studies; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 13 of subsection 177 (1) of the Act is repealed. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (8)) Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 177 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following paragraph: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (10)) 13. governing the manner in which the current fiscal year mentioned in clause 97 (5) (c) or 97 (9) (a) is to be determined; 14. governing the cost mentioned in clause 97 (2) (c); 14. governing what constitutes a condition or activity mentioned in section 117; 15. specifying restrictions on the right of corporations to amalgamate under section 120 and requirements for corporations to fulfill in order to amalgamate; 15.1 specifying the qualifications that a person must have to be appointed as an administrator under section 131 and specifying the conditions or requirements that a person must fulfil to be so appointed; 15.2 for the purposes of sections 82.1, 82.2, 124 and 125, governing what constitutes the net proceeds of a sale mentioned in the applicable section; 15.3 requiring an applicant who makes an application under subsection 128 (1) to give notice of the application and governing the contents of the notice and the time required for giving it; 15.4 for the purposes of subsections 135.1 (3) and (4), governing what constitutes any additional actual costs that a corporation or an owner incurs in obtaining an order described in either of those subsections; 16. specifying restrictions on the right of a declarant to register a declaration and description to create a common elements condominium corporation, a vacant land condominium corporation or a leasehold condominium corporation and specifying requirements for the declarant to fulfill in order to make the registrations, including requirements for the purpose of section 157; 17. respecting the manner in which a common interest attaches to an owner’s parcel of land for the purpose of subsection 139 (3); 18. specifying restrictions on the right of a declarant to register an amendment to a declaration and description required for creating a phase in a phased condominium corporation and specifying requirements for the declarant to fulfill in order to make the registrations; 18.1 governing the manner in which section 75 applies to a phased condominium corporation; 19. governing the manner in which sections 89, 90, 91 and 92 apply to a vacant land condominium corporation; 19.1 for the purposes of subsection 162 (5), governing what constitutes work necessary to carry out the obligation mentioned in that subsection; 20. prescribing the amounts of fees that are payable or chargeable under this Act; 21. prescribing forms, other than forms mentioned in this Act as forms prescribed by the Minister, and providing for their use; 22. prescribing any matter mentioned in this Act as prescribed, other than forms mentioned in this Act as forms prescribed by the Minister; 23. respecting any matter that this Act mentions may be or shall be dealt with in the regulations; 24. exempting any class of corporations, properties or persons from any provision of this Act or the regulations; 24.1 defining any word or expression used in this Act that has not already been expressly defined in this Act; 25. respecting any matter necessary or advisable to carry out the intent and purpose of this Act; 26. providing for any transitional matter necessary for the effective implementation of this Act or the regulations. 1998, c. 19, s. 177 (1); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (1, 3, 5, 6, 12). Minister’s regulations 1. respecting the registration and recording of declarations, descriptions, amendments to declarations or descriptions, by-laws, notices of termination and other instruments; 2. governing the method of describing land or any interest in land in instruments affecting a property or part of a property; 3. governing surveys, plans, specifications, certificates, descriptions and diagrams, and prescribing procedures for their registration and amendment; 4. prescribing the duties of officers appointed under the Land Titles Act or the Registry Act for the purpose of this Act; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 4 is amended by striking out “or the Registry Act”. See: 2012, c. 8, Sched. 9, ss. 5, 6. 5. requiring the payment of fees to officers appointed under the Land Titles Act or the Registry Act and prescribing the amounts of the fees; 6. respecting the names of corporations and requiring that the name of a corporation indicate whether the corporation is a freehold, leasehold, common elements, phased or vacant land condominium corporation; Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, paragraph 6 of subsection 177 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “phased”. (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (13)) 7. governing the circumstances and the manner in which the Corporations Information Act is to apply to corporations, including the time at which that Act is to apply; 7.1 governing any return or notice required to be filed under Part II.1, including governing their form, the manner of accepting them, the determination and confirmation of the date of their receipt and their period of retention and destruction; 7.2 specifying alternative methods of filing returns and notices under Part II.1 and governing their filing by each method, including governing the manner of accepting them and the determination and confirmation of the date of their receipt; 8. requiring that a description in respect of any class of properties contain a survey of the properties showing the units and common elements, in lieu of or in addition to the requirements of section 8; 9. prescribing the material required to be contained in the certificate as to the status of an amalgamating corporation for the purpose of clause 120 (3) (c); 10. prescribing forms described in this Act as forms prescribed by the Minister and providing for their use. 1998, c. 19, s. 177 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (14). Application of regulations (3) A provision of a regulation may be made to apply to, (a) all corporations or any class or type of corporations; (b) all properties or any class of properties; or (c) all persons or any class of persons. 1998, c. 19, s. 177 (3). (4) A regulation made under subsection (1) that prescribes any of the following things may adopt by reference, with the changes, if any, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable, any principle, standard, code or formula, as it reads at the time the regulation is made or as it is amended from time to time, whether before or after the time at which the regulation is made: 1. The manner in which financial statements of a corporation are to be prepared or generally accepted accounting principles for the purpose of those statements. 2. The manner in which the auditor’s report described in subsection 67 (1) is to be prepared or generally accepted auditing standards for the purpose of that report. 2001, c. 9, Sched. D, s. 3 (4). 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (1, 3, 6, 12, 14) - 01/09/2017; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (2, 4, 7-11, 13) - not in force; 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 144 (5) - 03/12/2015 178 (1) Corporations created under the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, are continued as corporations under this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 178 (1). (2) A corporation’s lien that was created under the Condominium Act for the default of an owner in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit is continued as a lien under subsection 85 (1) of this Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 178 (2); 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 145. 179 (1) If the corporation was created under the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, section 43 does not apply and section 26 of that Act, as it existed immediately before the coming into force of section 184, continues to apply. 1998, c. 19, s. 179 (1). Offences under former Act (2) Section 55 of the Condominium Act, as it existed immediately before the coming into force of section 184, continues to apply with respect to contraventions of subsection 26 (3) of that Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 179 (2). 180 (1) If, on or before the day sections 44, 72 to 75 and 78 to 82 come into force, the declarant with respect to a corporation has entered into one or more agreements of purchase and sale for a unit or proposed unit in the corporation, (a) those sections do not apply; and (b) subject to subsection (2), sections 51 to 54 of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, except for subsection 52 (5) of that Act, as those sections existed immediately before the coming into force of section 184, continue to apply. 1998, c. 19, s. 180 (1). Not a material amendment (2) For the purposes of subsection 52 (2) of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, a change to the information required to be contained in a disclosure statement that arises only as a result of the coming into force of this Act does not constitute a material amendment to the disclosure statement. 1998, c. 19, s. 180 (2). (3) Section 55 of the Condominium Act, as it existed immediately before the coming into force of section 184, continues to apply with respect to contraventions of subsection 52 (5), (6), or 53 (1) of that Act. 1998, c. 19, s. 180 (3). 181 (1) If, at the time section 99 comes into force, the corporation has entered into an insurance policy under section 27 of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, that has not expired, section 99 does not apply and section 27 of that Act, as it existed immediately before the coming into force of section 184, continues to apply. 1998, c. 19, s. 181 (1). (2) Despite subsection (1), section 99 applies if the corporation renews an insurance policy described in that subsection after section 99 comes into force. 1998, c. 19, s. 181 (2). 182 If the corporation has entered into an agreement described in sections 111 and 112 before those sections come into force, those sections do not apply and section 39 of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, as that section existed immediately before the coming into force of section 184, continues to apply. 1998, c. 19, s. 182. 183 Despite section 184, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation revoke regulations made under section 59 of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, as that section read immediately before section 184 comes into force, if the Minister makes a regulation under subsection 177 (2) that is inconsistent with those regulations. 1998, c. 19, s. 183. 184-186 Omitted (amends or repeals other Acts). 1998, c. 19, ss. 184-186. 187 Omitted (provides for coming into force of provisions of this Act). 1998, c. 19, s. 187. 188 Omitted (enacts short title of this Act). 1998, c. 19, s. 188.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744917

__label__cc

Santa Clara County ARES/RACES Allied Health Amateur Radio Equipment Summary | Location | Power | Staffing | Essential | Recommended Amateur radio stations exist at the county EOC, all city EOCs, all hospitals in the county, and at the Medical Health Joint Operations Center. These stations exist to provide communications support in the event of failed or degraded commercial communications systems. Allied health organizations can make their facility ready to support amateur radio communications by installing some basic equipment. The following recommendations for voice and data communications equipment are provided to help build a compatible, effective and efficient communications system. For maximum efficiency and effectiveness, the ideal location of the radio equipment should meet the following requirements: Adjacent to the agency's Command Center or administrative area (whatever location would be used to manage an emergency) During an emergency, almost all radio traffic will be to/from the emergency management staff. Minimizing the distance between the command center and the radio station means the operator will be away from the station much less. A small anteroom off to the side of the administrative area is ideal. During non-emergency times, licensed staff or residents may wish to use the equipment for practice. The ideal location would be accessible to those authorized to use the equipment. For the radio operator: The radio operator can/will use a headset, which can help reduce distractions. But surrounding noise should be kept to a minimum (typical office-level noise is fine). For others: The radio operator will need to speak into the microphone. Doing so shouldn't interrupt others in the room. The radio operator will usually bring their own personal effects and may need to bring additional equipment. These items should be secure when the radio operator needs to leave the station, such as to retrieve/deliver a message or visit the cafeteria or restroom. The amateur radio equipment must be secured to prevent use when a licensed operator is not present. A locked cabinet is commonly used. Separated from patients Amateur radio operators should be separated as much as possible from patient areas to protect both the operators and patients from any possible exposure to diseases, pathogens, etc. Room for up to two people In most cases, a single operator will be sufficient. In particularly busy times, an extra operator could be useful. Each needs a place to sit and operate computers, radios, etc. Reliable power is essential for emergency communications. Power during sustained outage (> 1 hour) The amateur station should have access to at least one 120V 15A circuit that has backup generator power via automatic transfer switch. Power during brief outages (< 1 hour) The station will also benefit from some local battery power to keep equipment going during transfers between commercial and generator power, or during generator faults or other localized electrical problems. Amateur radio frequencies can only be used when a licensed amateur radio operator is present. But during an emergency, the number of available amateur radio operators can be stretched thin. Agencies can better prepare themselves to be self-supporting by encouraging their staff and residents to become amateur radio operators. Then they won't need to depend on someone being available and able to get to them. The local city's amateur radio Emergency Coordinator can discuss licensing, on-going training, and other participation options. Amateur Radio Licensing Links to several organizations that conduct licensing classes and exams. ARES/RACES Training Courses To be effective during an emergency, licensed operators need additional training in emergency communications procedures and techniques. Allied health organizations are encouraged to discuss their needs with their local city's amateur radio Emergency Coordinator before making any purchases. The most important investment is an antenna on the roof. This makes it possible for an amateur radio operator to attach his/her own radio and hear and be heard by other stations. VHF/UHF Antennas 1 x tri-band (2m/1.25m/70cm) ground-plane antenna mounted at a high point on the roof, separated by 10-20 feet from other antennas, and free of nearby obstructions Feedline: In most cases, LMR-400 or equivalent coax is recommended. 1/2 inch Heliax (LDF4-50A) is ideal. Recommendation: DC-blocking, inductor-type arrestor for each feedline The next most important piece of equipment is a radio. Facilities with larger populations, particularly those with amateur radio operators on staff or in residence, can benefit greatly from having the radio on-site, plugged in, and regularly tested by the local, on-site operators. Smaller facilities may choose to hope for an amateur radio operator being available to bringing his/her own radio to plug into the pre-installed antenna. Again, it's best to discuss the specific needs of the facility with the local city's amateur radio Emergency Coordinator. Note that amateur radio equipment can only legally be used when a licensed amateur radio operator is present. So, it needs to be kept in a secure location (such as a locked cabinet) to prevent unlicensed use. Voice Equipment Voice radio Recommendation: 1 x dual-band (2m/70cm) radio with data connector (to enable packet radio use) Sending resource request forms and other messages via an e-mail-like data transmission can dramatically improve efficiency and effectiveness of radio communications. Whether the data equipment should be supplied by the facility or brought by an amateur radio operator that is dispatched to the facility is a subject best discussed with the local city's amateur radio Emergency Coordinator. Packet Equipment AX.25 (Packet) over VHF Amateur Radio (includes equipment details and other resources) Recommendation: A complete packet station, including: radio, TNC, TNC/radio cables, PC, printer, and recommended software Note: A method to share the antenna with the voice radio will be needed. There are several options, some better than others, which include: using an extra antenna, sharing a single antenna with a triplexer and diplexer combination, or sharing a single radio using two VFOs. The city EC will be able to discuss the best option. This page was last updated on 28-Dec-2019

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744921

__label__wiki

China vows to 'fight to the end' in trade war with US, despite Australian calls for calm By David Wroe June 26, 2019 — 12.00pm China's Ambassador to Australia has vowed his country will "fight to the end" in its trade war with US President Donald Trump, adopting a defiant stance even as Prime Minister Scott Morrison urged the superpowers to calm their trade tensions. In a speech in Canberra, Cheng Jingye squarely blamed Washington for the rising temperature, despite its own widely criticised trade practices such as intellectual property theft, domestic subsidies and the forcing of foreign investors to hand over their technology know-how. Chinese Ambassador to Australia Cheng Jingye speaks at a Australia China Business Council networking event held at Parliament House in Canberra. Credit:Dominic Lorimer "China is willing to work together with the US to reach a win-win solution on the basis of equality and mutual respect," Mr Cheng told the Australia China Business Council. "There is no winner in a trade war. China doesn't want the trade war. Nonetheless it will firmly safeguard strong legitimate rights, interests and development rights. "As we have made it clear, China's open to negotiations but we will also fight to the end if needed." He slammed the Trump administration's tariffs on Chinese goods, which he said breached World Trade Organisation rules, threatened global growth and only harmed the US. He said China was trying to resolve the tensions through dialogue. He was speaking after Mr Morrison called on both the US and China to resolve their trade dispute in ways that did not harm other countries, such as Australia, and warned that his government would "not just sit back and passively await our fate" if the superpowers kept their current collision course. Immediately after his combative remarks about the US, Mr Cheng pivoted to a plea for Australia and China to work together. "Mutual political trust and mutual beneficial co-operation are just like two wheels that will smoothly drive our bilateral relations forward. Both of them are indispensable," he said. "The relationship between China and Australia can only be steadily and increasingly improved when both wheels are spinning with the same speed and in the same direction, mutually reinforcing each other." This meant both sides respecting one another's national interests and societies and - in a pointed jab at Australia's national security concerns about some Chinese investment - take a "non-discriminative" approach to foreign investment. "China and Australia's economies are highly complementary. China's door will … open even wider. So there is enormous potential and opportunity for both countries to co-operate in areas of economic trade, investment, finance, technology, science and innovation. "So it's vitally important that both sides should build a fair and non-discriminative environment for the other side's investment rather than intentionally set up obstacles to the detriment of mutually beneficial co-operation." Mr Cheng also credited the Chinese Communist Party and his nation's socialist political and economic system with the extraordinary growth the country has enjoyed, which he insisted would continue on its current trajectory. While there were many reasons for the stellar growth, the most important was "the unswerving adherence to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and parts of socialism with Chinese characteristics". "The party always puts people first. It has assumed the responsibility all along to seek happiness of the Chinese people … its mission is to meet the people's ever-growing needs for a better life." David Wroe David Wroe is defence and national security correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Most Viewed in Politics

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744922

__label__wiki

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejects position expressed recently by United States Senate and categorically rejects any interference in its internal affairs الاثنين 1440/4/10 هـ الموافق 2018/12/17 م واس Riyadh, December 17, 2018, SPA -- Statement by an official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejects the position expressed recently by the United States Senate, which was based upon unsubstantiated claims and allegations, and contained blatant interferences in the Kingdom’s internal affairs, undermining the Kingdom’s regional and international role. While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reaffirms its commitment to continue to further develop its relations with the United States of America, the Kingdom also expresses its concern regarding the positions that were expressed by members of an esteemed legislative body of an allied and friendly government, a government that the Kingdom, under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and the Crown Prince, holds at the highest regard, and with whom the Kingdom maintains deep strategic, political, economic, and security ties that were built over several decades to serve the interests of both countries and peoples. The Kingdom categorically rejects any interference in its internal affairs, any and all accusations, in any manner, that disrespect its leadership, represented by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosque and the Crown Prince, and any attempts to undermine its sovereignty or diminish its stature. The Kingdom also emphasizes that such a position will not affect its leading role in the region, in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and internationally. The Kingdom has and will continue to fulfill its pivotal role in the Arab and Muslim Worlds, as it holds a special place for Muslims around the world. Such a status has made the Kingdom a pillar of stability in the Middle East and the world, and a cornerstone for the efforts to achieve peace and security regionally and globally. The Kingdom also enjoys a leading role in supporting the stability of international energy markets through maintaining a balance that serves both producers and consumers. The contributions made by the Kingdom to the international efforts to counter terrorism, in the areas of military, security, countering finance, and combating terrorist ideology, have made a great impact in the demise of terrorist organizations such as ISIS, Al-Qaida and others, saving many innocent lives around the world. These contributions included the formation and leadership of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, and the effective participation in the US-led Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. The Kingdom has also steadfastly stood by the United States of America in confronting Iran’s malign activities, which it spreads through its allies and proxies to destabilize the region. At the same time, the Kingdom continues its efforts towards achieving a political solution, by the Yemeni parties, to the situation in Yemen based on UNSC resolution 2216, the GCC initiative and its implementation mechanism, and the outcomes of the Comprehensive Yemeni National Dialogue, including the efforts by the United Nations Special Envoy that led, with the support of the Kingdom, to the agreements that were announced recently in Sweden. The Kingdom considers the humanitarian situation in Yemen a priority and it provides, through the King Salman Center for Humanitarian Aid and Relief, significant aid to the Yemeni people in all areas of Yemen. The Kingdom cooperates with relevant international organizations and bodies to deliver aid to people in need. The Kingdom has previously asserted that the murder of Saudi citizen Jamal Khashoggi is a deplorable crime that does not reflect the Kingdom’s policy nor its institutions. Accordingly, the Kingdom reaffirms its rejection of any attempts to take the case out of the path of justice in the Kingdom. The Kingdom is keen on preserving its relations with the United States of America, and will continue to work towards improving these ties in all areas. The Kingdom appreciates the prudent position taken by the United States Government and its institutions regarding the recent developments, as it realizes that this position by the US Senate sends the wrong messages to all those who want to cause a rift in Saudi-US relationship. The Kingdom hopes that it is not drawn into domestic political debates in the United States of America, to avoid any ramifications on the ties between the two countries that could have significant negative impacts on this important strategic relationship.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744931

__label__wiki

Home > Our Speakers > Speaker Directory > Will Gompertz Will Gompertz BBC Arts Editor In late December 2009, I joined the BBC as arts editor, a newly-created role, having spent the previous seven years as a director of Tate. There, I was responsible for Tate Online – the UK’s most popular art website – where I was fortunate to find an extraordinary team of dedicated editors and programmers who rightly won numerous awards including a Bafta and a Webby. I set up a TV production unit, making arts programmes for Channel 4 and ITV and finalised a movie deal with Aardman Animation shortly before I left. With a terrific team, I created Tate Etc, the UK’s highest-circulation art magazine. I began my life in the arts just below the bottom rung of the ladder as an 18-year-old shop assistant in Our Price Records. This was followed by stints as a holiday camp entertainer (at the same place where Hi-De-Hi was filmed), as a stage-hand at Sadler’s Wells and as a runner for a TV company. In my early twenties, I co-founded Shots, a global magazine/DVD covering short films, pop promos and commercials (I eventually sold Shots; it is now owned by Emap). And for the past 20 years I have published, edited and written about the arts for a range of publications including the Times and the Guardian. I have advised many arts and media organisations and was a board member of the National Campaign for the Arts. In the summer of 2009, I wrote and performed a one-man show at the Edinburgh Fringe called Double Art History, a light-hearted lecture on the story of modern art. The show was a sell-out; but, as friends were quick to point out, it was a very small venue. Rt Hon Ed Vaizey Former MP & Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries Evelyn Welch Vice-Principal of King's College London and Trustee of the V & A Museum Professor Sir Richard Jolly Former UN Assistant Secretary General Mishal Husain BBC News & Radio Presenter Merryn Somerset Webb Editor-in-Chief, Moneyweek

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744932

__label__cc

Manchester 2017 – no end in sight for booming rental property demand By Surrenden Invest | March 21, 2017 Lying within the UK’s second most populous urban area, Manchester is one of the country’s most important cities. It has been ranked by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network as a beta world city, making it the highest ranked British city other than London. Manchester is in the midst of a sharp expansion of its population, which is expected to reach 625,000 by 2025. This is excellent news for buy-to-let property investors in Manchester. According to Centre for Cities, Manchester is at the forefront of the revival of city centre living in the UK, with young professionals (those aged 35 and under who hold a degree) driving that growth. Over the coming decade, the Greater Manchester area is expected to grow increasingly quickly, with analysts working for the city’s town hall forecasting a population increase of 20% by 2025. Rental property in Manchester is clearly going to be in much demand over the coming decade. The reasons for Manchester’s rapid growth are varied. The city is at the heart of the UK government’s Northern Powerhouse policy, for which Prime Minister Theresa May announced a newly-allocated cash injection of £556m in January 2017. The initiative seeks to redress the UK’s north/south divide and focus investment on the northern half of the country. The Northern Powerhouse focuses on improved transport links and the diversion of money and power in order to grow local cities. Manchester is pegged as the main beneficiary of the approach, having been handed a far-reaching package of powers by Chancellor George Osborne. An elected mayor, to be in place by the end of 2017, will lead the city in its new flagship Northern Powerhouse status. Manchester already enjoys a decent transport infrastructure, including international connections. Passenger numbers exceeded the 25 million mark at the city’s airport in 2016, making it the third busiest airport in the UK (and the busiest outside of London). Longer-term international transport connections are also promising. The UK’s new high-speed railway system, known as HS2 and due for completion by 2033, will deliver a Manchester to Paris journey time of just 3 hours 38 minutes. Domestic journey times will also be slashed, with travel from Manchester to Birmingham reduced to just 1 hour 8 minutes. Regeneration in Manchester has enjoyed significant funding in recent years. The recently completed Spinningfields area of the city centre showcases the best of contemporary city planning, with world-class retail and leisure facilities benefitting all those who live in and visit the city, as well as buy-to-let investors in Manchester who are keen to profit from its property market. The forward-looking local government has focused on attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) for Manchester and using it to the city’s advantage. According to the EY Attractiveness Survey UK 2016, “Manchester has been the leading recipient of FDI among England’s major urban centres in every year since 2009.” Manchester’s growing economy is a source of pride for the city’s residents. According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, Manchester’s metropolitan economy is the second biggest in England. The Manchester Evening News reported in 2015 that the city was growing faster than Paris, Tokyo and Dubai. Swift population growth and a backlog from several years of housing undersupply have combined to mean that Manchester’s overall backlog has now reached over 40,000 homes. The pressure this has put on supply has thrown into sharp relief the need for plentiful accommodation as demand spirals. Along with the rest of the UK, Manchester is experiencing a decline in owner-occupier levels within its property market. Nationwide, home ownership fell from 65% to 64% between the 2012/13 and 2014/15 English Housing Surveys, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. More good news for those investing in buy-to-let property in Manchester! As owner occupier levels decrease, rental levels rise. With city living experiencing a sustained renewal, this has created an exciting environment for buy-to-let investors in Manchester who are seeking to profit from property. Property prices in the city rose by 8.9% in 2016, the second fastest rate in the UK. The undersupply of rental property in Manchester also means that home price inflation in the city is at its highest rate for 12 years. Buy-to-let investors in Manchester have come to the rescue of the city’s booming population of renters, with a range of high quality buy-to-let offerings in the past few years. However, the sharply increasing population means that a great deal more buy-to-let property in Manchester is required in order to meet tenant demand. The impact of this is already being felt, with Manchester included in the UK’s top ten postcode districts for buy-to-let by yield in 2016, based on figures from the TotallyMoney Buy-to-Let Yield Map. The city’s unique situation has made it the ideal place for buy-to-let investors in Manchester who are looking for a combination of capital growth, strong demand and competitive yields, not just for the short-term but (thanks to the vastly increasing population), for the longer-term as well.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744934

__label__wiki

PINK: Latest screening recommendations Melissa Erickson More Content Now In March the Food and Drug Administration announced policy changes in mammogram recommendations. After decades of controversy there still is no national consensus about when women should start having mammograms and how frequently they should undergo screening. But now another medical society has concurred with the recommendations of the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Breast Surgeons and the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. The American College of Physicians recommends that average-risk women between ages 50 and 74 should undergo breast cancer screening with mammography every other year, instead of every year. The American College of Radiation disagrees and recommends annual mammography screening starting at 40 for women of average risk of developing breast cancer. “The conflicting guidelines do lead to a lot of confusion among women, as well as a lot of worry,” said Dr. Deanna Attai, assistant clinical professor in the department of surgery at David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles. “There is no question that the regular use of screening mammography has resulted in improved survival from breast cancer, but ‘early detection saves lives’ does not apply to every case — there is much more nuance to all of this. “Currently, there should be a discussion of the potential benefits as well as harms from mammography, as well as consideration of the patient’s perspective in terms of risk tolerance and cancer worry. It should also be stressed again that these guidelines do not apply to high-risk patients.” In March the Food and Drug Administration announced the first policy changes in mammogram recommendations to modernize breast cancer screenings and provide patients with more information to make better-informed decisions. Mammogram providers should now alert patients if they have dense breasts, which is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and makes it more difficult to spot a tumor with a mammogram. It is advised women with dense breasts should get further testing, such as an MRI or ultrasound. Travidia Sussex Tech Sussex Central Sussex Living ~ 1196 S. Little Creek Rd., Dover, DE 19901 ~ Do Not Sell My Personal Information ~ Cookie Policy ~ Do Not Sell My Personal Information ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service ~ Your California Privacy Rights / Privacy Policy

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744936

__label__wiki

Alison Krauss returning to Lake Tahoe with Union Station Tim Parsons Yes, Tahoe, you can go down-home again. Alison Krauss & Union Station have been added to Harvey’s Summer Outdoor Summer Concert Series. The bluegrass quintet will perform at 7 p.m. Sunday, July 10, in the Lake Tahoe Outdoor Arena at Harveys. Tickets go on sale at 10 a.m. Friday, May 6 and cost $49.50, $69.50 and $99.50. An opening band will be named later. Krauss, Robert Plant and T Bone Burnett played at the same venue in 2007 after the release of their “Raising Sand” CD, which received six Grammy Awards. A follow-up album was planned but it never materialized. Krauss told Lake Tahoe Action Union Station will always be her main band. “I think all three of us want to continue this and are hoping it will go on and on,” she said in a 2007 conference call with reporters. “But Union Station is like home. I am hoping to continue this and be able to go home too.” Phish makes its Tahoe debut Aug. 9-10 at Harveys, and tickets go on sale at 10 a.m. April 29. The shows will sell out quickly. The venue holds 8,500, which is intimate for the biggest jam band in the land. The other outdoor shows are Diana Krall June 18, Lady Antebellum July 29 and Miranda Lambert Aug. 19. More concerts are expected to be announced. Tickets can be purchased at Ticketmaster outlets or http://www.ticketmaster.com or http://www.apeconcerts.com. Krauss & Union Station on April 12 released “Paper Airplane,” the group’s first album of all-new recordings in partnership since 2004’s “Lonely Runs Both Ways,” which won three Grammys. Union Station is Jerry Douglas (Dobro, lap steel, vocals), Dan Tyminski (guitar, mandolin, lead vocal), Ron Block (banjo, guitar) and Barry Bales (bass, vocals), with Krauss on lead vocal and fiddle. Each band member has solo projects. Krauss has released 14 albums, won 27 Grammy Awards and helped revive bluegrass with her contribution to the soundtrack “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744939

__label__wiki

Thursday, Nov 14, 2019 06:00 AM Asked and Answered: Nov. 14 Bob Labriola Let's get to it: JEFF LENARD FROM SAUQUOIT, NY: Of the new players acquired this year, Devin Bush was an excellent draft pick, and Minkah Fitzpatrick was an excellent acquisition via trade. Which free agent signing has had the largest impact on the team to this point in the season? ANSWER: With Donte Moncrief having been waived, it comes down to Mark Barron or Steven Nelson, and I would give the nod to Nelson. Even though Barron has better individual statistics and has provided the defense with an injection of experience, versatility and athleticism at inside linebacker that has been absent for the past couple of seasons, Nelson has been playing the cornerback spot in a way where opposing quarterbacks have been avoiding his side of the field. There can be no argument that the Steelers pass defense has improved significantly in every category over 2018, and I would contend Nelson's play at cornerback has been a real factor in that improvement. TOBY WEISEND FROM WILLIAMSTOWN, WV: If a player is signed to the practice squad and released a day later, how much does he make? Does he have to quit his day job outside of football to make this happen? ANSWER: When it comes to a situation like this, being on the practice squad for a day is the same as being on the practice squad for a week when it comes to compensation. So in the case of Sutton Smith, who was on the Steelers practice squad for one day last week before being released from the practice squad because the team was short on running backs for practice, he was paid the practice squad weekly minimum of $8,000. And Smith was re-signed to the Steelers practice squad on Nov. 12. BOB BURTNETT FROM GALLATIN, TN: A few weeks ago, Mason Rudolph threw a pass to James Washington, but the defender hit him before the ball got there and pass interference was called. Is that play ruled a completion by Rudolph and a catch by Washington? ANSWER: That is ruled no play, so Mason Rudolph doesn't get credit for an attempt nor a completion, and James Washington is not credited with a catch. The yardage on the pass interference goes under penalty yards. THOMAS FUDENS FROM MIDDLE ISLAND, NY: For the game Thursday against the Browns, when did the Steelers leave for Cleveland, and how did they travel – by bus or plane? ANSWER: The NFL requires all visiting teams to be on site the night before the game unless there is some special waiver granted, which means the Steelers left for Cleveland on Wednesday. And for the trip to Cleveland, and only for the trip to Cleveland, the Steelers travel by bus. MICHAEL CAMPBELL FROM PITTSBURGH, PA: As a fan I love Thursday night games, but I'm guessing the players and coaches hate the short week. How do teams adjust and change their preparation? ANSWER: Everything is condensed, and the visiting team has it even tougher in that area because it has to travel. For a team that plays on a Sunday and then has a road game on Thursday, players have to be given Monday off to begin the process of physically recovering from 60 minutes of professional football. Tuesday is the only real day of practice, and even that session is more like a glorified walk-through, because, again, the idea is to have players' bodies as ready as possible for the game. There is another light workout on Wednesday, and then it's time to travel to the site of the game. To say that preparation has to be condensed and simplified is an understatement. JC CHUTA FROM PITTSBURGH, PA: JuJu Smith-Schuster and more recently James Washington have been guilty of getting huge yardage, only to get the ball stripped due to a lack of awareness and ball placement. Does Mike Tomlin ever grill his players that ball security is highly mandated? ANSWER: At his weekly news conference following the win over the Rams, Mike Tomlin wasn't two minutes into his opening remarks when he said this, "Looking at the game, an area that we've got to work on and improve is just our possession of the football. I know sometimes losing a football is just born out of working extremely hard to make plays, particularly in regards to some of the young people, and they can be described as that, but the reasoning is irrelevant. When you're working in the fashion that we're working, in terms of missing a number of significant people, particularly in the offensive unit, we've got to do good, fundamental things, like take care of the ball. That has been a bug for us. We'll continue to work in that area, but it's not like we haven't placed an emphasis on working that area." If Tomlin is making that point unsolicited to the media, I guarantee you he's making that point to the team. And I have seen drills done regularly during practice where the idea is for running backs and receivers to protect the football from being stripped or punched out of their grasp. Ball security always has been critical for Tomlin, and guys have been benched and/or lost roles because of an inability to hold onto the ball. JOHN MAIR FROM RIDGE, NY: This is certainly not a knock against Coach Mike Tomlin, who I think deserves to be a contender for the Coach of the Year Award. However, in previous installments of Asked and Answered, you said that fans shouldn't blame the coaches for everything that goes wrong. Does that work the other way as well, for when the team is winning games? Many of the talking heads in the national media are giving Tomlin a lot of credit for the team's success. I believe the players deserve more recognition for when things go right and wrong. ANSWER: The talking heads were wrong when the placed all the blame for everything that went wrong on the coaches, just as they're wrong for giving coaches all of the credit for when things start going right. There are many ways in which a coach can have an impact on a team, either positively or negatively, and the good ones definitely can be a factor in a team's success. But I often view the coach-player dynamic similar to the teacher-student dynamic. If a student flunks a test, how often is that outcome because he didn't pay attention in class and then study what was taught vs. a student flunking a test because the teacher did a poor job? On the flip-side, when a student does extremely well, he's the one who becomes a member of the National Honor Society or Phi Beta Kappa, not the teacher. Certainly there are ways for coaches to have an impact, both positively or negatively, on their teams, but this isn't a video game. Those players are real human beings, with all of the imperfections human beings have, out on the field or the court, and coaches only have so much of an impact, especially when the athletes/performers are professionals. It reminds me of the summer at training camp when Chuck Noll was asked to be a guest conductor when the Pittsburgh Symphony visited Saint Vincent College for an evening performance outdoors. Noll was hesitant, but someone associated with the Symphony explained to him that all a conductor really has to do is get the musicians started and then they effectively take over from there. Noll looked at the man and said, "That sounds a lot like my job." The condition of the playing surface in Canton contributed to Suisham's injury in 2015 According to the Hall of Fame, the Steelers' 21 enshrinees places them third among NFL franchises Asked and Answered: Jan. 9 Western Pennsylvania has been a good place to shop when an NFL team is looking for a quarterback Calling a player a two-time All-Pro should mean he made the All-Pro team in two different years There are examples of two Steelers in a Class, but never have there been three in a Class Asked and Answered: Dec. 31 Tuitt is the only starting lineman under contract to the team for at least the next three seasons Mike Webster was never a Steelers MVP, and no offensive lineman was either Dupree is an important part of the defense, and he can become a UFA in March 2020 Based on his statistics, Gene Mingo was likely a better singer than he was an NFL kicker The team's best No. 2 pick is a guy who has more takeaways than any non-DB in NFL history

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744941

__label__wiki

On November 15, 2018, 4-time #1 New York Times bestselling author Marianne Williamson declared that she was exploring the option of running for President of the United States in 2020. On January 28, 2019, she gave a stirring, historically grounded, and quite brilliant speech before several thousand supporters live in Los Angeles (and many more thousands online) officially declaring her candidacy for President. Marianne is a serious candidate with a strong, coherent policy platform outlined on her website. She has raised multiple millions for a previous Congressional campaign and has a national base that believes in her, with 2.6M Twitter fans and 770K on Facebook. Those who follow the major media, however, are likely unaware that she’s even in the race. Marianne is far too often not listed in the rankings of major Democratic candidates, despite having a large national base and being a powerful cultural change agent who has started nationally influential nonprofits in addition to her written and speaking work. Why the exclusion? I believe the answer is simple: worldview. Simply put, Marianne represents a set of values that sociologist Paul Ray calls Cultural Creative values, which are not taken seriously or respected by much of the modernist-leaning press. Proponents of these values are often subtly denigrated or marginalized, sometimes unconsciously, despite the size of the Cultural Creative population (estimated at more than 45 million people by Paul Ray... and growing). Cultural Creatives are committed to healthy, holistic lifestyles, personal growth, spirituality, and global citizenship. They are often positive cultural change agents. As one benchmark of the size and economic influence of this group, yoga has passed 20 million practitioners, and as of 2016 represented over $16 billion in spending. More analysts are now talking about the “yoga vote” as a result. For several decades, Marianne has been one of the preeminent speakers, thinkers, and writers in this growing constituency of Americans. That influence and background, more than any other factor, is why I believe she is being left off the media’s lists of serious contenders since they often look askance at this audience. This is damaging for our democracy, and ultimately for the public’s trust in the press. The founders of this country never wanted us to only consider professional politicians for office. Indeed, that would have been a shock to them — there was simply no such thing at the time. Political leadership needs to emerge from natural leadership of our people. Whose voice is resonating with others? Whose wisdom do we respect? Who is speaking to the conscience of America? In a country of more than 325 million, it can be difficult to break through the noise, but I maintain that a 4-time #1 New York Times bestselling author, with 2.6M Twitter followers and a serious commitment to our political evolution, who has inspired at least hundreds of thousands to engage in service and civic responsibilities, has earned the title of a national leader. Marianne’s book, Healing the Soul of America, is one of the most powerful, serious, and challenging political books ever written. Simply put, Marianne checks all the following boxes of a successful civic leader: Strong national fan base, larger than all but a few of the leading candidates History of influential civic service, ranging from founding the Peace Alliance to launching Sister Giant, a women’s political empowerment initiative gathering proponents including Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Lisa Bloom, Thom Hartmann, and the Women’s Campaign School of Yale University Demonstrated capacity for fundraising, including over $2 million for a Congressional race Demonstrated ability to move people into action as a speaker including extensive major media experience (watch a CNN interview here) Demonstrated service to underrepresented communities, including decades of boots-on-the-ground activism for the LGBTQ community as well as communities of color Serious, nuanced understanding of our history and our institutions and how they need to be reformed and evolved, which she’s demonstrated in numerous articles, speeches, and books Well-articulated, innovative, and timely policy ideas The one box she doesn’t yet check is having held elected office herself. However, that lack of elected office experience didn’t prevent property-developer Donald Trump from getting wall-to-wall coverage of his early candidacy. And it’s not deterring coverage of Howard Schultz, another billionaire political neophyte. Indeed, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina proved to be major candidates in 2016 despite not having run for office before. Why should the Democratic primaries be different? I think it’s instructive to look at the other candidates who are being touted by the media as “major” candidates while mainly excluding Marianne: Pete Buttigieg, a 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, a city of 100,000 people Julian Castro, 44-year old former mayor of San Antonio Two people who have each served in the House of Representatives for six years: Tulsi Gabbard and John Delaney I think all of these candidates have value. I’m happy to see them in the race and for us to take their positions and candidacy seriously. It’s great to see some breakthrough diversity, from the first openly gay candidate to someone of Indian descent. But Pete Buttigieg has 115K Twitter followers and Julian Castro has 175K. Tulsi Gabbard has 264K and John Delaney only has 13K. The simple fact is that Marianne is already speaking to (and for) a much larger national base than all of them combined. None of those four could likely generate a #1 New York Times bestseller or command launch events the size of Marianne’s. Diversity is not just about skin color or sexual orientation. It’s also about worldviews — and Marianne offers a credible, powerful voice for a worldview that is not normally represented in our civic process. In speaking for that “hiding in plain sight” group of Cultural Creatives, she helps an important part of the Democratic base become more engaged, because they feel seen, represented, and empowered to participate in our political process. Whether she's likely to win the nomination or not isn't relevant here -- she has more than earned her place on the stage as a serious and credible candidate. What she will definitely do as part of her candidacy is elevate the national conversation and raise important, out-of-the-box solutions. She’s already done so powerfully in her opening speech in discussing why reparations need to be part of our national dialogue about how we heal the legacy of slavery — and offering an innovative plan for doing so. She can speak beyond the traditional political divides to the values and history that unite us. She can speak to people’s conscience in a way that motivates them to engage as citizens. So, every time you see a media article that excludes Marianne from the list of major declared Democratic candidates, I encourage you to write them, to share your view, and to point them to this article if you wish — and ask the editors and writers to recognize that the act of excluding Marianne from the list of major candidates is not only a form of subtle discrimination but also a profound disservice to the diversity of Democratic worldviews that need to be honored and integrated for a successful next candidate to win the White House. Even if Marianne’s supporters do not propel her into the role of final Democratic Party nominee, her run will elevate our national conversation and ultimately contribute to the regeneration of our democracy. Marianne is a bold truth-teller who also understands how to bridge divides. She brings important medicine for what ails our country, and she has earned her spot in the upper tier. If major media prevent her voice and policy ideas from being given serious attention by not even including her in the list of candidates, that will be a profound loss for our country. Let’s take her seriously and, by extension, the millions of people she already represents — and the potentially millions more that her candidacy can inspire and engage in this important election cycle.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744942

__label__cc

The Lances of Lynwood Eustace is the younger brother of Sir Reginald, the lord of Lynwood castle and its surrounding lands. One heroic act on the battlefield gains him the favor of the Prince of Wales, who raises young Eustace to the level of Knighthood; but with that honor comes responsibility. There is one in the kingdom who also holds high favor with the Prince; one who wants to see the demise of the Lynwoods, and through a deceitful plan, tries to end the life of the rightful heir to the estates. The youthful Sir Eustace is hurled into the world of men and must now defend his castle, his orphaned nephew, and if he survives, his honor. To defend a castle under siege is no small task, especially when there are traitors within the walls and only a handful of men to defend it. But the gallant Sir Eustace, with the help of his brave squire, and the remaining lances of Lynwood, are up to the desperate task. In the end, he is to be hailed a brave, stout-hearted young Knight, for above all, he has true Charity.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744943

__label__cc

Work to start on Richardson retail project Dallas Business Journal - by Bill Hethcock Staff Writer Construction is set to start next week on a $10 million, 32,000-square-foot retail center in Richardson that will contain an Ebby Halliday Realtors office and a Four Sisters Cafe. The development, called The Shire, phase II, will be built on 9 acres at the southwest corner of the President George Bush Turnpike and Shire Boulevard in Richardson, said Jefflyn Williamson of Jefflyn & Co. commercial real estate firm in Dallas, which is developing the center. Ground-breaking is scheduled for Monday. The restaurant, which will serve Texas Acadian food, will be 8,600 square feet, and the real estate office will be 10,150 square feet. The plans call for about 14,000 square feet of additional retail space. The shell building will be completed in November and the Ebby Halliday office and restaurant are scheduled to open in March, Williamson said. She noted that it's one of the few development projects moving forward: "Any new project right now is a good thing." The center is being financed by Wells Fargo Bank. Back To News and Press Releases

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744947

__label__wiki

Texas Tidbits Step behind the walls and take a peek at the history of the Texas State penitentiary at Huntsville. Stacy Hollister https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/texas-tidbits-48/ From the July 2002 Issue Subscribe TEXAS IS RICH WITH TALES of notorious criminals. Those who’ve lived outside the boundaries of the law have not only brought the limelight of notoriety unto themselves but also to the state’s criminal justice system. The Texas State Penitentiary at Huntsville often finds its way into this spotlight as the execution site for some of the state’s most unlawful. Here are some facts about the Texas prison system’s Walls Unit and its history of execution. In 1848 John Brown, William Palmer, and William Menefee spent $22 for 4.8 acres of land in Huntsville—the site that would become the state’s first enclosed penitentiary. Why Huntsville? That remains a mystery, but citizens in the area contributed generous gifts of rock and timber, signs of community support that may have favorably influenced the state’s three-man selection committee. The March 13, 1848, piece of legislation that called for the establishment of a state prison mandated that it be erected near a navigable body of water so that inmates could transport the goods they manufactured to market. The Trinity River fulfilled this order. The penitentiary’s first residents arrived on October 1, 1849, to makeshift cells of logs and iron bars. In the late 1850’s inmates were processing five hundred bales of cotton and six thousand pounds of wool a year. The cloth, sold to both civilians and Confederate personnel, grossed in excess of $1 million, $800,000 of which was deposited in the state treasury. At the close of the Civil War, Huntsville was the only prison in the eleven Confederate states still standing. In 1923 the state relieved counties of the responsibility of carrying out executions and stipulated that Huntsville prison be the sole location of executions. The state also amended the means of execution, replacing hanging, which had been standard practice since 1819, with the electric chair. On February 8, 1924, Charles Reynolds of Red River County became the first convict to die by electrocution. Forty years, five months, and 22 days later, Joseph Johnson from Harris County became the final prisoner to be executed by electrocution in Texas. In the interim 359 inmates were electrocuted. From 1928 to 1952, the East Building housed Texas’ death row. From 1952 to 1965, the electric chair resided in a building near the East Wall. In 1931 prisoners got an opportunity to rope ’em and ride ’em in the inaugural Texas Prison Rodeo, an endeavor that proved financially viable for the state. In 1977 lethal injection became the official means of execution in Texas. The lethal cocktail consists of sodium thiopental to sedate the offender, pancuronium bromide to collapse the offender’s diaphragm and lungs, and potassium chloride to cease the offender’s beating heart. On average, inmates are dead within seven minutes of injection. Death-row prisoners live in a sixty-square-foot cell with one window. Some are allowed a radio. Jay Pinkerton and Jesse De La Rosa, both 24, were the youngest Texans executed. At 62, Clydell Coleman and Betty Beets were the oldest. On average, prisoners are 39 at the time of their executions. Excell White of Collin County spent 8,982 days on death row, the longest time on the books. Joe Gonzales of Potter County registered 252 days on the block, the shortest time in the history of the penitentiary. Texas has executed six pairs of brothers. Inmates come to spend time on death row by committing one of eight capital-murder offenses: murder of an on-duty public safety officer or firefighter; murder while in the act of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction, or retaliation; murder for hire; murder while escaping prison or jail; murder of a prison employee; murder while serving a life sentence for murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated robbery; multiple murders; and murder of a child under the age of six. Such convicted inmates spend an average of ten and a half years on death row.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744949

__label__wiki

TaxPayers’ Alliance light up Piccadilly Circus on the eve of Peer’s ‘Fatal Motion’ on HS2 As Peers prepare to debate the HS2 Bill during its Third Reading tomorrow, the TaxPayers’ Alliance lit up Piccadilly Circus with a call to stop the failing project once and for all. Lord Framlingham tabled the "fatal amendment" on the HS2 Bill before it goes for its Third Reading tomorrow (Tuesday 31 January), in a final effort to block the wasteful vanity project. The projection, which spanned nearly half of the iconic advertising billboard that is currently switched off for refurbishment, simply said “Over budget. Under delivering. Time to stop HS2”, accompanied by a giant white elephant stood on a pile of gold coins. HS2 comes with an enormous price tag. While the Public Accounts Committee put it at £50 billion, research shows it is likely to hit £90 billion. The business case for HS2 doesn't have a leg to stand on. The Public Accounts Committee has accused the Department of Transport of making decisions based "on fragile numbers, out-of-date data and assumptions which do not reflect real life" and economists have questioned almost every aspect of the Government's case. The TaxPayers' Alliance has also highlighted the flaws of the case put forward. The project has already been accused of mismanagement and waste. There have been reports of HS2 bosses splashing out on high-tech gadgets and going £87m over budget on consultants. There are fears that the technology used could be obsolete even before the first train leaves London for Birmingham, as newer technology becomes available. There are other projects - cheaper and more effective - which would far better cater for our infrastructure needs. Environmental and conservation groups oppose it - The Woodland Trust, for example, has outlined the potential damage it could do to the environment. Tom Banks, Campaign Manager of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, says: “The imposition of this white elephant on taxpayers is ludicrous - and it is right that we remind people of that in the biggest, boldest way possible. The billboards at Piccadilly Circus are currently undergoing major refurbishment to bring it into the 21st century - providing live video streaming, weather and sports updates. It’s about time the Government followed suit and binned the failing, out-dated HS2 in favour of targeted, more effective and less expensive projects that would improve our digital and transport infrastructure." "The Prime Minister talks about building a dynamic, bold new country where we embrace the future and stand at the forefront of science and technology. Stopping HS2 in its tracks would be a good place to start in doing that."

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744954

__label__wiki

Issue Map One-Stop-Shop Course Design Become a Media Production Pro Be Ready for the Challenge Feedback Hijacks Does Your Technology Share What It Knows? Soft Skills for Leaders Growing by Leaps and Bounds HR Gets Analytical Diversity and Inclusion Makes Business Sense Word Wiz: Holacracy Just What Leaders Need Online Education Falls Short Productivity Peaks on Tuesday The New Sales Pitch Sickness of Another Sort The Downside of Perks Women in the Workplace Learning in the Fibers of the Organization Lisa Bodell Preparing Tomorrow’s Executives Professional Development, One Bite at a Time Soft Skills for the Future Use Google+ to Expand Business and Increase Collaboration Break Down the Silos Designing a Group Coaching Program for Leaders Women, Seize Your Leadership Role View Archives >> By Lynda McDermott Getting a seat at the proverbial table takes the commitment of mastering these three skills. Although there is an increasing trend of women taking management positions, the fact remains that women are working for major corporations but not leading them. Women hold 16 percent of director positions at Fortune 500 companies, according to "Why So Few Women Reach the Executive Rank," an April 2013 New York Times article. And even with the appointment of several new female CEOs in 2013, women only hold 4.6 percent of CEO positions in these companies, reports Catalyst, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to expand opportunities for women and business. So, for whatever progress women are making getting to the executive floor, this progress has been shockingly slow, and many women who aspire to higher leadership positions remain caught in the middle or in the "belly of the pipeline." Do you know what "leadership table" you want to be sitting at two to three years from now? Do you have a game plan for getting there? Are you building an all-star team who will coach, mentor, and sponsor you on your career journey? Research indicates there are three must-have leadership skills that women leaders need to master to get the roles and positions best suited to their skills, interests, abilities, and dreams: Know your career goals, establish a plan to meet those goals, and learn to promote your value. Stop the 'I don't know' response The first strategic leadership skill to master is the ability to answer: "What is my ultimate or next career goal?" Many women do not see this as a skill; however, the most common response to that question is "I don't know." Those three words are code for any number of other more authentic responses, such as "I have been so focused on getting my short-term to-do list done that I haven't taken the time to really think about that question" or "I am afraid to tell you (and maybe even myself) what I really want, for fear that you will laugh at me or that if I set it as a goal I will fail." After working for major corporations early in her career, one woman, who has been a successful entrepreneur for more than 25 years, reports her experience at finding her "leadership tables" on the other end of the continuum: "When I was little we would have family over for dinner, and I always wanted to sit at the adult's table. I was allowed to only when dinner was over. When I got to high school I started to choose the tables where I wanted to sit. I wanted to be at the cheerleading table and the student council table. And in college it was the sorority leadership table and the Phi Beta Kappa table. And then as I moved into adulthood, I wanted to be at the management table, then the professional consultant table and, finally, the own-your-own-business table. It has never occurred to me to not sit at my table of choice." Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg prides herself in never having had a career plan. But it is clear from her book Lean In that she always has wanted to be at the head table. From working for Larry Summers at the World Bank and at the U.S. Treasury Department, to Google, to working for Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, she has developed the skill of knowing what leadership table was next best suited for her. It is not enough for women to just say they want to sit at a leadership table; they have to specifically decide at which table they want to sit. The table chosen may not be at the top of the pyramid, but it needs to provide opportunities to tap their unique capabilities and be a fit with their other life choices. Pam Iorio, a former mayor of Tampa, Florida, and author of Straightforward: Ways to Live and Lead, writes that after serving as a Hillsborough County commissioner, she was contemplating where she wanted to take her political career. Several advisors encouraged the married mother of two small children to pursue a state legislature position that would require a lot of travel and many days away from home. Iorio chose not to sit at that table and instead stay closer to home. She soon was elected the county's supervisor of elections, during which time the 2000 presidential election debacle occurred in Florida. By choosing to stay at the head of the "mommy table" and sitting at what some told her was a "dead end" political table, she found herself on the national political stage discussing election processes and technology, which positioned her very well after her children were older to pursue her seat at the Tampa mayor table. 'If you can dream it, you can do it' This famous Walt Disney quote can be a powerful motivating force for helping women move beyond their "I don't know" quandary. Once a leadership table goal is chosen, then the second strategic leadership skill women need to use is the ability to establish and implement a game plan for making progress toward that goal. Historically, women often have subscribed to the myth that "If I know what I want, if I just work hard, if I am a 'good girl,' if I'm smarter than anyone else—then I will get my just rewards: the raise, the promotion, the corner office." It's not enough to just want to sit at a certain leadership table; women need to put strategies in place that will enable them to demonstrate that they've earned the right to sit at that table. One way is through developing their capabilities—getting the right education, training, and experiences so that they can make value-added contributions to the discussions that will take place at that table. Also, women need to establish credibility by demonstrating that they and their teams can deliver results and contribute innovative business ideas that will strategically move the business forward and achieve bottom-line results. Another part of a woman's plan should be building a support team. "It's not just what you know, it's who you know" is advice often given to women who don't see the importance of cultivating significant relationships. Women need to build a team to help them get to their leadership table of choice. This all-star team needs to be diverse in terms of the functions and organizational levels they represent, their experiences, and their gender and age differences. This collection of individuals is the group women need to surround themselves with to coach, mentor, and sponsor them as they develop and execute their game plan toward their leadership table. Iorio laments that too often women network because they are looking for friends, but when men network, they are looking for people who can help them get ahead. For many women, this idea of proactive and strategic networking seems to be a particularly difficult lesson to learn. Women leaders tend to score lower on strategic skills and higher on tactical skills than their male counterparts. So given a choice as to whether they want to spend their time networking or getting their daily to-do list done, women tend to choose the latter. If building a relationship does not appear to have an immediate payoff, they would rather not spend the time. Getting to the leadership table goes beyond just networking and coaching. It requires mentorship and sponsorship too. What's the difference between a mentor and a sponsor? A mentor is someone who shares wisdom, gives feedback, and helps to explain situational politics. A sponsor is an influential stakeholder who becomes an advocate and makes recommendations and referrals. Show up and spotlight your value The third strategic leadership skill that women need to develop and demonstrate is the ability to become comfortable and competent in the art of self-promotion. In Knowing Your Value, Mika Brzezinski, co-host of the talk show Morning Joe, quotes several prominent women in business and government who find the whole concept of "selling yourself" to be uncomfortable and even distasteful. She felt the same way until she had to prove to MSNBC management that she was equally important to the success of the talk show as Joe Scarborough, its founder, who was getting paid considerably more than Brzezinski. After successfully negotiating a new contract, she decided to conduct research about women's reluctance to self-promote and built a book around it. Regardless of their capability and credibility, if women don't get comfortable in demonstrating this leadership competency of self-promotion, they won't get a seat at their leadership tables because people will be forced to guess what they could bring to those tables. One symptom of this is referred to as the "good girl syndrome," which gets displayed by such behaviors as being overly modest, not wanting to be seen as overly aggressive when asking for a project or a job, actively seeking to not stand out, letting others monopolize conversations, and not expressing their views. Why are some women comfortable and confident enough to engage in self-promotion and others are not? Much of it may be explained by the tension some women feel in the roles they want to play. From the time they are born, women are bombarded with messages about what they need to do and how they need to be to receive parental, teacher, and societal approval: Be nice, don't brag about yourself, don't be selfish, don't talk back, be a team player. But these qualities sometimes seem at odds with the stereotypical descriptions of leaders—people who are self-confident, ambitious, and aggressive. Sandberg cites a study in her book that reveals that for men, success and likeability are positively correlated. For women, it is just the opposite. The more successful we are, the less we are liked by both men and women. In fact, when Sandberg got her first performance review from Mark Zuckerberg, he told her that "she cared too much about being liked" and that it would hold her back. It is not enough to be the smartest woman in the room or get the best results—those just get women on the playing field. If women want to earn a seat at their leadership table of choice, they have to be known to people that matter, they have to own their value, and they need to consciously make a transition from "good girl" to great woman. What Are Your Leadership Table Goals? In a meeting with a new coaching client who was working at a midlevel position for a major pharmaceutical company, I learned that Lisa was relatively pleased with the progress she had been making in her career but was unsure about where to go next. She believed her ennui and confusion were affecting her leadership performance in her current job. After Lisa gave me some background on her career progress, I said to her "I get how you got here, but one to two years from now with whom do you want to be sitting? What types of decisions do you want to be making? What results would you be proud to be achieving? The answers to those questions define your leadership table goals." So, how about you? Are you unhappy with your career progress? Do you feel stuck? When you think about the dreams you had as a young woman—are you confused about how you ended up where you are today? Do you just know that you haven’t achieved the potential you are capable of? If you answered yes to even one of these questions, it is time to ask yourself: "What are my leadership table goals?" Take a Big Leap Forward in Your Approach to Leadership Tricia Naddaff, president and CEO of Management Research Group, offers the following perspective to aspiring women executives based on years of leadership assessment gender research. Spend more time building your business acumen. According to MRG, bosses only see women as less effective than men in three competency areas (out of 26) but they are key areas related to “playing at a bigger table,” including business aptitude, financial understanding, and ability to see the big picture. Make more time for strategic thinking and planning. Women tend to spend more time focusing on immediate and short-term results and do not make enough time to think longer term, which can place significant limitations on leadership advancement since strategic leadership becomes an increasing critical leadership skill for more senior and more complex leadership roles. Develop ability to sell yourself and your ideas to others. If you are uncomfortable with this dimension, you are leaving others to translate your value and your ideas for you. Take the time to learn how to persuade others in your own compelling way and you will rapidly expand your credibility. Finally, learn to delegate more so you can make time for higher level engagement. Women often resist delegating because they think they can do it faster or better, in addition to often having the empathetic perspective that their direct reports are too busy to be delegated to. This puts women in the deficit position of being overly tied to the day-to-day with less time to be strategic and build business acumen. Lynda McDermott Lynda has developed leadership teams in more than 35 countries in a wide variety of industries. She is a Certified Speaking Professional with a master’s degree in organization development, and is a speaker, consultant, and coach. In addition to her best-selling book, World Class Teams, she is the author of three ATD TD at Work publications, including “Basics of Emotional Intelligence," “The Power of Peer Coaching," and "Developing High-Performance Leadership Teams." Lynda’s clients, which include Pfizer, Hearst Magazines, Eli Lilly, Vogue magazine, NYK Liner, and Indianapolis Power & Light, repeatedly seek Lynda’s counsel for help to continuously improve their individual and organizational results.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744956

__label__wiki

The Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework is a product of the interprofessional APTR Healthy People Curriculum Task Force, established in 2002 by the Association for Prevention Teaching and Research (APTR). The Framework provides a common core of knowledge for clinical health professions about individual and population‐oriented prevention and health promotion efforts. Health professions educators are encouraged to review their curricula and curricular requirements to ensure they include elements of the Framework[1]. Framework Structure The Framework provides: Content outline that is compatible with a range of learning outcomes or competencies as determined by each health profession, Structure for organizing and monitoring curriculum, Structure for communicating within and among the health professions.[2] The Curriculum Framework does not provide detailed information about how to teach clinical prevention and population health. The examples included in the Appendices are models of how the Framework content has been integrated into interprofessional education settings, as well as in profession-specific curricula. Curriculum Recommendations Although the Framework was primarily designed to provide guidelines for education in the clinical health professions represented on the Healthy People Curriculum Task Force, the Framework is applicable to many other health professions disciplines. The Task Force thus recommends that all health professions education programs: Incorporate clinical prevention and population health educational content in their curricula. Evaluate students’ knowledge and skills with regard to clinical prevention and population health. Systematically determine whether appropriate domains and topic areas in the Curriculum Framework are part of its standardized examinations for licensure and certification as well as program accreditation. Use diverse teaching and learning methods to incorporate clinical prevention and population health content into degree and continuing education programs, including service‐learning, problem/case‐based learning, and simulation methods. Integrate innovative, interprofessional educational experiences and approaches focused on clinical prevention and population health. The Task Force members believe that if the United States is to achieve Healthy People objectives, all health professionals must incorporate population health principles and activities into their education and professional practices. The Task Force recognizes the value of using an interprofessional education approach for teaching and learning clinical prevention and population health, as well as for developing models for students' future clinical practice. Population health has been defined as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.”[3] More recently, population health has been described as “measuring and optimizing the health of groups and in so doing embraces the full range of determinants of health, including health care delivery.”[4] Improving the nation’s health requires health professionals to understand and apply prevention and population health principles, practice in interprofessional teams, and link with other programs and services that affect health. Interprofessional team-based care—care delivered by intentionally created work groups who share the responsibility for a group of patients[5]‑-is facilitated by the development of the relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes early in the process of health professions education. A more effective, sustainable healthcare system includes a workforce that: understands and integrates population health principles and implications for individual patients, clinical practices, and the community; is committed to working in interprofessional teams to promote health, as well as prevent disease and injury; contributes to the public health systems in which they practice; and is dedicated to improving health outcomes and reducing health disparities across the population being served. Healthy People Curriculum Task Force Members The mission of the Task Force is to achieve Healthy People 2010 and 2020 objectives of increasing health promotion, disease prevention, population health and interprofessional learning experiences for students in health professions education programs. The members of the Task Force routinely collect data to support Healthy People 2020 ECBP Objectives 12-19. Association for Prevention Teaching and Research American Association of Colleges of Nursing American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy American Dental Education Association Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties Physician Assistant Education Association Resource Organizations Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health Community Campus Partnerships for Health The work of the Task Force was most recently supported by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, DHHS through a Cooperative Agreement between APTR and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Download Complete CPPH Framework [1] Examples of national health professions education organizations that have used the Framework to promote curricular change are described in Appendix A. [2] To facilitate communication, the Task Force recommends that all health professions use the term “Clinical Prevention and Population Health” when referring to this subject area in the curriculum. [3] Kindig D and Stoddard G.What is Population Health? Am J Public Health. March 2003; 93(3): 380-3. [4] Gourevitch Marc. Population Health and the Academic Medical Center: The Time Is Right. Academic Medicine. April 2014; 89(4): 544-549. [5] Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) 2011. http://ipecollaborative.org/uploads/IPEC-Core-Competencies.pdf

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744957

__label__cc

Student Hit With 70 Criminal Charges After Exposing Himself During Yearbook Photo Shoot Minnesota's Broad Publicity Rights Law, The PRINCE Act, So Broad That It May Violate Itself UK Gov't Pushing For 10-Year Jail Sentences For Copyright Infringement Based On ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ from the faith-based-policy dept Tue, May 10th 2016 6:26am — Mike Masnick For many years, we've pointed out that so much policymaking around copyright law is what we'd argue to be purely "faith-based." The fact that there is little to no actual evidence that stronger copyright protections lead to better outcomes for the public, the economy or for society is ignored by people who just know it must be true. And the constant assertions about extending and expanding copyright always seem to come from this same faith-based positioning. An exploration into the empirical basis for copyright law finds that there basically is none and the reason we have copyright is because a couple of centuries ago some people thought it was a good idea, and no one's really bothered to check since then. One of the most ridiculous examples of this "faith-based" reasoning is the belief, among many, that the way to stop widespread copyright infringement is just to increase the punishment for those who are caught. Sure, you can understand the armchair economists' reasoning here: if you increase the punishment, you're increasing the "cost," which should decrease the activity. But, that's just wrong on many, many levels. First, let's take a step out of the copyright realm and into the criminal justice realm. After vastly expanding punishment (via things like "three strikes" laws), many, many people (even those who supported such programs) are now admitting that long sentences don't actually do much to deter crime. While there were some studies in the 80s and 90s suggesting long sentences reduce crime, more recent (and much more thorough) studies have basically rejected that view. A recent survey of many studies in the area found little support for the idea that longer sentences deter criminal activity. A bunch of other, even more recent, studies agree. A massive report from the University of Toronto goes through the history of the support for harsher sentencing, and a ton of historical and modern research, and concludes: At this point, we think it is fair to say that we know of no reputable criminologist who has looked carefully at the overall body of research literature on “deterrence through sentencing” who believes that crime rates will be reduced, through deterrence, by raising the severity of sentences handed down in criminal courts. The evidence supporting this conclusion has been accumulating for decades. In the 1970s, thoughtful reviewers were cautious in their conclusions, suggesting only that the deterrent impact of harsh sentences had not been adequately demonstrated. More recently, we, and others, have been more definitive in our conclusions: crime is not deterred, generally, by harsher sentences. Another major study, from two years ago, by the National Research Council more or less says the same thing: "the evidence base demonstrates that lengthy prison sentences are ineffective as a crime control measure." Another recent research report, which also delves deeply into the arguments from the 70s and 80s now concludes: "The empirical work of the past thirty-five years has presented evidence that some of the deterrence we thought that we were likely to get was not, in fact, forthcoming.... " Hell, even the National Institute of Justice, the "evaluation" agency that's a part of the US Justice Department (which regularly pushes for harsher punishment) says directly on its website: Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. Laws and policies designed to deter crime are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. Seeing a police officer with handcuffs and a radio is more likely to influence a criminal’s behavior than passing a new law increasing penalties. That same page further notes that "sending an offender to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime." At this point, you have to be willfully ignoring the evidence to argue that throwing people in jail for a long time is a way to deter crime. The reasons why the simple theory at the top of this post is wrong are that (1) most people committing crimes don't expect to get caught and (2) many people who are committing crimes don't even know what punishment might be, or vastly misunderstand the likely punishment. Okay, so let's jump back into the copyright world. For reasons that are beyond comprehension, the UK government has announced plans to try to put copyright infringers in jail for 10 years. The UK's Intellectual Property Office recently released a report, following a consultation on this issue, in which it clearly supports a 10-year sentence for infringement, arguing: The UK is frequently cited as the world leader in IP enforcement, and as Minister for IP I want to do everything I can to preserve this standing. The provision of a maximum ten year sentence is designed to send a clear message to criminals that exploiting the intellectual property of others online without their permission not acceptable. The report also states, unequivocally: The Government believes that online offences should be treated no less seriously than their physical counterparts. Harmonising these will provide a deterrent effect to criminals and, where criminality continues, provide for tangible punitive action. Notice, of course, that there is no citation for this view. And, also, the fact that it clearly contradicts a ton of empirical research, as discussed above. Perhaps noticing the same thing, Kieren McCarthy at the Register sent a FOIA request to the Intellectual Property Office asking them where the 10 year maximum sentence idea came from. The answer? The IPO just made it up based on... nothing. Such information was derived from our analysis of the evidence and opinion provided to us by a wide spectrum of interested parties, over the consultation period. No empirical understanding of the issues of punishment and deterrence. No actual understanding of the issues. Just a bunch of people gave us their opinions, and we just plucked 10 years out of thin air. And, of course, as McCarthy notes, even that line above is clearly untruthful, since the vast, vast majority of the submissions provided to the IPO opposed the 10-year sentence proposal, which the IPO then stuck with anyway. In the IPO's response to McCarthy, it also cited a couple of studies concerning copyright, but both of those studies advise against such an increase in sentencing. So it appears that the Intellectual Property Office is focused on increasing criminal penalties for copyright infringement to 10 years in jail based on proactively and willfully ignoring the empirical evidence both in the criminal justice world and in the copyright world. And then they wonder why the public doesn't respect copyright law? Filed Under: copyright, deterrence, evidence based, facts, faith based, ipo, jail terms, punishment, sentencing, uk 127 Comments | Leave a Comment Techdirt Podcast Episode 236: Talkin' Jomboy, New Media & Copyright You Don't Own What You Buy: The Tetris Edition Violynne (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 5:12am Having read the article, I was taken aback by the closing sentence, which I included in bold above. Perhaps it's just me, but shouldn't the sentence have ended with: "And then they wonder why the public doesn't respect copyright law." Note the end punctuation. Rather makes a bolder statement of truth, rather than question. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to check my torrent to see if I have the latest episode of "Boobs and Dragons". Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2016 @ 8:13am Dear commenter, Omit needless words. Ay Up Me Duck, 11 May 2016 @ 9:18am UK will really have to fill their land far and wide with prisons for that one. It used to be that the only copyright violations happened with illegal commercial use of someone else's copyrighted work. What happened to that logic? Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2016 @ 10:57am Greed and corporate influence. That One Guy (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 6:16am Perfectly logical actually. Absurd and wrong, but logical They've spent so much time harping on how copyright law must always be ratcheted up, the terms increased, the punishments made worse that it's all they can do at this point. To admit at this point that actually no, what they've been saying doesn't work and isn't true would undercut decades of fact-free assertions on their part, so all they can do is double-down and continue the failed strategy of longer terms and harsher punishments. MrTroy (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 7:53pm Re: Perfectly logical actually. Absurd and wrong, but logical I'm not sure why they would be particularly worried about that. People (in aggregate) have shown themselves willing, any number of times, to forget about just about everything that happened more than a few weeks ago. Sounds based on the highly successful mandatory sentencing policy in the US. Ah, jail for copyright infringement. Because clearly waving massive fines at grandparents and children just needed that teensy weensy push to put piracy in its place and instill respect for copyright law in the citizenry. I mean, it's not like the scheme's been a massive failure in Japan or anything, right? Oh, wait... I.T. Guy, 10 May 2016 @ 6:52am It's sad when you spend less time in jail for killing someone than you do for Copyright infringement. Re: Sad, but also very dangerous Suppose the existence of an infringer who knows the sentence for copyright infringement and the sentence for murder, and that as parent poster IT Guy says, the penalty for murder is less than the penalty for copyright infringement. The rationale thing for a copyright infringer to do is to commit murder to cover it up. Even if he is caught for the murder, and serves its full sentence, he comes out ahead of where he would be if he were caught for copyright infringement. When penalties for less dangerous crimes (e.g. copyright infringement) rise above the penalties for more dangerous ones, rational criminals will switch to more violent crimes. That is a definite loss for society. Ideally, we want no crime, and failing that, we want to encourage criminals toward crimes that do the least damage to the public. Encouraging them to commit murder to cover up non-violent crimes is exactly backwards. DannyB (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 7:22am It's sad that a teenager can spend more years in jail for downloading a song than a wall street bankster who can almost destroy the global economy. "almost" ? no almost about it, and we have yet to plumb the depths of where this economic sinkhole is bottoming out... Makes perfect sense when you look at it the way they do: 1. Copyright infringement can harm corporate profits. 2. Corporate profits are more important than human lives. 3. Therefore, infringement should be punished more harshly than murder. Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2016 @ 4:52pm Great... after copyright math now we have copyright morals and both are deemed true by courts. one of the annoying things about this is that baroness whatever says there were 1000 people who voted for this punishment, but she doesn't say who those people were, ie, were they industry people? i suspect they all were! then there is no mention of the 10s of thousands who voted against the punishment! so why is it that suddenly a minority vote can be brought to law while a majority vote cant? Could the 'people' (in quotes) be corporations? [quote]Laws and policies designed to deter crime are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. Seeing a police officer with handcuffs and a radio is more likely to influence a criminal’s behavior than passing a new law increasing penalties.[/quote] Glad this was in here because it's pretty obvious. The vast majority of people have no idea what the penalties are for any crime. They have some idea about what they "feel" is appropriate but that doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality. Changing it has no effect because they still won't know what it is let alone what it was. General understanding of the law is poor as there is simply too much written law and a lot of the interpretation depends on case law which is massive and hard to get ahold of even if you wanted to get it. A criminal also never thinks they'll be caught, especially with something like copyright infringement. Back in times when laws were more sane, people could fairly naturally understand that serious crimes had serious penalties. Rob a bank at gunpoint, and get serious jail time. The average person might not know what the exact penalty actually is. But they know it probably is somehow related to the seriousness of the crime. Kill someone, similarly, a serious crime, and serious punishment. Jaywalking, a minor crime, a minor punishment. Once laws become insane, people become confused about what new 'crimes' are serious and which ones are not. Sort of like in most dictatorships and police states in the world. Smiling the wrong way at the dear leader could be a very serious crime indeed. Copyright is not only censorship. Copyright is not only about corrupting the mechanisms of democracy. Copyright is not only about working against the best interests of the people you see as indentured customer servants. Copyright is not only about taking away a kid's savings that was to go for their college education. But copyright is also about throwing people in jail for years and years. Ruining lives. Ruining families. Because -- OMG!!! -- they downloaded a song! PaulT (profile), 11 May 2016 @ 1:55am The big problem is that the idea of what infringement actually is hasn't changed along with reality. Once upon a time, copyright infringement was something that was difficult to do on a large scale. Sure, people were infringing all the time, whether it was copying a tape you borrowed from the library or VHS you rented, making a mix tape for a friend, recording a song from the radio, etc. but they were always small scale. Going beyond a couple of friends became time-consuming and expensive so only people making money would bother doing more than a few copies. So, the law was built not to address those small-scale efforts that were hard to detect and pointless to prosecute, they were built to go after large-scale pirate and counterfeiters. It made sense to charge tens of thousands and years in prison to those caught, because they were criminals doing it for large scale profit. But, reality has changed. It's as easy for a penniless student to share copies for altruistic reasons as it is for a pirate to make money (in fact, often easier). The law, however, is still built to attack people as though they are making thousands in profit as part of a criminal enterprise. That's the disconnect. The law is built to assume a large scale for-profit enterprise, but reality is usually that it's a person with no money doing it for non-profit reasons. Unfortunately, the people making the most money have a massive incentive not to adjust to reality and stop the law from doing the same. For now, at least. Richard (profile), 11 May 2016 @ 5:49am The vast majority of people have no idea what the penalties are for any crime. Actaully the vast majority of people have no idea what is and isn't a crime in respect of copyright. Plus, when they actually find out they are usually quite shocked and somewhat disbelieving! Lost Sails Piracy is theft. Piracy causes the loss of cargo. Sometimes the loss of shipping vessels. And sometimes injury or death to crews. Often, piracy results in a Lost Sail and loss of other shipping or boating related items. The Lost Sail is the main concern of the copyright maximalists. Re: Lost Sails The really asinine thing is that there are probably some acts of sea based real piracy that would land you less jail time than the 10 years they are proposing. If you used a dingy to sneak up onto some guy's yacht in the night and stole several thousand dollars worth of equipment off of it, you'd probably get like 3-5 years tops. Re: Re: Lost Sails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_Act_1837 If you just steal stuff you can get away with a few years: robbery. But if you use guns with I guess is normal for pirates then you can get 10+ years or to life if you do it outside UK territory. Kind of weird when you can steal the DVDs off a cargo ship and get less than downloading them. I had a lost sail once... took me weeks to get back to shore. :) NeghVar (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 7:19am Copyright unconstitutional In the US, most copyright laws are unconstitutional and here is why. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." "to Authors and Inventors" In other words, the individuals who created the stories, music and pictures. Not the corporation to which it was passed nor the author's children's children's children. The more law I read, the more it seems that the only thing uniform about it, is its flexibility before the cognitive dissonance of its executor. orbitalinsertion (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 7:28am The public just hates it when copyright law is enforced. And that deterrence thing - i sort of think it is another one of those things that is good to debunk, but it probably isn't the real reason, but merely one of those things offered to make something sound more rational (or believable or palatable or whatever). It's probably like most incarceration schemes: retributive only. Industry members really just want to smack someone with a stick when they don't follow their wishes. (And given the severe lack of actual commercial infringement cases we ever hear about anymore, and most commercial infringers being out of reach, we all know who this sentencing proposal will apply to. Welp, I guess I'm getting a 20,000 year sentence for livestreaming CC0 music. That is how stupid this law is, and I left my recommendations as such in the consultation period. There was actually a news article yesterday on Ars which says, due to a FOI request, that they actually pulled the 10-year-sentence out of their ass. What ever happened to the punishment fitting the crime? That's what it used to be but for decades now it's just been one failure after another in that area, the drug war and 3 strikes and mandatory minimums that don't do anything to deter crime and absolutely do not fit the crimes. Now it's moving to the new popular thing, IP and hacking, with punishments like decades in jail for copyright infringement and life for "hacking" a car. Just like all the failures before this all it will do is keep the prisons overflowing with people that should not be in there, or at least not for anywhere near as long. The reasons why the simple theory at the top of this post is wrong are that (1) most people committing crimes don't expect to get caught and (2) many people who are committing crimes don't even know what punishment might be, or vastly misunderstand the likely punishment. So the reason for long sentences may not be deterrence but for punishment. But regardless of the reason, the punishment should fit the crime. For copyright infringement, should we really be locking people up for 10 years or even 1 year? Is the "crime" so severe that jail is warranted at all? That is the type of questions that need to be asked. The reason that the legacy content industry pushes for excessive punishment is to gain headlines that scare people away from all music and video that is on the Internet. This has nothing to do with protecting the creators rights, but rather to strengthen the position of the gate keepers as the 'safe' source of entertainment and information. "The UK is frequently cited as the world leader in IP enforcement, and as Minister for IP I want to do everything I can to preserve this standing. The provision of a maximum ten year sentence is designed to send a clear message to criminals that exploiting the intellectual property of others online without their permission not acceptable." So was the UK 's Intellectual property office heavily lobbied or do they still call it bribery in the UK? Whatever (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 7:52am "For many years, we've pointed out that so much policymaking around copyright law is what we'd argue to be purely "faith-based." The fact that there is little to no actual evidence that stronger copyright protections lead to better outcomes for the public, the economy or for society is ignored by people who just know it must be true. " Replace "stronger copyright protections" with "concealed carry handguns" and you pretty much have the gun lobby at it's best. The problem is in many ways WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Moving from what we have to something else that may or may not pan out (because nobody knows) is faith based at best. Saying to abolish copyright or to limit it to an extremely short period of time is faith based, pure and simple. When you look from the other side you realize your own words can be used to argue almost any point. Saying to abolish copyright or to limit it to an extremely short period of time is faith based, pure and simple. No, actually it isn't. Many works were created long before we had long copyright terms. No reason to believe they wouldn't be today as well. Ninja (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 8:06am Actually you are wrong. We have seen studies showing that the lack of copyright is what caused a lot of development in the past. We've also seen evidence that besides big labels and artists, copyright does absolutely nothing for the artists (except maybe screw them when somebody sues) because they need the material to be spread and known so the infringement that is being considered here (file sharing) is actually beneficial for these people. But you'll ignore everything that doesn't fit your view of the world. Jeremy Lyman (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 8:13am I'd be interested to know what you consider "an extremely short period of time." Certainly not 100 years. 75? 50? How much time is needed to properly monetize a work and incentivize its creation? Sure seems like with modern production and distribution methods, that number should be going down. Not inexorably up. Whatever wiLLie has no opinion and is just a low level troll, trying to "get" Mike. He sets up the straw-man: "an extremely short period of time." I dont think I have heard ANYONE here advocate "an extremely short period of time." FACT is... we DO KNOW the current length of time provides no value to society as copyright was intended. It was there to provide a SHORT period for the inventor/creator to capitalize on their idea and if they couldn't, then it's time for others that CAN. What the hell is wrong with the water up there in Johnstown Pa? Whatever (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 5:27pm "I dont think I have heard ANYONE here advocate "an extremely short period of time."" The typical position on copyright term if the concept remains is something like 10-15 years. Many point to the original US copyright act of 1790 with it's 14 year term. It sounds nice, until you realize that in modern terms, 14 years is a very short period of time. It would mean, as an example that some episodes of say The Simspons would already be in public domain, while new ones are created, which might lead to marketplace confusion and encroachment into the "still copyright" material. Would it be fair to Matt Broenig to have to fight against people making knock off Simpsons episodes and distributing them on network TV? Would that sort of thing actually count as an advancement for the population, or would we become even more focused on a few winners to the detriment of other development? "we DO KNOW the current length of time provides no value to society as copyright was intended." How do you know? Can you show us actual proof or studies that show actual test cases, or is it all just faith based? Actually, especially in modern terms, 14 years is a very long time. Almost all revenue generated is well within the 10 year period. The few exceptions is no excuse to extend it beyond that. "Would it be fair to Matt Broenig to have to fight against people making knock off Simpsons episodes and distributing them on network TV?" Copy protection laws should not be about the artist or IP holders. It should only be about the public. "Would that sort of thing actually count as an advancement for the population, or would we become even more focused on a few winners to the detriment of other development?" No one is forcing you to watch the 'knockoffs'. If you don't like them then don't watch. And if knockoffs are enough to stop an artist from producing more art then that artist is immature at best and we shouldn't hold back the public domain because of a few immature artists. Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2016 @ 10:01pm Copy protection laws should not be about what you personally think is 'fair' to the artist/IP holders. It's not fair that I must sacrifice my natural rights so that others can have a privilege. It's perfectly fair to abolish copy protection laws. What copy protection laws should be about is the public and only the public. "It sounds nice, until you realize that in modern terms, 14 years is a very short period of time." Yes and no. But, since you constantly lie about the positions here, why should we take your position that it's too short? Most works make the bulk of their revenue during that time, even in the modern day. For the record, while you harp on about the fiction of people wanting to abolish copyright completely, the reality of the position I've stated many times is this - an automatic period of 14-25 years (debatable though I'd prefer the shorter), with an option to renew up until the author's death - after which it cannot be further renewed. This allows for the estate to gain some benefit but not for works to be locked up a century after the author's death or for orphaned works to become lost. Can you address the actual positions of people here instead of whichever fantasy you find more convenient for once? You could respect the man by getting his name correct, but he's made plenty of money and the way I described a preferred position above, he would still be able to make money if he wants. Fox just wouldn't be able to stop everyone else from benefiting from the same public domain the show has taken from many times without giving back once Groening passes. "How do you know?" The current length of copyright extends beyond the ability of the author to provide any value, and the retroactive changes made actually removes works from the public long after the work was created. Which benefits do you imagine outweigh the obvious downsides? "Can you address the actual positions of people here instead of whichever fantasy you find more convenient for once?" That will be a "no", then. Typical... (Let me start with a preface that 14 years is wildly more rollback than I can even dream of seeing effected in my lifetime.) What about "modern terms" makes 14 years shorter than ever? People experience and consume more, travel and communicate further and faster, records are more permanent and accessible, job/career turnover is more frequent and prevalent, and there are more efficient methods for devising and expressing creative output than ever before in human history. Everything happens more immediately in "Modern Times". This means that 1) things can be brought to market and monetized in less time and 2) popular entertainment holds our attention for less time before the endless swirling cycle replaces today's hot new thing; relegating it to a brief stint with syndicated tv on its way to sadly fading from existence at Foster's Home for Orphaned Works. The only way that 14 years seems shorter is if you're an immortal being seeking to pump out franchised sequels for 100 years without coming up with anything new. Which in my view should be a separate debate. Should Groening have lost the monopoly rights to the concept of the characters he created? Eh, they're still doing things with them so let's just assume for now that he's allowed to prevent knockoff competitors (and nevermind that there essentially have been, just with different characters) and focus on the literal fixed expressions. The Episodes. 26 years later, what real value does Groening derive in preventing school children from seeing the very first Simpsons episode? Is it greater than the benefit of permanently preserving the phenomenon? Is that episode really the same packaged entertainment drawn to drive ad impressions, or is it now historical context, part of our collective conscience and modern culture? I bet you can guess my answers, but to quote the illustrious Dr Jones "it belongs in a museum!" Good point. Back in the days it was argued that copy protection lengths should last longer partly because it may take a long time for someone's work to get recognized. Now a days, with the Internet and modern communication, that's not so much the case and the cases where this happens are the exception and not the rule. By and large almost all revenue is made well within the first ten years. The very very few exceptions do not justify holding back the public domain. Of course if we allow cable companies and broadcasters to wrongfully monopolize communication more than they already have they can make things worse for us again. "popular entertainment holds our attention for less time before the endless swirling cycle replaces today's hot new thing" Yo guys I heard of this great new thing called MySpace. Sure glad they get a life + 70 copyright so they can keep on creating new things. Without it they may fade into nothingness. Sounds like a FAITH based OPINION. "It would mean, as an example that some episodes of say The Simspons would already be in public domain" Which would benefit society for others to build upon. 14 years of the Simpsons have made the "creator" plenty of money and the incentive to create more works has long passed. Another straw-man "argument." How do I know? It's common sense which you appear to lack. At life +70 if someone lives to 70 that's 140 years. MATT GROENING... is 62 now, say he lives to 80... you can build on the Simpsons in 150 years. Can you show us actual proof or studies that show actual test cases, or is it all just faith based? https://www.scribd.com/doc/172985274/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-9-Copyright-and-Creation https://sour ce.wustl.edu/2009/03/economists-say-copyright-and-patent-laws-are-killing-innovation-hurting-economy / http://www.aei.org/publication/nobel-winning-economist-patent-and-copyright-laws-are-hurting-us-inn ovation-and-economic-growth/ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans -copyright-law-destroys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml Yes, yes I can. "Would it be fair to Matt Broenig to have to fight against people making knock off Simpsons episodes" There already are knock offs: The Samsonadzes Troll harder wiLLie... troll harder. Please tell the orderly the nurse forgot to give you your meds today. The problem is in many ways WE JUST DON'T KNOW. We do know that cultural works are produces in the absence of copyright, and indeed they are created in an world where the only way that they will survive is by people passing them on by copying them. Various licenses, free and open source license, and CC0 have been used by people creating new works, and those amount to people giving their work away. Without using a single bit of faith, I can assure you with fact and reason that dead people whose works are still under copyright do not need any further incentive to create new works, and probably will not create any new works. The children of dead authors and creators also do not need any incentive for their dead ancestor to create new works. If you want to talk about faith based, then talk to artists and actors who pray that they might actually see a wee bit of the huge pile of money after Hollywood Accounting is done with it. Just because you either don't know, or pretend not to know, do not assert that the rest of us are so stupid as not to know. You seem to be conflating "no evidence is presented that strengthening copyright is beneficial", with "no evidence of anything related to copyright exists." The burden doesn't lie on IP abolitionists to prove that IP is harmful. It lies on IP supporters to prove that it is beneficial. A: Monopolies do cause known economic harm. IP is a form of monopoly B: IP is a privilege that infringes on my natural right. Anything that infringes on my natural right is what needs justification, not the other way around. C: IP laws are socially expensive to police The existence of a law is what needs justification, not the absence. Without such justification the law should be done away with. Furthermore laws should be democratically decided and not corporate decided. The fact that it is corporations that disproportionately deciding IP laws suggests their intent and effect are nefarious and socially harmful. Plus, as others have pointed out, there is plenty of evidence of their harm. So without evidence of their benefit my vote is to reduce or abolish IP laws. My vote is based on reason, namely, the reasoning that their existence is what needs justification and not the other way around. Your reasoning for keeping them is based on nothing if you don't have evidence of their benefit. Saying that we should keep them because, at best, we don't know (and at more likely the evidence suggests their harmful nature) does not provide any reason to keep them. Yeah, because they're pretty much the same, huh? He equates lots of things in his mind. Few of them based in reality, but whatever he has to feel superior to everyone else he takes. Even if it's complete fiction. and you could have also just as easily made the argument that slavery abolition or racial segregation abolition were unknowns at one time and so that's why they should have been maintained. Again, the burden is never on those that want special privileges (IP laws are special privileges) to be abolished to prove their detriment. It's always on those that want special privileges to exist to prove their social benefit. (and no I am not comparing IP laws to slavery or racial segregation I am merely making the point that if you want IP laws to exist the burden is on you to prove their social benefit and not the other way around). and I don't really care if we know or just don't know. Laws should be democratically decided and not decided by corporations. IP laws were not democratically decided, they were decided by corporations (secretive meetings with industry interests invited, things like https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100630/14391410029.shtml and the fact that the MPAA is the one that argued for retroactive extensions and forever minus one day). Laws should be decided based on social values. These laws were decided based on corporate subversion of the democratic process. My vote, for one, is that I don't value these laws very much and I value my natural rights more than the current state of IP laws. To substantially reduce them would be providing me with more value than whatever value I would lose by not maintaining them. That's my choice. This is supposed to be a democracy and I want my vote to count and not just the votes of corporations. Whether or not we know the consequences of IP reduction or abolition is irrelevant, this is still supposed to be a democracy and we should make that decision together. Corporations shouldn't unilaterally make that decision for us. Furthermore almost all of the money from works is made well within the first ten years of release. There is little reason to hold the public domain back because of the very very few exceptions. Also lets not forget that with your logic no laws should ever be changed. There should never be the creation of any new law and there should never be the alteration or abolition of any existing laws because we just don't know for sure. I'm sure there are some laws you would like to see changed right? We shouldn't pass any more laws to stop piracy and we should do nothing to enforce the existing laws because people have been pirating stuff forever and we just don't know the effects of stopping it. You mean like you? Any and every time calls are made for copyright law to be revamped and looked at, you start foaming at the mouth and scream that people are demanding for copyright to be abolished. If anyone's making "faith based" decisions about copyright, it's you. The rest of us can look at the years of suing end users and realizing that it's done just about fuck all to stop anything. Whatever (profile), 11 May 2016 @ 10:27am "You mean like you? Any and every time calls are made for copyright law to be revamped and looked at, you start foaming at the mouth and scream that people are demanding for copyright to be abolished." Aside from the amusing visual, I have to tell you that I don't foam at the mouth or even have my pulse raise a bit (according to my fitbit...). I only ask the logical question, which is if you want to get rid of copyright, what do you replace it with? If you want to cut back or limit the term, how do you handle those works created under the current setup, without creating confusion about what is and what is not copyright? For that matter, if you are (say) 40 years old, does it really, really matter that much if copyright drops from 75 years to 60 years? You will still be dead as a dodo before the copyright expires. If you are younger, you might to get to copy that movie just before you are too senile to understand it. I think the current system work well, in no small part because it allows for so many outcomes and scenarios. We have everything from open source and CC licensing to the strictest of nastygram toting lawyer loving Metallica listening public hating copyright robber barons. If falls to the creator to have the choice which way they want to play the game, and that all starts out by having a system that first allows them right to "own" what they create, at least for as long as they will live (and beyond). They can turn around and issue a CC-by or whatever they like license to give their work away, they can license it commercially, they can add it to an open source project, they can give it away, or they can even assign the right to make such choices to someone else. We have an insanely vibrant world full of creative people, and we guild and create more and more new works every day. We produce more now than ever. It's hard to say that copyright is somehow massively holding us back, reality seems to say otherwise. (and if you think this post is foaming at the mouth, you really need to get your foam detector fixed, it's not working). I only ask the logical question, which is if you want to get rid of copyright, what do you replace it with? .. or unicorn poop? You can take the copyright and unicorn poop. I'll take the sanity. "If you want to cut back or limit the term, how do you handle those works created under the current setup, without creating confusion about what is and what is not copyright?" In opposed to, what, the current system where, thanks to retroactive extensions, everything is always protected? and, as techdirt already pointed out with things like Happy Birthday and discontinued works or abandoned or orphaned works, there is a lot of confusion with the current system. Long lengths make it even far more confusing since it's now harder to track back the history since it was so long ago. The confusion aspect is a problem with copy protection laws themselves that long lengths only make worse. Take the extreme examples. Copy protection not existing. No confusion, nothing protected. Copy protection lasting one year. After three years we can be sure it's not protected. Happy birthday or anything 30 years old is definitely in the public domain. No confusion at all. This includes orphaned works. Copy protection lasting 95+ years. You have the mess we have today with lots of confusion. At public expense. Infinite copy protections. OK, no confusion, but at public expense. Works should have a release date Copy protection should be opt in with required registration The confusion we have today is due to copy protections A: Not having required registration with a body keeping track of protected works and their release dates B: Copy protection lengths being way way way too long making it harder to track the history of a work. Not the other way around. Your logic is exactly backwards. This is yet another example of why copy protection laws are far worse than real property laws. With real property laws the property is either registered or anyone claiming the property in the possession of someone else needs to prove it belongs to them. Likewise works in the possession of the public should belong to the public unless someone can prove it's not public domain and they do in fact still hold control privileges over it. (well, infinite copy protection lengths can still result in things like licensing confusion, confusion over who has privileges over what, false takedowns, etc.. which is the same confusion we see today. Or at least service providers are the confused ones, the ones sending false takedowns may be doing so nefariously or at the very least negligently. But this confusion is due to a lack of registration, copy protection lengths being way too long, and a one sided penalty structure that doesn't sufficiently punish those that send bogus takedowns). I like how your takeaway from the original post is "replacement", which isn't the point most people are making. If the basis of not reducing length of copyright is because people will be dead, how then does it justify lengthening it beyond what it already is, given that the people proposing those changes will be long dead? I think the current system work well, in no small part because it allows for so many outcomes and scenarios. And which of those scenarios are lost if copyright term is reduced to 25 years from registration, or 14 years on registration with an optional 14 year extension? And remember, because this seems to get lost in the debate every time... the copyright holder doesn't lose anything at all when the copyright expires. They can continue to do business with the work however they want... they just have to compete with free. But guess what? They already do, even while the copyright is still in place. Something being in the public domain doesn't mean that you can't make money from it, you just can't do it with a monopoly any more. As others have pointed out, 14 years today is longer than it has ever been, in terms of scope for monetising work. Well, I don't know. Perhaps we can look at some cases where this has actually happened, like "The Night of the Living Dead" being in the public domain due to misfiled paperwork, and yeah, that's failed all the way to $30 million in the box office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Living_Dead). Having public domain material to work off certainly didn't seem to harm the zombie movie genre, either... I would definitely say that the boom in zombie movies following the success of NotLD counts as "advancement for the population" (at least if you like zombie movies). And reiterating the first point, NotLD made huge amounts of money (relative to its budget) despite having to compete with free, and despite the increase in competition from derivative zombie movies as well! The public domain could be said to have grown the zombie movie pie considerably - a consideration which is typically missing from all industry predictions. Well, let's see... * https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160429/18014234315/australian-govt-commission-copyright-is-copyw rong-hurting-public-needs-to-be-fixed.shtml [2016] * https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/20344621680/new-research-extending-copyright-massively-in creases-prices-limits-dissemination-knowledge.shtml [2013] * https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130924/01594224630/more-more-research-showing-that-assumptions-u nderpinning-copyright-law-are-fundamentally-wrong.shtml [2013] * https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0933449895.shtml [2010] * https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070405/194853.shtml [2007] Now, you don't have to say it, obviously all of these researchers are poisoned on the TechDirt kool-aid. But can you show us actual proof or studies that current copyright terms are better for creators and the public than going back to shorter terms, and/or mandatory registration? Whatever (profile), 11 May 2016 @ 10:39pm "And which of those scenarios are lost if copyright term is reduced to 25 years from registration, or 14 years on registration with an optional 14 year extension?" None of them would be lost. Silly question. They might however be somewhat less relevant, as creators may choose to retain their rights or issue more restrictive CC licenses as their ownership length is much less. "How do you know? Can you show us actual proof or studies that show actual test cases, or is it all just faith based? Well, let's see..." Standard answer is this: If you point to Techdirt for answers, you fail. The recent Aussie government thing is written by two commissioners who have publicly come out as copyright abolitionists. Not exactly unbiased - and entirely opinion as they have nothing but faith based concept to support their ideas. Generally every study, report, and talking point comes with a basic faith based "things would be better without copyright" mentality without any proof except that they THINK things would be better. We create many, many times more works today with copyright than we ever have in our history. We have created more works in the 21st century alone than any century before the 20th, and we continue down that road. Faith based says we would have more without copyright, but so far beyond the statement of faith, there is nothing. You wrote a good post, but it's all pointing to things of faith and not things of fact. (Oh, and for what it's worth, there are a very few places on earth without some sort of copryight, and none of them are havens of mass content production, great writers, or stunning artists. Stick that in your faith and smoke it. So according to you, since reducing the length of copyright any lower than what it currently is is faith-based, the position that perpetuating the existing status quo of retroactive extensions is rooted in empirical evidence? "None of them would be lost. Silly question. They might however be somewhat less relevant, as creators may choose to retain their rights or issue more restrictive CC licenses as their ownership length is much less." That makes no sense whatsoever. Releasing something under a CC license means it's immediately publicly free right away upon being released under that license. If the author wanted to release something in a public domain like license after 25 years they can freely do so now simply by licensing it as such already. If they don't it's because they didn't want to either way. As per usual, most of your arguments are based on very very poor and often backwards logic. You are thinking to linear here. One of the reasons people release stuff through CC or other means that is that normal copyright is to long term and they don't want their work cooped up. But if copyright was reduced to a very short period of time (say a couple of years) they might be tempted to just keep the copyright and work from there. There would be a tipping point where CC licenses would be perhaps less desirable or perhaps the ability to exercise a little more control for the short period of "ownership" would be more desirable. It might be said that a little short term money making might not be so bad... I.T. Guy, 12 May 2016 @ 11:56am "One of the reasons people release stuff through CC or other means that is that normal copyright is to long term and they don't want their work cooped up" - Citation needed. Learn the difference between Too and to.... Then and Than... Muppet. LOL. "copyright was reduced to a very short period of time (say a couple of years)" Nobody is saying that Wilbur. "There would be a tipping point where CC licenses would be perhaps less desirable" Do you have any data to back that up or... is that what you... believe? Might, perhaps... Ha ha ha you're full of a bunch of maybe's and what-if's. Ha ha ha this is the MOST wiLLiesque statement you have ever said: "We create many, many times more works today with copyright than we ever have in our history." Do you think the proliferation of various works has exploded due to technology empowering the average person to be able to create and publish? Nah that never occurred to you. Anyone can launch MovieMaker or iMovie and be creative... anyone can make music with MusicMaker, Sountrap, etc, etc. No more need for recording studios and 100,000 dollar mixing boards. ProTools will do just fine. Copyright had NOTHING to do with the explosion in creativity and technology did. Whatever AKA wiLLie, has taken a stance opposite that of the general consensus here and will argue it to the death... even though he does not believe the crap he spews himself. It's like he's on a high school debating team tasked with defending a position. It is fun to watch him get obliterated though. "But if copyright was reduced to a very short period of time (say a couple of years) they might be tempted to just keep the copyright and work from there." Law shouldn't be based on very speculative and illogical psychology. With your poor logic you can reason that copy protection laws upset people and cause them to go on a rampage and kill people. Hence IP laws are responsible for murder. Lets remove it. Illogical psychology is not a valid argument for anything because I can make anything up with such weak standards and find some illogical psychological justification in one way or another to justify any law that I please. Laws shouldn't be based on such nonsense. and the fact that Whatever must resort to illogical psychology to justify his position shows how indefensible his position is. More reason to doubt his position. I can use illogical psychology to justify any law I please. Such should have no place in law. The fact that you are down to trolling tells me everything I need to know - you have no true response. Thanks for playing, troll! You mean like how you've been caught trolling multiple times? You demand that we show sources, and then resort to "If this happens, then this other thing might happen". The whole point of this discussion is that pro-copyright stance is faith-based and controlled copyright is backed by research (which you ignore). You say that those links to Techdirt don't count, but did you read the research that those links point to... that wasn't conducted by Techdirt? And finally, for what it's worth, I suspect that the creators of the Creative Commons license would consider it a success if people no longer felt the need to use a CC license because copyright terms were no longer ridiculous, and there would be much rejoicing and carousing in the Creative Common. "You say that those links to Techdirt don't count, but did you read the research that those links point to... that wasn't conducted by Techdirt?" As I have mentioned before, Techdirt stories are often based on other people's opinions or studies written by people who are pretty biased on the subject. As I said, the Australian Commission thing is a perfect example, it's written by two commissioners who have been very publicly against anything and everything copyright - so citing it as some great change in attitude by the government is meaningless. "And finally, for what it's worth, I suspect that the creators of the Creative Commons license would consider it a success if people no longer felt the need to use a CC license because copyright terms were no longer ridiculous, and there would be much rejoicing and carousing in the Creative Common." Yet that would be forcing everyone into the commons if they want to or not. Abolishing copyright (or limiting it so much that it's neutered) would diminish creator rights and would very likely harm and discourage creative works from being made and distributed widely in their various forms. The beauty of CC licensing is that it works with (and against) copyright in a manner that allows the system to work BOTH ways, not just one way. "studies written by people who are pretty biased on the subject." Maybe their 'bias' comes from the fact that the data says IP is bad. Your argument is like saying that because those that conducted studies on the subject have found that we need water to survive they must be biased and so we don't need water to survive. Or maybe they built their opinion on the data. What, did you expect people to conduct a study with results that say water is wet to then later conclude that water is dry in order to convince you that they aren't bias? The distinction between independent studies vs studies from an entity with an obvious conflict of interest in the matter (ie: the MPAA or its members) is also an important factor when considering the merits of a study. Being 'bias' in favor or against something in itself doesn't reflect on whether or not that thing is good or not. It could be that the bias is derived from the data. But if those that are conducting the studies or giving their opinions have a disproportional conflict of interest in the matter that automatically makes anything they say very suspect. (disproportional as in their conflict of interest isn't only derived from the fact that they are simply a regular citizen and want the laws to reflect what's best for all citizens including themselves as a citizen) (and hint: businesses, assumed to be self serving wanting to maximize their own profits, should be assumed to have a conflict of interest and to be basing their opinions on their own interests. Anyone receiving astroturfing money from them should also be assumed to have a conflict of interest). "Standard answer is this: I am going to outright ignore anything from anyone I don't like, because fuck that shit, and this is clearly NOT faith-based." He is desperate to defend an illogical and irrational position and so this is what you get. What do you expect? His desperation is showing. "It's hard to say that copyright is somehow massively holding us back" Nobody says that wiLLie... except you. What we say is it has become a roadblock and is a burden to up and coming artists/services/etc. It is abused to stifle free speech. "we guild and create more and more new works every day." Yes and most do it because they love it not because they get a copyright. That garage band that practices every weekend all weekend doesn't do it because... copyright = paid(because it doesn't)... they do it because they love it. Kill off copyright tomorrow and nobody will throw their hand up an say "shit, it's time to give up because I can't get a copyright." People created long before copyright because they love to do so and it is part of human nature. To say that would cease if copyright was abolished is just willful ignorance. You live at the corner of Hope Ave and Willful Ignorance Way. "Nobody says that wiLLie... except you." Actually, you need to search Techdirt. Mike had said that (in various ways) any number of times over the years. Certainly copyright has stopped people from creating derivative works that might otherwise have existed. "Yes and most do it because they love it not because they get a copyright." Most garage band types dream of monster success, of being rock stars and living the life - and that is mostly based off of writing and selling lots of CDs and touring like mad. Without copyright, they would have no means by which to convert their desires to cash in their pockets to fulfill their rockstar fantasies of hookers and blow. "People created long before copyright because they love to do so and it is part of human nature." Yes, and as a culture, western people generally also like money, fame, fortune, and all the trappings of it. Money is an incredibly powerful motivator, both for the creator and those who seek to profit from their creations. It has driven a society that creates more than ever. Don't take my word for it, Mike has said many times over that we create so much more content than ever - with this "oppressive" copyright regime getting more "oppressive" and still we produce more... it;s like cause and effect! I.T. Guy, 12 May 2016 @ 12:09pm Reading comprehension fail Wilbur: What we say is it has become a roadblock and is a burden to up and coming artists/services/etc. It is abused to stifle free speech. You replied: To which I am replying: Potato. And... taking a snippet from another comment: Do you think the proliferation of various works has exploded due to technology empowering the average person to be able to create and publish? Or... do you give copyright all the credit? What does human nature to create have anything to do with money? Nothing. Painters... most of which go through life not making a dime... still paint. Why is that wiLLie? Singer/songwriters go through life never making a dime off of their music... but they still play. Why? It's not copyright. AND... their is no guarantee that even with a copyright you'll make money. If you cant or cant bring a product to market then... troll. Right... wiLLie? "What does human nature to create have anything to do with money? Nothing." Actually, it has a lot to do with it for many. Money isn't the driver, it's a requirement to be able to live. They have the desire to create, but not the time. They still do, but perhaps it takes much longer or perhaps the create less. Also, for people who are creative but perhaps normally can't find the time, financial incentive is pretty powerful. The Rock and Roll dreams of many a young musician involve playing front of big audiences, being popular, and living "like a rock star". The truth is that money and sex are two of the biggest motivators for humans in the world. Combine them (get rich and get laid a lot) and for many it's a pwoerful incentive to create. "What we say is it has become a roadblock and is a burden to up and coming artists/services/etc. It is abused to stifle free speech." Baseball bats are used to stifle life from time to time. It doesn't mean that we ban them. Heck, in the US, we know that guns hurt, maim, and kill thousands each year - certainly limiting their victim's free speech - yet they are legal. Laws are exactly like a baseball bat, most of us use it to play ball, a very few use them for more sinister purposes. We don't ban bats just because of them. Do you have any research or sources to back up anything that you say? Please just go away and let the adults talk until you're ready to join the conversation properly. Read back through your comments on this article, and your arguments are all just different mixes of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. "Read back through your comments on this article, and your arguments are all just different mixes of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯." Why? Because copyright has been around for a couple of hundred years and generally seems to work pretty well. It's not perfect, but it would be a truly faith based more to kick it to the curb. My arguments are only that if you want to replace copyright with something, replace it with something better that has some facts behind it to make it go, and not just "get rid of it and we are all better" - there is no proof that it would be a good solution to anything! What is it with you and equating making changes to the existing system with throwing it away entirely? Exactly how is the current system of scaring potential pirates by suing people who obviously aren't the culprits, retroactively extending copyright far beyond the original author's lifespan, and allowing people to use the current system to shut down criticism and discussion supposed to be a good thing? This is the system you want perpetuated, unfettered? And... we have crickets. He thinks posting trollish shit, then running away and refusing to answer somehow makes his position not ridiculous or faith-based. He's the proverbial ostrich ducking its head in the sand. Baseball bats are used to stifle life from time to time. It doesn't mean that we ban them Neither does encryption, but going by your comment history, you have quite the passion for advocating everyone reducing their security to satisfy the wet dreams of a few politicians. You still haven't provided any evidence that it's been working well at all yet there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. In fact Hollywood was built on piracy. Nice try though. You say we can't do that because "anything could happen". I say lets push the improbability drive switch because otherwise we are VERY DEFINITELY GOING TO DIE. (Aplogies to Douglas Adams) JMT (profile), 11 May 2016 @ 6:03pm "The problem is in many ways WE JUST DON'T KNOW." See, this is why people call you a troll. We do know that the current copyright terms are detrimental, the evidence is overwhelming. We also know the only people claiming otherwise are large corps who are only interested in protecting their cash cow. It's not artists who benefit, its the companies that hold their copyrights. Why else would they argue an artist's work needs protection decades after their death? Actually, increasing the severity of the punishment may have the exact opposite effect and have people question the law itself. Just apply to a common crime and ask people. What do you think of life imprisonment for jaywalking? Most people will either be outraged or laugh it off as a joke. And then there's the fact that most people actually don't see a problem with file sharing (the infringement form behind these anti-piracy idiocies) meaning it is socially accepted. Same with marijuana. And the alcohol prohibition. My view is, let them make it a capital punishment and we'll see how fast copyright will crumble. The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it. Dan, 10 May 2016 @ 8:45am When I read the title I thought "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" was copyrighted. Then try giving a closer look (ಠ_ಠ ) to the following: Try using ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ Or maybe ¯\_ʕ͡°.͡°ʔ_/¯ But maybe they're patented. Or tirade marked. Binko Barnes (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 9:09am In the past it was universally understood that copyright harms the public by limited access and preventing derivative works. But it was considered to be beneficial to grant creators a LIMITED copyright monopoly in order to provide incentives to create. The limited term was balanced against the public harm and was kept short (14 years with an optional renewal of another 14) But now, under a relentless barrage of corporate propaganda and influence purchasing most people have been brainwashed into believing that endless copyright is some sort of absolute right. The norm used to be that culture was universally available. But now culture is locked down, privately owned, and doled out to the public for maximum corporate profit. At this point, I consider the battle to be lost, the authoritarians and the enforcers have won. Copyright is a lost issue. There's too much money involved and money buys laws. Not really. Hollywood sprang up where it did to avoid patents and copyright. Disney built itself on public domain, and almost immediately turned to predatory behavior. In fact copyright only got worse. The Statute of Anne of 1709 contained a (primitive) form of the First Sale Doctrine (a.k.a Exhaustion of Rights). It took until 1908 for the US to recognize it and it was only amended for imported foreign goods in 2013!!! Many Berne-adherent countries across the world DON'T EVEN HAVE a proper First Sale Doctrine in 2016. But sure, let's extend copyright some more! :O Lifetime + 75 years is clearly not enough. :DDDD In fact let's also expand copyright's scope to include ideas and the discovery of naturally occurring phenomena. :DDDD Oh the poor, poor pharmas! Oh the poor, poor CEOs! Oh the poor, poor lawyers! That third yacht ain't paying for itself UK government should push for 25 to life. Maybe then the people will outrage and this sort of crap will stop (at least for a while). Why limit it to one life term? (Actually, even one year will probably permanently destroy someone's entire life.) Peter (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 9:25am "The Government believes that online offences should be treated no less seriously than their physical counterparts." Are they planning to increase the penalty for lifting a CD to $160.000 or 10 years in jail, or will the penalty for downloading an album be brought down to $10, then? Alan Turing, 10 May 2016 @ 9:31am The UK doesn't even put child molester rapist murderers away for ten years. WT living F? Re: parity I can imagine a copyright maximalist saying: Those children who are victims need to learn how to get lawyers, and lobbyists, and learn how to work the political system in favor of their interests. (Yuk! I feel like taking a shower now.) The effectiveness of this law Compare this law to raising the age to legally buy e-cigarettes to 21. Now if teenagers continue to buy e-cigs, then can really crack down by raising the legal purchase age to, say, 30. That will stop those teenagers from buying e-cigs. Louis IV, 10 May 2016 @ 9:43am just gonna leave this here Rick Falkvinge questions how far it needs to go before people realize enforcement won't stop copying when copying feels totally natural. He points to the situation a few centuries ago in France, where the king set up (and sold) monopolies on certain fabric patterns -- and when people kept copying the fabric patterns, they kept ratcheting up enforcement mechanisms until it was punishable by death. And out of that, sixteen thousand people ended up dying. Re: just gonna leave this here We probably won't get to death sentences... probably... I hope... :DDD But I could see them moving the penalties up. Maybe they'll even bribe, I mean lobby for harsher sentences for OTHER crimes, so they have a bigger roof to expand. /s Sounds very British to me, remember pilliwinks, the iron maiden, the rack, or boiling. 7 years is reasonable, 20 years is a generation. Anything beyond that is worth fighting against, with any means at we the peoples disposal. Keep worshiping mammon, see how far it takes you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Obviously the paid prison corporations have moved to the UK and need to fill their cells... I'm not saying that the **AA and those in charge of running the paid prison systems are in cahoots, just that they see an opportunity to expand both of their profits. Prisons from the 10 year sentences and the **AA's from the corresponding monetary penalties (as I don't see anything removing the statutory 150K penalty, only adding an additional prison sentence). Re: Obviously the paid prison corporations have moved to the UK and need to fill their cells... What, you don't like good 'ole capitalism? You some kinda pinko commie? Re: Re: Obviously the paid prison corporations have moved to the UK and need to fill their cells... I know it's sarcasm... well, I HOPE it's sarcasm, but this isn't what capitalism means. Capitalism does not entail absolute, anarchic, rights of property. While the people have no right to impose what one may do with/on their property, how one is allowed to spend their money, etc. there are still legal and moral limits. Kind of reminds me of GOP fans who want no taxation without realizing that they depend, daily in fact, on the fruit of said taxation. :P Wait... wait... I think I got it! If there is no taxation... there will only be, at most, a paper-thin government, funded from donations, at best. That means total freedom for them to do as they want, even moreso than today. :DDDD /s Re: Re: Re: Obviously the paid prison corporations have moved to the UK and need to fill their cells... Actually, the for-profit prison system is good example of capitalism in action. All nice and legal, too. Abolish Copyright It breeds tyranny, among other evils. Coyne Tibbets (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 10:55am This is just one small step in the "right direction" for infringement penalties; you can be sure that MPAA and RIAA are hoping and praying for a mandatory death penalty. All of you are so addicted to movies and music that you steal it. Then you complain about the people that create it and bring it to you. Go read up on the pathology of that behavior. pablo gunderson, 10 May 2016 @ 12:09pm i feel your pathology dripping through the screen You're projecting so hard we could point you at a blank wall and watch some PowerPoint slides. ECA (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 12:41pm Is this funny or not 1. LONG terms dont detur anything, except to force the criminal to USE GUNS, to stop others from arresting him.. 1.a. LONG terms only place the person in a position,, on release, to be into retirement, State assistance, dependent on the SYSTEM..no training, no experience, NOTHING.. 2. HOW many rich people GOTO JAIL?? LONG TERM?? 2.a. how many FALL guys are in jail insted of the Owners/CEO/Boss's... 3. what do you learn in Jail/prison..NOTHING..nothing good. Re: Is this funny or not This kinda reminds me of how Ferguson MO was shown to work after Michael Brown brought the place to international attention. 1. Cops enforce minor laws strictly and frequently 2. Courts: minor infractions get max penalties (fines) 3. Sacrifice everything to pay & stay at subsistence, or 3b. Fail to pay: harsher fine and/or jail time 4. Brush with law = fewer job options 5. Lower standard of living = more minor laws violated 6. Only routes of survival: state aid or crime 7. Fine people on aid = state collecting its own money 7b. More crime = more money for cops & courts to 'fight' it This is actually a pretty nice, self-sustaining system... for authoritarian half-wits and sociopaths. They seem to be setting it up on all sorts of different scales, all over the world. Even life in prison or death penalty will not stop file-sharing. Somehow I know for a fact that any members of the government/police forces or anyone with political/corporate or high social connections will be given an exemption instead of being charged. This will only be applied against those too poor to fight it. Ed, 10 May 2016 @ 5:24pm Pick your crime carefully So the UK government is actively encouraging shoplifting by enacting this law. Penalty for stealing a CD from a shop is a penalty notice and a fine of around £80. Penalty for staying at home and downloading a file from that CD is 10 years imprisonment. Obviously the message is "go out there and nick stuff from the shop". Probably part of the war on obesity. Homer (profile), 11 May 2016 @ 7:17am You wouldn't steal a handbag... But if you did then you'd get a much more lenient punishment than if you committed the victimless "crime" of copyright infringement, which amounts to nothing more than the unsubstantiated presumption of some imaginary future loss. A "loss", incidentally, that is based on the fraudulent presumption of entitlement to monopolise the accretive results of other people's work. What a detestable racket the "IP" industry really is. Philly Buster, 11 May 2016 @ 9:41am Re: You wouldn't steal a handbag... ,which amounts to nothing more than the unsubstantiated presumption of some imaginary future loss. Isn't that the logic being pressed by the lads and lasses and their desparation for corporate sovereignty and the sueing of governments that don't award certain contracts?? 5.2 Court Tosses Evidence From Pretextual Stop When Dashcam Shows Cop Had Zero Reason To Perform A Stop The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free 19:43 Court Tosses Evidence From Pretextual Stop When Dashcam Shows Cop Had Zero Reason To Perform A Stop (10)

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744959

__label__cc

Another week, another privacy breach By Robert Hudson, President, ITPA It seems every week we’re learning of a new online privacy breach. The latest (as I write this) is the ‘accidental’ release of Myki user travel data. The Victorian Department of Transport released over 18 billion records relating to travel by more than 15 million users on public transport in Victoria over a three-year period, believing that they had anonymised the data sufficiently to protect people’s privacy. Sadly, it proved this was not the case, and researchers were not only able to identify themselves based on the data, but also a number of individuals unknown to them, including a sitting Victorian state politician. They were able to be identified by combining the data in the release with other public data — in the case of the Victorian politician, tweets he had sent whilst on public transport. The Victorian Information Commissioner raised concerns, stating that he believes that public transport data should be well protected. But it seems the only thing worse than a data breach is a responsible party who denies they’ve done the wrong thing. In this case, the Victorian Department of Transport believes it did nothing wrong, and that the dataset didn’t contain personal information. It seems, at best, that the concept of ‘personal information’ needs better definition, and at worst, that the Department has been negligent in their care of data. This could, if they don’t enact required changes to their data management processes and policies, land them with a $495,000 fine from the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner. Whilst this is a massive breach, it’s far from the only one that has happened recently… and even small breaches can result in significant fines being issued by relevant government agencies. If you’re responsible for managing personal data, I urge you to consider attending our Privacy Breakfast Briefing in October — you’ll hear from experts in the field on what your obligations are, and how to ensure that you’re meeting them. For full details of the event, please click here. Image credit: ©stock.adobe.com/au/md3d Information Technology Professionals Association (ITPA) is a not-for-profit organisation focused on continual professional development for its 18,700 members. To learn more about becoming an ITPA member, and the range of training opportunities, mentoring programs, events and online forums available, go to www.itpa.org.au. Best of 2019: Getting to grips with privacy obligations Across the festive season we'll be reprising some of our best articles from 2019. Today, a... Best of 2019: Cloud customers still making basic security mistakes Across the festive season we'll be reprising some of our best articles from 2019. Today we... The highs and lows of IT in 2019 Implementation of legislation, ongoing security challenges, the nbn, skills visas and many other... Network innovation for a sustainable future Regulator approves SA–NSW interconnector Updated electrical safety codes of practice 2020 Energy sector generates bushfire disaster support Improving operational performance by bringing people back into data centres

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744960

__label__cc

Thursday, 3 October 2019, 06:12 • 505 เข้าชมแล้ว Physically fit young adults have healthier white matter in their brains and better thinking skills than young people who are out of shape. Physically fit young adults have healthier white matter in their brains and better thinking skills than young people who are out of shape, according to a large-scale new study of the links between aerobic fitness and brain health. The findings suggest that even when people are youthful and presumably at the peak of their mental prowess, fitness — or the lack of it — may influence how well their brains and minds work.We already have plenty of tantalizing evidence that aerobic fitness can beneficently shape our brains and cognition. In animal experiments, mice and rats that run on wheels or treadmills produce far more new neurons in their brains than sedentary animals and perform better on tests of rodent intelligence and memory. Similarly, studies involving people show strong relationships between being physically active or fit and having greater brain volume and stronger thinking abilities than people with low fitness or who rarely exercise.But most of these past studies focused on middle-aged or older adults, whose brains often are starting to sputter and contract with age. For them, fitness and exercise are believed to help slow any decline, keeping brain tissue and function relatively youthful. Much less has been known about whether fitness likewise might be related to the structure and function of healthy, younger people’s brains. So, for the new study, which was published last month in Scientific Reports, scientists at the University of Münster in Germany decided to look inside the skulls of a large group of young adults. They began by turning to a hefty trove of data gathered as part of the Human Connectome Project, an international collaborative effort that aims to help map much of the human brain and tease out how it works. As part of that project, more than 1,200 young men and women in the United States recently agreed to have their brains scanned with a specialized type of M.R.I. that looks at the health of their brains’ white matter. White matter consists of the many connections between neurons and brain regions. It is, essentially, the brain’s communications wiring. (The working neurons make up the brain’s gray matter.) The volunteers, who mostly were in their 20s, also completed multiple questionnaires about their health and lives, a general medical checkup, and a two-minute walk test, a widely used measurement of aerobic fitness that involves walking as rapidly as possible for two minutes, to see how far you get.Finally, they sat through a battery of cognitive tests, designed to quantify how well they could reason and remember in various ways. The German researchers then gathered all of this information and began crosschecking it, comparing the young people’s fitness and thinking skills, their fitness and white matter health, and their white matter health and ability to think. And they found a variety of interesting correlations. The young people, all of whom were healthy, had covered a wide range of distances in their two-minute walks. Some of those young men and women covered far less distance than others, marking them as the least physically fit.These relatively out-of-shape young people generally performed worst on the tests of memory and thinking skills, the scientists found. Their brain scans also indicated that their white matter was slightly weaker and more frayed than in the brains of the young men and women who had walked farthest in those two minutes.These relationships remained intact when the researchers controlled for the young people’s body mass indexes, socioeconomic status, age, gender, blood sugar levels and blood pressures.In essence, the fitter people in this group were, the more robust their white matter looked, and the better they performed on tests of memory and thinking skills.The researchers were taken aback by the strength of the associations between the young adults’ fitness, thinking and white-matter health, says Dr. Jonathan Repple, a psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher at the University of Münster who oversaw the new study.“There already are a few studies published looking at older people” and their brains and fitness, he says, “but to observe this in a young sample was quite surprising.” This study provides only a snapshot of one moment in the lives of these young people, though, and can show only links between their fitness, white matter and thinking skills. It cannot prove that greater fitness directly caused their brains to look and function better. It also did not measure or ask about exercise habits, so it is not clear how much or what kinds of exercise might be needed if you are young and want to raise your fitness and potentially also bulk up your white matter and cognitive skills.Dr. Repple says he and his colleagues are planning experiments to test whether and how various exercise programs affect fitness and the brain in people of different ages.But already, this study and others suggest that being fit may matter for brain health earlier than many of us might think. “Even at a young age, physical fitness has beneficial effects not just on the body,” Dr. Repple says, “but also on brain health and brain functioning.”

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744961

__label__wiki

How Gabriel García Márquez Created a World in a Sentence The novelist Mary Morris explains how the opening line of One Hundred Years of Solitude shaped her path as a writer. Joe Fassler By Heart is a series in which authors share and discuss their all-time favorite passages in literature. See entries from Colum McCann, George Saunders, Emma Donoghue, Michael Chabon, and more. Doug McLean When I was her student at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, the novelist Marilynne Robinson told our class it was almost unthinkable for women of her generation to become writers. Society afforded women with an extremely limited range of opportunity: You could be a teacher, nurse, or homemaker, she said, and that was about it. Other paths—especially professionalized, artistic ones—were possible, but extremely hard-won. That was the challenge facing Mary Morris, author of Gateway to the Moon, after she dropped out of grad school in the 1970s. For years, she’d worked in secret, living a kind of creative double life—writing constantly, but never sure she was really a writer. No one ever told her how the verb might earn the noun. Fortunately, the right book found its way to her at just the right time. In a conversation for this series, Morris explained how Gabriel García Márquez’s classic novel One Hundred Years of Solitude renewed her commitment to her art during a dark, doubt-ridden period of her life. The book’s opening line provided license to explore themes that would come to fascinate Morris throughout her career: childhood, family, and the power of tradition and memory, the way the past continues to haunt the present in moments that echo and return. Like One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gateway to the Moon begins with a dramatis personae that lays out a family tree. The book moves through continents and five centuries of history as a troubled teenager of Spanish descent, living in modern-day New Mexico, slowly begins to piece together the mystery of his heritage. As we follow his ancestor, a Jewish man fleeing the Spanish Inquisition, on his harrowing journey to the New World, Morris wrestles with questions about history and identity, including how the traditions that define us survive and transform across time. Mary Morris is the author of seven novels including The Jazz Palace and a winner of the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award. Her short story “Mama’s Haven” appears in this month’s issue of The Atlantic. She lives in Brooklyn and spoke to me by phone. Mary Morris: When I first read One Hundred Years of Solitude, it was 1974, and I’d just made the decision to drop out of graduate school to try to become a writer. I opened the book on a gray day, lying in the loft bed in my tiny studio apartment. It was a moment when I had no one in my life—I was totally alone. It can be so lonely, living in New York. I didn’t know what my next step was going to be. I didn’t know what I was going to do. I’d been getting a Ph.D. in comparative literature at Columbia, but my heart wasn’t in it. This must have been obvious. Two years previously when I went to ask Michael Riffaterre, my famous professor of French literature, for a recommendation to a fellowship I wanted, it surprised me that he told me to close the door. At first, I wasn’t sure what to think. “What do you do besides study for graduate work?” he asked me. “Are you a writer?” The truth was that I was writing at the time. All the time, and always in secret. He said he could just tell, from the papers and exams I’d written. The surprising thing was, he really encouraged me. He’d treated me almost like a protégé in the beginning, but there he was, almost encouraging me to take a completely different path. Which, ultimately, was what I chose. During this period I was living in a funky dorm called International House on Riverside Drive, home to students from all over the world. It was wonderful in some ways, but it was also kind of chaotic. There was a woman across the hall from me who played really loud, annoying music, which distracted me terribly while I was trying to work. One day I knocked on her door and asked her to turn it down—and she just screamed at me, furious. In the end, I had to move to another room in a more quiet part of the building. I thought that would be the end of it. Around then, a friend of mine, a Pakistani poet named Shuja, asked me if I would read some of my poems at a reading he was putting together. I’d never shown my work to anyone at that point. I mean, I had drawers full of stories and poems, but I never thought I could really be a writer. It was a different time for women. At best, I thought, if I had a graduate degree, then I could maybe teach courses part-time while I raised a couple kids. It didn’t occur to me that I could take the leap into really being a writer, with everything that meant. But of course I agreed. And when I stepped up to read the night of the event, sitting right in the front row, was my nemesis—the woman who’d screamed at me when I asked her to turn her music down. I could read these poems in front of anyone, I thought, but I couldn’t bear to read them in front of her. Somehow, completely terrified, I made it through the reading. The amazing thing was that, afterwards, she came up to me and said, “If I had known you were writing those poems, I would have kept my music down.” She told me I needed to start sending my work out into the world, that I should be submitting to literary magazines. That was the beginning for me. I sent some poems to The Columbia Review, and they published them. With that experience, I could no longer pretend otherwise: This is what I wanted to do. After a couple years in graduate school, listening to people talk about literary isotopes—I still don’t know what those are—I just decided it wasn’t right for me. I didn’t know what was right for me, but I knew my graduate work wasn’t it. You know the joke about how birds don’t need ornithologists? I was pretending to being the ornithologist when I wanted to be the bird. So I dropped out. I had no plan. I left the dorm and moved into a studio apartment. I had a little adjunct teaching job, and I started writing. My parents didn’t really understand what I was doing, or why I couldn’t do the same thing back in Chicago. Nothing seemed to be working out. Even my cat ignored me. I’d found a cat in the street and I adopted it, and it turned out to be the meanest cat. One night the cat escaped on to the roof and the animal control had to come and rescue it. The officer, after he captured the cat, offered me a prayer card because he thought I “needed it.” This was definitely not a good time in my life. But then, one day—I can’t remember why—I started to read One Hundred Years of Solitude. It was a first edition in English, a beautiful hardcover. It was raining, a totally gray day, as I lay with the book in my loft bed. And as I began to read, it was like seeing color again. The grayness went away. Even today, I was looking at the opening words again and I felt that sense of dimensionality and color and richness and aliveness: life. It started with this incredible first sentence: “Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.” I had to stop and read that line over and over again. I’d never read a sentence like that one before, one that seemed to encompass an entire world. I’ve always loved traveling and travel writing and that moment when your passport gets stamped. When I read the first line of this novel, I felt like I’d just had my passport stamped. I’d walked into a completely different world, one beyond what I’d ever seen or imagined or knew was possible. How does Márquez achieve the magic of this opening sentence? First, there’s the fact that the character is facing a firing squad—so there’s this threat of imminent death from the very first moment. You have the immediate sense of a dangerous political world, a place fraught with peril. And yet that darkness is juxtaposed against a sense of wonder, thanks to the detail that makes the whole thing so enchanting and unusual: the memory of a childhood journey, one day spent going to “discover ice.” We all know what ice is; it’s utterly familiar. So the sentence leaves you with this question: In what kind of landscape would ice seem like a magical element, something with almost supernatural power? Of course, in much of Latin America at that time, ice was hard to come by, perhaps even exotic. It’s a reminder that Márquez himself always said he did not write “magical” realism, insisting that everything he wrote he had somehow experienced. In that one detail you have that mix of ordinary and extraordinary that is so associated with this writer. Then there’s the surprising fact that, at this very difficult moment in his life, this mature character is remembering what it was like to be with his father, and how one “distant afternoon” transformed his life. I found it magnificent, Márquez’s sense that the past remains intimately available to us, just beyond the border of the present. My life, too, was filled with memory at that time. I was far from home, and had been thinking about memories of my own family, the things I’d done with my parents when I was young—like how, when I was very small, my father bundled me in a blanket, put me in the car, and drove us off to a farmer’s field where he held me on the hood as we watched a gorgeous fiery sunset. Somehow this opening in Márquez gave me permission to dig into my own memories, those luminous moments of childhood. With One Hundred Years of Solitude and its generation-spanning cast of characters, I finally saw how I might attempt to embrace the personal history I knew while engaging a bigger, more expansive vision. This must have been the first book I ever read with a genealogy chart in the beginning. I remember being struck by the realization that you really could encompass multiple generations, years of lineage and ancestry, in a single book. It was Márquez who gave me the permission to try that, in novels I’d attempt much later. When I started to write Gateway to the Moon, I felt daunted by the challenge of writing about people who lived 500 years ago, people who lived through the Inquisition. One Hundred Years of Solitude reminded me that I could attempt such a story—it would just require imaging these characters in all their struggle and disappointment and feeling. And one way to capture that humanity, I think, was by looking for moments like the ones that open the book, the archetypal moments a character returns to, again and again, throughout their life. When my dad turned 80, I called to wish him a happy birthday and was surprised that he started crying. He told me that he’d had a dream the night before about something that had happened when he was 4 years old, something he hadn’t remembered until he’d dreamt it last night. He was stunned by the way he could recover a memory that had long been lost, and do it so completely. “My whole life lives inside of me,” he said. Reading the opening of One Hundred Years of Solitude reminds me to believe in that feeling, that your whole life remains inside of you always, waiting for you to find a way to tap into it. The afternoon I discovered this sentence—the way Colonel Aureliano Buendía recalled his discovery of ice—is one of those moments for me, the kind that comes back when you’re facing the firing squad. I did feel like I was facing a kind of firing squad, at the time, even if the stakes were not literally life or death, and even if some of my troubles were of my own making. But it has become a kind of refrain for me, the moment I lay in bed alone on a gray day years ago, totally unsure where I was going with my life. I return to how it felt to open a book and be transported. How it felt as a world of new possibilities opened up, alive and in full color. Joe Fassler is the editor of Light the Dark: Writers on Creativity, Inspiration, and the Artistic Process. He regularly interviews writers for The Atlantic's "By Heart" series. He also covers the politics and economics of the American food system as a senior editor for The New Food Economy.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744963

__label__wiki

Hot Dog Legs Is a Disturbing Example of Tumblr's Body Image Issues Hot Dog Legs has been called the "Tumblr of the Summer," "genius," and "your new favorite meme," but it's also a disturbing outgrowth of the thinspiration and body dysmorphia issues that proliferate on Tumblr, Pinterest, and Instagram. Rebecca Greenfield Hot Dog Legs has been called the "Tumblr of the Summer," "genius," and "your new favorite meme," but it's also a disturbing outgrowth of the thinspiration and body dysmorphia issues that proliferate on Tumblr, Pinterest, and Instagram. For those who aren't familiar, the question posed by Hot Dog Legs is whether the pair of tan cylinders on display is "Are they hot dogs or legs"? Viewers are invited to browse through pictures of legs that look like hot dogs, or hot dogs that look like legs. Like this one: (Legs?) Versus this one: (Hotdogs?) The site attempts to parody the popularity of the sort of bare-legged pictures some women are fond of posting, generally while lounging outside by a pool or on a beach. In particular, the position, lighting, and summery backgrounds seen in these images make for great "inner thigh gap" shot — Inner thigh gap, or ITG, is one of the popular tags used along side thinspiration on the Internet — an absurd beauty standard that defines a space between one's thighs as an indicator of ideal thinness and sex appeal. Indeed, the first image that comes up in a Tumblr search for "inner thigh gap" surfaces a picture that falls into the "hot dog legs" genre, though not exactly the correct format. It is also tagged with "#thinspiration" and #thinspo": Here's one from Instagram, too. Those who like to accentuate and broadcast images of their thighs probably don't appreciate the juxtapositions to fattening, chemical-laden processed foods. And it's a fraught comparison: The association of women's bodies to meat, and the blog's accompanying suggestion that its subjects aren't exactly human, is a centuries-old assertion of white male supremacy, notes Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. "For a long time what was human was really white male," she explains in a 2002 interview with The Witness. Seeing women as a "piece of meat," she argues, is a form of victimization. "Cultural images of sexual violence, and actual sexual violence, often rely on our knowledge of how animals are butchered and eaten," she told Stanford University's Clayman Institute for Gender Research this past June. It's certainly offensive to compare females to animals. Though, in fairness, wieners are called wieners. Rebecca Greenfield is a former staff writer at The Wire.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744964

__label__cc

Interview Attire for Disadvantaged Job Seekers Job Interviews Interview Attire ••• suedhang / Getty Images There are organizations that can help disadvantaged job seekers dress appropriately for an interview and prepare them to interview effectively. Dressing professionally for an interview is really important. How you dress can make or break your chances of getting a job offer. Disadvantaged—by definition—means lacking the basics of adequate food, safe housing, medical care, and education. The lack of these basic needs can make it more difficult for an individual to apply and interview for a job. Many organizations and businesses in most cities have programs that can help individuals who live at a disadvantage. For Men: Career Gear Career Gear is dedicated to helping men get their lives back on track by providing them with new business suits. Participants can choose from a variety of suits, most of which have been donated by Career Gear’s corporate sponsors, including Brooks Brothers and the Men's Wearhouse. How Men Can Participate in Programs Like Career Gear The first step disadvantaged job seekers can take is to truly believe in themselves and take the personal initiative to begin a job search. Career Gear invests in men who have begun to turn their lives around and are taking a proactive role in seeking employment. Career Gear's philosophy is simple but powerful: successful employment is a catalyst towards men emerging as better fathers and leaders within their communities. Who Is Eligible to Participate? To qualify for assistance, each participant must have completed a job-training program, have an interview scheduled, and have been referred to Career Gear by one of its partner programs located throughout New York City and its surrounding boroughs. These organizations include homeless shelters, welfare-to-work job training centers, and job training programs for ex-offenders, disabled individuals, and recovering substance abusers. The men Career Gear serves come from all walks of life but is disconnected for one reason or another. This includes all ages and ethnic backgrounds, recipients of public assistance, disabled individuals, recovering addicts, Iraqi war veterans, former foster care children, recent immigrants, and the formerly incarcerated. How Do They Go About Participating? When a participant arrives for his scheduled appointment, trained volunteers review his resume, identify potential barriers to the upcoming interview, review the work environment and culture in which the interview will take place, and offer specific and concrete tools to overcome potential obstacles in securing gainful employment. The Career Gear team will then work one-on-one with the men to help select an appropriate outfit for the upcoming job interview. Professional clothing provided includes a suit, dress shirt, tie, belt, shoes, and overcoat (when available). Once a participant is employed, he is recruited to become a member of the Professional Development Series (PDS). Launched in 2005, the PDS is a retention program that offers a unique series of workshops aimed at helping men retain their job and advance in the workplace. Workshops focus on skills that impact an individual’s ability to remain employed, such as budgeting and financial management, emotional coping skills, family and child support, and communication skills. The program also offers added value by utilizing Career Gear's greatest resource: clothing. During each session, participants receive ongoing donations of clothing so they have an entire working wardrobe upon completion of the program. It enables them to focus on saving their money and spending it on other necessities rather than on clothing. For Women: Dress for Success Dress for Success is a similar program for women. Established in 1997, it is an international non-profit program that has helped almost one million women in 150 cities in 28 countries to gain professional attire and the tools they need to become self-sufficient. Dress for Success operates through a network of affiliate locations that accept donations of gently used women’s professional attire and accessories. They also organize suit drives and provide career counseling. How Can Women Participate in This Program? Once a woman has a job interview, she can ask for a referral to her local Dress for Success boutique from local community partner agencies such as homeless shelters, immigration services, domestic violence shelters, job training programs, and educational institutions. If she is not currently working with such an agency, she can also contact her local Dress for Success and ask to speak with its Program Coordinator. Donations are appreciated by non-profit organizations that seek to help disadvantaged job seekers. Check their websites to learn how to donate to Dress for Success and how to donate to Career Gear. Where to Donate Business Suits You Don't Need Anymore Appropriate Interview Attire for Men Learn the Difference Between Business Casual and Business Attire Here Are Some Tips for Women on What to Wear to a Job Interview Gender Neutral Interview and Business Clothing Photos of Business Attire for a Workplace With a Casual Dress Code Learn What the Best Outfits Are for Job Interviews Donate Unwanted Office Supplies and Equipment to These Organizations Take a Look at Various Work Dress Codes and Business Attire Examples An Overview of Mock Interviews Men's and Women's Dress Codes for Formal and Casual Job Interviews Examples of How to Dress in Business Formal Work Attire Learn How to Dress in a Business Formal Professional Workplace 9 Things You Shouldn't Wear to a Job Interview What to Wear to Work for a Real Estate Job Here's What to Wear to a Job Interview at a Restaurant

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744965

__label__cc

Amarillo celtic bagpipers Whether celebrating new love at a wedding or commemorating a loved one at a funeral, Celtic Bagpipers can beautifully carry on your culture’s musical tradition. Read reviews and book any of the top-rated musicians near you in the Amarillo, TX area. Texas / Amarillo, TX Celtic Bagpipers Please note these Celtic Bagpipers will also travel to Palisades, Bushland, Canyon, Umbarger, Wildorado, Claude, Dawn, Panhandle, Wayside, Happy, Vega, Masterson, Fritch, Valle de Oro, Boys Ranch, Sanford, Hereford, Tulia, Groom, White Deer, Phillips, Borger, Skellytown, Nazareth, Dumas, Summerfield, Stinnett Top Celtic Bagpipers Near Amarillo, TX Are you planning a wedding in Amarillo, TX? We can help you find the best vendors and entertainers for your upcoming wedding. Lary Fowler Aka Leghorn The Piper Celtic Bagpipes from Brenham, TX (466 miles from Amarillo, TX) Lary is an award winning competition level performance bagpiper.He has performed at most every traditional bagpipe venue but enjoys piping in non-traditional venues such as baseball games and motorcycle rallies. Both public and private schools have asked him to perform at multi-cultural programs, most recently performing in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. His band experience includes several traditional bagpipe bands as well as guest performances with The Rogues, Scottish Mayhem and... (more) Celtic Bagpipes from Denver, CO (360 miles from Amarillo, TX) Guitarist & Bagpiper- Michael Lancaster Acoustic Guitar from Denver, CO (353 miles from Amarillo, TX) From Bach to Beatles to Bagpipes, classy to casual to hip, and everything in between. Michael's music is the perfect complement to your special event. Guitar, Voice, Bagpipe, DJ/MC, Sound Equipment, Lighting. The elegant sound of the guitar will add a touch of class to your special occasion. The powerful sound of the bagpipe will make your affair unique and memorable. When Michael DJs you can have any artist (their music, that is) show up to your event! Michael can provide everything... (more) Randy Arent-Denver Bagpiper Bagpipes from Littleton, CO (347 miles from Amarillo, TX) Colorado is the nation's highlands: imagine castles, bagpipes, kilts, "Scotland The Brave" and "Oh, Danny Boy". Is this your heritage? No other instrument pays tribute to it, or adds to the excitement and pageantry of a wedding, party or special event like the Great Highland Bagpipes. Based in Denver, but serving Colorado's Front Range and neighboring Western States, Randy Arent will help you plan the musical selections for your special occasion. By incorporating the power and grandeur of... (more) Jimmy Mitchell Bagpipes from Forney, TX (351 miles from Amarillo, TX) Jimmy has been playing the bagpipes for over twenty-four years. He has performed at numerous occasions over the years including weddings, funerals, and parties. Since he is a full time bagpiper he can be available on short notice and can be wherever you need him. Jimmy has performed all over the United States and has played in Canada and Scotland. Having learned under some of the finest teachers in the world, Jimmy is a first class player who you can be confident will provide that... (more) Jared Malone Bagpipes from Garland, TX (337 miles from Amarillo, TX) Bagpiper for all occasions. I have played many events including weddings and funerals. I have been asked to join a band that is playing in Glasgow, Scotland at the World Pipe Band Championship 2011. I will be in Scotland competing against the best pipers in the world. I am also a former member of The North Texas Caledonian Pipes and Drums and have played at venues such as the State Fair of Texas and the North Texas Irish Festival - just to name a few. Time constraints required me to turn in... (more)

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744966

__label__wiki

| Distance runners lead Penn track to impressive weekend Distance runners lead Penn track to impressive weekend Luciano wins 10,000 meters By Thomas Munson 04/10/16 10:46pm Junior Noah Kennedy-White's 53.55-meter discus throw was good for second place at the Lou Onesty Invitational. Credit: Ananya Chandra , Ananya Chandra Once again, Penn track and field was split between two meets this weekend. While most of the team enjoyed slightly warmer weather in Charlottesville, Va., at the Virginia Quad Meet and Lou Onesty Invitational, sophomore distance runner Christopher Luciano dealt with colder temperatures in nearby Princeton, N.J., at the Sam Howell Invitational. Luciano, who was the only member of the Red and Blue at the meet, competed in the 10K. His lack of teammates didn’t slow him down. His time of 30:06.43 was not only the sixth-fastest mark in the Ivy League so far this season but also was good enough to earn the sophomore first place. Kelsey Hay looks for Olympic Trial mark as Penn track and field heads to VA Penn performs well across country as competition heats up before Relays More success was earned down south on the University of Virginia’s campus. Again, it was distance runners leading the way, but it was the women who were the most dominant in Thomas Jefferson’s backyard. The Quakers paced the women’s 1,500-meter run. Seven Penn runners finished in the top 13, five in the top nine, four in the top six and the Red and Blue had the top two overall finishers. Sophomore Abby Hong finished her run in just 4:39.67 and was followed less than a half second later by senior Elyssa Gensib with a time of 4:40.02. Gina Alm added to the success for Penn women when the Pittsburgh-area native finished in sixth place with a time of 2:19.52 in the 800m. Her performance outpaced five other Red and Blue athletes who finished amongst the top 20 in the event. The Quakers also had good showings in the men’s 800m at the Lou Onesty. Again the Red and Blue clogged the leaderboard with three finishers in the top eight. The lowest time amongst them belonged to junior Jack Huemmler, who still recorded a time of 1:55.75, good enough for fifth place in the event. They added this performance to freshman Calvary Rogers’ win in the 400m a day earlier with a time of 48.17. The men made their biggest mark in the throwing events, where they had multiple top two finishes from their veteran hurlers. Junior Noah Kennedy-White’s throw of 53.55m placed him second at the Lou Onesty. It was an impressive performance for the junior from Jericho, N.Y. However, it fell well short of the Lannigan Field record of 65.12 meters. The record, of course, belongs to none other than senior Sam Mattis — who set the record one day earlier at the Virginia Quad Meet. Coupled with Mattis’ win was a pair of titles in the high jump and pole vault, from Lance Yassey and Michael Benz, respectively. Junior Billy Bishop, also a member of the Penn football team, recorded the second best throw in the shot put event. His 15.29m hurl just narrowly edged out West Point’s Garret Kohnke by a mere tenth of a meter. Next weekend the Quakers travel to the Widener Invitational, in Chester, Pa. It will be their second to last competition before the Penn Relays.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744971

__label__wiki

| Men's Lacrosse Issue | Red and Blue looking to break into top tier Men's Lacrosse Issue | Red and Blue looking to break into top tier Quakers have finished third in four of the past five seasons By Sanjay Dureseti 02/13/17 9:40pm Sophomore goalie Reed Junkin looks to build off an impressive freshman campaign for which he was named co-Ivy League Rookie of the Year. Credit: Daniel Xu , Daniel Xu, Daniel Xu For Penn men’s lacrosse, three is not a magic number. The Quakers have placed third in the Ivy standings four out of the past five years. And, despite owning the league’s best overall record and winning the year-end conference tournament in 2014, Penn has been consistently excluded from the top tier of Ivy League lacrosse. This dynamic was made even more apparent after last season, in which the Yale Bulldogs and Brown Bears soared to new heights. Brown, buoyed by then-junior attackman and Tewaaraton Award winner Dylan Molloy, made it all the way to the semifinals of the NCAA Championships, only to lose in overtime to Maryland. Yale, led by their own prodigious goalscorer in then-sophomore Ben Reeves, won the Ivy Tournament and received the #4 seed in the NCAAs. Although Yale and Brown are now the class of the Ivy League, their dominance is a recent phenomenon. Princeton and Cornell were formerly the teams to beat, as the two programs, now mired in mediocrity, own 45 outright Ivy titles and 9 national championships combined. Men's Lacrosse Issue | Sophomores to lead the way for Penn Men's Lacrosse Issue | Senior defensemen ready to combat Ivy offensive weapons Men's Lacrosse Issue | Looking back on 2016 season Penn, as a result, has always been on the outside looking in. And this season might reflect more of the same. The Ivy League Preseason Poll has the Quakers again slotted at third, behind first place Yale and second place Brown. The Bulldogs return two All-Americans while Brown returns three. Penn, lacking similar star power, is bringing back junior honorable mention All-American Connor Keating and co-Ivy League Rookie of the Year Award winners Simon Mathias and Reed Junkin for their sophomore seasons. Therefore, the reigning regular season and tournament champions each provide unique obstacles for the young, ambitious Quakers. Yale, as Mathias remarked, is “very scrappy and well-organized.” Coach Mike Murphy concurred, stating, “Yale has always been a deliberate, tough minded team. They will grind it out on the offensive end and are very consistent and disciplined on the defensive end.” The Bulldogs’ ability to act as a well-oiled machine depends heavily on the individual performances of their star players. Reeves, a First-Team All American and Yale’s first finalist for the Tewaaraton Award, serves as the team’s offensive conduit and ranked third in the nation in points per game last season. He is joined by Second Team All-Ivy midfielder Eric Scott, who is poised to lead Yale’s potent two-headed attack. The Quakers, however, may be able to take advantage of Yale’s gaps on the defensive side of the field. Elite All-American defenders Michael Quinn and Christopher Keating graduated from Yale’s backend, thinning a stellar unit that allowed an Ivy-best 8.09 goals per game last season. The burden of the Penn’s attack will fall this year on the shoulders of the Quakers’ youth movement. Mathias, fresh off an excellent freshman season in which he led the team in goals, will lead an offense comprised largely of his sophomore brethren. Fellow second-year attackmen Alex Roesner and Tyler Dunn, who return to collegiate play after winning the FIL U-19 World Championship alongside Mathias, will look to build off debut seasons that established them as productive starters. In combatting the other side of the Ivy League’s two-headed monster, Penn will have to be vigilant against the high-octane offense of the Brown Bears. Molloy, crowned as last season’s Division I lacrosse’s best player, is a historically productive attackman. The senior led the nation in points last season with 118, the fourth-highest mark in NCAA history. Equally potent as a passer and scorer, Molly cemented his place in the Ivy League pantheon by breaking his school goals record and earning two Ivy League Player of the Year honors in a row. He is joined by senior long-stick midfielder (LSM) Larken Kemp and senior defenseman Alec Tullet, both of whom earned All-American honors last season. Penn’s defense, however, looks to meet the challenge of an unpredictable offense centered around the creative genius of Molloy. “Brown just plays fast which is a little deceiving because they’re willing to take risks on offense and not so much on defense. The way we’re built by unit, offense and defense, and the way we approach the game isn’t dependent on pace. If teams want to play fast, we’ll play fast. We prefer that, honestly,” Murphy said. On the defensive side, Penn is led by Keating, an LSM whose ability to cause turnovers and snag ground balls earned him First-Team All Ivy honors along with his All-American designation. He also led the nation in long-pole scoring, demonstrating an offensive flair along with his defensive prowess. Most importantly, Keating is poised to inherit a prominent leadership role after the departure of Nick Doktor. Although not officially a team captain, Keating’s importance to the team’s cohesion ensures that he will, to an extent, run the show. “It’s really easy when I have quality guys around me to step up as a leader,” Keating said. “The guys like Nick Doktor, [Matt] McMahon, and [Joe] McCallion have really shaped the platform for us and given us that ideal example to embrace.” Junkin, the team’s young goalie, will also prove crucial to the team’s defensive success the coming season. In earning Ivy Rookie of the Year honors along with Mathias, marking the first time that the award has ever been shared, Junkin established himself as one of the nation’s best young goalkeepers and led the conference in saves per game. Early reports from Mathias suggest that Junkin is once again playing “lights-out,” giving Penn hope that its chance at joining the Ivy elite has finally arrived.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744972

__label__cc

Influencer overload: do brands have a duty of care to their social stars? By Emma Mulcahy-12 June 2019 10:49am Mental health concerns for influencers The long-term effects of social media on the mental health of its users is a hotly contested issue. As more brands ramp up their influencer marketing investment, it is vital they are sensitive to the demands placed upon their talent. Numerous studies have linked mental health issues and social media. The Royal Society for Public Health recently estimated that up to 90% of young people are now using social media regularly, and as a result are developing illnesses like depression or anxiety at an increased rate, issues which disproportionately affect women and teenage girls. Furthermore, social media use and its effects have been in some cases likened to that of gambling addiction. In the UK, the NHS has called for social media sites to fund schemes tackling such problems. The baptism of fire It is an issue which has gathered greater press coverage of late due to the recent suicides of several reality TV show participants. Since both reality stars and social influencers rarely have media or PR training prior to being catapulted from anonymity to overnight fame, they share much in common. Reality TV participants have likened the experience to that of a "baptism of fire", a description that could not more aptly fit the experiences of many online influencers, thrust into the often harsh spotlight of a global gaze. This issue was first brought to light in 2015 by Australian influencer Essena O’Neill, after publicly releasing a video detailing her mental breakdown as a result of the pressure to perform on social media. In the video she candidly revealed the pressure she felt under to remain relevant, feelings of being chained to her phone and the datafication of her self-esteem. O’Neill subsequently closed down all of her social media accounts. More recently, in 2018 we saw Canadian YouTube star Elle Mills post a similar similarly heartfelt video which covered the same issues and pressures experienced by online influencers, citing the constant need for likes and validation as a major factor in the YouTuber's depression. Earlier this year Stephanie Hegarty of the BBC interviewed a number of high-profile YouTube influencers who have been experiencing similar burnout from their content and have been subjected to public backlash and bullying. Algorithm anxiety In the interview, they discussed the continued public exposure and the inexorable nature of online algorithms as their main sources of stress. If influencers do not create enough content, they lose their position on YouTube, which in turn leads to a reduction in subscribers which impacts them financially. This modern need to be constantly "available" is having a negative ripple effect across many industries, and significantly in media. Studies have shown an exponential surge in issues such as anxiety and depression in the marketing and PR industries. This ties in with the problems experienced by influencers, feeling that they are never able to switch off from their work. This trend has been explored by The Guardian, which identified a need to be active on platforms like Instagram as taking a psychological toll on influencers: “The 12 influencers I spoke with while researching this story said they felt tied to a static, inauthentic identity. They often lamented their inability to put down their phones and laptops and said they were constantly online […] taking a break is considered a big no-no.” Essential to this discussion is the recognition of the unforgiving culture that currently dominates the social stratosphere. Across Twitter and Instagram, ‘cancel culture’ reigns supreme, with some users making it their personal mission to take down influencers based on mistakes and misjudgments. One only has to look at the recent fervor created around James Charles, an online beauty blogger, and makeup artist, to see this cutting culture in action. Almost overnight the M.U.A sensation lost nearly 5 million followers across his social platforms. Moreover, after Listerine’s ill-fated branded content spot with Scarlett London, the influencer received an onslaught of hate from strangers online. This is an example of an individual receiving backlash from the public on a creative choice that was agreed with a brand. It was left to the untrained social media personality to handle the fallout. Despite the plethora of mental health concerns that continue to dog social media platforms, it is important to recognize the work that’s being done to counteract this. While this online world has led to a surge in feelings of self-doubt and damaging comparisons, there are those leading by example and leveraging the platforms to shed light on these issues. Sedge Beswick, managing director of influencer network SEENConnects, has underlined the culture of self-acceptance and positivity that has in fact been led by influencers. Scores of influential internet personalities – Zoella, Jameela Jamil and Matt Haig to name a few – have leveraged their platforms as safe spaces where the public can discuss and seek support for various personal problems. By opening up about their own struggles with mental health, they set the stage for others to share their own and create a culture of greater authenticity and transparency. Greater education on how to use social media safely and conscientiously could help reshape how we all use these sites. Importantly it is in her defense of influencer marketing that Beswick recognizes its nature as "unchartered territory" for social media users and influencers alike. She advises caution and understanding from brands and marketers that are looking to venture further into the influencer space. This article is about: World, Influencer Marketing, Social Media, Mental Health, Advertising, Marketing, Digital, Digital Advertising, Entertainment, Market Research, Marketing, Media, Public Relations, Social Media, Sponsorship

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744973

__label__wiki

From The Edge Cover Story: ‘Focusing on affordable phases first’ Chai Yee Hoong The Edge Malaysia February 27, 2019 16:00 pm +08 This article first appeared in City & Country, The Edge Malaysia Weekly, on February 18, 2019 - February 24, 2019. An artist’s impression of the 2-storey terraced homes in Phase 1 Daunan Worldwide will have a 13.3-acre man-made lake with four ‘islands’ that will be linked via a boardwalk Despite the soft property market that is likely to persist, Worldwide Holdings Bhd plans to continue expanding its property business with four new launches this year. Initially known as Tholec Ltd, the company was formed as a private limited plantation company in 1965 and was listed on the Malaysia and Singapore stock exchanges in 1967. It took on its current name in 1971 and was involved in a diverse range of industries, including property development and investment, timber trading, infrastructure development, television news broadcasting, solid waste management as well as overseas investment and investment holding. Worldwide Holdings was taken private in 2008 and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor. The company has four main businesses today, namely property development, environmental management services, investment holding and medical device manufacturing. One of its new property projects is Daunan Worldwide, a RM2.2 billion, 439-acre township in Alam Perdana, Selangor. Phase 1 will be launched next month. The leasehold development will have 14 phases that are expected to be completed over the next 10 years, depending on the state of the country’s economy. In total, the project will have 2,546 two-storey terraced houses and 1,300 units of Rumah Selangorku. “If the economy grows and the property market picks up, the development will definitely be completed over a shorter time,” Rosli Ismail, chief operating officer for real estate at Worldwide Holdings, tells City & Country in an exclusive interview. The company acquired the 439-acre tract in September 2017 and construction started this year, he says. Properties at Daunan Worldwide will range from affordable houses to high-end residences. “Due to the soft market, our strategy for the next two years is to focus on the affordable phases first. At the same time, we are submitting plans for approval for the premium products. So, when the economy recovers, we will be ready,” says Rosli. The units in the first six phases of Daunan Worldwide are tentatively priced at under RM500,000 each after rebates while the remaining phases will have higher-end products, he adds. According to Rosli, the company has reduced the size of its built-ups, from 1,800 sq ft at its previous developments to 1,500 sq ft at Daunan Worldwide. “Previously, we had priced our products at above RM500,000 each but because of the current property market situation, we have changed our strategy to having smaller built-ups. So, Daunan Worldwide will be our first project with units of 1,500 sq ft each. “Our strategy is to launch these affordable products first, before moving on to the premium products. With the current government, we are confident that in three years’ time, the property market will recover. The property market follows a cycle. We believe things should be better by 2021,” he says. The developer is targeting first-time homebuyers for the project. “We are targeting the young, new, millennial purchasers, especially those working in the surrounding areas, the majority of whom are Malays, as well as upgraders from Bandar Puncak Alam, Shah Alam, Kota Damansara, Bukit Subang, Subang Bestari, Subang Jaya, Meru, Kapar and Bandar Bukit Raja,” explains Rosli. “We are also targeting those working at UiTM (Universiti Teknologi MARA), which is located 2km to 3km from the development, as well as investors.” Phase 1, named Halya, has a gross development value (GDV) of RM67.31 million and will comprise 147 units of 20ft by 65ft 2-storey terraced houses with individual titles. There will be two unit types, both of which will have four bedrooms and three bathrooms, with built-ups of 1,361 to 1,386 sq ft and priced from RM505,000 to RM626,000 per unit, before rebates. Rosli reveals that the units will have a spacious, open-plan concept, allowing residents to customise their living, dining and kitchen spaces according to their needs. The houses are expected to be completed in 2021. A wellness township Inspired by Worldwide Holdings’ three pillars of wellness, comprising physical, social and environmental wellness, there will be urban farming plots at every residential phase or cluster in Daunan Worldwide as well as children’s playgrounds and landscaped green areas. Residents will be able to grow plants at the urban farming plots, with about half an acre designated for this purpose in each cluster, says Rosli. The concept was also inspired by the area’s agricultural roots. “It used to be an oil palm estate, with those living there mostly from the industry or farmers,” he says, adding that Worldwide Holdings wants to cultivate this interest in farming among residents to encourage them to socialise with one another. The developer will also manage and care for the plots. “This concept has been done in Singapore, whereby the HDB (Housing and Development Board) flats have open spaces for planting that are managed by the community and joint management body. It has been very successful, and we want to bring this concept here,” Rosli explains. Daunan Worldwide will also have a 13.3-acre man-made lake with four “islands” that will be linked via a boardwalk. “This is to create a centralised meeting and gathering spot for all residents,” says Rosli. Other amenities include a 1.8km jogging track, an international-standard football field, a promenade by the lake and a landscaped forest by the lake. Meanwhile, proposed amenities are two schools, a clinic, a surau and a mosque. The developer also plans to build a neighbourhood commercial centre. In terms of security, each phase or cluster will have a single access, or one entry and exit point, with guards. The township will also have CCTV and a smart traffic light system. Last year, the project’s master plan received honorary mention at the Malaysia Landscape Architecture Awards, under the Landscape Master Plan Awards category, by the Institute of Landscape Architects Malaysia. According to Rosli, Worldwide Holdings started marketing the development in the middle of last year and soft-launched it in December. “So far, the response has been good and encouraging. We have 30 bookings, which is very good for us. “We will soon have an urban farming sample at the new sales gallery [at the project site itself] for people to experience this concept and our staff will be available to guide them on how it is done,” he says, adding that he is optimistic the project will do well because of the attractive price points. Meanwhile, interested purchasers can visit the developer’s sales gallery at Puncak Bestari in Bandar Puncak Alam. In the vicinity of Daunan Worldwide are schools, UiTM Puncak Alam’s main campus, a mosque, hypermarkets such as Tesco and Econsave, fast food outlets like McDonald’s, KFC and Domino’s Pizza, banks and petrol stations. An upcoming general hospital in Puncak Alam is targeted for completion in 2020. The development enjoys easy access to Kuala Lumpur via the KL-Kuala Selangor Expressway (LATAR Expressway), Guthrie Corridor Expressway and North-South Expressway (PLUS Expressway), and will be connected to the upcoming Damansara-Shah Alam Elevated Expressway (DASH). Other developments in the area include Worldwide Holdings’ Puncak Bestari and Puncak Bestari 2, Eco World Development Group Bhd’s Eco Grandeur, KLK Land Sdn Bhd’s Bandar Seri Coalfields, LBS Bina Group Bhd’s LBS Alam Perdana, MKH Bhd’s Hillpark, IJM Land Bhd’s Shah Alam 2 and Glomac Bhd’s Saujana Utama. “Due to urbanisation, many big property players are developing projects closer to Kuala Selangor and we are where some of the big names are at,” says Rosli. He believes there is still demand for residential properties. “Most buyers are looking for landed properties with individual titles and priced below RM500,000 for their own occupation. With its detailed plans and the rapid development in its surroundings, Daunan Worldwide will be a liveable township with all amenities ready for its future residents.” Other upcoming launches Worldwide Holdings has three other launches in the pipeline, including those of two freehold Malay Reserved pocket developments in Bangi. They are Residensi Sg Purun, with a GDV of RM44 million and 69 two-storey terraced houses, and Residensi Sg Merab, which has a GDV of RM36 million and will have 61 two-storey terraced houses. The third launch is that of Dillenia in Shah Alam, which has a tentative GDV of RM155 million and will see 107 leasehold semi-detached units and bungalows over 15.14 acres. The developer plans to launch the Sg Purun and Sg Merab projects in the first half of the year. In the second half of the year, it plans to launch Phase 2 of Daunan Worldwide as well as Dillenia. “The Sg Purun and Sg Merab projects are not premium developments but are priced slightly higher than Daunan Worldwide and will have bigger built-ups,” Rosli reveals. As for Dillenia, whose site was acquired by Worldwide Holdings from Kumpulan Lebar Daun in September last year, the company hopes to receive building plan approvals for the project next month. Meanwhile, the developer’s ongoing projects are Puncak Bestari 2 (GDV: RM60 million; 90 two-storey terraced houses), Amber at Subang Bestari (GDV: RM150 million; 41 bungalows) and a private estate project in Camillo, Western Australia (GDV: A$4 million or RM13 million; 16 green title lots). Worldwide Holdings’ property portfolio comprises landed and high-rise residential, retail and commercial properties at Subang Bestari and Precinct Alami in Shah Alam, Puncak Bestari in Bandar Puncak Alam as well as industrial properties at Kapar Bestari, Klang.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744974

__label__wiki

Rolling Stones ready for concert in Cuba Ramon Espinosa <p>Members of The Rolling Stones, from left, Charlie Watts, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Ron Wood talk to journalists upon their arrival to Jose Marti international airport in Havana, Cuba, Thursday, March 24, 2016. The Stones are performing a free concert in Havana on Friday, becoming the most famous act to play Cuba since its 1959 revolution. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa)</p> HAVANA (AP) — Thousands of jubilant Cubans and tourists swarmed the site of the Rolling Stones' free concert in Havana on Friday, calling it an historic moment for a country that once forced rock fans to listen to their favorite music behind closed doors. Small groups of people slept overnight outside the Ciudad Deportiva, or Sports City, where a massive stage has been set up for the biggest act to play in the Cuba since its 1959 revolution. Thousands more streamed toward the outdoor sports complex throughout the day. At least half a million people were expected. Night watchman Joaquin Ortiz, 62, said he'd been a huge rock fan since he was a teenager in the 1960s, when Cuba's communist government frowned on U.S. and British bands and he had to hide his Beatles and Stones albums in covers borrowed from albums of appropriately revolutionary Cuban groups. "After today I can die," he said. "This is like my last wish, seeing the Rolling Stones." The crowds of those waiting outside the gated of the Ciudad Deportiva to be in the first rows in front of the stage were made up of at least half foreigners, for whom seeing Cuba was as novel as seeing the Stones is for Cubans. Ken Smith, a 59-year-old retired sailor, and Paul Herold, a 65-year-old retired plumber, sailed to Havana from Key West, Fla. on Herold's yacht. "This has been one of my life-long dreams, to come to Cuba on my sailboat," Herold said. The band arrived Thursday evening in the Cuban capital, two days after President Barack Obama finished the first trip to Cuba by a U.S. president in nearly 90 years. Obama who reestablished diplomatic relations with Cuba last year, called for the two countries to move toward full normalization in order to end the legacy of the Cold War and prompt Cuba to engage in more reforms of its single-party system and centrally controlled economy. "Obviously something has happened in the last few years," lead singer Mick Jagger told reporters at Jose Marti International Airport. "So, time changes everything... we are very pleased to be here and I'm sure it's going to be a great show." Cuban musicologist Joaquin Borges characterized the event as "very important," saying it would be the biggest rock concert of its kind ever on the island. He predicted that it would encourage "other groups of that stature to come and perform." "It's a dream that has arrived for the Cuban people," radio host and rock music specialist Juanito Camacho. "A lot of young Cubans will like the music but it will also satisfy the longings of older generations." The band's private plane carried the four British rockers, family members and about 60 technical workers to manage the huge amount of gear brought to the island for the concert, including seven huge screens and 1,300 kilograms (2,866 pounds) of sound equipment. "We have performed in many special places during our long career, but this show in Havana will be a milestone for us, and, we hope, for all our friends in Cuba, too," the band said in a statement released before the arrival. The concert will be held outdoors at the Ciudad Deportiva, where nearby streets were blocked to traffic beginning on Thursday. While they waited hours for the show to begin, fans listened to a loop of songs by popular artists including Amy Winehouse while a lone vendor tried to sell popcorn to members of the crowd. Security was heavy, provided by private guards in yellow jackets and hundreds of Cuban police and black-clad Interior Ministry officers in black jumpsuits. In the heat of Cuba's revolution from the 1960s to the 1980s, foreign bands such as The Rolling Stones were considered subversive and blocked from the radio. Rock music such as the Stones' wasn't officially prohibited in public, but it was disapproved of. Cubans listened to their music in secret, passing records from hand to hand. The band's Cuba stop ends its "Ole" Latin America tour, which also included concerts in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina and Mexico.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744977

__label__wiki

Mikeala Reese is Souderton’s Pied Piper By Mary Jane Souder, Correspondent The Indians’ senior three-year starter is a natural leader for the team’s inexperienced lineup. Mikaela Reese’s enthusiasm is unmistakable when she talks about Souderton’s young and inexperienced basketball team. "I was really excited to start a whole new chapter, and I am really excited to see what this team can do because I think we have a lot of potential," the senior captain said. "I’m excited to see what we can make out of the season." A three-year varsity player, Reese would have been forgiven if she had some trepidation entering a season that certainly would include its share of growing pains. After all, the Indians graduated four starters from last year’s Suburban One League Continental Conference championship squad, and Reese, who was also part of the Indians’ district title and state semifinal run two years ago, is the lone senior on the roster. "There are only four or five of us that can drive, so we’re like a mini-Uber for the younger girls," she said. Reese, according to coach Lynn Carroll, is a perfect fit to lead this young squad. "We check in with the girls individually as often as we can, and before the first game, we just touched base with her," Carroll said. "Obviously, she’s going to be a leader and she wants to help lead, but she understands that part of her job is to help out these younger kids for the future. "I’ve never had a kid say that to me before. She was totally unprompted. Sometimes you lead a teenager to say those things, but she already had the mindset to do that, and that’s a really big deal." When Reese entered the program as a freshman, she was one of a class of nine. Five were still part of the program last year, four did not return. "High school sports are a big commitment," she said. "I told them ‘Whatever you think is best for you, do that. I don’t want to push you.’ You want to enjoy high school. You want to enjoy your senior year." Reese, equally enthusiastic about her involvement in unified track and field, is making the most of her final high school season. "I’ve loved every minute of it," she said. "I love coming to practice, I love going to games. There are a lot of new people, and everyone just meshed really well together. "There are freshmen, and they are going to play three more years. Just to help factor in on how they play in the future is my major goal." Souderton enters January with a respectable 5-3 record. "The level of basketball Mikaela is playing right now is so good on both ends of the court," Carroll said. "To see her evolve into who she is now has been really cool to see. She’s as well balanced both on and off the court as any kid I’ve ever had." "She tries to get everyone incorporated, she talks to everyone," junior Jordan Zimmerman said. "Before our games, she’s our hype. She makes the team what it is."

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744978

__label__wiki

Home » England » Joseph Conrad » Almayer’s Folly Joseph Conrad: Almayer’s Folly Almayer’s Folly was Conrad’s first novel, written while he was still travelling to the Far East. Almayer, based on the trader Olmeijer whom Conrad met in Berau, is (unlike the real Olmeijer) a ruined man. Like Olmeijer, Almayer married a Eurasian woman and has a daughter by her, Nina. Tom Lingard, who appears in this and other Conrad novels, is loosely based on Olmeijer’s partner, William Lingard. The novel immediately plunges into what is to become one of Conrad’s favourite themes, namely the relationship between East and West and how, in particular, Westerners are often out of place and unable to cope in the East. Almayer is a case in point, as he dreams of all the gold he should have had but does not have. He has married a Eurasian woman but, when the novel opens, they are bitterly estranged. Almayer’s business is failing and his only hope lies in his daughter, Nina, whom he hopes to take back to the Netherlands and educate as a white woman. Of course, it doesn’t work out the way he wants, as Nina has grown up a Malay and when she falls in love with a Malay prince, his plans fail, as does his business. It may be his first novel and may show signs of immaturity but it is a novel that is to set the themes, environment and even characters for many of Conrad’s future novels. The character of Almayer, the failed Westerner, prefigures other flawed characters who will appear in his later novels. First published in 1895 by Fisher Unwin

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744982

__label__wiki

Russia Faces Pressure After Report on Graft By Irina Filatova Russia may face international embarrassment if it fails to fulfill its obligations to the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption, or GRECO, in fighting graft and other unscrupulous practices. A report made public in December said Russia carried out just over a third of the group’s 26 recommendations. The nine obligations that Russia fulfilled include establishing an anti-corruption strategy, improving law enforcement coordination and the recruitment of prosecutors, ethics training and establishing guidelines for tax authorities. Comprehensively criminalizing corruption and creating effective punishments for offenders are the two recommendations that were not at all implemented. The rest of the proposals are considered partially implemented. Yelena Panfilova, head of Transparency International, said that while failure to stamp out corruption will not lead to conflict between Russia and Europe, it could result in international disgrace if the country has to explain to the Council of Europe why the obligations were not met. “The arrow will pierce the heart of the great empire,” Panfilova said. GRECO said Russia should implement all the recommendations it has partially fulfilled or hasn't fulfilled at all. “We expect further progress to be reported within 18 months,” said Bjorn Janson, deputy executive secretary of GRECO. Russia, which is a GRECO member, is obliged to report how the recommendations are being implemented, but “GRECO isn’t telling [the country's officials] what they should do,” he said by telephone from Strasbourg. Janson added, however, that if any country refused to fulfill the organization's recommendations it could be theoretically expelled. Russia is working in close cooperation with the international agencies to fight against corruption, said Alexei Volkov, head of the State Duma's commission on anti-corruption legislation. Russia has ratified two international conventions to fight corruption, including the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, and has amended the domestic legislation in line with these conventions, Volkov told The Moscow Times. He said, however, that the country still should “deeply analyze” some proposed measures and “see how they will work in Russia taking into account our culture and traditions.” “It's a matter of the future. We'll be discussing it. The work is underway, because the level of corruption is high,” Volkov said. Georgy Satarov, president of Indem Foundation, said the country faces problems enforcing not only international obligations, but even domestic laws, including the Constitution. Panfilova of Transparency International said Russia has a long way to go before corruption can be effectively stamped out. She cites the court system that mostly serves the state and the lack of a concept of conflict of interest, among other things. “It might take years,” Panfilova said. The Justice Ministry, which is in charge of fighting corruption, didn't respond to the request sent by The Moscow Times on Tuesday.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744983

__label__wiki

You are here: Home > Combat Vehicles > Altaya > Altaya Diecast Armored Fighting Vehicles (1:43 Scale) > German Vehicles Find by Brand Altaya (66) Altaya German Vehicles Altaya's goal is to put together the most advanced manufacturing techniques by utilizing the best die-cast model aircraft development and marketing experts under the same brand. From concept through to final production, we're sure you'll be proud to add these unique handcrafted models to your collection. The Altaya 1:43 scale military vehicles series will reportedly cover some 60 models. #ALT00039 - German 10.5cm Leichte Feldhaubitze 18/1 L28 Auf Waffentrager GW IVb Heusrecke 10 Self-Propelled Gun - Unidentified Unit, Germany, 1943 (1:43 Scale) German Late Production Sd. Kfz. 181 PzKpfw VI Tiger I Ausf. E Heavy Tank - schwere Panzer Abteilung 505, Poland, 1944 (1:43 Scale) The Ausf. E mounted a huge 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 cannon and featured two MG34 machine guns for close support against enemy infantry. By war's end, 1,354 vehicles had been produced, some rolling off the Wegmann assembly line. German Sd. Kfz. 184 Elefant Heavy Tank Destroyer - Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653, Ukraine, 1944 (1:43 Scale) The Elefant (Elephant) stemmed from the Porsche design for the PzKpfw VI Tiger. Henschel was awarded the contract for the new tank, but it was decided to use the Porsche design as a tank destroyer. Hitler demanded that the new vehicle be ready for the 1943 offensive on the Russian front, so development was rather hurried. German Sd. Kfz. 164 Nashorn Self-Propelled Heavy Howitzer - Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 525, Italy, 1944 (1:43 Scale) In an effort to get sizable numbers of tank destroyers into service along the Eastern Front, the Waffenant embarked upon a series of hurried improvizations throughout 1942-43. Eventually, a special weapons-carrier vehicle based on the PzKpfw IV chassis was developed, which was adapted to take the 8.8cm PaK 43 gun. German Sd. Kfz. 186 Jagdpanzer VI Jagdtiger Heavy Tank Destroyer with Henschel Turret - schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 512, Germany, 1945 (1:43 Scale) Early in 1943, orders were given to design a heavy, self-propelled anti-tank gun, which would mate a 12.8cm gun with a Tiger II chassis. On October 20th, 1943 a wooden mock-up of the enormous vehicle was shown to the OKH planners who authorized that a prototype be finished by April 1944. German Sd. Kfz. 171 PzKpfw V Panther Ausf. A Medium Tank with Side Armor Panels - 18.Panzer Division, Poland, October 1944 (1:43 Scale) In many respects, the Panther tank was viewed as the finest armored fighting vehicle of the Second World War. Based in large part upon the Soviet's highly successful T-34 medium tank, the PzKpfw V Ausfuhrung G was built by several manufacturers including MAN, Daimler-Benz and MNH. German Sd. Kfz. 181 PzKpfw VI King Tiger Ausf. B Heavy Tank - schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101, France, 1944 (1:43 Scale) In January 1943, a new Tiger tank was ordered by the Waffenamt, this time with a turret large enough to mount the fearsome 8.8cm L/71 gun. Besides improving its tank killing capabilities, the new Tiger was also intended to be more survivable on the battlefield. German Sd. Kfz. 173 Jagdpanther Tank Destroyer - schwere Panzer Abteilung 507, Germany, 1945 (1:43 Scale) The Jagdpanther mounted a powerful 8.8cm Pak L/71 cannon within a fixed turret, which was situated atop a standard Panther V chassis. Although production of the tank was begun at MIAG in January 1944, it took another ten months before the larger NMH plant could expand the production run in time for the Wacht am Rhein ("Watch on the Rhine") winter counteroffensive. German Sd. Kfz. 142 Sturmgeschutz III Ausf. G Assault Gun - Panzer Regiment 2, Italy, November 1943 (1:43 Scale) Five prototype assault guns were built in 1937, mounting the same short-barreled 75mm L/24 howitzer fitted to the PzKpfw IV in a limited traverse mounting on the modified chassis of the PzKpfw III Ausf. B. Constructed of soft steel, these vehicles of the "O" series were unsuitable for combat but helped towards the development of the initial production version, the StuG III Ausf. A. German Sd. Kfz. 165 Hummel Self-Propelled Howitzer - 9.SS Panzer Division "Hohenstaufen", Ukraine, 1944 (1:43 Scale) The Hummel ("Bumble-Bee") was to be a mere 'Zwischenlosung' (interim solution) until a chassis designed specifically as a self-propelled gun platform could be developed and mass produced. German Sd. Kfz. 181 PzKpfw VI King Tiger Ausf. A Heavy Tank - schwere Panzer Abteilung 506, Netherlands, 1944 (1:43 Scale) German Sd. Kfz. 161 PzKpfw IV Ausf. D Medium Tank - 5.Leicht Division, Deutsches Afrika Korps, Libya, May 1941 (1:43 Scale) Just one month prior to the commencement of "Operation Typhoon" (the German assault on Moscow) the Waffenamt was scheduled to begin installing the long-barreled 7.5cm KwK gun on its new Mark IV Ausf G tanks. German Sd. Kfz. 166 Sturmpanzer IV Brummbar Assault Gun - Sturmpanzerabteilung 217, France, August 1944 (1:43 Scale) The Sturmpanzer (a.k.a. Brummbar or "Grizzly Bear") was developed by Alkett, who designed the superstructure, and Krupp, who modified their PzKpfw IV chassis to accommodate the design changes. German Flakpanzer 38(t) Anti-Aircraft Gun - 1.SS Panzer Division "LSSAH", Normandy, France, June 1944 (1:43 Scale) The Flakpanzer 38(t) was designed around the chassis of the Czech-built LT-38 tank and was built from November 1943 to February 1944, entering service in 1944. As the vehicle used the 38(t) Ausf M chassis, the engine was near the middle of the vehicle and the armament was placed at the rear in a specially designed armoured section. German Dicker Max 105mm Tank Destroyer - Panzerjager Abteilung 521, Stalingrad, Russia, September 1942 (1:43 Scale) The 10.5 cm K gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette ("10.5 gun on armored self-propelled mount") was a prototype self-propelled gun used by Nazi Germany during World War II. Although it was originally designed as a Schartenbrecher ("bunker buster") for use against the French Maginot Line defenses following the defeat of France it was used as a tank destroyer on the Eastern Front. German Sd. Kfz. 179 Bergepanther Recovery Vehicle - Schwere Panzerabteilung 503, France, July 1944 (1:43 Scale) The problems of recovering heavy tanks had become clear since the commitment of the Tiger tank in late 1942. In view of the large number of Panthers it was intended to deploy in mid 1943, plans were made for a recovery vehicle based on the Panther chassis. German Sd. Kfz. 167 Sturmgeschutz IV Assault Gun with Schurzen Side Armor Skirts - Sturmgeschutzbrigade 912, Latvia, May 1945 (1:43 Scale) The German Sturmgeschutz (StuG) was one of the most successful armored fighting vehicles of the Second World War. It arose from an original concept of the pre-war panzer divisions, whereby a special vehicle for infantry support work was planned. German RW61 Sturmtiger Rocket Assault Mortar with Loading Crane - Panzer "Sturmmorser" Kompanie 1002, Germany, April 1945 (1:43 Scale) On August 5th, 1943, a self-propelled vehicle was proposed by senior Army officials based on the Tiger I chassis but mounting a 38cm mortar. Alkett was placed in charge of the design. The Company managed to complete a prototype by October 20th, which was run through a series of field tests for approval. German Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer Light Tank Destroyer - Unidentified Unit, Hungary, February 1945 (1:43 Scale) Manufactured in Czechoslovakia at the Skoda Munitions Works, the Hetzer was designed to be a low-cost light tank destroyer that could stand up to the rigors of battle on any front. Entering service in July 1944, the Hetzer used a wide range of existing components from the outclassed PzKpfw 38(t) tank. German Landwasserschlepper I Amphibious Tractor - Pi.Ldgs.Ausb.Btl., Esbjerg, Denmark, 1944 (1:43 Scale) The Landwasserschlepper was an unarmed amphibious tractor produced in Germany during World War II. Ordered by the Heereswaffenamt in 1935 for use by German Army engineers, the Landwasserschlepper (or LWS) was intended as a lightweight river tug with some capacity to operate on land. German Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind Anti-Aircraft Gun - 10.SS Panzer Division "Frundsberg", France, 1945 (1:43 Scale) The Flakpanzer IV Wirbelwind ("Whirlwind") was an anti-aircraft vehicle based on the Panzer IV. It was developed in 1944 as a successor to the earlier AA tank, the Mobelwagen. German Sd. Kfz. 161 PzKpfw IV Ausf. H Medium Tank - 1.SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte 'LSSAH', Italy, 1943 (1:43 Scale) German leFH 18(Sf) 105mm Gun auf Geschutzwagen 39H(f) Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun - 21.Panzer Division, France, 1944 (1:43 Scale) The leFH 18(Sf) 105mm Gun auf Geschutzwagen 39H(f) self-propelled anti-tank gun was built to the same specifications as the Sd. Kfz. 135 Lorraine Schlepper, but were fitted with an armored superstructure of greater thickness. German Bergepanzer Tiger (P) Recovery Vehicle - schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653, Poland, 1944 (1:43 Scale) German Sd. Kfz. 161 Flakpanzer IV Mobelwagen Anti-Aircraft Vehicle with 3.7cm Flak Gun - 2.Panzer Division, France, July 1944 (1:43 Scale) The 3.7 cm Flak auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen IV (sf) (Sd.Kfz. 161/3), nicknamed Mobelwagen ("Moving Van") because of its boxy shape, was a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun built from the chassis of the Panzer IV tank. German Sd. Kfz. 124 Wespe 105mm Tank Destroyer - 20.Panzer Division, Eastern Front, 1943 (1:43 Scale) The Wespe was designed by Alkett early in 1942, and was chosen as the most practical self-propelled mount for the leFH18 cannon, using the PzKpfw II chassis instead of the PzKpfw III or PzKpfw IV. As an interim measure, the Wespe proved a great success and in February 1943, all further PzKpfw II chassis were ordered to be used for its production. German Sd. Kfz. 141 PzKpfw III Ausf. A Medium Tank - 1.Panzer Division, Poland, September 1939 (1:43 Scale) As early as 1934/35, General Heinz Guderian envisioned two basic types of armor to act as the lead elements of the future German Panzer Divisions. The first vehicle was to be armed with an anti-tank gun and two machine guns while the second one was to be a support vehicle, armed with a larger caliber gun. German Sd. Kfz. 123 PzKpfw II Ausf. L Luchs Light Tank - 9.Panzer Division, France, 1944 (1:43 Scale) The Luchs (Lynx) was developed as a fully-tracked armored reconnaissance vehicle. The development order was issued on April 15th, 1939, with production to begin in August 1942. MAN developed the chassis and Daimler-Benz, the superstructure and turret, with the first trial vehicle was completed in April 1942. German Sd. Kfz. 171 PzKpfw V Panther Ausf. G Medium Tank - 19.Panzer Division, Poland, 1944 (1:43 Scale) German 10.5cm Leichte Feldhaubitze 18/1 L28 Auf Waffentrager GW IVb Heusrecke 10 Self-Propelled Gun - Unidentified Unit, Germany, 1943 (1:43 Scale) The Heuschrecke 10 (English: Grasshopper 10) was a prototype self-propelled gun and Waffentrager (English: "Weapon carrier") developed by Krupp-Gruson between 1943 and 1944. German Flakpanzer V Anti-Aircraft Gun with Coelian Turret - Germany, December 1944 (1:43 Scale) The Flakpanzer V Coelian was a concept that didn't have time to get off the drawing boards. The Wehrmacht had adapted a variety of wheeled and half-track vehicles to serve as mobile forward air defense positions to protect armor and infantry units in the field as well as for temporary forward area positions such as mobile headquarters, logistic points, etc.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744984

__label__wiki

The Kingdom (1994-1997) "Riget" is an eight-episode Danish television mini-series created by Lars von Trier in 1994. It has been edited together into two movies with a combined running time of approximately nine and a half hours for distribution in the United Kingdom and United States. The series is set in the neurosurgical ward of Copenhagen's Rigshospitalet, the city and country's main hospital, nicknamed "Riget", which means "the kingdom". The show follows a number of characters, both staff and patients, as they encounter bizarre phenomena, both human and supernatural. The show is notable for its wry humor, its muted sepia colour scheme, and the appearance of a chorus of dishwashers with Down Syndrome who discuss in intimate detail the strange occurrences in the hospital. It appears as one of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Genres: Horror, Mystery Ernst-Hugo Järegård Stig Helmer Aage Krüger Laura Christensen Mona Jensen Kirsten Rolffes Sigrid Drusse Baard Owe Palle Bondo Holger Juul Hansen Moesgaard Directing, Writing Writing, Directing Niels Vørsel Tómas Gislason The Kingdom II

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744985

__label__wiki

Jessica Clackum Veteran, United States Coast Guard In addition to Jessica Clackum's work managing social media and outreach, she is a freelance writer, contributor at Splice Today, and author of the blogs Release the Clackum, and Letters from Arthur. A military veteran, she is a member of Veterans in Media & Entertainment, and the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. Joanne Gaishin Veteran, United States Air Force Reserve Web Designer for The Red Door Films. Joanne served in the Air Force (Active Duty and Reserve) as an Aerospace Ground Equipment Mechanic, Space Command Historian, and Computer Support Administrator. She retired from the Air Force Reserve with over 30 years of service. She is an FAA rated Private Pilot and has flown amphibious seaplanes. She holds an Associate of Applied Science Degree in Flight Support Equipment and California Massage Therapy and Advanced Neuromuscular Therapy certifications. Joanne is the owner of EclipseView, retailer of Thousand Oaks Optical solar filters. She performed with The Sagebrush Wranglers country band and is a member of Veterans in Media & Entertainment (VME). Karen Fine Brasch CDR, United States Navy (Ret) Karen Fine Brasch holds an FAA Unrestricted Commercial Fixed and Rotary Wing License with Instrument Rating. She retired from the Navy with more than 1900 hours flying the UH1-N Huey, SH-60F/HH-60H Seahawk, TH-57 and T-34 rotary and fixed wing aircraft. With ten years active duty and ten years in the reserves, she completed two tours/deployments to the Persian Gulf War region aboard the USS Nimitz as a helicopter aircraft commander, instructed alongside the U.S. Marines for students training in the UH-1N Huey flight program, and led her reserve unit as Office-In-Charge and Executive Officer. She holds an MBA, with emphasis in Computer Resource Management, from Webster University and from Texas State with a Bachelors degree in Journalism. Brasch has been involved in volunteer work and research centered around health issues that closely affect her family. Her oldest son has celiac disease and as an entrepreneur, she co-founded a 501(c)(3) non-profit to support gluten-free education and has designed and authored an educational gluten-free cooking website. Over the years, she has been actively involved in her community through volunteer for numerous organizations and served as a committee member and co-chair for Scripps Health Foundation cancer research and fund-raising gala events. She currently works full-time in Program Management for a Fortune 500 company. Brasch is excited to be part of the FlyGirls Team to give back to the women who paved the way for her flight career. Elizabeth M. Duca Veteran & Former USAF Senior Pilot Liz Duca is the proprietor of PreFlight Aviation Camp LLC, created for girls ages 11-14, whose mission is to transform beliefs about gender roles through aviation and inspire young girls to takeoff into their future. She holds an FAA Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Airplane Multi-Engine Land; Commercial Airplane Single-Engine Land/Single-Engine Sea; and Certified Flight Instructor Certificate, Airplane Multi-Engine/Instrument Airplane. Duca has 2,100 hours flying the KC-10, C-21, T-1 and T-6 aircraft. She served four tours overseas flying combat missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. She earned a Masters degree in Military Operational Art and Science from Air University and graduated Cum Laude from Texas State University with a Bachelors degree in Geographic Information Science. Duca is actively involved in her community as a member of the San Antonio Chapter of The Ninety-Nines and also serves as the secretary for the Alamo City Chapter of Women in Aviation. Jill Meyers Veteran, United States Air Force Jill Meyers spent eight years in the Air Force operating radar and data communication systems worldwide. She obtained her Private Pilot’s License at the age of 17 but was not allowed to fly in the military due to rules in place at that time regarding female pilots. Meyers has a degree in Aerospace Engineering and has worked on many military and commercial aircraft programs, including the U.S, NATO, and U.K. Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleets; Air Force One; the Eclipse 500 jet; and the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter. In 2018, Meyers started an aviation management consulting business to provide management and engineering consulting services to commercial/business aviation organizations around the globe. In 2017, Meyers was the primary support person for Shaesta Waiz, founder and President of Dreams Soar, Inc., who became the youngest woman to fly solo around the world in a single-engine aircraft. Meyers handled ground and flight logistics for the 145-day mission, and also led the planning of 32 Outreach events in 14 countries, where Waiz personally inspired over 3,000 students to work hard, never give up and follow their dreams. Meyers is a member of Women in Aviation International (WAI), an organization dedicated to providing networking, education, mentoring and scholarship opportunities for women striving for challenging careers in aviation and aerospace. She founded the first WAI chapter in Philadelphia and is currently President the WAI San Diego chapter. Shannon Huffman Polson Veteran & Former U.S. Army Apache pilot Shannon Huffman Polson, resident guest blogger for FlyGirls was one of the first women to fly the AH-64A attack helicopter in the United States Army after the lifting of the combat exclusion. She was the first woman Apache pilot assigned to a line unit in the XVIII Airborne Corps, and led two Apache line platoons at Fort Bragg, NC, taking one to Bosnia in support of the Stabilization Force enforcing the Dayton Peace Accords. After training in military intelligence, Polson was stationed in the 2d Infantry Division in Korea, where she was the first woman to command a line company flying in support of OPLAN 5027. At her final duty station, her responsibilities included development of the doctrine of time sensitive targeting for theater missile defense, deploying to Kuwait, Korea and domestically for international joint exercises. Polson earned her B.A. at Duke University, MBA at the Tuck School at Dartmouth and her MFA at Seattle Pacific University. She is a motivational speaker to corporate and organizational audiences across the country, and founder of The GRIT Project. Her first book is titled, North of Hope: A Daughter’s Arctic Journey, and her writing appears in High Country News, Huffington Post, River Teeth Journal, Alaska and Seattle Magazines, Ruminate Journal and Cirque Journal among others. In 2009, Polson was recognized by Washington State Senator Maria Cantwell as a Woman of Valor. Rebecca Sutera Tulloch Captain, US Civil Air Patrol Capt Tulloch is an active member of the United States Civil Air Patrol (CAP), participating as a flight crew member for the past ten years. She holds a private pilot license and has served as the unit historian and aerospace education officer for her CAP squadron. Capt. Tulloch is a freelance video photographer and owner of Prairie Star Productions. She produces independent films, cable access television shows and various other media segments for clients. In addition, Capt. Tulloch loves history and makes presentations on WASP history to school children and adult audiences throughout the Chicago area. Capt. Tulloch holds a bachelor's degree in history and master's degree in management from Northern Illinois University. IMDB Theresa Lowe Maggie Dewan-Smith Pamela Monroe Back to Television page © 2018-2019 The Red Door Films

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744988

__label__wiki

New weights and measures throw up a few surprises Phil Baty looks at the rankings winners and losers and explains how weightings have affected results By Phil Baty Twitter: @phil_baty The new methodology used to compile the 2010-11 Times Higher Education World University Rankings is more reliant on evidence and less on reputation, and has produced a number of eye-catching results. Here we look at some of the outliers. The University of Sussex, Durham University and Royal Holloway, University of London do very well under the new rankings. This is primarily due to excellent scores for "research influence" (normalised average citations per paper), which is given the highest single weighting of the 13 indicators used in our new methodology (32.5 per cent). The three institutions are part of a large multi-country research programme in particle physics, and Durham and Sussex are also part of an international astronomy project, so all benefit from the high number of citations that the papers produced by these initiatives receive. Simon Pratt, project manager for institutional research at Thomson Reuters, who analysed the data for the rankings, said: "The influence of this small group of very highly cited papers is particularly strong given the relatively small nature of these universities." Royal Holloway also benefits from a good score for international diversity thanks to its high number of overseas staff and students. Surprising omission Perhaps one of the most surprising results is that the University of Warwick does not make the top 200 list, falling just outside. Its data are fairly consistent across all indicators, but its low score in citation impact is probably the reason why it has dropped out of the table. Warwick does make the world top 50 for arts and humanities, coming in 44th place, having done particularly well in our reputational survey (teaching and research) and citation impact in this area. Jonathan Adams, director of research evaluation at Thomson Reuters, who oversaw the data analysis for the rankings, said: "Given the richer data supplied and the careful approach taken to get appropriate weightings, it isn't surprising that we get changes and that some of them are quite marked. "That said, I think most people would raise an eyebrow at the absence of Warwick from the top 200." He added: "In each country there are anomalies. This tells us that more work is needed to reflect the true reality...for all institutions. The devil is in the subject-level detail, and we need to burrow more thoroughly down to that level." Classical comeback Alexandria University is Egypt's only representative in the global top 200, in joint 147th place. Its position, rubbing shoulders with the world's elite, is down to an exceptional score of 99.8 in the "research-influence" category, which is virtually on a par with Harvard University. Alexandria, which counts Ahmed H. Zewail, winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, among its alumni, clearly produces some strong research. But it is a cluster of highly cited papers in theoretical physics and mathematics - and more controversially, the high output from one scholar in one journal - that gives it such a high score. Mr Pratt said: "The citation rates for papers in these fields may not appear exceptional when looking at unmodified citation counts; however, they are as high as 40 times the benchmark for similar papers. "The effect of this is particularly strong given the relatively low number of papers the university publishes overall." In general, technology-led institutions have done remarkably well. This could reflect the fact that these rankings for the first time use a number of indicators of institutional income, which favour those most heavily involved in the more expensive high-technology disciplines. Although the citations data are normalised by subject, Thomson Reuters is keen in future to collect more subject-level data to allow greater normalisation across the full range of indicators. Mr Pratt said: "It may be that these institutions' activities in high-performance subjects that are well funded with high staffing levels and output activity are still not being fully balanced by subjects such as the humanities and social sciences. "We would like to differentiate the performance of different subjects to identify relative performance across all areas. However, it was not possible to collect subject-specific data from all institutions this year and this subject normalisation was not possible for many of the indicators." He added: "This modification will better reflect the performance of multidisciplinary universities and those with a strong focus on non-science subjects." phil.baty@tsleducation.com.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744989

__label__wiki

State prosecution mulling probe over German submarine deal Live updates (closed)Latest: Hasidic volunteers searching landfill for lost tefillin come up empty Yair Lapid to BBC: Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Jews Yesh Atid chair slams UK Labour leader for position on Israel, says anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism; Netanyahu’s lawyer tells AG there was no conflict of interest in submarine deal By Raoul Wootliff 17 November 2016, 1:52 pm 1 Edit Raoul Wootliff is the The Times of Israel's political correspondent. Monday, Oct. 31, 2016 photo, Israeli Knesset member, Yair Lapid, leader of the Yesh Atid party, spoke during an interview with The Associated Press, in his office at the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in Jerusalem. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner) The INS Rahav, a Dolphin class made by German shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp, sets off from the German port of Kiel toward Haifa, December 17, 2015. (IDF Spokesperson's Unit) Minister of Health Yaakov Litzman during a Knesset plenary session, January 11, 2016. (Photo by Miriam Alster/FLASH90) Israel begins construction of a segment of the security barrier in the West Bank (YouTube screenshot) In this Monday, November 7, 2016 file photo, an Army carry team moves a transfer case containing the remains of Sgt. 1st Class Matthew C. Lewellen past Army Secretary Eric Fanning, fifth from right, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Marcel Lettre, third from right, and Gen. Daniel B. Allyn, right, Army vice chief of staff, at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Iran's heavy-water nuclear facility is backdropped by mountains near the central city of Arak, Iran, on January 15, 2011. (AP/ISNA, Hamid Foroutan, File) The Times of Israel liveblogged Thursday’s events as they happened. UN watchdog chides Iran on 2nd nuclear deal breach The head of the UN atomic watchdog criticizes Iran after a second minor breach this year by Tehran of the 2015 nuclear deal with major powers. A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency last week showed that Iran’s stock of so-called heavy water had inched above the level agreed under the landmark accord. Heavy water, a modified form of normal water, is used in certain types of nuclear reactors. “Iran has since made preparations to transfer a quantity of heavy water out of the country,” which will bring it below the ceiling, IAEA chief Yukiya Amano tells the agency’s board. “It is important that such situations should be avoided in future in order to maintain international confidence in the implementation” of the deal, he says. The July 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers states that Iran’s “needs” are estimated to be around 130 metric tons of heavy water. Huckabee apologizes for blaming vandalism on ‘Jewish liberals’ Mike Huckabee apologizes for posting a false news report blaming “liberal, Jewish” students for an alleged hate crime that involved a mention of President-elect Donald Trump. The story, appearing on the Conservative Tribune website, blamed an attack in March at Northwestern University on “liberal, Jewish Northwestern students” seeking to smear Trump and his supporters. Daily News columnist Shaun King exposed the story’s false claims on Wednesday, and Huckabee removed the post from his Facebook page. “They accused me of spreading false information and hatred, and demanded an apology,” Huckabee says of the Daily News. “And they’re right, I do owe readers an apology.” Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee speaks at Inspired Grounds Cafe in West Des Moines, Iowa, January 31, 2016. (AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato) In the removed posting, captured in a screenshot by King, Huckabee only shared the article, but summarized it in the comment part of the posting, starting, “Everything You Know is Wrong Dept.” “They’re two liberal, Jewish Northeastern students who were trying to smear Trump and his supporters,” Huckabee’s post said. The Chicago Tribune did not identified the accused, Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, with any political allegiance or otherwise suggest that the attack was a false flag bid to smear Trump, nor did it say they were Jewish. — JTA 8 months in prison for praising Hezbollah on Facebook The Hadera Magistrate’s Court gives an eight-month prison sentence to a Arab Israeli man for praising the Lebanese Shiite terror organization Hezbollah and inciting to violence and terror on Facebook. Arab father of three Abed Jabareen, 32, also receives a six-month suspended sentence. Jabareen operated a Facebook account under the name Abed Jbareen Jbaree, garnering more than 1,000 friends and 744 followers, the court heard. Between December 2014 and May 2015, he published six posts praising Hezbollah and calling on others to support it. One post said, “Hezbollah are the victors. May God protect them and let Hassan Nasrallah [the organization’s secretary general] and Hezbollah achieve victory over the dogs of IS (so-called Islamic State) and Israel, and say Amen!” Dutch prosecutor urges fine for anti-Islam lawmaker Wilders Prosecutors are asking a Dutch court to convict populist anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders and fine him 5,000 euros ($5,360), saying he deliberately insulted and incited hate against Moroccans. The politically charged trial centers on comments that Wilders made before and after the Dutch municipal elections in 2014. At one meeting in a Hague cafe, he asked supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. That sparked a chant of “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” — to which he replied “we’ll take care of it.” Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Islam Freedom Party, holds a sign reading “No Hate Imams in the Netherlands” in Utrecht, central Netherlands, April 9, 2015. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong, File) Prosecutor Wouter Bos said Thursday that the court should “send a clear signal that statements like these do not belong in the Netherlands.” Wilders has branded the case a political trial and is refusing to attend. The verdict is scheduled for December 9. Muezzin bill bruited again as minister hints at end to opposition A bill to limit the volume of calls to prayer at mosques may be revived after opposition from an ultra-Orthodox party appeared to have buried it. Health Minister Yaakov Litzman, from the United Torah Judaism party, may reportedly lift his objection to the bill if an exception can be included for Jewish rituals. Health Minister Yaakov Litzman in his office in Jerusalem (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov) The minister had feared that the bill, approved by a government committee on Monday, would also limit sirens used to announce the start of the Jewish Sabbath and holidays. “Discussions are ongoing,” Litzman’s spokesman says. — With AFP MK petitions High Court over public broadcaster stalling MK Eitan Cabel of the Zionist Union party presents a petition to the High Court over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct regarding a new public broadcaster, currently slated to begin programming in mid 2017. The petition asks why Netanyahu and Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon have not responded to a request from the new broadcaster, Kann, to bring programming forward to January. The newly built control room at the offices of the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, in Tel Aviv. August 29, 2016. (Miriam Alster/FLASH90) The new corporation was founded following a wide-reaching reform passed by the Knesset last year and aims to replace the dilapidated Israel Broadcast Authority, but Netanyahu has repeatedly delayed its launch and is now looking to cancel the entire project. Hillel U program launched to train campus staff members Hillel International launches a new program, Hillel U, to offer training for some 1,000 professionals working for Hillels on campuses across the country. The program, launched with $10 million in what the organization calls “new investments,” aims to making Jewish life “exciting and relevant for young Jews,” the group says in a statement. The program will establish a new Center for Jewish and Israel Education, which will offer in-person training sessions each year. Hillel also announced the launch of the Leonard and Tobee Kaplan Supervisory Leadership Program to “train Hillel professionals in supervision and personnel management skills to make Hillels even greater places to work.” These programs follow Hillel’s announcement in March of a series of two-year Springboard Fellowships, which aim to place 500 recent college graduates on campuses across the country for training as Jewish professionals. Mayors from around the world visit Israel Two American Jewish groups are hosting mayors from around the world in Israel, as part of a conference highlighting Israeli innovation. Twenty-six mayors from countries around the world — including in North and South America, Europe and Africa — are visiting the Jewish state as part of a conference organized by the American Jewish Congress and the American Council for World Jewry. The mayors will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, local municipalities and Israeli technology entrepreneurs in the fields of health, security, water and the environment, as well as visit the telecommunications group Bezeq Telecom and a Tel Aviv start up. “We expect that as a result of this visit, we will create a better understanding of the political environment and greater longer term cooperation between Israel and the mayors’ home countries,” AJC president and ACWJ Chairman Jack Rosen says in a statement. Twenty of the mayors signed a statement criticizing the recent adoption by two UNESCO committees of proposals that deny Jewish connections to Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and other holy sites in Israel. The statement was to be presented to Netanyahu during their meeting with the prime minister this afternoon. Russia starts blocking LinkedIn network Russian internet providers are blocking the LinkedIn professional networking site after a state watchdog found it broke a law on personal data storage. “The social networking site LinkedIn has been added to a register of violators… and submitted for blocking by internet operators,” Roskomnadzor communications watchdog says in a statement on its website. Roskomnadzor’s spokesman Vadim Ampelonsky says in televised comments that “in the course of today a large number of internet providers should block” the site. LinkedIn says it was “starting to hear from members in Russia that they can no longer access LinkedIn.” The hashtag LinkedIn was topping the trends on Twitter in Russia as the news emerged. “Roskomnadzor’s action to block LinkedIn denies access to the millions of members we have in Russia,” the US-based company says. President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists Thursday that the blockage is “in strict accordance with the law” and the Kremlin will not interfere. US refutes Jordan’s claim Americans sparked deadly shooting The US Embassy in Jordan is refuting Amman’s claim that its trainers sparked a deadly shooting incident at a Jordanian military base this month by disobeying orders from Jordanian soldiers. The shooting killed three Americans. The three slain Americans were assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) from Fort Campbell, Kentucky. They were identified as 27-year-old Staff Sgt. Matthew C. Lewellen, of Lawrence, Kansas; 30-year-old Staff Sgt. Kevin J. McEnroe of Tucson, Arizona; and 27-year-old Staff Sgt. James F. Moriarty of Kerrville, Texas. They died after the convoy they were in came under fire as it entered the al-Jafr air base in southern Jordan on November 4. The Americans were in Jordan on a training mission. An Army carry team moves a transfer case containing the remains of Sgt. 1st Class Matthew C. Lewellen, November 7, 2016 (AP Photo/Steve Ruark) Embassy spokesman Eric Barbee says investigators are considering all possible motives and “have not yet ruled out terrorism as a potential motive.” After the shooting, Jordan’s state news agency Petra reported that the slain American military trainers had disobeyed direct orders from Jordanian troops, which led to a deadly exchange of small-arms fire. Barbee says there’s “absolutely no credible evidence” for the claim. Jordan later issued a different statement removing the claim. Visiting mayors sign statement criticizing UNESCO Visiting Israel as part of a conference organized by the American Jewish Congress and the American Council for World Jewry, a group of mayors from countries in North and South America, Europe and Africa signed a statement criticizing the recent adoption by two UNESCO committees of proposals that deny Jewish connections to Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and other holy sites in Israel. The statement was to be presented to Netanyahu during the mayors’ meeting with the prime minister on Thursday afternoon. The mayors, who are on a trip to Israel focused on innovation, resolved “to work to end politically inspired falsehood and distortions, and to speak the truth about all relevant history.” The statement also called on UNESCO to “cease repeatedly exacerbating tensions, as evidenced by the most recent news of disputing Israeli heritage of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one of the major archaeological discoveries of the 20th century that sheds light on the biblical era.” Court rejects appeal against West Bank land confiscation The High Court rejects an appeal by Palestinian villagers against Israel’s confiscation of 25 acres (a tenth of a square kilometer) to build a West Bank road. The court says the villagers of al-Nabi Ilyas have failed to prove ownership of the land and that the road, near the settlement of Alfei Menashe, would benefit Palestinians as well as Israelis. It added that if the Palestinians prove ownership even after confiscation, they would be eligible for compensation, the Ma’an Palestinian news agency reports. Construction of the road is due to start in January. — Sue Surkes Egypt pardons 82 young detainees accused of ‘defaming religious symbols’ Egypt pardons 82 detainees, mostly university students but also a former TV host convicted of “defaming religious symbols.” The names of those pardoned by President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi were compiled by a committee he set up to examine the cases of young detainees who had not been involved in violence. Members of the committee say active members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood would not be pardoned. The military overthrew President Mohammed Morsi, who hailed from the Brotherhood, in 2013. El-Sissi, who led his ouster, was elected the following year. Authorities have detained thousands of people in the last three years, mostly Islamists but also prominent secular activists. The government has not said how many detainees are being held, but rights groups estimate the number at between 20,000 and 40,000. Among those released Thursday was Islam Behery, who was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison in March. Behery had used his television program to air calls for the removal of what he described as “extremist material” in texts of religious interpretation and heritage. He was also a vocal advocate for religious reforms and argued that some texts by historic Islamic scholars — including ones upheld and revered by Al-Azhar, the pre-eminent seat of Sunni scholarship — contain passages that promote extremism. His incarceration has been cited by critics as evidence of the government’s crackdown on freedom of expression, as well as the conservative discourse of Al-Azhar and its reluctance to modernize. French court upholds Jean-Marie Le Pen exclusion from National Front A French court upholds the exclusion of Jean-Marie Le Pen from the far-right National Front (FN) by his daughter Marine for repeated inflammatory remarks about the Holocaust. Le Pen was booted out of the party he founded last year for reiterating his view that the Nazi gas chambers were a mere “detail” of history and defending France’s collaborationist wartime Vichy regime. FN leader Marine Le Pen, who has her eye on the French presidency in next year’s elections, disavowed her 88-year-old father, accusing him of “political suicide.” Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the French far-right National Front (FN) party, at the party’s headquarters on August 20, 2015 (Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP) The court in the western Paris suburb of Nanterre upheld the FN’s decision to strip him of his membership. But in a small victory for the elder Le Pen it ruled he should be allowed to remain as party honorary president. As such, the party is required to invite him to all leadership meetings, failing which it faces a fine, the judges ruled. The FN was also ordered to pay the party’s founder 15,000 euros ($16,000) in damages for preventing him from carrying out his functions of honorary president over the past year. Canada reinstates funding to UN agency that aids Palestinians Canada’s Liberal government is reinstating funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, or UNRWA. Ottawa announced Wednesday that it was providing $20 million to UNRWA to support education, health and social services “for millions of vulnerable Palestinian refugees.” Also, it committed $5 million to the agency’s emergency appeal for Palestinian refugees affected by the crisis in Syria and surrounding areas, according to a statement from the office of Marie-Claude Bibeau, minister of international development. Canada’s previous Conservative government cut funding to UNRWA gradually. By 2013 and 2014, Ottawa’s allocation was zero. Canada became the only donor nation ever to withdraw funding completely. The reinstated funding “will help approximately 5.5 million Palestinian refugees — particularly women and children — receive the assistance they need, including access to health care and the opportunity to go to school,” according to Ottawa’s statement. Israel’s state prosection is considering opening a probe into a multi-billion shekel deal to purchase German submarines after it was revealed that Prime Minsiter Benjamin Netanyhu’s lawyer David Shimron represents the German company, according to Channel 2 news. According to a report by Channel 10 on Tuesday night, Shimron serves as the representative of a German company trying to sell Israel military submarines that Netanyahu has been pushing for Israel to buy against the will of the IDF and former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon. The probe would look into the question of whether prime minister acted under a conflict of interest. Anti-corruption NGO The Movement for Quality Government in Israel called on Attorney General Avichai Mandleblit to investigate the claims earlier today. “It would appear that Netanyahu gave access in exchange for someone else getting a fee. There is nothing conclusive yet but it is certainly suspicious enough to warrant a police investigation,” vice president Michael Partem told The Times of Israel. PM: I didn’t know my lawyer was involved in submarine deal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denies he had any prior knowledge of his long-time personal lawyer’s alleged involvement in a multi-billion shekel deal to purchase German submarines. Netanyahu says he first learned of David Shimron’s involvement when Channel 10 asked for his response before airing a report on Tuesday revealing that Shimron serves as the representative of the German company trying to sell Israel the submarines. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lawyer David Shimron. (Kobi Gideon/Flash90) “Shimron never brought up submarines or ships or any other issue concerning his clients with the prime minister,” the Prime Minister’s Office says in a statement, adding that Shimron did not discuss the German client or any other client with Netanyahu. The PMO says that members of Netanyahu’s inner circles, including Shimron, “know not to discuss their [personal] business dealings with the prime minister.” “The only consideration the prime minister had [in mulling the German deal] was strengthening Israel’s capabilities in regard to [obtaining] strategic vessels, essential to ensure [Israel’s] future,” the PMO says. Ya’alon’s ‘circle’ says he tried to derail submarine deal People close to former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon say that he sought to dissuade Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from going ahead with a deal to purchase three German submarines, Channel 2 news reports. According to a report by Channel 10 aired on Tuesday night, Shimron serves as the representative of a German company trying to sell Israel military submarines that Netanyahu has been pushing for Israel to buy against the will of the IDF and former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon. Contacted by The Times of Israel, Ya’alon declined to comment on the deal. Outgoing Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon announces his resignation from the Knesset, Friday, May 20, 2016, at IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv. (Miriam Alster/Flash90) Petition calling on Jewish Federations to condemn Bannon draws 1,700 signatures A petition calling on the Jewish Federations of North America to denounce Trump appointee Stephen Bannon garners 1,700 signatures in two days. The petition, started Tuesday by a new group named Jewish Community of Action Against Hate, calls on JFNA, the umbrella body encompassing 151 local Jewish federations, to condemn the appointment of Bannon, whom President-elect Donald Trump picked as his chief strategist on Sunday. Bannon is the former chairman of Breitbart News, a website that Bannon himself called “the platform for the alt-right,” a loose movement of the far right whose followers traffic variously in white nationalism, anti-immigration sentiment, anti-Semitism and a disdain for “political correctness.” Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign CEO Steve Bannon listens to Trump speak during his final campaign rally on Election Day in the Devos Place November 8, 2016 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/AFP) “Having Stephen Bannon as a key strategist in the White House sends a clear message to hate groups that their belief system is no longer fringe, but now accepted,” the petition reads. “As an organization that is dedicated to securing the Jewish future by empowering community members to take charge of their Jewish lives and provide leadership to their community, we take you at your word and assume that you will keep your pledge to empower and listen to those of us that speak up.” In response to the petition, JFNA emailed JTA a statement on Thursday that expressed hope regarding Trump’s incoming administration. The statement did not mention Bannon. “As with every democratically elected official in America, we believe that President-elect Trump needs to be given an opportunity to lead,” the statement read. “We are hopeful that his actions align closely with the American values that we hold dear.” 2 Palestinians arrested after crossing from Gaza with grenades Soldiers picked up 2 Palestinians, armed with grenades, who crossed into Israel from southern Gaza, the army says. They were arrested near the security fence and have been handed over to the Shin Bet for interrogation. ADL leader: US anti-Semitism worse than at any time since 1930s At the opening to the Anti-Defamation League’s conference on anti-Semitism, the organization’s national director says anti-Jewish hatred in America is worse than at any point since the 1930s. Jonathan Greenblatt says currents on both the far right and far left have led to anti-Semitism’s resurgence. He mentioned the platform of the Movement for Black Lives published this year that accused Israel of genocide. Jonathan Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (Courtesy of ADL/via JTA) Greenblatt also detailed the anti-Semitic attacks that rose during the 2016 presidential campaign, mentioning the appointment of Stephen Bannon as the chief strategist to President-elect Donald Trump. Bannon was the chairman of Breitbart News, a website Bannon called the “platform for the alt-right,” a loose movement of the far right whose followers traffic variously in white nationalism, anti-immigration sentiment, anti-Semitism and a disdain for “political correctness.” “The American Jewish community, our community, has not seen this level of anti-Semitism in mainstream political and public discourse since the 1930s,” Greenblatt says. “Sadly, it is only being matched with escalating levels of hate toward other minorities today.” ADL chair: If Trump registers Muslims, I’ll sign up Addressing reports that Donald Trump’s transition team is considering creating a registry of Muslims in the United States, ADL chaif Jonathan Greenblatt pledges that he would sign up as a Muslim. Speaking at the opening to the Anti-Defamation League’s conference on anti-Semitism in New York, Greenblatt mentions to the apocryphal story about the king of Denmark promising to wear a yellow star if it would be required of the Scandinavian country’s Jews. Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, speaking at the ADL Annual Meeting in Los Angeles on November 6, 2014. (Courtesy ADL) “As Jews, we know what it means to be registered, or targeted, held out as different from our fellow citizens,” Greenblatt says. “We as Jews know the right and just response. I pledge to you right here and now, because I’m committed to the fight against anti-Semitism, if one day American Muslims will be forced to register their identity, that is the day this proud Jew will register as a Muslim.” Rabbi Eliezer Berland convicted of sexual assault in plea deal The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court convicts 79-year-old Rabbi Eliezer Berland after he admitted to two counts of indecent acts and one case of assault after reaching a plea deal with the prosecution. Under the terms of the deal Berland, who was extradited to Israel to face the charges after three years on the run, was cleared of two other charges of indecent acts. His sentencing hearing will be held next week. Rabbi Eliezer Berland covers himself with his prayer shawl at the Jerusalem District Court in Jerusalem on August 1, 2016.(Yonatan Sindel/ Flash90) Considered a cult-like leader to thousands of his followers from the Bratslav Hasidic sect, Berland fled Israel 2013 amid allegations that he molested two female followers, one of them a minor. He was on the run from authorities from 2013 to 2016, eluding several Israeli attempts to extradite him. He moved between Zimbabwe, Switzerland, the Netherlands and South Africa, accompanied by a group of devout followers numbering around 40 families. Supreme Rabbinical Court to rule on controversial divorce case In a historic first, the Supreme Rabbinical Court is set to hold a hearing to judge on whether a rabbi in Safed was correct in ruling that a woman whose husband is in a coma can divorce him, the ultra-Orthodox news website Kikar HaShabat reports. The woman was not given a get by her husband since he is in a coma, but Safed’s rabbinical court ruled that the woman can remarry and the rabbinical court gave her a get in the absence of one from her husband, according to Kikar HaShabat. Sephardi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef meets with newly appointed Supreme Rabbinical Court judges in Jerusalem, July 13, 2016. (Photo by Yaacov Cohen/Flash90) The Supreme Rabbinical Court will convene in order to rule on whether a rabbinical court can grant a divorce in place of a husband if the husband is not able to do so. Ya’alon: I ‘vociferously objected’ to submarine deal, probe needed Former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon confirms that he “vociferously objected” to a deal signed by Benjamin Netanyahu to purchase three more submarines for Israel’s navy fleet, arguing that the military did not need additional submarines, not then and “not in the near future.” “I don’t know what happened or what was signed after I left the Defense Ministry, but Raviv Drucker’s report on the matter is very disturbing and warrants a thorough probe by the relevant authorities,” Ya’alon writes of Facebook. According to a Channel 10 report by journalist Raviv Drucker earlier this week, David Shimron, who has spent years defending Netanyahu against dozens of claims of malpractice and misuse of office for personal gain, is being accused of a serious conflict of interest due to his links to the German shipbuilder attempting to sell the vessels to Israel. The former defense minister said that the statement provided Thursday by the NSA on the issue was “lacking and did not reflect the reality as I understood it.” The NSA, a body operated under the auspices of the Prime Minster’s Office, released statements challenging what it called “a wave of false reports” and saying that deal received Ya’alon’s full support. In another statement released Thursday, the NSA said that it was involved “in every stage of the purchase of the submarines” and that the process was handled correctly. David Shimron told AG there was no conflict of interest in submarine deal Facing questions over his representation of a German shipyard which is set to supply Israel with three new submarines, David Shimron, the personal lawyer of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote a letter to the Attorney General this morning denying any conflict of interest, according to Channel 2 News. In turn Attorney General Avicahi Mandelblit asked State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan for further information on the issue, signalling a move towards opening a full probe. German submarine shipyard denies contact with David Shimron The German shipyard set to supply Israel with three additional submarines denies it has had business dealings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lawyer David Shimron, according to Channel 10 news. In a statement to the media outlet, ThyssenKrupp said it “has only been in contact with the relevant official government authorities,” regarding the multi-billion shekel deal to purchase the vessels. According to a Channel 10 report earlier this week, David Shimron, who has spent years defending Netanyahu against dozens of claims of malpractice and misuse of office for personal gain, is being accused of a serious conflict of interest due to his links to the German shipbuilder attempting to sell the vessels to Israel. Shimron has not denied he represented ThyssenKrupp but said there was no conflict of interest in his dealings. Molotov cocktail thrown at Jewish house on Mount of Olives A Molotov cocktail is thrown at a Jewish house in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of the Mount of Olives causing light damage to the building, police say. There are no injuries in the incident. Police are searching the area for suspects. Egypt lifts assets freeze of anti-torture NGO Egyptian authorities have lifted a week-old freeze on the assets of a prominent rights group that works with torture victims, the organisation says. “The freeze was lifted on Wednesday after a document was submitted proving we are not subject to the law on civil society groups,” Suzanne Fayad, a co-founder of El Nadeem Centre for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture and Violence says. She says her organisation was registered with the health ministry and the doctors’ union as a “medical clinic.” Egyptian and foreign NGOs operating in the country are governed by a stiff law which allows the government to supervise their activities and finances. In September, a court froze the assets of five prominent human rights defenders and three NGOs, under investigation for allegedly receiving foreign funds. Authorities have tried on two separate occasions to shut down the El Nadeem Centre, which provides psychological support to victims of torture and to families of missing persons. Obama says hopes Trump will ‘stand up’ to Russia US President Barack Obama says he hopes his successor Donald Trump will “stand up” to Russia when it breaches international norms, citing the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. Obama says he hopes Trump, who has voiced admiration for President Vladimir Putin, “is willing to stand up to Russia where they are deviating from our values and international norms.” Speaking at a Berlin joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Obama says Russia is an important country and a military superpower with “influence around the world.” US President Barack Obama addresses a press conference with the German Chancellor after their meeting at the chancellery in Berlin on November 17, 2016. (AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowski) But he stresses that he hopes Trump does not take an approach of “if we just cut some deals with Russia, even if it hurts people or even if it violates international norms or even if it leaves smaller countries vulnerable, or creates long-term problems in regions like Syria, that we just do whatever is convenient at the time.” “And that will be something that I think we’ll learn more about as the president-elect puts his team together.” Yair Lapid in BBC interview: Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Jews Yesh Atid chair Yair Lapid says UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn “has a problem with Jews.” Speaking to the UK broadcaster’s Newsnight program in an interview recorded two weeks ago and broadcast this evening, Lapid said it is not possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic. When Jeremy Corbyn calls Hezbollah and Hamas his friends, these are terrorist organizations. He never called us his friends so yes he has a problem with Jews,” he said. Corbyn responded in a statement to the BBC which read: “Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are implacably opposed to anti-Semitism in all its forms and have a long history of strong support for and involvement with the Jewish community. As leader Jeremy Corbyn launched the first major inquiry into anti-Semitism by any political party. Labour supports a 2 state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and to achieve it Jeremy will continue to work with those on both sides of the divide to bring last peace.” Hasidic volunteers searching landfill for lost tefillin come up empty Volunteers from a New York City Satmar synagogue have sifted through 300 tons of garbage at an upstate landfill to find a pair of tefillin that accidentally landed in a garbage can, but have yet to find the ritual object. A special bag containing the phylacteries fell from a cubby last week in the synagogue located in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood, according to reports, including the Yeshiva World News. No one noticed at the time. By the time the discovery was made three days later, when community leadership viewed the surveillance camera footage from that hallway, the garbage had already been collected for the neighborhood and taken to the High Acres Landfill. A copy of the footage was posted on YouTube by Yeshiva World News. The Waste Management company was able to isolate some 30 containers holding 3,000 tons of collected garbage that it thought might have the tefillin. The community raised thousands of dollars to send volunteers to the landfill to sift through the garbage in the containers. One load at a time was dumped in a cordoned-off area and spread out for the volunteers. They searched through about half of the containers this week and plan to send more volunteers next week to finish the job, according to reports. IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Live updates (closed) Latest: Hasidic volunteers searching landfill for lost tefillin come up empty

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744991

__label__wiki

Renowned for its stunning Whitsunday Islands and Great Barrier Reef, and its laid-back tropical lifestyle, the Whitsundays welcomes many excited holiday-goers via its two domestic airports (Great Barrier Reef Airport and Whitsunday Coast Airport) daily. Direct flights from Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne, and connecting flights from all major cities, ensures the Whitsundays is within easy reach of all travellers. Guests travelling from overseas to the Whitsundays can fly into Brisbane, Cairns, Sydney or Melbourne and then take a domestic flight into one of the two Whitsunday airports. Great Barrier Reef Airport, Hamilton Island (HTI) Located on Hamilton Island, the Great Barrier Reef Airport, also known as Hamilton Island Airport, is serviced by Virgin Australia, Jetstar and Qantas. Daily direct flights from Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and connection points beyond ensure easy access to this island paradise. The modern and fully-equipped airport has a comfortable departure terminal with plenty of passenger seating, and an airport bar offering drinks and light meals, with snacks, souvenirs, magazines and other essential items available for purchase at the airport’s shop. A parents’ room can be found adjacent to the bathroom facilities, with separate bathroom facilities and ramp access provided for disabled passengers also. Airline check-in counters are located immediately inside the terminal, with buses dropping off and picking up passengers directly in front of the airport. Passengers continuing their trip from Great Barrier Reef Airport (on Hamilton Island) to Airlie Beach, on the Whitsunday coast, and Daydream Island Resort, can travel via the Cruise Whitsundays’ ferries. Transfers can be easily pre-arranged or booked upon landing at Great Barrier Reef Airport, with luggage conveniently transferred to the vessel ahead of your boarding. View flight information for Great Barrier Reef Airport here. Those travelling on to Hayman Island can choose from three luxurious transfer methods – luxury yacht, helicopter, seaplane transfer or an exclusive private yacht. There are currently no direct international flights to and from Hamilton Island. However, passengers are encouraged to discuss their connecting flight to Great Barrier Reef Airport upon booking their international flights as many major international airlines can include the flight to Hamilton Island and the Whitsundays on the international ticket. Whitsunday Coast Airport, Proserpine (PPP) Whitsunday Coast Airport, also known as Proserpine Airport, is located approximately 25 minutes from Airlie Beach, just south of the hinterland township of Proserpine. The domestic airport is serviced by Virgin Australia, Jetstar and Tigerair Australia. Virgin Australia and Jetstar offer daily direct flights from Brisbane and connecting flights from other Australian cities. Tigerair Australia provides direct flights to and from Sydney on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Whitsunday Coast Airport has airline check-in counters located immediately inside the terminal, with a café offering drinks, light meals, magazines and limited essential items situated within the boarding lounge. Bathroom facilities are conveniently located within the boarding lounge also, and free Wi-Fi is available to all visitors to the terminal. Bathroom facilities for special needs passengers can be found near the arrivals area and in the departure lounge. Braille is included on this signage to assist those vision impaired to locate facilities with ease also. Transfers to Airlie Beach, surrounding Whitsunday townships, such as Bowen and Proserpine, and ferries to the Whitsunday Islands are available for all passengers, with buses and taxis meeting every flight at the airport to ensure stress-free transport for all visitors to the Whitsundays. Car and limousine hire is also available at the airport, with various car hire company booths located within the bag collection area. In addition to the general public car park, Whitsunday Coast Airport also provides short-term and long-term parking for the convenience of all passengers. Accessible parking is also available for the mobility impaired within the airport’s public carpark. These spaces are reserved for disabled parking. Approximate Flight Duration Cairns to Great Barrier Reef Airport (HTI) - 1 ½ hours Brisbane to Whitsunday Coast Airport (PPP) - 1 ½ hours Brisbane to Great Barrier Reef Airport (HTI) - 1 ½ hours Sydney to Whitsunday Coast Airport (PPP) - 2 hours Sydney to Great Barrier Reef Airport (HTI) - 2 hours Melbourne to Great Barrier Reef Airport (HTI) - 3 hours View flight information for Whitsunday Coast Airport here.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744995

__label__cc

Green Groups in Singapore Zero Waste SG Zero Waste SG is a not-for-profit and non-governmental organisation dedicated to help Singapore eliminate the concept of waste, and accelerate the shift towards zero waste and the circular economy. It started as a website in 2008 providing tips and resources on waste minimisation and recycling, and is officially registered as a non-governmental organisation in 2015. Green Nudge Green Nudge is an initiative set up to tackle the problem of contamination of recyclables, and large amount of waste generated at mass and sporting events. It aims to change the narrative of recycling in Singapore by working with eco-conscious companies and community partners to create a decisive and grounded impact to Singapore’s environmental landscape. PlasticLite We aim to inspire Singaporeans to minimize their use of plastics and change our systems to make it easy to live single-use plastic free. We are convinced reducing the plastic in our environment is vital for us to live in a healthy, sustainable world. Singapore Environment Council Established in 1995, the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) is an independently managed, non-profit and non-government organisation (NGO). SEC continuously engages all sectors of the community by formulating and executing a range of holistic programmes, such as the Singapore Environmental Achievement Awards, Asian Environmental Journalism Awards, School Green Awards, Green Champions, Singapore Green Labelling Scheme, Project: Eco-Office, Project: Eco-Shop and Project: F&B. In addition, we build a pool of committed volunteers under our Earth Helpers programme. Repair Kopitiam Repair Kopitiam is an initiative to bring the community together to repair so as to combat the throw away culture for a sustainable world. Singpapore Youth for Climate Action Singapore Youth for Climate Action (S-Y-C-A) was co-founded by Singapore youths ready to take on responsibility of climate action, and being able to relate what we want for our shared future with decisions and negotiations happening at the global United Nations platform. Ground-Up Initiative (GUI) Ground-Up Initiative (GUI) is a non-profit community, guided by the spirit of innovation, resilience and grounded leadership to demonstrate urban sustainability. With the power of community, GUI is building Kampung Kampus, a low-carbon footprint community campus, sited on a 2.6 hectares land plot in Yishun, Singapore. Kampung Kampus aims to be a role model in sustainable living and a School of Life; nurturing an eco-conscious community with the mind, the hands and the heart to be stewards of a more sustainable and happier future. Foodscape Collective Foodscape Collective is a community initiative that connects stakeholders from across our local foodscape, empowers individuals with skills and knowledge in food sustainability, and supports projects for a fair and compassionate food system that protects our environment and communities. Foodbank Singapore The Food Bank Singapore is a place where companies or people can come to deposit/donate their unused or unwanted foods. Food from the Heart Food from the Heart is a non-profit charity organization that aims to re-channel unsold bread and non-perishable items to the underprivileged. Ugly Food UglyFood strives to maximise value of food resources. We do this by partnering with fresh produce retailers, suppliers and wholesalers, purchasing fresh produce that would otherwise go to waste, and transforming them into appealing, nutritious and delectable food products (fruit teas, cold-pressed juices, and popsicles) for our customers. LepakInSg LepakInSG is an informal environmental group who runs an online calendar of environmental events. We also organise activities to raise action and awareness about environmental issues! Through our awareness campaigns and outreach activities, WWF Singapore aims to educate individuals from all walks of life on how a simple action can add up to make a big difference to our environment and safeguard the world’s biodiversity. We also work with businesses both locally and within the Asia Pacific region to help them identify sustainable business practices, as well as on how they can reduce their ecological foot print on the planet.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744996

__label__cc

Charge your car while you shop Home » News » Charge your car while you shop Published on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 11:33 am in Air quality, Electric Vehicles, Go Ultra Low Thirty-two new charge points have been installed at intu Victoria Centre as part of Nottingham City Council’s Go Ultra Low project. The project, which aims to support more people to switch to greener vehicles, has now installed 362 charge points across Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire since 2016 as part of the D2N2 network. Anyone is welcome to use these charge points to charge their car, with 24 available via the Glasshouse Street and York Street car park entrances and a further eight via the Huntingdon Street entrance. The charge points, which is Nottingham’s largest number in a single public location to date, are well signposted within the car park and easy to find. Nigel Wheatley, centre director at intu Victoria Centre said, “Electric vehicle charging is great news for our visitors, allowing them to charge their cars while visiting the centre to shop or eat. Nottingham City Council has helped us dramatically increase the number of bays we are able to offer for charging, helping us to future proof our car park as more people switch to cleaner cars. It forms an integral part of our multi-million pound car park upgrade scheme, which also includes improved lighting, paintwork, new surfacing and a new Tap and Go payment system.” Councillor Sally Longford, deputy leader of Nottingham City Council and portfolio holder for Energy and Environment said, “This is a great step for the project, with more and more charge points publicly available, people are able to charge up whenever they need. This works to reduce range anxiety, a major barrier for some when it comes to making the switch to an electric vehicle. “Offering charge points at desirable, destination locations such as the intu Victoria Centre is a fantastic opportunity to help people change the way they view ‘fuelling’ their cars. Instead of an additional visit to the petrol station, people can top-up their vehicle while going about their day, and enjoying Nottingham’s fantastic retail offer. “This in turn helps to encourage clean, green vehicles into the heart of the city, and as EV ownership increases, this will only help to improve the quality of the air quality, and develop our ambition to become a net-zero carbon city by 2028.” Stephen Kitsios, member of the Nottingham EV Owner’s Club says “intu Victoria Centre’s charge points are well signposted, well-lit and in a well designated area with good sized spaces. It’s great to see more and more charge points being installed. The ones at intu Victoria Centre are great and can be used whilst shopping or visiting the city.”

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line744998

__label__wiki

New Signed Books Signed Books for Kids Turnrow Books Gift Card Turnrow Coffee Mug Turnrow Sweatshirts Turnrow Sweatshirt - Small Turnrow Sweatshirt - Medium Turnrow Sweatshirt - Large Turnrow Sweatshirt - XLarge Turnrow Sweatshirt - XXLarge Turnrow T-shirts Turnrow T-shirt - Small Turnrow T-shirt - Medium Turnrow T-shirt - Large Turnrow T-shirt - XLarge Turnrow T-shirt - XXLarge Turnrow Tote Bag Kids & YA A Child's First Book Club Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption: A World War II Story of Survival Resilience & Redemption (Prebound) December 2010 Indie Next List “Unbroken is a vivid story of Louis Zamperini who, as an athlete, ran in the 1936 Berlin Olympics and then became an airman when World War II broke out. When his plane crashed into the Pacific Ocean, he and two other crew members floated in a tiny raft across thousands of miles of ocean only to be rescued by the Japanese and placed in a POW camp. This book is about survival, emotional and physical endurance, hope, humor, and determination. An absolutely mesmerizing and incredible story.” — Pam Clarke, Edgartown Books, Edgartown, MA #1 "NEW YORK TIMES" BESTSELLER - SOON TO BE A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE - Look for special features inside. Join the Random House Reader's Circle for author chats and more. On a May afternoon in 1943, an Army Air Forces bomber crashed into the Pacific Ocean and disappeared, leaving only a spray of debris and a slick of oil, gasoline, and blood. Then, on the ocean surface, a face appeared. It was that of a young lieutenant, the plane's bombardier, who was struggling to a life raft and pulling himself aboard. So began one of the most extraordinary odysseys of the Second World War. The lieutenant's name was Louis Zamperini. In boyhood, he'd been a cunning and incorrigible delinquent, breaking into houses, brawling, and fleeing his home to ride the rails. As a teenager, he had channeled his defiance into running, discovering a prodigious talent that had carried him to the Berlin Olympics and within sight of the four-minute mile. But when war had come, the athlete had become an airman, embarking on a journey that led to his doomed flight, a tiny raft, and a drift into the unknown. Ahead of Zamperini lay thousands of miles of open ocean, leaping sharks, a foundering raft, thirst and starvation, enemy aircraft, and, beyond, a trial even greater. Driven to the limits of endurance, Zamperini would answer desperation with ingenuity; suffering with hope, resolve, and humor; brutality with rebellion. His fate, whether triumph or tragedy, would be suspended on the fraying wire of his will. In her long-awaited new book, Laura Hillenbrand writes with the same rich and vivid narrative voice she displayed in "Seabiscuit." Telling an unforgettable story of a man's journey into extremity, "Unbroken" is a testament to the resilience of the human mind, body, and spirit. Hailed as the top nonfiction book of the year by "Time" magazine - Winner of the "Los Angeles Times" Book Prize for biography and the Indies Choice Adult Nonfiction Book of the Year award "Extraordinarily moving . . . a powerfully drawn survival epic."--"The Wall Street Journal" " A] one-in-a-billion story . . . designed to wrench from self-respecting critics all the blurby adjectives we normally try to avoid: It is amazing, unforgettable, gripping, harrowing, chilling, and inspiring.""--New York""" "Staggering . . . mesmerizing . . . Hillenbrand's writing is so ferociously cinematic, the events she describes so incredible, you don't dare take your eyes off the page."--"People" "A meticulous, soaring and beautifully written account of an extraordinary life.""--The Washington Post" "Ambitious and powerful . . . a startling narrative and an inspirational book.""--The New York Times Book Review" "Marvelous . . . "Unbroken" is wonderful twice over, for the tale it tells and for the way it's told. . . . It manages maximum velocity with no loss of subtlety."--"Newsweek" "Moving and, yes, inspirational . . . Laura] Hillenbrand's unforgettable book . . . deserve s] pride of place alongside the best works of literature that chart the complications and the hard-won triumphs of so-called ordinary Americans and their extraordinary time."--Maureen Corrigan, "Fresh Air" "Hillenbrand . . . tells this] story with cool elegance but at a thrilling sprinter's pace."--"Time. Laura Hillenbrand""is the author of the #1 "New York Times" bestseller "Seabiscuit: An American Legend, "which was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award, won the Book Sense Book of the Year Award and the William Hill Sports Book of the Year Award, landed on more than fifteen best-of-the-year lists, and inspired the film "Seabiscuit, "which was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Hillenbrand's "New Yorker" article, "A Sudden Illness," won the 2004 National Magazine Award, and she is a two-time winner of the Eclipse Award, the highest journalistic honor in Thoroughbred racing. She and actor Gary Sinise are the co-founders of Operation International Children, a charity that provides school supplies to children through American troops. She lives in Washington, D.C. Publisher: Turtleback Books Military - World War II Paperback (April 25th, 2017): $10.99 Paperback (August 21st, 2018): $9.99 Prebound (July 29th, 2014): $29.40 CD-Audio (August 21st, 2018): $24.99 CD-Audio (November 16th, 2010): $45.00 Paperback, Large Print (November 16th, 2010): $27.00 CD-Audio (November 4th, 2014): $45.00 Paperback (Spanish) (October 30th, 2011): $19.99 Hardcover (January 1st, 2011): $31.10 Jerry Mitchell Signing My Account | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Return Policy | Help Turnrow Book Co. | 304 Howard Street, Greenwood, MS 38930| 662-453-5995 Copyright ©Turnrow Book Co.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745000

__label__wiki

Spotlight on grants - 2013 Faculty members in several disciplines have been awarded a National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation Grant totaling $333,531. John Rieffel, assistant professor of computer science, along with Ann Anderson, the Agnes S. MacDonald Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Steven Rice, professor of biology, will purchase a multi-material 3-D printer to enable interdisciplinary research and training. The new equipment will meet the need for prototyping technology at the College. Also included in the proposal are Takashi Buma, the John D. MacArthur Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michael Hagerman, professor and chair of the Chemistry Department, and Robert Olberg, the Florence B. Sherwood Professor of Life Sciences. "We are also actively seeking collaborators from the entire college, not just the sciences," Rieffel said. "We think that there are exciting applications in every field, from art history to zoology." The 3-D printer, to be installed during winter break, will launch a new era of innovative research at the College, with applications including the neuromechanics of dragonfly capture, the manufacture of novel aerogel-coated surfaces and the design of completely soft robots. Faculty collaborators hope to use trained student experts to staff the printer's design studio. Other recent grants awarded: Cay Anderson-Hanley, associate professor of psychology, was awarded $329,593 from the National Institute of Health Academic Research Enhancement Award Program to further her work on the positive effects of aerobic exercise on cognitive health. Rebecca Cortez, assistant professor of mechanical engineering, and Michael Hagerman were awarded $99,962 in an Early Concept Grant for Exploratory Research from the National Science Foundation to investigate using nanostructured particles and thin films as key components in a polymeric nanocomposite suitable for solar applications. The Kern Family Foundation has awarded two topical grants to Union faculty. Jennifer Currey, assistant professor of bioengineering, and Sudhir Khetan, visiting assistant professor of bioengineering, received a $40,000 grant to support a three-phase approach for developing a strong entrepreneurial mindset in students: a seminar/workshop series, a 10-week capstone design course and an elective course for students to refine their designs and prototypes. Hal Fried, the David L. and Beverly B. Yunich Professor of Business Ethics, and Ronald Bucinell, associate professor of mechanical engineering, received $40,000 to incorporate the product development process in the engineering classroom based on materials used in their Entrepreneurship Seminar. Materials include video vignettes and web-based worksheets that guide students through the process. David Blakelock ’83 and Robert Langone ’96 will participate as project advisors.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745004

__label__cc

Demented Cheese Grit Claims Gun Control Would Have Made ‘No Difference’ in Latest American Mass Shooting Filed to:Gun control President Donald Trump attends the joint press conference at the presidential Blue House on Nov. 7, 2017, in Seoul, South Korea.(Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images) During his visit to South Korea, Donald Trump was asked whether he’d push for the same “extreme vetting” of gun owners that he’s proposed for refugees and U.S. visa holders. Trump’s response was a blustery and, at times, indignant mix of “How dare you,” “Nah, son” and “It could have been worse.” In Trump’s joint press conference with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, a reporter for NBC News confronted the president about the latest American mass shooting that left 26 dead in Sutherland Springs, Texas. “You’ve talked about wanting to put extreme vetting on people trying to come into the United States,” the reporter said, casually alluding to Trump’s reaction to a mass attack in New York perpetrated by an Uzbeki national driving a truck. “But I wonder if you would consider extreme vetting for people trying to buy a gun?” “It’s OK if you feel that’s an appropriate question,” Trump replied, which is what you say when it’s not OK and you think the question is inappropriate AF. Visibly frustrated, Trump also huffed at the reporter for raising the question “in the heart of South Korea.” While he said this, Trump made big arm motions, Christ the Redeemer-style, as if to say, “Look, this is South Korea.” Why having a gun control discussion in that country (which, despite being under nuclear threat, has strict gun laws) is inappropriate, as opposed to anywhere else in the world, is beyond me, and probably beyond all the South Korean journalists in the room, too. “If we did what you were suggesting, there would be no difference three days ago. And you might not have had that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle go out in his truck and shoot [the gunman] and hit him and neutralize him,” Trump said, referring to Stephen Willeford, the Texas man credited with shooting and chasing off the Sutherland gunman. “If he didn’t have a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead,” Trump continued. This point—a common conservative refrain—is worth pausing on. Shockingly, there is a bit of nuance that Trump inadvertently introduces. Per our current gun laws, Devin Kelley, the gunman in Sutherland Springs, should never have had a gun in the first place. Kelly’s domestic violence charges were never entered into a national database, allowing him to pass background checks and buy firearms. This is important to remember: We can have the right laws in place, but it doesn’t matter if they’re not being enforced properly. Still, the focus on the “good guy with the gun” being unable to purchase his firearm is ridiculous—there is simply no way of knowing that for sure. News outlets are reporting that Willeford had a rifle and not the sort of semi-automatic weapon that would likely be subject to “extreme gun vetting.” (It’s also worth mentioning that Willeford, as a former National Rifle Association instructor, was also a highly trained marksman, which is not true of many gun owners.) Proclaiming that “hundreds” more could have died, so we must be glad that only 26 lives were lost, is shameful and indicates how normalized mass murder has become in the U.S. As USA Today reports, 208 people have died in mass shootings this year alone. Finally, the reporter asked Trump whether he would consider any gun control policy. “The city with the strongest gun laws in our nation is Chicago, and Chicago is a disaster,” Trump answered, brandishing a favorite and demonstrably false response that, in fact, highlights the need for federal gun regulations. As a recent NPR fact check noted, Chicago’s gun laws, while tough, are certainly not the strongest in the country. And while the state of Illinois is tough on guns, its neighboring states, Wisconsin and Indiana, aren’t. Guns, like people, can easily move across state borders, and evidence shows that a significant percentage of Chicago’s guns are trafficked in from states with lax gun laws. Rather than talk about Chicago again, the dotard in chief could very well have used South Korea as an example. The last deadly shootings in the country happened in 2015, in two back-to-back incidents. Immediately following the shootings (quite literally, on the first business day after the last incident), the South Korean government moved to track all guns in the country via GPS. Read more at NBC News. Staff writer, The Root. Sometimes I blog slow, sometimes I blog quick. Do you have this in coconut? More from The Root Air Force: Failure to Follow Policies Allowed Texas Shooter to Buy Firearms Trump Says Texas Shooting Is a ‘Mental Health Problem,’ but Was It? If the Texas Church Shooter Wasn’t White

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745008

__label__wiki

– in the House of Commons at 2:30 pm on 24th October 2005. « Previous debate All Commons debates on 24 Oct 2005 Next debate » Votes in this debate Division number 65 Michael Martin Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Speaker of the House of Commons 2:30 pm, 24th October 2005 We now come to the main business—Opposition day, eighth allotted day, on the Government's handling of decisions relating to Railtrack—[Interruption.] Order. Perhaps Ann Coffey could keep quiet. Before I call Mr. Duncan, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I remind the House that last week the matter of the evidence of Mr. Byers to the Transport Sub-Committee was referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, so Members should not refer in this debate to matters that will fall to be judged by that Committee. Link to this speech In context Individually Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 24 October 2005, c20) Alan Duncan Shadow Secretary of State (Trade and Industry) 3:31 pm, 24th October 2005 That this House deplores the lack of openness and transparency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Ministers at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in their plan to restructure Railtrack; questions the Government's propriety in the method by which they sought an Administration Order for Railtrack; condemns their attempted intimidation of the Rail Regulator; abhors their cavalier and dismissive contempt for Railtrack shareholders; criticises the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's special adviser for usurping the proper role of Ministers; notes that the Government's approach to the entire project was dictated by the Chancellor; and considers this episode an example of disgraceful impropriety in the formation of policy and the execution of government decisions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House will respect the fact that Mr. Byers has chosen to come to this debate, although that sits in stark contrast with the obvious absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is mentioned in the motion. This debate is about one thing and one thing only—the conduct of new Labour in Government. It is about the way in which the decencies and proprieties of how we are governed have been bypassed, corrupted and polluted. It is about the erosion of independence in the civil service, the abuse of power by Ministers, the arrogance of unelected advisers, and the institutionalised contempt displayed by new Labour to the power and authority of Parliament. Kenneth Clarke Chair, Tax Law Rewrite Bills (Joint Committee) That is my speech. Alan Duncan Shadow Secretary of State (Trade and Industry) My right hon. and learned Friend is very kind. We all have a treat in store when he winds up later. He will do greater justice to this matter than even my hard work in researching it. This debate is about how the sorry episode of Railtrack's demise illustrates all the faults that I have listed, and it is about why the Government are so profoundly culpable for what they did. Today's debate—as we understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker—is not about matters that are being considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee. We are acutely aware of the important dividing line that separates the issues that we are focusing on and the issues being considered by that Committee. We will be extremely careful, Mr. Speaker, not to trespass on the accusations against the right hon. Member for North Tyneside that will be considered by the Committee. There is no need to do so; the guilt of this Government is palpable and can be proved without any such reference. Nor is this debate about the Railtrack shareholders' case against the Government. As the judge made clear, he was required to adjudicate only on the one specific charge of misfeasance—an accusation that presented a very high legal hurdle, namely, that the then Secretary of State had acted with targeted malice. Far from vindicating the Government in all respects, as they try to claim, the court case merely excused them from that one extreme and specific charge. The judge was not asked to undertake a review of the Government's conduct, nor to express any opinion on their actions more generally. As the judge categorically made clear, that is the duty of this House; a duty that we now face. It is not as though the judgment was uncritical. Even about the right hon. Member for North Tyneside, Mr Justice Lindsay inimitably said: "His explanation as then given seemed to me to be little above gibberish, but it will be for Parliament to assess what he meant." Indeed; Parliament will assess what the right hon. Gentleman meant. Parliament must now also assess the Government's wider conduct. Even the Government's counsel said: "This case . . . has aroused intense political interest but, Your Lordship, it is not a political tribunal, or even in this case a court of judicial review, and the question therefore is not whether this decision was wise or careful or fair or reasonable or procedurally sound, it is simply whether it was malicious." The court case left many aspects of the despicable issue unscrutinised, and it is now our duty to engage in that scrutiny. All of us in the House face a test—a test of moral probity. We can choose simply to follow the party line or we can exercise our conscience on this matter of justice and take the necessary steps to remove from our Government those whose standards have fallen so grievously low. This House is the place for the redress of grievance. That is what we must now do. As the chairman of the shareholders action group said after the court case: "We now look to Parliament to hold the Government and"— he said "Stephen Byers"; we say the right hon. Member for North Tyneside—"to account." We must not dash their hopes. Despite the Government's amendment, the debate is not about the merits and demerits of how Railtrack is or was owned. We are not here to discuss the intricacies and rights and wrongs of who owns the railways. Any attempt to turn the debate into one about who should own the railways, or even to say that Railtrack was failing to perform well, would be utterly outside the debate's intended remit. Any such attempt would be a diversion from the focus of the motion, which is entirely to do with the Government's conduct. The debate and the action that must follow from it are entirely about the corruption of the proper process of government by the then Department for Transport, Local Government, and the Regions, the absent Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury and even the Prime Minister. Ann Cryer Labour, Keighley Will the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party accept some responsibility for the creation of Railtrack and thus the deaths of a number of people due to lack of maintenance by that organisation? That is not a debate for the Chamber today. We are discussing the conduct of the Government, not the merits of Railtrack. The House, by election and majority control, lends authority— John Spellar Labour, Warley Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Yes. Here is one of the culpable ones. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to consider the conduct of Railtrack, which, as the judge rightly said, was lamentable, and was not only failing on the ground of safety but sending the business towards bankruptcy. Why does he not want to defend his Government's creation? I am defending the motion, which outlines a charge against the right hon. Gentleman and others of what I believe to be grave misconduct in the Government. By the end of the debate, he will have no excuse to rise to his feet again. We have, over centuries, established proper and abiding procedures for scrutinising the conduct of the Executive. Parliament and its many Governments have earned an enviable reputation in the world for honesty and incorruptibility in our dealings. That is why we have a ministerial code, which makes it clear that announcements should be made in the House. Policy should be clear and openly expressed; that is why we have Green and White Papers. Significant changes in policy and significant decisions should be explained to the House. Let me trespass for a moment on the comments of Mrs. Cryer. It is as far as I will go today, but let me at least show her that courtesy. The debate about private versus public ownership has been at the heart of political difference for decades, if not centuries. In some respects, it defines the difference between left and right. However, today's debate is not the place for that argument. Our motion is only about the process of government and the conduct of Ministers and officials when the Government took back ownership of Railtrack. We have, to some extent, been here before. My right hon. Friend Mrs. May led a debate on the matter on 13 Nov 2001. In many respects, she made a remarkable speech because within weeks of Railtrack's demise, thanks to the thoroughness of her research, she asked some extremely prescient questions. Five years later, we can see that she homed in on exactly the right details and that she received in response evasive, mealy-mouthed and inaccurate answers. Now, we know much more than we did then. During the High Court case this summer, a mountain of incriminating evidence was presented to the court and a stream of letters and meeting notes have been additionally released to me and to others. All that evidence shows a catalogue of impropriety—a deceitful plan to manoeuvre to present Railtrack as insolvent, and so force a railway administration order on the company as a means of getting it back for free. Alistair Darling The Secretary of State for Scotland, The Secretary of State for Transport The hon. Gentleman said at the outset that he wished largely to ignore the judgment and I can see why. It would be highly inconvenient for him if he did take it into account. Does he accept that all this evidence and all these documents were laid before the court, that the court was invited to find that the Government, Ministers and others had acted improperly, and that the judge found the complete opposite?—[Interruption.] No wonder the hon. Gentleman is seeking advice. The whole basis on which he is constructing his case seems to be falling apart before he gets going. The Secretary of State could not be more wrong and he knows it. The evidence before the court was to prove one particular aspect of the alleged misbehaviour of one person, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside. It was nothing to do with the conduct of the Government more generally. The judge specifically said in his judgment that it is for Parliament to adjudicate on the conduct of the Government. That is what we are doing today. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has either not read the judgment or has drawn the wrong inference from it. The judge, in respect of the evidence given in court by my right hon. Friend Mr. Byers, said that that was a matter for the House of Commons. However, in his judgment he examined every piece of evidence put before the court, which of necessity meant examining the background against which Ministers acted, and he found at no stage that anyone in the Government had acted improperly. Surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that, unless he is saying that he does not accept the judgment. That was a nice try, but again it is completely wrong. As the Secretary of State well knows, the judge was only looking at the specific allegation put to the court about the conduct of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside when he was Secretary of State, which may explain why the Government's own QC accepted as evidence everything offered by the rail regulator in court, which I believe I will prove is damning for the Government. It is clear that one thing that the Secretary of State and his predecessors ruled out was formal renationalisation. They believed it to be too expensive. They were not prepared to renationalise the company because they wanted it for free. It is as though they have got rid of their clause IV, but secretly replaced it with clause V. No more overt nationalisation of industry—replace it with the covert nationalisation of industry. No more budgets for nationalising a company—use clause V and simply pinch it. However, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside was merely the front man for that; the real puppet master was in the Treasury. Crucial to the Chancellor's involvement was the aggressive and insensitive figure of Shriti Vadera, dubbed by Martin Sixsmith "Gordon's representative on earth." It was she who codenamed the plot Operation Ariel. It was she who first asked, and I quote from an e-mail of 31 July: "Can we engineer the solution through insolvency?" That was not something that the judge had to study and to judge upon. It is only now clear what a central role the Chancellor played in the whole plot. The right hon. Member for North Tyneside told the High Court about a special list that had been nicknamed the 10 commandments—10 conditions that needed to be satisfied before the plan to crush Railtrack was hatched. Can we guess who the 10 commandments came from? Yes, they came from the Chancellor—and it gets better. I have obtained from the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport minutes of a very interesting meeting in September 2001, where further details of the plot were discussed behind Parliament's back. Let me quote a small part of the official record of the meeting. It states: "The Secretary of State"—to us, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside— "asked when the Chancellor would be in a position to be able to agree his questions had been answered satisfactorily. Shriti Vadera thought this should be possible next Wednesday." That shows that the Chancellor was in this up to his neck. Abundant evidence was produced in the court case showing that from the very beginning of 2001—six months before the right hon. Member for North Tyneside became Secretary of State—the Government planned to seize Railtrack's assets and use railway administration as the means to that end. The papers show that right up to the day before they went to court—7 October 2001—the Government were seriously worried about not having adequate evidence of Railtrack's insolvency. Again, I could give the House scores of examples in which it is abundantly clear that that was so, but I shall offer only a few. On 3 August, the right hon. Gentleman wrote a memo to the Prime Minister in which he deals with options for dealing with Railtrack. He talks of the not-for-profit trust, which became the company limited by guarantee option, which was soon after adopted, saying: "The option of a not-for-profit trust has attractions as a non-nationalisation alternative to a failed private sector solution." The House knows that to be lawful a Minister may use statutory powers, such as the power to apply for an administration order, only for the purpose for which they were conferred. The administration power of the Secretary of State was given to him by Parliament to enable him to react to the insolvency of a railway company. In the present case, the evidence is overwhelming that the right hon. Gentleman used— I would say misused—his powers to try to create that insolvency. The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to intervene, but he is getting into ever deeper water because he is one of the guilty band. Is it the hon. Gentleman's argument that Railtrack was solvent and had good prospects and that its managers would have been able to make a statement to their half-yearly meeting that it was able to continue trading solvently? For reasons that I shall explain in due course, the water is becoming ever deeper for the right hon. Gentleman. Surely it would be easier for the House if the hon. Gentleman answers now. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am happy to advance a logical argument according to a logical structure. The right hon. Member for North Tyneside continued: "We have work in hand to ensure we are ready to use the railway administration procedure if necessary. We could be forced down this route by events or"— this is crucial "we could choose to go down it as an interim step to an eventual solution. It is clear that we ought not to contemplate taking Railtrack into administration, which we could achieve by withdrawing Government support, without being equally clear about how we would like it to come out of administration". Is that the language of reacting to Railtrack's alleged insolvency, or of wanting to create it? On 23 August 2001, Mr. Dan Corry, special adviser to the Secretary of State, e-mailed a civil servant in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, saying: "I have spoken to SOS about where we are getting to . . . He is very attracted to the option of pushing them"— that is, Railtrack "into administration. It does not cost too much, allows us to signal a big change." Pushing? Then, we have the infamous minute provided to the Secretary of State by Mr. Rowlands, now the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport and then the No. 2 in the Department, on 31 August 2001. He deals with how to take out Railtrack using the mechanism of railway administration. He writes: "Under the legislation, however, Railtrack's funding and obligations are matters for the Regulator. We cannot see a way of proceeding without sidelining him." The next part looks like options, including a "very short Bill" to give the Secretary of State "power to issue directions" to the regulator, which "would remove his ability to frustrate Ministers' chosen solution." On 13 September 2001, there was a meeting with the Secretary of State and his civil servants. The private secretary's note records the discussion. Mr. Linnard says "if pull plug, may not collapse straight away." Clearly, the Government wanted the company to collapse and were disappointed that it might not. He goes on to explain, "risk RT"—that is Railtrack, and then there is a reference to the rail regulator— "go to Court. Unreasonable. Got right of appeal to"— rail regulator—"under law." That is a damning minute. I leave it to the Secretary of State to intervene if he wishes to do so. I wish to intervene because, contrary to all the evidence, the hon. Gentleman is trying to make a case that Railtrack was solvent, was a going concern, that there was nothing really wrong with it and that there was a conspiracy to bring down a healthy company. As I shall demonstrate shortly, that is not quite the case. I am wondering how the hon. Gentleman can square what he says with a letter that was sent to the Department in March 2001 from Railtrack, which states that on its own analysis, on the day when its shares were trading at 800p a share, the company thought that they were worth 60p a share. Does that not suggest that there was something wrong with the company? Again, that is irrelevant to the case that we are making. The fact that it was a fairly lousy company in the eyes of the Secretary of State does not excuse him from the conduct that I am demonstrating. I have my answer. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has his answer. I shall let him intervene in a moment. I want to present my case. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten one crucial ingredient and that is the rail regulator. A clear picture emerges of the Government— That was not my assessment; that came from Railtrack. It said that at a time when people were being allowed and encouraged to buy shares at 800p a share, the company thought that the value of the company meant that they were really worth about 60p a share. That is not my judgment but the judgment of Railtrack. Again, the Secretary of State is missing out a crucial ingredient in the propriety of Government conduct, which is the relationship between the regulator and what they said to the court. As I have already begun to build up in the case—there is more to come, which will make the right hon. Gentleman even less comfortable—a clear picture has emerged of the Government's intention to engineer insolvency, combined with an understanding of the regulator's power to stop it. Not now; I will not give way for the moment. We can see also that there was another aspect. The Renewco deal, which was to bring £1.5 billion in Government grants to Railtrack in 2001 instead of 2006, presented problems for the Government because they were committed to using their best endeavours to set it up. Mr. Linnard says in the meeting: "SRA thinks we're going to do Renewco." That is the Strategic Rail Authority. Sir Richard Mottram replies: "Slow it down." Then the right hon. Member for North Tyneside says that "in relation to the chance that Railtrack will appeal to the rail regulator for additional funding"— this is a crucial point that the Secretary of State is trying to deny— "PM wants Regulator out of it." On 14 September 2001, Mr. Linnard—No. 3 in the Department—writes a further note to the Secretary of State discussing taking Railtrack out and replacing it with what he refers to as a "non-equity solution", a euphemism if ever there were one. He writes that "the non-equity solution could only be achieved through railway administration." So we see railway administration being used as a means to an end—the end being seizing Railtrack's assets and taking out a FTSE 100 company by the back door. That was political assassination writ large. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not taking account of paragraph 64 of the judgment, where it says: "A Railtrack note, prepared for John Robinson (the new chairman) in June 2001 stated that the situation was worse than expected. Neither the Regulator nor Railtrack could estimate the costs of running and maintaining the infrastructure with any certainty, the assumptions on which the [prior financial] settlement with the Regulator were completely unworkable, major cost over-runs . . . were still not under control, Railtrack's bloating operating costs were not being addressed. If the subsidy and pricing regime was left unchanged, the company was heading for liquidation." Is the hon. Gentleman not building his case on very unsure foundations? He is trying to demonstrate that this creation of a Tory Government—Railtrack—was solvent when its own people were telling it that it was not. The right hon. Gentleman's argument goes crashing to the ground when we realise that the independent rail regulator estimates that the Government's administration programme for Railtrack has cost the taxpayer £14 billion, which is eight times the Government's worst estimate of Railtrack's deficit. One more time. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to respond. The hon. Gentleman says that the regulator is crucial. Again, he is trying to make a case that there was nothing basically wrong with the company. When he looked through the documents lodged in court, he would have seen a letter from the then chief executive of Railtrack, Steven Marshall, dated 29 June 2001, to the then rail regulator, Tom Winsor. He said: "You"—the rail regulator: "went on to reassure us that if Railtrack was on the cliff edge, you would not be seeking to push it over." "The cliff's edge is closer than you may realise—the Board is obliged to take a view of the company's solvency on an ongoing basis and explicitly on 'going concern'". Does not that suggest that there was something very wrong with the company in June 2001, as well as earlier in the year? There was a lot wrong with the company, but there was even more wrong with the conduct of Ministers and officials in the way in which they tried to address the problem. That is the case that we are laying out. Shortly after Mr. Linnard's memo, the Secretary of State sent another communication to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, in which he said: "Our advisers say they have unearthed no killer facts which I could use to force the company into railway administration. And Counsel has warned that a contested petition for administration would be seriously risky and therefore to be avoided." Is this the language of reaction to insolvency? It is clear that even then they did not think that Railtrack was insolvent. Plainly, the Government were misusing their powers. On 25 September 2001, the Government's investment bank advisers began to get cold feet about the plan to cut the company's financial lifeline by extinguishing the independence of the rail regulator. Mr. Challen of Schroders wrote to Mr. Rowlands and Shriti Vadera: "Furthermore we remain (as laymen) surprised that the Government can, with impunity (albeit through a Parliamentary process), remove the effect of a key component of the regulatory regime on the basis of which shares were sold, shares have been traded and contracts have been entered into." On 26 September 2001, Mr. Rowlands again minuted the Secretary of State as suggesting: "short paving legislation . . . making the Regulator subject to Ministerial direction, so that he could not use the discretion available to him under current statute . . . to frustrate Government's new approach to Railtrack." The next day, the Secretary of State met his officials, together with Mr. Adonis—now Lord Adonis—Brian Hackland of the No. 10 policy unit, Shriti Vadera of the Treasury and others. The minutes of the meeting say: "The Secretary of State said that"— a "short bill" to take the Regulator under direct political control was "needed to ensure that the option of an appeal to the Regulator was closed off." The handwritten notes of the meeting add colour to that. Mr. Rowlands is recorded as having said: "talking about closing" Railtrack's "escape route" shows that the Government are no longer behind the company, which he calls a "hammer blow". It was a meeting at which Mr. Spellar, with all his brilliance, sat. As the then Minister of State, he added that "legislation has got to close off all options". Does the right hon. Gentleman want to comment on that? Hon. Members: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman asks me to comment. In the face of insolvency, the Government had to take action. That is the case. Unfortunately, he seems to believe that endless public money should have been pored into that utterly unworthy enterprise. That is the basis of his case, and he criticises us for protecting public funds and the transport system. That was not about reacting to the company's insolvency; it was about cutting its financial lifeline, and the right hon. Gentleman has just condemned himself with his own words. Indeed, the company was not insolvent, because that lifeline was available. As it would have taken highly controversial primary legislation and a period of months in which to pass such legislation, including the use of the Parliament Act, to sever that lifeline, the Government had a major problem. How could they present the judge with a convincing case that Railtrack was already insolvent when that lifeline was still intact? They were seriously worried. The Government knew that they were planning to use the railway administration regime for a collateral, and therefore illegal, purpose. They knew that to secure a railway administration order they had to convince a High Court judge that the company was insolvent. They knew that it was not insolvent as long as the rail regulator's jurisdiction was intact. They knew that they could not sever that lifeline without legislation, and that they could not pass such legislation in a short enough period of time, so they decided to present to the Court a case that contained serious and culpable omissions. The anxiety at the time was graphically illustrated by Ms Shriti Vadera in another of her incautious e-mails. On 2 October, she said that the rail regulator "is the total wild card. I hope we are all aware of the risks here . . . We cannot silence him over the weekend and if he stands up and says he has a grand plan which could keep the company"— note the word "keep"— "solvent, we're up the creek." Methinks it is Gordon's representative on Earth who is up the creek now. Is that the language of a Government reacting to an insolvency, or is it the language of a Government who know that their case for insolvency is shaky or even non-existent? On the morning of 7 October, the day on which the Government went to court, the Secretary of State had a final meeting with his officials, his outside advisers, Dan Corry and the notorious Jo Moore. The minute of the meeting shows the shakiness of the evidence of insolvency, as it records that "work had gone on overnight to consider whether the company was solvent or insolvent." That work had been presented to counsel who, crucially, had offered the opinion "that on the evidence before him he would expect a Judge to conclude that the company was insolvent and that a railway administration order would be made." There was definitely a plan to engineer the artificial insolvency of Railtrack without reference to Parliament as a means of re-acquiring the company at no cost to the Government but at the expense of the shareholders. There are no two ways about it. Perhaps the most pitiful example of new Labour's attitude towards private ownership emerged during the course of the trial. It demonstrates beyond all doubt the utter contempt that Ministers and special advisers had for shareholders. I remind the House that 90 per cent of Railtrack's employees held shares in the company, and many of the shareholders were small investors, so we are not talking about big business or fat cats. Gordon's representative on Earth has described shareholders as "grannies" on many occasions. If the "grannies lose their blouses", Ms Vadera cynically observed, it would not matter, as they were only "shareholders who had added no value to the company". What a motley bunch—the Chancellor, his contemptuous special adviser, and the weedy lackey of a Secretary of State for Transport saying, "Yes, Gordon, no, Gordon, can I be nice to you in Cabinet, Gordon?" Michael Martin Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Speaker of the House of Commons Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the conventions of the House. He should refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly. I am referring to his representative on Earth, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept what you say, Mr. Speaker. Let me put the record straight. If the hon. Gentleman wants to refer to that representative on Earth, as he puts it, he should refer to the Chancellor's representative on Earth. That does sound grander, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor's representative on Earth let the cat out of the bag when she wrote in one of her memos: "It's the American investors we have to worry about." It is unprecedented, according to everyone I have spoken to in the House, for someone mentioned so specifically in a motion not to turn up to hear what is said. How on earth could the Chancellor, if he were here, stand up and talk about a Britain of opportunity for all, not just a few, when his representative on Earth has shown such contempt for shareholders and was worried only about American investors? This whole sorry saga has undermined investor confidence in Government projects. It was the process of Government, the bypassing of Parliament, and secret back-room meetings that precipitated this loss of trust. All this happened at a crucial time for the Government. Private finance initiatives are the cornerstone of many Government projects, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that investor confidence is critical to the success of these projects. Let us take a look at a letter written by 22 senior City fund managers to the Chancellor in March 2002, in response to this Railtrack scandal. They said: "There is a straightforward issue of trust. A range of Government initiatives rely on the development of partnerships between the private and public sectors . . . We believe that many of our colleagues in the private sector will now be wary of entering into such relationships and that damage has been caused to the trust that previously existed between Government and the City." If an investment partner is so unreliable, how can anyone expect people to risk their capital when the Government have behaved so despicably in this case? As the House knows, independence of economic regulation is of fundamental importance to the financial regime for the railway industry, especially as regards the financing of Railtrack. It was the company's financial lifeline, and it was, and remains, of immense importance. During the period up to and immediately after the administration order was made, the Government displayed two characteristics that were extremely damaging and alarming to confidence, in their actions and their iron-control mindset. They showed that they did not understand the importance of independent economic regulation and regarded it as a disposable commodity; and they showed such contempt for the constitutional significance of an independent institution that they had to devise a discreditable plan to extinguish that independence, to prevent it from interfering with their plan to seize the assets of a FTSE 100 company for nothing. What does that say about the stability of the independence of other institutions? Since he took over as Secretary of State, Mr. Darling has been at pains to stress how important he and the Government regard independent economic regulation. On 12 June 2002, he stated: "As the Government announced in October 2001, they have been considering whether the railways regulatory framework continues to be fit for purpose given the changing circumstances faced by the UK rail industry. The Government's considerations have been guided by . . . key overarching principles: Providing sufficient comfort and protection to operators and lenders through independent economic regulation and in order to regulate monopoly/monopsony elements and to secure private investment in the railways at an efficient cost".—[Hansard, 12 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1262W.] He went on to say that the Government regarded that principle as an "essential continuing requirement". On 15 December 2003, he said: "In a statement to Parliament in June 2002, I set out the key overarching principles for the regulatory framework for railways. Independent economic regulation was one such overarching principle for which there was an 'essential continuing requirement'. This remains the Government's position."—[Hansard, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 122WS.] Having so assuredly asserted the essential importance of independent economic regulation, is the Secretary of State now going to go back on all those statements, which were intended to steady markets and reassure investors, and defend the secret Bill of October 2001 and the extraordinarily detailed plans that were put in place in the summer of 2001 to extinguish the independence of the rail regulator? Let us see how he both defends a violent attack on independent economic regulation in 2001 and at the same time asserts that independent economic regulation is an essential continuing requirement of private investment in the railways. There was also a rescue plan, which, as the Government were well aware, threatened their plot to take over Railtrack. RenewCo, as it was called, was a new company, and planned jointly between Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority. Through that mechanism, Railtrack would be able to bring forward billions in Government grants and also borrow extra money against that financial security. Does it sound like a good plan? Who will pay for that? The Secretary of State mutters from a sedentary position, "Who will pay for that?" I remind him again that he has since paid far more than that in the arrangements that have followed the improper takeover of Railtrack. This was a massive threat to the Government's plot to present Railtrack as insolvent. Again, the process of government was totally ignored by Ministers and unelected special advisers; leaked emails and memos show the true extent of the deceit and plots that were hidden from the House. We now know that in July 2001, the Chancellor's representative on Earth was writing to colleagues and asking: "Should we be approving Renewco at this point in time when it could enable Railtrack to avoid insolvency for a while and rob us of a cleaner insolvency trigger?" That is clear and damning evidence that the Chancellor's special adviser was seeking to block the deal. The right hon. Member for North Tyneside wrote in that crucial memo in September 2001 to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that with regard to the RenewCo rescue plan: "I therefore conclude that we should not proceed with it. This will hasten the onset of Railtrack's financial problems". So there we have it—the Secretary of State for Transport was seeking to "hasten the onset of Railtrack's financial problems". Again, he is damned by his own words. It gets worse, however. A central element of the Government's attempts to wreck the plan was to ensure that any RenewCo debt was classified as public sector debt. In that way, the Chancellor could refuse to agree the plan, claiming that it was unacceptable for its debts to appear on the public accounts. But what about the Office for National Statistics? It decides the classification of where the debt lies, and was therefore another obstacle for the Government. Another battering ram was needed to smash through and plough on with the plan to "engineer the solution through insolvency". The Chancellor's representative on Earth described the ONS in one of her e-mails as "the joker in the pack and a deal killer". The national statistician has confirmed, in a written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, that "originally the ONS decided to classify 'RenewCo' as a private sector institution", but after receiving "new information" from the Treasury, it concluded by 5 October 2001 that the company "would be classified as public sector borrowing". We have now seen the evidence, as it has been released to the High Court, showing precisely what was going on behind the scenes at the Treasury. We now know that officials from the Treasury e-mailed the head of public sector accounts at the ONS encouraging him to re-examine his original classification of RenewCo. The Treasury official wrote: "A holding reply today would help. It is very urgent. Something along the lines that you want to reconsider the case in the light of this new information", to which he might have added, "Sir Humphrey". In the face of such damning evidence, how can the Chancellor possibly claim that his Department was not attempting to influence the classification? There is now no doubt: his order to "reconsider the case" was a deliberate strategy to wreck the rescue plan. As the evidence makes perfectly clear, it was not the ONS advising the Treasury but the Treasury ordering the ONS around. It is time that we saw all the communications on the issue between the Chancellor's Department and the ONS. Jim Sheridan Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North I wonder how many Railtrack shareholders there were in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I do not have a clue, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? I have listened long and hard to his speech, and he has mentioned the shareholders on numerous occasions. Is he going to express any interest whatever in the role of the taxpayer? The hon. Gentleman does not quite seem to be the brightest. I have mentioned this three times already, but I shall explain one more time so that he understands. The amount of money that has gone into the equivalent of Railtrack since its artificial insolvency, created by the Government, is far more than was ever predicted in the worst possible scenarios offered by consultants to the Secretary of State. Let me say more about our case against the Government. There was one more obstacle—a formidable obstacle—to the Government's secret plan: the independent rail regulator. I emphasise the word "independent", as the holder of that office, established in 1993, oversees the economic regulation of the railways. Independence from the Government has always been critical, but the Government were very worried. Ministers and special advisers were quaking in their boots. Why? Because in situations that were difficult for Railtrack, the independent rail regulator had power to throw the company a financial lifeline. During the summer of 2001, the office of the rail regulator therefore posed a significant threat to the Government's secret plans. Perhaps that is why Brian Hackland, head of the Prime Minister's policy unit at No. 10, e-mailed colleagues in September 2001 to ask: "Could the regulator thwart us?" "Thwart" is a telling word. The regulator was a potential threat to the covert plan. Even the Chancellor's representative on Earth was panicking. On 7 October 2001, the Secretary of State's officials called the High Court to secure the availability of the duty judge, Mr. Justice Lightman, to hear an urgent matter. It was a Sunday. Mr. Justice Lightman received a stack of papers from the Secretary of State's solicitors in the early afternoon, and a hearing was convened at the offices of the Government's solicitors at 5.45 pm. As the House knows, it is the Government's duty, when engaged in any kind of litigation, to tell the whole story to the Court. They are not entitled to assume that the judge already knows the facts, and of course in this case the judge could not have known all the facts—until then, the Government had done an excellent job of keeping everything secret. It was crucial for the Secretary of State to convince the judge that the company was insolvent. If he could not do that, there could be no railway administration order—[Interruption.] Ann Coffey, muttering from a sedentary position behind the Secretary of State, says that it was the Court case. It was not. I remind the House that the legal advice that the Government had received from their own counsel was that a contested petition for administration was seriously risky and must be avoided. The advice from counsel that morning was carefully hedged. It was, I remind the House, that "on the evidence before him he would expect a judge to conclude that the company was insolvent". But what was the evidence before him and, more important, before the Court? And was it complete? On 23 October 2001, the Government helpfully placed in the House of Commons Library the papers that the judge saw on 7 October 2001. The papers were also produced in the Railtrack shareholders' case. A careful examination of them reveals not only what the judge was told but, more important, what he was not told. It appears that many extraordinary assumptions were made about the judge's knowledge of the details of the rail regulator's powers, and about the fact that earlier in 2001, he had announced that he would carry out two interim reviews of Railtrack's financial requirements in the light of the Hatfield crash. The papers given to the judge do not adequately explain the nature of the rail regulator's powers—powers to advance potentially billions of pounds more in financial support to Railtrack—or the fact that he had twice announced, in January and May 2001, his intention to carry out such a review. The judge was told nothing of that. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State nods his head, but he will have to make a powerful case to deny this if he himself is not to be in the dock. The railways' economic regulatory regime is extremely complex. No judge could be taken to know about it in the detail necessary to obviate the need to inform him of the rail regulator's powers and public statements in 2001. Gwyneth Dunwoody Labour, Crewe and Nantwich I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the rail regulator's evidence. He will know that the regulator made a great point of coming before us and saying that although he had those powers, Railtrack had not asked him to use them. Indeed, the first contact was made only when he was asked for a £4 million cheque, on the weekend before Railtrack believed that it was going to become bankrupt. He was then asked if he could find the money in cash—I paraphrase his evidence, which the hon. Gentleman will have read—and he explained that that was not possible. Since then, he has slightly rewritten the way in which he gave that evidence, but the reality is surely that he made it clear that he was not asked to use those powers. I ask the hon. Lady to consider this issue seriously and even to contemplate revisiting it in her Committee. I believe that the rail regulator would tell the Committee that he did not protest about the insolvency because he did not believe that a case for insolvency existed, and certainly not to the point where what he would consider a dishonest case was put to the judge. That is crucial to the judgment of the propriety of what we are debating today. As I said, the railways' economic regulatory regime is extremely complex and no judge could be taken to know about it in detail. Indeed, if he could be taken to have such detailed knowledge, why was it necessary to explain to him—in the papers given to him and in the oral hearing—much simpler and more easily accessible features of that regime: the railway administration provisions of the railways legislation? The evidence of insolvency put before the judge was extremely thin. Railtrack was represented at that hearing. Why did it not object to the order, and why did it not point out that there could have been a further regulatory review? In my view, Railtrack should have done so and is culpable for not having done so. The principal basis of the Government's case that Railtrack was insolvent was a report from Arthur Andersen, which stated: "We have no information regarding Ariel's ability to raise additional funding via alternative sources." The report was heavily relied upon as evidence of Railtrack's insolvency. The evidence of the then rail regulator to the High Court in the shareholders' case says that if Arthur Andersen did not know about the rail regulator's power to award additional money to Railtrack in higher access charges, someone should have told it, and in any case, someone should have told the Court. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why the Court was not told about the availability of an alternative source of finance via the rail regulator, and whether it was assumed that a bald statement that the Government had decided to introduce a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to give directions to the rail regulator was enough to excuse the need to provide such an explanation. Bernard Jenkin Shadow Minister (Energy and Climate Change) May I point out that the rail regulator was appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and that it was widely regarded as a controversial appointment? It is not surprising that Railtrack did not apply to the regulator, who was throughout the period—how shall I put it?—perhaps struggling to establish his political independence. My hon. Friend, having held the post of shadow Secretary of State in the past, has considerable expertise in this matter, and I hear what he says. Why, too, one might ask, was there no mention by the rail regulator of the Hatfield statement on 15 January 2001 or again on 24 May? That provided undeniably crucial information about the willingness of the rail regulator to conduct an interim review, but it was not disclosed to the judge. The Secretary of State may say that the judge was told that the independence of the rail regulator would soon be blown away, so there was no need to tell the judge about his powers. However, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside told the House on 13 November 2001 that if the judge had known that the rail regulator had the power to do an interim review and had started the process, he would probably not have made the administration order. That is a stark admission, as it could only be because, until the rail regulator's independence had been removed and he had been stopped from doing an interim review, the company was not insolvent. The independence had not been removed and the rail regulator showed, by his offer to Railtrack on 6 October, when senior management called the regulator to ask for a review—to be told that he was willing to start the process and make an announcement to that effect—that he had not been stopped from carrying out that review. The Government had tried to intimidate him with the threat of legislation, but the rail regulator was not intimidated. It was Railtrack that had been scared witless by the threat, which is why it foolishly turned down the rail regulator's offer to start the interim review process. It could not be assumed that a short Bill to enable the Secretary of State to give directions to the rail regulator would pass in time to stop the regulator's interim review proceeding. The right hon. Member for North Tyneside admitted in court in 2005 that it could not have been passed in time. Given that when the rail regulator did carry out the interim financial review, which the Government had been prepared to legislate to stop—this was after Network Rail took over—he awarded the company an extra £7.4 billion over and above his October 2000 settlement to the company, how could it possibly have been assumed that Railtrack was insolvent when that jurisdiction was still in place in October 2001? Members have been quizzing me on that matter again today, and those are the facts. Until the legislation could be passed and brought into effect—if, indeed, it could be passed at all—the jurisdiction of the rail regulator and his announced intention to use it meant that Railtrack was not insolvent. That much is apparent from the internal communications from and between the Treasury and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. For example, why else would Ms Vadera say in her e-mail of 2 October 2001 that the rail regulator was the "total wild card" and that everyone should be aware of the risks, including the possibility that "if he stands up and says he has a grand plan which could keep the company solvent we're up the creek"? In particular, I say again, the use of the word "keep" clearly indicates that the company was not insolvent and that the Government knew it. Secondly, why would Mr. Linnard be recorded as saying that emergency legislation would be needed "to ensure that the Rail Regulator cannot frustrate our plans to restructure Railtrack"? Why would numerous meeting notes and e-mails speak of the need for legislation to close off Railtrack's escape route via the rail regulator? Why would Mr. Rowlands, in his minute to the Secretary of State of 31 August, have said: "We cannot see a way of proceeding without sidelining" the rail regulator, given that "Railtrack's funding and obligations are matters for the Regulator"? He explained that emergency legislation would "remove" the regulator's "ability to frustrate Ministers' chosen solution". Why, at the transport stocktaking on 18 September, did Mr. Rowlands say that Railtrack could fight the petition for railway administration in court and might win, and that the regulator had to be "closed off"? Why would the Government's counsel advise that a contested petition for administration was "risky and must be avoided", if the company was genuinely insolvent? There are many other such examples, but they all point to one thing: the company was not insolvent and the jurisdiction of the rail regulator was the one thing that would keep it solvent. If, as might be asserted, the company was insolvent despite the powers and declared intention of the rail regulator to carry out an interim review, it would not have been necessary for the Government to go to such extraordinary lengths to neutralise it with their disgraceful emergency legislation, and to keep secret the fact that they planned to do just that. That was why the legislation was needed.Nothing of all that was put to the judge on 7 October 2001. Recent statements on behalf of the Secretary of State have said that it was the High Court, not the Government, that put Railtrack into administration. The House knows that. What needs to be disclosed and explained concerns the facts that the High Court was and was not given to enable it to make that decision. The Secretary of State has said, and will no doubt say again, that Railtrack did not oppose the application for the administration order. We know that too, but it is completely irrelevant. It was the Government's obligation to tell the whole story to the judge, whatever was or was not said by Railtrack. By the time of the Court hearing, Railtrack's senior management had made many mistakes. Perhaps the greatest was not to realise how the powers of the rail regulator insulated and protected the company against a political assault of that kind. By then, they were like rabbits frozen in the headlights of the Government juggernaut bearing down on them. The Secretary of State must now explain the actions of his predecessor and his officials and advisers in this sorry affair. Chris Bryant Labour, Rhondda I contend that the Government had a duty to tell the Court in October 2001 all the facts and that they deliberately withheld that crucial component. The failure to make an honest disclosure to the judge about the power of the rail regulator is yet another—perhaps the most—shameful scar on the Government's honesty. It was and is an absolute scandal. The High Court case has shed light on a sly and deceitful plan to implement a clandestine policy without telling Parliament. Yet again, the Government have corrupted the proper process of government, which would have been genuinely to seek all channels of finance to assist Railtrack in avoiding financial difficulties. The proper process of government would have been to respect the independence of the rail regulator, not to corrupt the position with the stench of the Government's political games. The proper process of government would have been for Ministers to make decisions at Cabinet level, not to use unelected puppets to control operations from the Treasury. The proper and decent process of government would have been to come to Parliament in June 2001 and announce that a review of the railways was under way. The proper process of government would have been to disclose all the material facts to a judge in chambers, not to conspire by deceit and complicity to deny him the facts as they knew them. Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan. The Chancellor called all the shots on this issue, and his absence shows that he is trying to hide. He was the organ grinder and the right hon. Member for North Tyneside was but the monkey. The Chancellor wrote the score; his representative on Earth did his dirty work. The proper processes of government have, yet again, been shamefully sidestepped by Labour. It is to the detriment of our democracy, and it is an enduring testament to the corruption, deceit and arrogance of this pitiful and mucky Government. Alistair Darling The Secretary of State for Scotland, The Secretary of State for Transport 4:34 pm, 24th October 2005 I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: "welcomes the judgement in the recently concluded Railtrack court case which, after weeks of evidence fully tested by cross examination, completely dismisses the claimants' allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Government; further welcomes the fact that the judgement exonerates entirely the way the Government responded to its growing concerns about Railtrack's financial position and the propriety of the process that led to Railtrack being put in Administration, including the Government's stance in relation to the Rail Regulator; notes that the judge described Railtrack's request for unlimited public funding and support, which was made in part to maintain its share price, as a "hopeless proposition"; and that there were good public reasons for the policy developed; congratulates the Government for bringing under control the situation which resulted from the previous Government's botched privatisation and putting ownership of the track into the hands of a not-for-dividend company operating in the broad public interest; and recognises the significant progress that is being made by Network Rail in improving performance on the railway and in bringing costs under control, in stark contrast to the management incompetence shown by Railtrack." Mr. Duncan started his speech by asserting that the matters that he has spent the past hour and five minutes discussing were not, in fact, discussed in the recent court hearing, and he seemed to employ a very selective use of the facts in relation to this case. The truth is that all these matters were considered in depth after a long trial by Mr. Justice Lindsay, whose judgment was given just a couple of weeks ago. I will refer to most of the points that the hon. Gentleman made and to what the judge had to say about them; but, essentially, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman sought to make exactly the same case as the claimants made in court. He chose to ignore the fact that the judge found against the claimants and found that all the matters complained of by the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party had no basis in fact, as I shall demonstrate. The other curious thing about the hon. Gentleman's speech is that, when he started, he seemed to suggest that the solvency or otherwise of Railtrack was an irrelevancy, yet towards the end of his speech he seemed to suggest that the company was a going concern with nothing wrong with it and that it was only the dastardly Government who brought about its downfall. That flies in the face of all the facts, as I will demonstrate. Quentin Davies Conservative, Grantham and Stamford Let me put to the right hon. Gentleman a question that was obviously not dealt with by the judge or the court, but that surely ought to be a matter of great concern to the House of Commons. A quotation has just been attributed to Shriti Vadera to the effect that the small shareholders do not matter—it does not matter if grannies lose their blouses—and that we ought to care only about the American investors. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is an acceptable attitude for a Treasury official or an adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the judgment. The judge deals with the evidence of the special advisers in paragraphs 10 to 12 and in other places as well. On the central charge made by the Conservatives today, the judge makes the point that only Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, can make such decisions. Moreover, he found that Ministers acted correctly in the face of the evidence before them. Andrew Turner Shadow Minister (Cabinet Office) The right hon. Gentleman purports to quote what the judge found. Will he remind the House of whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Mr. Byers was the defendant in this case? I was the defendant in the case, to be precise, which is why I read the judgment with great interest. Of course the material decision complained of was taken by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend Mr. Byers. I say in passing—it would be interesting to hear what a former Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to say—that it would be quite extraordinary if the Chancellor, whoever it happened to be and whatever political party was in government, did not take an active interest in railway finances. After all, they consume a remarkably large amount of the public finances, so it is no surprise that the Chancellor should take an interest. In fact, the complaints made by the Conservatives and by the claimants related to the decision taken by my predecessor. Several hon. Members: I have mentioned Mr. Clarke, so I shall give way to him. Of course I took a close interest in railway finances when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would have expected to have a crucial say in them. We would have exchanged Cabinet papers and had a meeting of a Cabinet Committee. I would certainly not have sent along a special adviser to make cynical remarks about all those involved and to try to devise strategies for getting rid of the shareholders' interests in a company, and I certainly would not have expected the then Secretary of State for Transport to allow himself to be used as a cipher, as Mr. Byers did. Perhaps if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken a bit more interest in the public finances, he would never have allowed Railtrack to be set up in the first place. As I shall demonstrate, the setting up of Railtrack cost this country dear in every sense of the word. David Ruffley Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions) On 26 July 2001, Miss Vadera told Treasury colleagues that ". . . we need a trigger to insolvency that we decisively pull." Given that all the main lines in this railway disaster lead to No. 11, will the Secretary of State explain why not a single Treasury Minister has had the decency to turn up and account to Parliament for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy of dodgy accounting and expropriation? The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was one of the central matters before the court. Lord Justice Lindsay did not find that the claimants' case was established, and he examined all these things. I shall start with what the judge said—this flies in the face of the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that the judge paid no attention to these facts—about that splendid company, Railtrack, on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman spoke today. The judge stated at paragraph 274: "In terms of railway performance, it had suffered not only Ladbroke Grove but Hatfield and the disruption that followed it. It was thought that some restructuring of it within the next 5 years was inevitable. It was seen as 'frankly a mess', with weak management at the zonal levels . . . It had difficulty even in funding the necessary regular maintenance. It had major projects without the skills to manage them . . . Its own business plan accepted that it had not maintained and renewed the railway to an acceptable standard. Its skills base as to engineers had diminished and its training fell short of what was needed. It was reported as suffering from institutional paralysis." Lord Justice Lindsay went on at paragraph 275: "Its own financial plan acknowledged the unreliability of its own estimates and a persistent inability to keep within budgets. It had virtually no management control; there was management paralysis. The Department had identified an amortisation error which, it thought, meant that it would be bust 'in spades' in CP 3"— that is, control period 3. He continued: "Railtrack itself as well as brokers had identified an intrinsic value in its shares way below the market price." Having summarised that evidence, he stated at paragraph 276: "Against such a perception in both railway performance and financial terms there were plainly ample and sound policy reasons for the government wishing to be rid of Railtrack and for the railway assets to be passed into the control of another or others. There were good avowable and avowed public reasons for Mr. Byers"— my right hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside— "to develop a policy to that end. He did so, drawing on advices given to him by Civil Service and other advisers whose skill, honesty and competency has not been called in question." [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton says, "So what?" Railtrack had severe financial problems and severe management problems. It would have been extraordinary if any Government had not taken the necessary action to look after the public interest. I am overwhelmed. I shall start by giving way to my hon. Friend Chris Bryant. Is not the truth of the matter that the entire privatisation was built on sand, and that the only question is whether it was sinking sand or builders sand? One of the things wholly lacking from the debate so far, which most people in the country would find extraordinary, is the conduct of previous Governments in setting up the privatisation. I have consciously concentrated my remarks on the conduct of the Government against what was happening with Railtrack in 2001. Many other criticisms of privatisation could be made, but the central point of the Opposition's argument today is that Ministers acted improperly in the face of what was happening to Railtrack. Given what was happening to Railtrack, the financial state that it was in and the poor state of its management, it would have been extraordinary if the Government of the day—whatever Government—had not taken appropriate action to look after the public interest. We quite accept that the company was in a lamentable state, and that any Government had a duty to consider restructuring it to make the privatisation—the present Government always agreed with us on a privatised railway—work more successfully. The question at stake is: what was the position and interests of the shareholders, particularly the small shareholders? Was the company totally insolvent? That could be decided only by the independent regulator, because he determined the revenues of the company and whether it was entitled to more financial support. It was when the Government threatened to legislate to stop him doing anything that the company was made insolvent by the Government. That is what damaged the interests of the grannies, the railwaymen and the shareholders, whose interests the Government overlooked. That argument depends on the Government taking the view that not only should there be a review, but that, as a consequence of what it says, the regulator should tell the Government to produce a lot more taxpayers' money to keep the company afloat. The regulator does not have its own supply of money. The only place from which money can come is the Government. That argument is absolute nonsense. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has inadvertently taken me to my next point, which concerns shareholders. The shareholders have every reason to be angry—but with the then directors of Railtrack. As I have said— I will give way to Adam Afriyie, but I want to make some progress first. Railtrack wrote to the Department in March 2001, saying that it had financial difficulties. At paragraph 38 of the judgment, the judge says that Mr. J.W. Smith, who wrote that letter, stressed the group's need to "maintain an 'A' credit rating, which, in his view, required the announcement of a package confirming government support for" the "Group. 'It is this', he wrote, 'which will enable us to raise £5bn by 2003'. That would be bound to cause concern at the Department as it would imply support, unascertainable in amount, for an individual company". Of course that was going to cause concern, especially considering the content of the letter. Two things in the letter interest me. First, Smith says that if the Government agree to bring forward £1.45 billion of deferred income, it will leave room for what he describes as "hope value": what an indictment of the directors that they were reduced to hoping that hope value would come into the company. Secondly, a chart summarising the shareholder value analysis is attached to the letter, and Smith goes on to say: "you will appreciate the market's sensitivity of this analysis"— too right he did. The analysis showed that although shares were trading at £8 a share, the company thought that they were worth 60p. If I were a shareholder in the company and found out that the directors knew that the shares were worth a fraction of what they were trading at, I would wonder why they did not issue a trading statement. Surely, they were misleading people, and the market, by allowing people to buy and sell shares at £8 a share when the company thought that they were worth a mere 60p. I shall give way in a moment. That is, perhaps, indicative of the directors' attitude to their shareholders. They thought that no matter what they had done, or what they did in the future, all that they would have to do would be to come cap in hand to the taxpayer and say, "Bail us out." In fact, the company had serious problems. This is not only about what was said internally. ABN Amro—the judge also mentions this—valued the shares at about 58p. Surely the alarm bells should have been ringing throughout the company, which was in deep financial trouble. I do not think that any Conservative Member disagrees with the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of Railtrack's management, but he misses the point altogether. No one suggests that there was no problem, or that Railtrack was a brilliantly successful company. The question is: having decided to take action—in the right or wrong direction; it does not matter—did the Government proceed in a straightforward and fair fashion, or in an underhand, cynical way that showed a cynical disregard for the interests of small shareholders? That is why the quotation from Shriti Vadera is so important. Does not that reflect all too well the new Labour values that permeate the Government, including the Treasury? The Government did act appropriately. My point is that the directors knew that the shares were worth a fraction of what they were trading at, because they knew that the company faced deep-seated problems. I mentioned the valuation of the shares earlier. I am also bound to draw the House's attention to the fact that the company wrote to all its shareholders in April 2001 drawing attention to its agreement with the Government, which states: "The Government stands behind the rail system but not behind individual rail companies and their shareholders, who need to be fully aware of the projected liabilities of the companies in which they invest and the performance risks they face." That was sent to every Railtrack shareholder. Henry Bellingham Opposition Whip (Commons) I want to make some progress, then I will give way. It is clear to me that not only did the company know that it had substantial problems but that its shareholders knew that the Government's commitment was behind the rail system but not behind any particular private company. I am glad that in the face of the facts, which we were not going to get from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, it is now common ground that this company was in a far from healthy financial state. Paragraph 64 describes the note that Mr. John Smith of Railtrack prepared for the incoming chairman, Mr. Robinson. He said that "the situation was worse than expected, neither the Regulator nor Railtrack could estimate the costs of running and maintaining the infrastructure with any certainty, the assumptions on which the settlement with the Regulator . . . had been based were completely unworkable, major cost over-runs on the "— west coast main line— "and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link were still not under control, Railtrack's 'bloating' operating costs were not being addressed. If the subsidy and pricing regime was left unchanged, the company was heading for liquidation." So it is perfectly obvious that the company and its directors knew that the company had deep financial problems. I repeat that for any Government to have ignored that, and for any Government not to have put in place contingency plans, would have been absolutely extraordinary. Without wishing to labour the point— I will of course take interventions, just as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton did. Let me repeat the point. The then chief executive of Railtrack, when he wrote to the regulator, said: "The cliff's edge is closer than you may realise." This company had major financial problems. Adam Afriyie Conservative, Windsor My concern, like that of many others throughout the country, is for the smaller shareholders, especially the elderly and those with pension funds. It seems to me that questions in the House are not often directly answered. Will the Secretary of State answer this: does he accept, on behalf of his Government, any responsibility at all for the plight of the shareholders who have been harmed? The responsibility for the shareholders lay with the directors of Railtrack. Railtrack had allowed itself—[Interruption.] Let me just demonstrate, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. This is what the directors of Railtrack told the Department when assessing the situation that they faced on 27 July 2001. They said that they had "no access to bank finance"; that committed facilities "were available for less than nine months"; that they had "major drawdown" expected on bank lines; and thought it would be "problematic around October". Their access to the bond market was "doubtful", as was the ability of the board to sign off on the bond prospectus. The point is that the directors of the company had a clear responsibility to the shareholders. It appears that they thought that the only way around that was to come back to the taxpayer and say, "Please bail us out." Crispin Blunt Opposition Whip (Commons) I will give way in a minute. It is worth reminding the House that on 20 August the directors of Railtrack were proposing to set aside the regulatory regime for four years—so much for the much vaunted independent economic regulation. They wanted unconditional funding from the taxpayer. They wanted to emerge after the four-year period with their shares worth between £3.50 and £5—and of course the Government would have to underwrite that value. In the meantime, they were going to carry on with a dividend of 20p per share. In other words: everything courtesy of the taxpayer. Let me put this to the hon. Gentlemen—if they accept that this was a company with deep-seated financial and management problems: how on earth could the Government be justified in simply saying, "Have some more money"? The fact is that the company was operating in an environment in which very shortly after it was taken into administration it required another £7 billion to underwrite it or to keep it in operation. When the Secretary of State describes the circumstances known to the directors, that was the environment in which the company was operating prior to October 2001. Subsequently, is it not true that the Government had to give the company, as Network Rail, £14 billion to achieve solvency? The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the company did not have only financial problems. Everybody accepts that in the late 1990s and the first part of 2000, and after Hatfield, it became apparent that the deep-seated problem of successive years of lack of maintenance meant that costs were rising. However, it was to do with the management as well. It is worth repeating Railtrack's comments about the genesis of its problems because they show that the problems were due to management as much as finance. Railtrack defined the problems as lack of any recent major projects experience inherited from British Rail. It did not have the expertise in-house to deal with such matters. The company defined another problem as "stunning commercial naivety in agreeing to loosely-scoped, fixed-price contracts" years in advance of its ability sensibly to price the risks or lay them off on contractors. It also stated that that was compounded by guaranteeing outputs without adequate timetabling work and without scoping infrastructure works. That, in turn, was compounded by more traffic and a declining infrastructure. In other words, the company's problems were not only financial but due to management. In the days following the judgment, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton appeared reluctant to admit that the Tory position was to give that poorly managed company, which had financial problems, more money. Let me revert to the point that my hon. Friend Mr. Blunt made. If the company had not been forced into insolvency, it would have remained a FTSE company and retained access to global capital markets, which Network Rail does not possess because its only source of finance is the Government. Will the Secretary of State confirm the figure of £14 billion? How much extra has the process cost the taxpayer? The point is that the company was insolvent. It approached the Government to say that it could not make ends meet. Paragraph 105 of the judgment refers to a representative of Railtrack's advisers, Credit Suisse: First Boston, and states: "He said Railtrack had virtually no management control, it was the worst case he had seen for a period and that there was management paralysis. It had major projects without the skills to manage them." Yet Conservative Members' central argument is that the Government should have given Railtrack more money through a regulatory review. That is nonsense. What were the Government supposed to do with a company that was painting a picture throughout 2001 of financial difficulties and self-confessed management failings? The Tory answer is, "Give them more money." I do not believe that the majority of people would agree with such a proposition. John Bercow Conservative, Buckingham I appreciate that the Secretary of State is in a difficult position and that he is probably trying to tough it out. However, will he tell us whether, in reflecting on the behaviour and language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's special adviser, he believes that it was seemly, measured, transparent and reasonable? If so, he has lost his moral compass. The hon. Gentleman has said some silly things in his time and his comment is up there among them. The central charge against the Government in the Opposition motion is that Ministers acted inappropriately. The Opposition used more florid language, but that is the charge. The Secretary of State and Ministers—they make the decisions—acted correctly when faced with a company that had deep financial problems and deep-seated management difficulties. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Opposition would have asked the regulator to undertake a further review and would have given the company more money. [Interruption.] Alan Haselhurst Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means Order. We cannot have a chorus of sedentary comments. The subject of the debate is heady stuff, but it must be conducted in an orderly manner. The Opposition view is, to some extent, that of Mr. Robinson, chairman of Railtrack. The judge said: "Mr. Robinson's heart-felt evidence that the Government created Railtrack's insolvency is not acceptable. Not only did he, in so saying, ignore his own evidence and that of others that without government support Railtrack was unable to pay its debts"— Railtrack's own evidence was that it was unable to pay its debts— "but in any event a provider of funds does not 'create' an insolvency by providing only that to which the recipient is entitled. The Government can be said to have failed to avert Railtrack's insolvency but that cannot be said to be a fault in the Government unless one can postulate a duty on government to have funded Railtrack without limit and without condition", which the judge described as "a hopeless proposition." That gets to the nub of the Opposition's case. They appear to say that the Government should have funded Railtrack without limit and without condition, which, as the judge says, is "a hopeless proposition." That is why, as I say, the Government were entirely right to take the necessary steps to develop plans in the event that it should prove necessary to put in place a body to take over running the railways if the company failed. It was almost inevitable that it would fail. Jeremy Hunt Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions) This really will not do. My hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (John Bercow), for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) asked the Secretary of State whether it is acceptable for a senior Treasury official to describe Railtrack investors as grannies and to say that it does not matter if the grannies lose their blouses. Is that acceptable—yes or no? Is not it amazing that, in the face of the facts, Conservative Members have to depart from their central case? The facts are that the company was insolvent, it was badly managed and the Government were absolutely right to put in place contingency plans. Will the Secretary of State give way? Not just now, but I will do so before I sit down. One should look at the evidence and the judge's findings. Mr. Justice Lindsay looked at all the evidence over a few weeks and concluded that the Government acted entirely correctly. I want to come to the regulatory point, of which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made much. By way of background, it is worth bearing it in mind that the regulator himself had been quite critical of Railtrack. In the summer of 2001, he gave a speech that caused some consternation in Railtrack. He said: "Railtrack should put away the begging bowl, and stop spending valuable management time hawking themselves . . . round Whitehall, and knuckle down to getting train services back to a sustainable level of reliability and quality of service." That was the regulator's starting point. He felt that Railtrack should be getting on with the job and with the settlement that he had made. However, the question of whether my right hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside was right in ruling out a further regulatory review was considered by the judge. He said: "I do not see that he", my right hon. Friend, "or the Department can be fairly criticised for anticipating that if there was to be no funding beyond Railtrack's present legal entitlement then legislation might be needed to be sure that that important policy decision could not be undermined. I see no ground for any material inference against Mr. Byers." Furthermore, the judge says at paragraph 276: "If he", my right hon. Friend, "had good public reasons for the policy, as I hold he had, I do not see it as a fault in him . . . to have said that if necessary he would ask Parliament to legislate so that the policy could not be thwarted." In other words, Mr. Justice Lindsay considered those matters and found that my right hon. Friend did not act in any way that was inappropriate. Interestingly, when we see what the regulator said when he appeared before the predecessor to the Transport Committee— I will in a moment. The regulator made it clear that there was no prospect of being able to find the amount of money that the company needed, more or less over the weekend. Indeed, as the judge said, remarkably, Railtrack said that, unless the regulator could promise an unspecified number of millions of pounds on the Monday, there would be no point in having an interim review. In other words, the interim review could not have provided the lifeline that the Conservatives believe that Railtrack could have received. Therefore, first, did the then Secretary of State act properly? Yes, he did. Mr. Justice Lindsay looked at that and found he acted appropriately. Secondly, as both the regulator himself and Mr. Justice Lindsay observe, even if there had been a regulatory review, it would not have helped Railtrack because its financial position was so bad that at that stage it would not have saved them. The Secretary of State is giving his quotes rather quickly. He touched on the point that the judge said: "I do not see it as a fault in him . . . to have said that if necessary he would ask Parliament". I point out that the Secretary of State left out the words in brackets: "I do not see it as a fault in him (or, at any rate, not one relevant to the tort I am considering)". The Secretary of State seemed to leave that out. To put the facts on the record, the judge did not clear the former Secretary of State on this point. Our case is not that the Railtrack directors acted impeccably. There is agreement about most of the criticisms of the Railtrack directors, but none of the criticisms from anyone else said that the company was insolvent. Only the independent regulator could determine that, and the Government threatened to legislate to stop him intervening because they wanted to make it insolvent. All the other charges against Railtrack may stand, but the insolvency and the cost to the shareholders are down to the Government and the then Secretary of State and his colleagues. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read the judgment, but if he has he will know that it was the company itself that was outlining its financial difficulties and the company itself that said there would be questions about whether it could continue as a going concern. It is an important point, even to the remains of the Opposition's discredited case, that throughout 2001 the company was constantly asking itself whether it could continue to trade as a going concern, such was the state of its financial position. The Conservatives' position appears to be that, if only an interim review had been allowed, the regulator would have produced millions of pounds, for which Railtrack had asked earlier in the summer. Money would have to have come from the taxpayer—it could have come from nowhere else—to save the company. That is what the Government feared. That is why they stopped him doing it— Order. The Secretary of State must either give way, or not give way. I did not need to give way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I could hear what the former Chancellor was saying. Looking through the papers, one is struck by how, earlier in the year, when my right hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside became Secretary of State, he foresaw no structural change taking place in the industry. At that time, he had no reason to believe that Railtrack was in such a state. It is all in the papers available at the Department—all the papers lodged with the court are available to be inspected by anyone who wants them. The judge made the point that the Department had made a full disclosure, as the House would expect. I simply do not accept the proposition that, right from the start, the Government aimed to bring about Railtrack's insolvency. The Government did not do that. The first hint of financial problems came from the company itself in March, when it said that its shares were worth a fraction of the price at which they were trading. In each visit that Mr. Robinson and his colleagues paid throughout the summer, it was made clear that the company had deep management and financial problems. The Opposition case seems to be that the Government should have ignored all that and said to the company, "Have another regulatory review, have some more taxpayers' money", which is an extraordinary position to take. The Secretary of State is being extremely generous in giving way to me. Will he say why the Government threatened to legislate to take away the regulator's powers? Surely their only motive was their fear that the regulator would offer financial support and stop the insolvency that was the Government's objective, as all the papers make clear. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, because he interrupted me, a few moments ago I quoted Mr. Justice Lindsay saying that a policy decision was taken, so it was entirely understandable that the Secretary of State did not want that decision to be undermined by a further regulatory review. The difference between us and the Opposition is becoming clear. It seems to be common ground that the company had big financial problems and was not well managed. The difference is that the Opposition think that the Government should have allowed an interim review and given more public money to a company that was in desperate straits. If that is what their case comes down to, I am happy that the public should judge us. We acted entirely appropriately in reaching the decision that the company could not be saved and that it was necessary to take appropriate steps to put a fresh administration in place after Railtrack had gone. No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman enough. The idea that we should have simply bailed out a failing company is absolute nonsense. Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Not now—I might do so before I finish. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made much of the order for administration. Mr. Justice Lightman said: "This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate, but absolutely essential". The hon. Gentleman says that the judge should not have made that decision, suggesting that incomplete information was laid before him. I repeat the point that Railtrack could have objected to the administration order. It could have said, "If you only allow the regulator to come in and bail us out, everything will be fine." Indeed, Mr Justice Lindsay, in his judgment on 14 October, said: "Mr Byers is accused of engineering a situation in which he could present evidence that Railtrack was or was unlikely to be able to pay its debts. But that needed no engineering." That is what the judge found. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside did not engineer the situation. The judge makes the point that Railtrack was unable to pay its debts and that that did not need engineering. Unfortunately, Railtrack had demonstrated in spades that it was unable to pay its debts. It seems that the foundation upon which the Conservatives seek to build their case falls apart. Railtrack was heading towards insolvency throughout 2001. It had grossly underestimated its costs, it had lost control of its finances and it was in deep financial trouble. Its own advisers said that there was management paralysis. The difference between us seems to be that the Tories would have said, "Never mind, have some more taxpayers' money." Our position is quite different. Our position was that in the light of these difficulties the Government were not prepared simply to bail out the company. It was appropriate, when the company eventually went into administration, to put in place an organisation that could run the railways properly. It is worth bearing it in mind that under Network Rail unit costs are coming down. It now knows its unit costs. It has taken maintenance back in-house, which has saved millions of pounds. The company is being run properly as a railway rather than an adjunct of a property company. It is clear to me, coming relatively fresh to the situation, having read the court judgment and having considered all the evidence, that the Government and our Ministers acted entirely properly. That is why I believe that the House should agree to the amendment and throw out the nonsensical motion that has been tabled by the Conservative party—a party that is discredited for the way in which it brought about rail privatisation and allowed Railtrack to be created. Tom Brake Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (International Development) 5:12 pm, 24th October 2005 What chutzpah! The Conservatives, the Frankenstein creators of the monster that led to the privatisation of the railways, are now admonishing and advising the Government on their handling of the railways. Whatever next—De Lorean advising on start-up businesses, Naomi Campbell providing anger management training or perhaps Jeremy Clarkson promoting fuel-efficient vehicles. Sometimes, the Conservatives are justified in rebutting attacks that are based on what they did when they were in Government eight years ago, but, in relation to the privatisation of the railways and Railtrack, unfortunately the damage has been so longstanding that they cannot simply bat it away. Perhaps the Conservatives were looking for hope value in the debate—hope that their record would be forgotten. I think that people should be reminded of their record on this issue. I shall give a few examples of Railtrack's performance. At the time of administration, it was preparing to pay a fine of at least £10 million for failing to reduce train delays. There was Lord Cullen's public inquiry into the deaths at Ladbroke Grove, which found Railtrack to be an incompetent and inadequate company. Railtrack's poor performance was also the subject of a report by consultants Booz Allen Hamilton, which was very critical of the lack of investment by Railtrack. It found that track renewals had averaged only 1.3 per cent. per annum during the control period, which was 1995–2001, which was a low rate of renewal compared with European railways, which typically replace 2 to 3 per cent. per annum. Railtrack's 1995 business plan referred to 2.2 per cent. renewals per annum, not 1.3 per cent., which it delivered. Clearly it was far short of delivering on its targets. The National Audit Office report, published on 14 May 2004, entitled "Network Rail—Making a Fresh Start", quoted a number of factors that contributed to Railtrack's failure, including a lack of attention to its core business, leading to underinvestment in the infrastructure, loss of engineering skills and poor asset knowledge. Given the background of the Hatfield crash, the record for track failure rose by 42 per cent. All that occurred after Railtrack took over responsibility for track safety from British Rail. No wonder Mr. Duncan did not want to talk about Railtrack. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if we talk about whether the privatisation of Railtrack was right or wrong or whether the financial health of Railtrack was in a good or bad state, we risk ignoring the central Conservative contention that the treatment of private investors was shabby and that the Government should not have behaved as they did? Tom Brake Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (International Development) The issue of the private investors and their investment was addressed by the court case. The wider public want to hear about the debacle that was Railtrack and the privatisation of the railways. They want to see some humility from the Conservative party, which has not been displayed today. The Tory obsession with a man—Mr. Byers—and the desire to dwell on past events is extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman's behaviour has been referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee, and it is the right body to decide his fate. We should be using this valuable parliamentary time to look not at what went wrong but at how we can improve the railways. The decision to turn Railtrack into a not-for-profit company was originally a Liberal Democrat idea. It was the right decision given that the Tories botched the privatisation of our railways. As we are in the middle of a leadership race for the Conservative party, I thought it might be instrumental to look at what the candidates have to say about the railways, and railway privatisation and, specifically, how the railways should progress. When David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which considered rail privatisation in 1998, he stated: "If something is done badly, it is done badly." He came clean and accepted that privatisation was done badly. Let me remind hon. Members of some of the facts revealed in that report. It gave a damning verdict on rail privatisation, which saw a handful of former British Rail managers become multimillionaires within a matter of months. The best example of that was Sandy Anderson, who made £33 million in six months. Taxpayers' money. The MPs on the Committee said: "Such large profits risk discrediting privatisation as a whole", which is something of an understatement. They went on to say: "The public are understandably concerned when they see a small number of individuals making personal fortunes at a time when complaints about the industry are rising." The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said: "I am not embarrassed. You have to be iron-hard in impartiality" as Chairman of the Select Committee. He went on to say: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are happy to accept that in some respects at least Railtrack was a basket case. He does not need to dwell on that. What matters is the conduct of the Government. His party's amendment "condemns the way in which the Government handled the process and the operation of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at the time". That is the kernel of the debate. Perhaps we could join forces and hear him concentrate on that. I will dwell on that shortly. However, it is important to consider the way forward. As I said, two Conservative Members of Parliament are standing in a leadership contest, and I looked for more up-to-date information on what they have to say about the railways. I checked out the website for the shadow Home Secretary. On 29 March, he listed 14 campaigns, all of which he seemed to have launched on that one day. The website did not list other campaigns since that date, which perhaps explains what is happening to his leadership campaign. A rail campaign was listed. The right hon. Gentleman's website says: "he has campaigned for Howden to get a direct train to London." Clearly, that is the beginnings of a transport policy. It is slightly constituency-centric and perhaps a little bit self-interested, but at least it is a start. Damian Green Conservative, Ashford The hon. Gentleman may care to reflect that the successful campaign that my right hon. Friend David Davis conducted on that issue enabled him to double his majority over the Liberal Democrats at the general election. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I repeat my view that basing one's transport policy on the need to secure direct trains from one's constituency to London is short-sighted. I thought it appropriate to look at what Mr. Cameron said about transport policy, specifically rail. In part of his website headed "Quality of Life" he states: "We must give voice to a Conservative instinct that has been silent for too long: our belief that the quality of life matters as much as the quantity of money. People in Britain today don't just want to be better off financially, with decent, well-paid jobs. They don't just want public services that work. They want Britain to be a place which lifts the spirits." Such a place, he goes on, is "where streets and public spaces aren't filthy; where getting around isn't such a hassle". That is the first part of the hon. Gentleman's transport policy. In a section on a dynamic economy he says: "We must show that we understand all that needs to be done to create a dynamic economy . . . So our vision should be to help make Britain the most civilised place in the world to live." He goes on to say: "Public service investment—as well as reform—is vital for our competitiveness. Spending on things like education and transport is a positive good, not a necessary evil." That is the second part of the hon. Gentleman's transport policy, but it is sad that his website finds it necessary to state that spending on education and transport is "a positive good, not a necessary evil." Surely, even the most ardent supporters of the Conservative party could not fail to agree that stated goals such as ensuring that "getting around isn't such a hassle" and spending on transport "is a positive good, not a necessary evil" hardly constitute a transport policy. I looked for salvation in the Conservative manifesto entitled "Are you thinking what we're thinking?". Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of going down a branch line. The debate is about the Government handling of decisions relating to Railtrack and the Prime Minister's amendment to the motion. The hon. Gentleman is not speaking directly to that at the moment. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your point. It is worth, however, stating briefly that the Liberal Democrats agree with the Conservative manifesto about the need to bring "stability to the rail network, avoiding further costly and inefficient re-organisation." The incompetence demonstrated by the Conservative Government when they created Railtrack and privatised the railways does not exonerate Labour. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton identified some interesting facts, including the number of miles of new railway line to be built in the next few months. In 2007, 24 miles will be completed, so I assume that this year none will be built. He also told us that just three transport projects costing £500 million or more have commenced since 1997. Things were supposed to be different, as the 1997 Labour manifesto makes clear: "The process of rail privatisation is now largely complete. It has made fortunes for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer . . . There must be convenient connections, through-ticketing and accurate travel information for the benefit of all passengers." The Secretary of State may wish to comment on the need for convenient connections, which are not yet available at King's Cross, St. Pancras or in the Thameslink box. They will not be available at Stratford station unless a travelator is provided. And we await progress on through-ticketing in relation to the Oyster card. A subject that Conservative speakers have repeatedly raised in this debate is the link with the Chancellor. They have asked whether he has had an active hand in everything surrounding Railtrack and its demise. The evidence that all lines lead to the Chancellor in relation to transport policy involves not Railtrack but the public-private partnership for the tube, but I shall not dwell on that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you would probably call me to order. However, that partnership has not been a great success, and I do not imagine that the Chancellor will want to stress his involvement in it. In a final comment on Labour's performance, I must point out that the Strategic Rail Authority was to have been the solution to these problems, and the body that would have ensured that the strategic planning infrastructure was appropriate. The Government announced the legislation to introduce the authority to great fanfare in 2000, but now, just a few years later, it has very inconveniently been disbanded, with millions having been handed over to consultants in the process. A clear consensus is emerging that Britain's transport problems can be solved only by environmentally sustainable strategies, and that the railways will form an essential part of that solution. That is why this debate should have been about the future of the railways, not about things that have happened in the past. Those issues were examined in the court case, and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges will consider the activities of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside, which is the appropriate course of action. I did not agree with much of what the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, but I agree with him that the House is the place to redress grievances. They include those that were imposed by the decades of underinvestment in the railways—the delays, the cancellations and the overcrowding—that previous Conservative Governments inflicted on the travelling public, aided and abetted to a certain degree by the present Government. Those are the grievances that people want to see redressed today, but it is clear from the debate that people will remain dissatisfied. They will get only forced indignation and no humility from the Conservatives. The travelling public's grievances will have to be redressed on another day. Stephen Byers Labour, North Tyneside 5:27 pm, 24th October 2005 I listened with great attention as the motion was moved by Mr. Duncan. I spent just over three weeks in the High Court at the end of June and the beginning of July, and the hon. Gentleman's speech was a total rerun of every argument that was put before the court. There was nothing new in his contribution. None of the documents to which he referred was new or fresh. I think that he said that some of them had been leaked, but they were all disclosed to the public during the court proceedings. In relation to the evidence that was put before the court when I petitioned for administration, the bundle of all the documents that we put before the High Court was also put into the Library of the House by the end of October 2001. So all the details and documents have been made available to Members of the House and, indeed, to the wider public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to say that the judge had complimented the Department on its full disclosure, including that of documents that would usually have had legal privilege attached to them and would not have been disclosed in the normal course of events. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is now back in his place, and I have to say that I have had many insults in my time in politics, but to be called "weedy" by him really takes the biscuit. Stephen Byers Labour, North Tyneside As the judge said of the comment made by Sriti Vadera, it was a term of endearment. And I took it as such, as always. I was disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's contribution, however, because I was looking for some substance and detail, and something new. I am afraid that it was a rehash of the arguments that were put on behalf of the claimants in the court case, which they comprehensively lost when Mr. Justice Lindsay had the opportunity of examining their claims in detail. It really was tabloid advocacy—all headlines and no substance. Given that the Conservatives have chosen to have a half-day debate on this issue, it is interesting to see that their priority is to re-fight the battles of four years ago, when public opinion was not in favour of Railtrack. The public now realise that what we did in putting the travelling public first, not the interests of Railtrack shareholders, was absolutely right. That was the crux of my decision. The Conservatives have never apologised for the privatisation of Railtrack. Constantly, they put the interests of 250,000 Railtrack shareholders above those of the 2.5 million who travel on our railway system every day. The Conservative party is still the same—it will always be for the few and not the many, and will always be on the margins of politics in this country as a result. Serious allegations have been made about the conduct of the Government leading up to the decision about administration. Because of the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, however, we can also consider the nature of the privatisation of Railtrack in the first place. I am delighted that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Clarke, will be replying to this debate. I hope that he will explain to the House what value there was for taxpayers in his writing off £1.4 billion owed to the taxpayer so that Railtrack would not inherit the debt, thereby making it more juicy for potential shareholders. That was a bung of huge proportions from the former Chancellor—to make the privatisation fly in the markets, he made a £1.4 billion gift. It is worth reminding the House that under the Conservative Government's Railways Act 1993, which saw the privatisation of large sections of the railway system, Railtrack, responsible for the infrastructure, was kept in the public sector. That was for a good reason: everybody realised that the infrastructure operators and licence holder had to be accountable to the travelling public, not to private shareholders. However, John Major, the former Prime Minister, desperate to unite a party that was bitterly divided over issues such as Europe—if I can say that to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—wanted a bone of dogma to give his braying Back Benchers. That dogmatic bone was the privatisation of Railtrack, pushed through in 1996. Every independent commentator said that it simply did not make sense to have the licence holder in the private sector, accountable to shareholders and with a legal duty to put their interests first, not those of the travelling public. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, however, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote off £1.4 billion of taxpayer's money to make that privatisation float. In addition, a £69 million surplus had been made by Railtrack while in the public sector. What did he do with it? He did not use it for schools or to employ more nurses. He held it back and then showered it over the new shareholders in Railtrack like confetti—£69 million of confetti. That money was made while Railtrack was in the public sector, when those recipients were not even shareholders. That was how generous the right hon. and learned Gentleman was when he was Chancellor. On the fundamental point of the motion, and as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has made clear, had the Conservatives faced the problems that we had in 2001, he would have been even more generous. He would have said to the regulator "Get on! If you want to give them billions, that is fine by us." Billions to Railtrack, a company that was clearly failing. May I ask a question to which I did not receive an answer from the Secretary of State? I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he accept any responsibility whatsoever for the plight of shareholders, especially the elderly, whose pensions will suffer? When I was Secretary of State, I obviously had to have regard to the interests of shareholders, which is right and proper. But, as Secretary of State for Transport, I also had an overriding consideration: the travelling public. People chose to invest in Railtrack shares, and they received the value that was in the company. That is the nature of shareholding. There was value in the company—what was it? £2.50 or £2.60 per shareholder—and it was right for the shareholders to receive that amount. That was what the company was worth. It is for investors to think carefully about where they are putting their money. Shares can go down as well as up, and Railtrack was a bad investment for many people. There are questions that the former shareholders should be asking the directors of Railtrack. The privatisation of Railtrack was really a last throw of the die by the John Major Government. It was introduced because he was desperate to bring his party together. It is fascinating to look back at the terms on which Railtrack was promoted to the financial sector. At the weekend, I came across the comments of one financial adviser. He said "Railtrack is essentially a property company". He went on "Railway stations provide a captive audience of passengers who are all potential customers". Because of the way in which Railtrack ran the system, the passengers were in the stations for even longer waiting for the delayed trains. That financial adviser was absolutely right: these were the captive customers for those who were trying to promote the sale. Railtrack was sold for £1.9 billion. It was clear that it had been undervalued. When David Davis chaired the Public Accounts Committee, the Committee issued a stinging criticism of the privatisation. Commenting on why it was rushed through before the 1997 general election, the right hon. Gentleman said "The timing of the sale was a factor in the poor value achieved". The Department acknowledged that Railtrack "had been undervalued and sold in haste." That was the background to the botched privatisation of Railtrack. What sort of company was it in the private sector from 1996 onwards? In his report on the Paddington crash at Ladbroke Grove, Lord Cullen said that the company suffered from "institutional paralysis". In a recent court case dealing with the Hatfield derailment, it was revealed in the evidence before the court that Railtrack, the company that the Conservatives would have kept in business, had failed to act for over a year after being told that rails near Hatfield were badly cracked and in need of replacement. That is the company so cherished by the Conservatives; but that was the finding of the judge in the recent Hatfield court case. The judge, Mr. Justice Mackay, went on to say that the Hatfield derailment and the neglect that was there constituted "one of the worst examples of sustained industrial negligence in a high-risk industry I have ever seen". That is Railtrack. That is the performance of Railtrack. The Conservatives have alleged that somehow I personally engineered the collapse of Railtrack, but the evidence makes clear that I did not need to, because of the nature of Railtrack. Just so that I know what the right hon. Gentleman's case is when I reply to the debate, may I seek clarification? I am astonished. I thought he was a Blairite, but he seems to be saying that his conduct was based on a hatred of the privatisation—although I do not recall his talking about a need to renationalise—and that his actions constituted a punishment of the company for its past misfeasance in respect of some of its duty. Reading the papers, I rather thought that his main motives at the time were to get hold of its assets at minimum cost and at the shareholders' expense, and to ensure that the successor company kept its debts off the public balance sheet. There is no mention of this concern for the travelling public, this desire to avenge the wrongs of nationalisation or the dreadful instance of the Hatfield crash. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that all that chicanery was aimed at protecting the travelling public and provoked by his dreadful memories of how awful the whole policy had been in 1996? That was an interesting intervention, although it was more of a winding-up speech. There is no chicanery here. I am sure that this was the right decision, and I am even more confident of that now than when I took it way back in October 2001. Politically, I can see the value of the private sector in some parts of public service, but I do not accept that contracting out to a private sector company that is accountable only to shareholders is the right way forward for good, high-quality public services. If we can get the private sector to work for the public service, that is acceptable. Railtrack was working in no one's interest, which is why I was not prepared to give it yet more public money when it came asking for it. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have any responsibility since 1997 for the institutional paralysis that seems to have overtaken Railtrack and its board because of their perceived and open attitude towards Railtrack? That certainly was not the thrust of Lord Cullen's judgment when he issued his public report on the tragic crash at Ladbroke Grove. It was Lord Cullen whom I quoted earlier, and he referred not to the actions of the Government but to the nature of Railtrack itself, which was suffering from institutional paralysis. A lot has been made this afternoon of Railtrack's not being insolvent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gone through a number of clear statements showing that Railtrack itself told the Government that it was in great difficulties. Mr. Smith, an employee and senior member of Railtrack who was the interface between the company and the Government, wrote to the Government on 16 March 2001, when shares in Railtrack were trading on the market at £8 each. He said that in the view of Railtrack and its board, the true value of those shares was 60p each. Some Conservatives argue that we, the Government, allowed a false market to develop in Railtrack shares, but that letter shows who allowed that to happen. If Railtrack's insolvency was so inevitable, why did the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State, threaten the regulator with a quick Bill to abolish him? If the hon. Gentleman can rein himself in for a few minutes—I know that he finds that difficult—I will address the matter of the regulator. Following Railtrack's letter of 16 March 2001 about its view of the value of the shares, it produced, on 31 March, its business plan for the five years to March 2006. The judge in the case called it a remarkable document. He said that it accepted that processes for maintaining and renewing the railway to an acceptable standard had clearly been broken, and that there were no robust plans in place to live within the rail regulator's targets, even before the lessons of the Hatfield derailment. There was a significant unwillingness by managers higher up to live within budgets and plans, and the business plan could not "be regarded as an acceptable plan in financial terms". That is Railtrack's own five-year business plan, which was produced at the end of March. Railtrack's audited results for the year ending 31 March 2001 appeared on 24 May 2001. For the first time, the Railtrack Group had made a loss, after taxation, of £559 million—down from the previous year's profit of £295 million. That, I would have thought, would have given a stark warning to many of the private shareholders and small investors, to whom the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and others have referred. A gap of £3.6 billion was disclosed between budgeted income and expenditure during what is called control period 2. The projected cost of the west coast main line had increased and escalated to £6.3 billion as a result of Railtrack's management. All that led Mr. Justice Lindsay in the High Court to comment: "It would not, in my view, be unfair to comment that a company which needed, as did Railtrack, to give very careful attention to whether its accounts could properly be prepared on a going concern basis was a company which was likely to be heading towards seriously difficult times." That was the view taken by the judge in the High Court case. The final piece of the jigsaw in respect of the real value of Railtrack came on 4 June 2001, when the financial brokers ABN Amro, released a circular with a selling recommendation to the market as to the value of Railtrack shares. It analysed the financial position of Railtrack in some detail and there were dire warnings. It said that investors should be in no doubt that their equity was in danger of being wiped out and that the rising levels of debt threatened to engulf the value of its regulated assets, rendering the equity worthless. The then current share price of 438p implied wildly optimistic outcomes. Based on its expectations of performance, Amro valued Railtrack's shares at 58p. We can therefore see the financial position of Railtrack in the statements of Railtrack itself and from independent financial commentators who made it clear that the company was in great difficulties. Investors were warned to be careful in case their equity was wiped out. All the warning signs were there. Then, of course, there is the view of the regulator. Conservative Members have made a big issue of the role played by the regulator. It was in many ways a unique privatised sector because, although regulation applied across all privatisations, Railtrack was the only privatised utility that depended on a public subsidy. Two thirds of its revenue came from taxpayers and no other regulator had the same responsibility. With the regulation of gas and electricity, for example, when the regulator makes his determinations, he is not signing a cheque on behalf of the Government. That is the difference: when the rail regulator makes a determination, it is not the shareholders or the private sector, but the taxpayer who bears the cost. We are talking about a structure that was set up under the Conservatives to make Railtrack work in the City: they introduced an independent regulator but, exceptionally, one who was using taxpayers' money to subsidise the company. I want to deal with Mr. Winsor's view of Railtrack, but I will give way later. Tom Winsor was the rail regulator at the relevant time and, on the evening of 12 June 2001, he made a speech to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which painted a bleak picture of Railtrack. He said that the west coast main line project had not been properly worked out and that things had got steadily worse, even after the Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield derailments. He said that Railtrack could not be trusted to deliver, that its share price had fallen below the 1996 offer price and that it had lost its essential skills base of engineers. The company, said Mr. Winsor, in a phrase to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier, "should put away the begging bowl and stop spending valuable management time hawking themselves unwanted round Whitehall and knuckle down to getting train services back to a sustainable level of reliability and quality of service". That is what Tom Winsor wanted Railtrack to do. The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point when he describes the unique triangular relationship between the rail regulator, the Government and Railtrack. We accept that, but our case is that, because that relationship was enshrined in statute, the proper conduct of Government would have required him, as Secretary of State, and others in government to form public policy properly and to come honestly to the House and not do it on the sly, as we accuse him of doing, by applying improperly for a rail administration order and trying to ignore the statutory power of the regulator. If that is not true, why would Shriti Vadera have said: "The rail regulator is the total wild card . . . I hope we are all aware of the risks here . . . We cannot silence him over the weekend and if he stands up and says he has a grand plan which could keep the company solvent, we're up the creek."? I shall talk in detail about what happened but I want to address that point head on, as the politics of the decision are key. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe seem to hold the view that once the Conservative Government had created this being called the rail regulator, with all his rights, responsibilities and duties, a new Government—a Labour Government in this case—could not touch him. That is the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said. The regulator was a Conservative creation, so how could the Labour Government have the audacity to unravel a Conservative privatisation? Look at the facts that were before the court. I said clearly in court and to the rail regulator, who was acutely aware of the fact, that legislation would be needed and I would have to take it through the House and another place. Of course, that is what we would have done, had we needed to. Primary legislation would have been needed, but I have no doubt that, with my colleagues, we would have done what we needed to do if it was necessary because it was in the interests of the travelling public so to do. For four years, the Government accepted that structure and the right hon. Gentleman well knew that it was on the basis of that structure that the shareholders had invested and held their shareholding. The only reason that he decided to legislate was to make the company go bust, at the expense of the shareholders. For four years, he had announced no intention of legislating. It is clearly not the case that we were legislating to make the company go bust. The court was clear about that. Mr. Justice Lindsay, talking about the evidence that he had received from the chairman of Railtrack, commented: "In his evidence to me Mr. Robinson accepted that without government support Railtrack was unable to pay its debts and that that had been true for a long time." That was the situation: the company was unable to pay its debts. I decided as a matter of public policy that the Government would not bail out Railtrack with yet more public money. To secure that public policy objective, I would have had to take legislation through this place and the House of Lords, but the Conservatives somehow find it grossly insulting that, when there is a change of Government, we want to do things differently. Well, we wanted to do things differently and we did. I believe that having a company to run the infrastructure that puts the interests of the public first is far better than having a company—Railtrack—which had a legal duty always to put its shareholders first. That was the fatal flaw in the Railtrack privatisation. Mr. Winsor was robust in his approach to Railtrack, and it was for that reason that the company came to the Government and not to the rail regulator for an interim review—the route established by the Conservative Government when they were in office. Because the rail regulator was sending out such a clear message, the company decided to try to do a deal with the Government. I can understand why. A deal was done in April 2001, when £1.5 billion was brought forward in what was described as the endeavour settlement to assist Railtrack in its financial difficulties, largely as a result of Hatfield. A deal was done with the Government. The company pleaded poverty and £1.5 billion was made available. It is interesting that, within a month, £134 million of that sum had been given out in a dividend to Railtrack shareholders. Another key point about the April settlement is that the Government made it clear that, although we would stand behind the railway industry, we would not stand behind individual companies and that shareholders needed to be aware of that fact. Unlike what the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, the Government were open about our approach to the railway industry. There were to be no more bail-outs. People learned lessons after the £1.5 billion in April and we hoped that that money would see Railtrack through, but the company told us that it needed more money. Railtrack came to the Government in strictest confidence, however, so it was not something we could make public. The company wanted help but it told us about the position in confidence. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe will know from his outside interests that companies often approach the Government on a commercially confidential basis, which is not to be made public to the stock market or anybody else. That is what happened in that case and I make no apology for it. The matter was not something to be debated openly. A company was coming to the Government in private, in commercial confidentiality, saying, "We've got these problems. Can you help us out?". As a result, we held discussions, especially from 25 July, to try to resolve the difficulties that Railtrack faced. On 5 October, I had to decide whether to give more public money to Railtrack or tell the company that enough was enough and that, if it was insolvent, it should petition for administration. The House debated the situation extensively in autumn 2001 and two distinct decisions were taken. On Friday 5 October, there was the decision to say no to extra finance for Railtrack. We paid all the money due to the company but nothing more. Then, on the basis of the advice I received on the Sunday morning, I agreed to petition for insolvency in line with my powers as Secretary of State. Grant Shapps Co-Chair, Conservative Party The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of the fact that extra money was going to Railtrack, but will he answer the question that has been put several times this afternoon about whether an additional £14 billion of public money went to Network Rail? We do not know whether it was additional because we do not know what the rail regulator might have decided in an interim review, so we cannot answer that question. However, we are now in a far better position with Network Rail, which can deliver in the public interest, as opposed to Railtrack, which had that fundamental flaw. The company was failing in management terms and it can also be argued that its structure and the way that it was set up—putting the interests of shareholders first—could not deliver for the railway. The performance figures show that the railways are on the mend. There still needs to be much improvement, but the structure that is in place and that is being built on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a far better one to deliver in the interests of the travelling public. A specific point was made about the position of the rail regulator. Mr. Winsor was robust in his approach. He knew that I had to take legislation through this place and the House of Lords. That is why, when the Railtrack directors phoned him on the Saturday evening—incidentally, they said they were ringing him only for due diligence—he said that he could conduct an interim review, but that he did not have much time. He asked them when they wanted the money. They said, "By Monday." They wanted millions of pounds by Monday. That was the response of the Railtrack directors. Mr. Winsor indicated clearly that, although he could conduct a review, I would have to take the measure through this place and the House of Lords and that it would take time, but they did not want to know. They knew that the game was up and that Railtrack was a company that could not pay its way. For that reason, when the case got to the court on the Sunday, they waived the two-days' notice that was theirs. They could have delayed the whole thing by a couple of days to have proper conversations with the regulator. They did not do that, but waived their right to have another couple of days to try to get a deal with the rail regulator. They gave up—they did not want to know. That is what the Railtrack directors did in those circumstances. Anne McIntosh Shadow Minister (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) Of course I give way to a former Railtrack shareholder. As the House will recall, I took evidence on this point—and, yes, as the right hon. Gentleman says, I held Railtrack shares at the time. Why did he threaten the rail regulator? Why did he not allow the rail regulator to use the powers that the House had vested in the rail regulator under the legislation? By not allowing the rail regulator to use those powers, what message does that send to regulators in other industries? I appreciate that the hon. Lady has only just come into the Chamber, but we have covered that issue extensively earlier in the debate. [Hon. Members: "Answer!"] I shall repeat it all if hon. Members want me to. It is a strange logic of what democracy is all about to suggest that, because a Conservative Government have created an edifice, a Labour Government cannot come in and change it. Yes, the hon. Lady is right: the Railways Act 1993 allowed the regulator to be in place. I indicated to the regulator that I would legislate if need be for powers to direct the regulator, but I did not need to legislate—in reality, there was no need to do so. That was the situation, but it is flawed logic to say that, somehow, a different Government cannot bring legislation before the House. Mr. Winsor was aware that legislation would be necessary, which is why he said, on the Saturday evening, "The Secretary of State has said that he wants to legislate, but that will take time. I can conduct an interim review while he tries to do so." I think that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made that point in relation to my speech in the House in November 2001. I have a very brief question for the right hon. Gentleman: why did he not act in the four years after a Labour Government were elected? I was the Secretary of State only from 9 June and some people say that I acted far too quickly, but the Government did act. We were trying to make the structure work, but it became very clear that that simply was not the case. That is why I took the decision. It is interesting to read the view of Mr. Justice Lindsay in the High Court, where he was taken through the arguments about my conduct. He says: "I do not see that he", referring to me— "or the Department can be fairly criticised for anticipating that if there was to be no funding beyond Railtrack's legal entitlement then legislation might be needed to be sure that that important policy decision could not be undermined." That was the view of the judge in the High Court case, and we are revisiting all the arguments that were heard in the High Court at the end of June and throughout July—but, no doubt, we will hear a few more now. The right hon. Gentleman is right: he would have been entitled to come to the House to try to change the law, but he was working within existing statute law. Why did he not tell the judge who granted the administration order about the powers of the regulator, who, if he had chosen to exercise them, could have staved off the insolvency that was granted in that order? All the relevant details were provided to the court, as far as I am aware. I refer once again to the point made by Mr. Justice Lindsay. In referring to the making of the order, he says: "The learned judge"— Mr. Justice Lightman— "accepted that the Company either was or was likely to be unable to pay its debts. In his evidence to me Mr Robinson", who was the chairman of Railtrack, "accepted that without government support Railtrack was unable to pay its debts and that had been true for a long time." So Railtrack gave up, effectively, because its directors knew the state that their company was in. A major public policy decision was taken to say that no additional funding should be given to Railtrack, and we met all our legal obligations.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton says from a sedentary position, "You didn't tell us," but the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was agreeing with me when I went through the nature of a major company coming to the Government in confidence with commercial information. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has never held Government office—he is unlikely ever to do so—but if he consulted the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he could have explained to him what the nature of government is all about. He would find that useful. It would not have any practical application—he will never have the chance—but it might be good for his wider knowledge of the way in which government works. Railtrack was a flawed privatisation. Railtrack was obliged to meet the needs of its shareholders. With Network Rail, we now have a far better system that can put the travelling public first and we are beginning to see improvements in the railway system as a result. When the chairman of Railtrack met the Prime Minister in July 2001, he described his view of Railtrack. I shall quote because the language may not be quite parliamentary. He said that Railtrack was "a crap company". He was absolutely right in that analysis of Railtrack. Despite all the criticism that I have had over the years from Railtrack shareholders, aided and abetted by Conservative Members, as they have been again this afternoon, I am confident that, when I took the decision in the autumn of 2001 to say, "No more extra money for Railtrack" and to put the interests of the travelling public first, I did so after proper debate and deliberation in government. I did it with the powers that I then had as Secretary of State for Transport, and I am absolutely confident that it was the right decision to take in the public interest and for those people who travel every day on our railway network. So I make no apology for that decision and for unwinding the Tory privatisation that was Railtrack. It was failing the industry and the travelling public, and we did things rightly and properly in the public interest. That is why I will support the Government amendment this evening. Damian Green Conservative, Ashford 6:07 pm, 24th October 2005 It has been instructive to listen to both the current and the former Secretaries of State for Transport, who have been anxious to tell us what they did, but very reluctant to deal with why they did it, which is central to the point made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the motion. I want to concentrate for a few minutes—I am conscious that other colleagues wish to speak—on the second half of the motion, which criticises the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's special adviser and then considers the impropriety in the formation of Government policy. That lies at the heart of the debate. As well as the hugely important issue of running an efficient railway, it is possibly even more important that we run a fair and decent Government, and the whole episode reveals that the current group of Ministers—especially the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers—are not capable of doing so. I shall concentrate on the use and behaviour of special advisers. As a former special adviser, I want to challenge the implication that the way in which special advisers' now routinely behave, which damages the reputation of the whole civil service, is in any way comparable with how they used to behave under previous Governments. The events surrounding Railtrack illustrate that the Government no longer hold to one of their articles of faith. They have always believed that the public care only about what they do and not at all about how they do it. That theory was exploded by the Iraq war, when even some of those who supported the Government's policy were deeply disturbed by the Government's lack of candour about their reasons for taking action and, equally, by the slapdash way in which decisions are taken, which allows the lack of candour to flourish because it bypasses the proper systems of government. What is transparent from both the files and today's debate is that the Government wanted to renationalise Railtrack. That policy could have been properly debated in the House. Indeed, that happened in other venues. That is an entirely proper policy debate. What is not proper, and what the Chancellor's special adviser in particular seems to have driven, are the efforts to renationalise by stealth and on the cheap. In particular, as we have heard throughout the debate, the Chancellor's special adviser was the driving force behind the contempt shown to Railtrack shareholders. The audit trail is clear. On 26 July 2001, Ms Shriti Vadera wrote: "I was thinking we need a trigger to insolvency that we decisively pull." At the end of July she was asking in e-mails: "Can we engineer the solution through insolvency—finding the right balance between not having triggered it and therefore avoid compensation. . . . but enough to be seen to have acted decisively". She went on to state at the end of August that "we have enough things to spend money on in the sector without worrying about bailing out shareholders who added no value to the company", before her now notorious e-mail describing the shareholders as "grannies". What the e-mails illustrate is not just Ms Vadera's contempt for small shareholders—that is a matter between her and her political masters, especially, perhaps, those Treasury Ministers who purport to support an enterprise economy—but how much real power lies in the hands of special advisers who seem to have no regard for any proper process of government. Permanent officials would not write e-mails like that about a sensitive matter of public policy, because they have proper regard for the way in which advice to Ministers should be devised and presented. Under previous Governments, special advisers would not have written like that, either. It is not a matter of pedantry or trying to wrap up advice in Sir Humphrey-style obfuscation; it is a decent regard for propriety, without which even democratic government loses its legitimacy. Governments have huge power. That means that individual officials have huge power and should exercise it responsibly. Many people would say that it is wrong to talk about officials, because Ministers take responsibility for decisions. I wish that were still the case. Under this Government, Ministers too often duck and dive and try to evade responsibility. Just occasionally, the light shines on what is going on behind Whitehall's closed doors and we discover who is pulling the strings. The Government who brought us Jo Moore and still bring us Shriti Vadera have no right to hide behind constitutional or parliamentary proprieties. The people who tore up the old rule book cannot hide behind the old rules. In this case in particular, they cannot hide behind the old rules because Ms Vadera was clearly uninterested in maintaining the structure of the rail industry, which had been left in place to ensure that a proper balance was maintained. We have just had an interesting debate about the role of the rail regulator and Mr. Tom Winsor's interpretation of it. It was entirely in the Government's power in four years to instigate a discussion and introduce legislation. They chose not to do so. When it came to the point where they wanted to renationalise Railtrack on the cheap, they realised that he might be an obstacle, so they started threatening him. The history of that episode shows that instead of having a proper policy debate, they choose to do things behind closed doors. It is worth analysing who lies behind this manifestation of the increase in special advisers' powers and the misuse of that power. The plans for the destruction of Railtrack on the cheap were clearly hatched in the Treasury, and the spider at the centre of the web was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a little ironic, but I feel sorry for the Prime Minister, who has had to suffer public rebuke following the Butler report for his informal style of sofa government. The Chancellor is in many ways more culpable of subverting the proper processes of government, because he is characteristically more thorough, more rigorous and more focused than the Prime Minister when he sets about subverting the processes of proper government. The Chancellor's special adviser in this case was assiduous in pulling together and forcing through the policy that led to the collapse of Railtrack. To return to my first point, such behaviour on the part of a special adviser was unthinkable under any previous Government of any party. Special advisers are in a privileged position and should recognise that that brings responsibilities. That has clearly not happened in this case. Even more importantly, senior Ministers who appoint and employ special advisers should make it clear to them that they are expected to meet the highest standards of propriety—the standards that all of us expect from permanent officials. It is plain that the Chancellor does not expect or encourage his special advisers to meet those high standards. All that is a most serious charge to lay at the Chancellor's door. He aspires to be Prime Minister. In that role he would be responsible for the conduct of all his Ministers. Why should Ministers or special advisers respect the rules when the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the rules in contempt? The Government's conduct over Railtrack stinks, because those at the very top of the Government do not care about using their power in a proper, decent and fair way. For that they should be ashamed. Grant Shapps Co-Chair, Conservative Party 6:15 pm, 24th October 2005 I am the Member of Parliament for Hatfield. I was in Hatfield on the day of the crash and have followed the goings-on with great interest as a result of the immediacy of the case to me. I pass the memorial at Hatfield almost every day and am familiar with the issues of the cracked corner rail, which led to that tragedy and the four deaths. This, however, is not a debate about Railtrack and whether it was a good or bad company. This is a debate about the way in which Railtrack was renationalised on the cheap. That is the only subject of the debate, and all the contributions that we have heard this afternoon from the Government Benches about how it was something to do with the success or otherwise of Railtrack are red herrings. They are irrelevant to the case. I have been in business for the past 15 years. It is a company limited by guarantee, so there are shareholders. The idea that a Government can take away those shares without due process and, in this case, without reference in advance to Parliament, is appalling. That is exactly what happened. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Government took away the shares of those who held shares in Railtrack. To ensure that he is not misleading the House, will he reconsider what he said? He will know that Railtrack shareholders got £2.50, I think, or £2.60 each, so they got the value in the company. The Government did not take away any shares from Railtrack shareholders. Indeed. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. Earlier, he told us that he thought shareholders got £2.50 or £2.60 when the company went into administration. I can tell him that the shares were at £2.80 when he effectively put Railtrack into administration, and the shareholders were compensated at just £2.50. I am happy to correct that assertion and to cover another point that I wanted to mention about the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. Make no mistake: this is not an argument about whether we think Railtrack was a good or a bad company. It is not even an argument about whether we think the directors of the company were running the company correctly. There is well established company law to deal with all those matters. If the company was trading insolvently, just as if my company were trading insolvently, there are laws to deal with the directors in such instances. It is not good enough for the Government or the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to say that because the company was inefficient, or even if the company was in some way acting incorrectly in a legal sense, the only choice was to force it into administration, yet that is exactly what happened. The critical point is that it happened without reference to the House. The same argument is used about the independent rail regulator and the idea that he could not have been approached differently. We have heard about the e-mails that were flying about. In one, the Government were concerned that the rail regulator might thwart them, and they considered the Office of the Rail Regulator a "total wild card". In the e-mails of September and October 2001, the Government said that if they could not silence the regulator, and if he stood up to them, the plan to keep the company solvent would be "up the creek". In other words, the right hon. Gentleman feared the rail regulator. Time is short and it is important that we allow for sufficient summing up on both sides. As we have seen from today's debate, the project code-named operation Ariel was anything but whiter than white. Kenneth Clarke Chair, Tax Law Rewrite Bills (Joint Committee) 6:19 pm, 24th October 2005 It gives me great pleasure to make one of my occasional guest appearances at the Dispatch Box. I have followed the Railtrack case since the evidence in the court case first began to reveal to the public exactly how the whole process came about. One of my key interests in politics during this Government's period in office is the way in which standards in public life have been reduced and the way in which the Government have changed the decision-making process. In the past eight years, most of the proper process has been subverted by the way in which new Labour operates, of which the Railtrack case is a prime example—indeed, it is the best example that we have seen so far, because of all the evidence that has come out. When the evidence on the Railtrack case came out, it did not get the publicity that it might have received because it followed the tragic London underground bombings. Then we had to wait for the judge to pronounce on whether the then Secretary of State was motivated by personal malice towards the shareholders. Today, the Government are trying to evade responsibility by introducing general arguments about the privatisation of the railways and the competence of Railtrack's directors, whom I will not defend. They are avoiding not only the decision itself, but the very way in which the decision was taken and the processes by which the ultimate insolvency occurred and the situation we face today arose. This Government took over eight years ago, and they have changed the way in which the Government operate, to the detriment of good decision making and the proprieties of public life, such as openness to the public and accountability to this Parliament. They no longer follow any proper system of Cabinet government, collective responsibility or recorded open decision making. I have been through all the papers and, so far as I can see, no Cabinet paper was ever produced and most Ministers, including most members of the Cabinet, had no idea what was being planned. That is a classic example of informal decision making on the sofa of one Minister or another. The only people who had the first idea what was going on were the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport and his then colleagues and, crucially, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who played a key role throughout. Meetings were unminuted, and many departmental officials did not leave their fingerprints behind. Fortunately, not only were one or two minutes kept, but a series of extremely reckless and unsuitable e-mails went flying between Departments. The former Secretary of State has said that the Department willingly produced some of the information, when the whole ghastly tale began to be revealed. This Government do not follow any of the normal rules of parliamentary accountability. We have just heard Mr. Byers discuss his intention to legislate, to which I shall return in a moment. This House was never informed about any Government plan to legislate to take away the independent regulator's powers. Indeed, when the report of the court proceedings was recently released, it came as a revelation to all hon. Members and to most Ministers. In my opinion, the best example of the absence of parliamentary accountability is the lack of any appearance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or even, so far as I have observed, any Treasury Minister. The Opposition motion is extremely critical of the Chancellor of Exchequer, because his special adviser orchestrated the policy and because he was mainly responsible for the way in which the Government planned to restructure Railtrack. I cannot remember a Minister who, having been personally chastised by a motion on the Order Paper, did not bother to stick his nose around the corner of the Chair, and it will be interesting to see whether his name appears in the Division list. In my opinion—I am sorry to give this news to anyone who has not heard it—the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the next Prime Minister of this country. Under the present Prime Minister, standards of parliamentary accountability have declined to a quite unacceptable degree, but I fear that the next Prime Minister will make the present one look like a democratic saint. The next Prime Minister is a control freak who disdains any criticism on the Floor of the House of Commons and leaves his colleagues to look after such matters for him. One of the worst things that has been revealed by this case is the undermining of the independence of the civil service and the misuse of the role of special adviser—a subject on which I have previously made entire speeches. The Government always promise to introduce a civil service Bill to restore the independence of the civil service and to protect the civil service when it is made to do things of which it doubts the wisdom; unfortunately, the legislative programme never includes enough time in which to introduce it. The special advisers in this case acted in an extraordinary manner. I will not repeat all the allegations against the special adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but she is obviously a formidable lady and she played a leading role. I pity the unfortunate officials in the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who had to contend with Jo Moore, who is, by all accounts, a very difficult lady, and who ended the ministerial career of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside for the time being. The Chancellor's special adviser was also obviously regarded as extremely formidable. When she summoned meetings, all the officials attended, and when she gave guidance on the Treasury's view, it was followed. The right hon. Member for North Tyneside, who at least has the courtesy to smile, must remember the times when he wondered who was in charge of his Department. He had to take instructions from the people who came to see him from the Treasury. Many of my hon. Friends who are present in the House tonight were formerly special advisers to Conservative Governments. I can see five former special advisers, and two of them were special advisers in the Treasury in my time. All those hon. Members will confirm that they would have been sacked if they had behaved like that. If my hon. Friend John Bercow, who was a special adviser in the Treasury, or my hon. Friend Mr. Ruffley, who was also a special adviser, had sent such e-mails to the Department for Transport and had addressed the Secretary of State and his officials in the same way as the current Chancellor's special adviser, they would have been sacked. However, I would have expected any half-decent Secretary of State for Transport to have thrown out the Chancellor's special adviser and sent her back to the Treasury. When the Chancellor wants to issue instructions, he should have the courtesy to call a meeting and issue them himself. What were those instructions, and what was the Government's motive? The right hon. Member for North Tyneside has attempted to evade the whole point of the debate. He relies heavily on the fact that the court found in his favour, but it did so because the shareholders had to climb the extraordinary mountain of seeking to demonstrate that he was acting out of a sense of personal malice against them, which they failed to do. The court expressly left open the politics of the matter, and I do not think that a court was the right place to determine the proper conduct of government, the parliamentary process and other things. I have no personal malice against the right hon. Member for North Tyneside, but he cannot escape either on the grounds of the court judgment or on the evidence he cited, where he was just being disingenuous. He says that he was motivated by a concern for the travelling public, but they are not mentioned—there is not even a passing reference—in the e-mails. [Laughter.] Suddenly, he remembered Hatfield and Ladbroke Grove. There is nothing in the papers about punishment being imposed for the undoubted lapses in maintenance standards at Hatfield and Ladbroke Grove. He talked about how much he resented having the legislation, which was not his creation, that gave the regulator his role, and how it was really all the Conservatives' fault that that was there in the first place. He is a Blairite—a pro-privatiser. When the privatisation of the Royal Mail is proposed, if the Government can sort it out, he might even agree with me on that—I have no idea. During all his years in government he never showed the slightest interest in renationalising anything. For four years, his Government were in office and did nothing whatever to change the structure that they had, including the role of the independent regulator. Let us have none of this. The right hon. Gentleman and Ms Vadera were not driven by a sense of concern for the travelling public or by a sense of outrage at the evils of privatisation or the rail accidents that had occurred. They were interested in two things. The first, which we have not touched on today and is the subject for a much wider debate, is the Chancellor's overriding concern that the new body that was to be set up should be off balance sheet. That is why it failed and every other device failed. The thing that the Chancellor was most concerned about personally was that it should not appear on the books and that any future debt should be totally off balance sheet.—[Interruption.] Michael Howard Leader of the Opposition, Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, Leader of the Conservative Party Mr. Byers has just agreed. It is impossible to deny it: it is set out time and again as a given. There were 10 commandments, but one was the most important of all—"We must not have an honest Red Book; the public accounts should not reveal the truth about this creature we are going to set up called Network Rail"—and that had to determine everything. If the Chancellor had come here today, we might have had a go at him about this: given that he makes all these speeches about the need to have genuinely independent statistics of value and the importance of having an independent office, what on earth is he doing bullying the Office for National Statistics to reach, as it eventually did, the absurd decision—which no other statistician I know agrees with—that the current debts and liabilities of Network Rail should not be on the public balance sheet? The only reason the Chancellor is able to say that he is following his prudent borrowing rule is that £20 billion-worth or thereabouts of current Network Rail liabilities are shown as being in the private sector—at least, they are not included in the public debt and are never used when the Chancellor describes his actual fiscal position. So the Government's first main motive was to keep any debt off the public accounts—that drove everything and virtually stopped any other solution being chosen. The second, and the one that caused all the concern after the case, was that they must get hold of the assets of Network Rail either free of charge or at minimum cost, at the expense of the shareholders. That is what makes this example of abuse of public power particularly bad. All of us politicians, and anybody with a concern for public life, wish to see Cabinet government, the independence of the civil service, and proper accountability to Parliament. Those are very important constitutional issues. Sometimes the victim is public interest generally, and the problem is one of the proper administration of affairs. In this case, people were the victims—the shareholders whose assets had to be acquired, at minimum cost. The shareholders—I will not repeat the quotes, as they have featured often in the debate—were treated with total contempt, even being described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's special advisers as grannies who would lose their blouses. The special advisers did not often mention the railwaymen. Ninety per cent. of the staff of Network Rail had shares in their own company. They were the shareholders. Conservative Members have been accused of being more concerned about 250,000 shareholders than about the travelling public. A quarter of a million of our fellow citizens—not all of whom were small shareholders, but very many of whom were—were to have their assets taken from them at the very minimum cost to the Treasury. All these heaps of paper are taken up with constant contrivance to achieve that result. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the share price of Railtrack had dropped dramatically—to £2.80, as I recollect—as a result of the ineptness of the management? In fact, the shareholders got £2.50, having estimated in March that the actual value in the company was only 60p a share. How were they being robbed? They were obviously wrong in March. Everybody seems to have left to try to work out what assets would be available if the company was wound up. The price did go down to £2.80, which was below the level that the company had been floated at. It had at one time been £17. The fact is that we will never know what the value of the company would have been if the proper process had been followed. I shall turn to that in a moment. This company was not insolvent. We do not know what would have happened if a proper financial review had been conducted, because the right hon. Member for North Tyneside did not allow it. I will give way in a moment, but I am about to move on to the key question, which the right hon. Gentleman has not answered. Before asking me his question, will he agree that the main aim was to get the company into insolvency—that is repeated time and again—and to get the assets at low value? Can he find any expression of concern for the shareholders in these documents, apart from the fear of class actions in the United States—the Government were very worried about the American shareholders, who are litigious—and the fear of the institutional shareholders, who decided to cut their losses and bale out? If he will answer that, I will answer whatever question he wishes to ask me. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] I am going to answer his question in two parts. First, he should read the judgment to see what the judge says about the way in which the term "grannies" was used; he is very clear about that.—[Laughter.] It is interesting that Conservative Members have obviously not read the judgment. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman—this is the point on which I tried to intervene on him—is saying that taxpayers' money should have been used to give value to Railtrack shareholders. He must recognise, as the architect of Railtrack, that the regulator gives taxpayers' money as a result of any interim review, so he is saying, on behalf of the Conservative party, that taxpayers' money should have been used to increase the value of Railtrack shareholders. On the first point, I concede that there are occasions when the word "grannies" can be used as a term of endearment, but it is not my interpretation that that was the tone being adopted by the Chancellor's special adviser. On the second point, the right hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting what we are saying, as he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have done throughout the debate. We are not saying that if there had been a Conservative Government we would have put in a whole lot of money that the Labour party would not have put in. We are defending the then legal position of the independent regulator, which was undoubted. It was not for the Secretary of State to decide whether the company was solvent or received any income. We had legislated, I agree, for a situation whereby it was not a decision for the Secretary of State. The regulator had a statutory duty to make provision for these things. The whole basis upon which Railtrack had been floated was that of investment in the company by the shareholders. Of course the shareholders took a risk, but their measurement of that had to be based on what the judgment of the statutory regulator might be. That was the law—the right hon. Gentleman had made no attempt to change it. He acted because he feared that the powers of the regulator would stop him proceeding to his chosen route of insolvency. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, in line with the structure that he helped to create, the trigger for the review would have been a request from Railtrack's directors? If so, will he concede that they made no such request? That is poor mitigation. The right hon. Gentleman is accused of a crime—I use the word loosely; he is accused of an offence—yet he says, "I now realise that I needn't have done it." It is surprising that Railtrack did not resist. As I shall show, it was offered the opportunity to resist but it did not take it. It amazed the Government and it slightly amazes me that Railtrack did not challenge the administrative order. The right hon. Gentleman did not expect that; that is not what he was warned it would do. Let me make it clear again: I do not defend the board of Railtrack. Those who say that the shareholders and the travelling public have cause for complaint against the board of Railtrack have some grounds. It was in a lamentable state and I accept that any Government would have been obliged to consider restructuring the company to put it on a sounder footing, and to decide what had to be done to make the privatised railway, which the Government continue to run, work better. We are arguing about what they did and how they did it. They chose the route of insolvency and subsequently realised that they did not have the legal power to make the company insolvent because all the relevant powers were in the hands of a regulator. The Government held all sorts of private discussions. The lady from the Treasury pointed out that the regulator was the truly wild card. We have heard about all the connotations and how it was made increasingly clear to the Government that the chosen route of insolvency could be stopped by Tom Winsor, the regulator. They were discussing his, not their powers. The then Secretary of State for Transport cooked up the idea of legislating to take away the regulator's powers to make any decisions about the company's financial state or to give it any financial support. That was catastrophic. The regulator's decisions determined 90 per cent. of Railtrack's revenue. The train operators paid it for the use of the track and the signalling, and the regulator determined the amount. He had wide powers to undertake a financial review. The Government decided to make the company insolvent because that was the cheapest way of proceeding, but suddenly became aware of the existence of a truly wild card—a guy who had the legal power to do something about it. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way? I shall do so for the last time because I do not want to detract from the main point. I am grateful. I allowed the right hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene in my speech on several occasions. Is not his problem the fact that Railtrack knew that it was insolvent? It unquestionably could not pay its debts. It had been telling the Government for six months before October 2001 that it was in deep financial trouble. It might have wanted to approach the regulator, but not to get a second opinion about whether it was insolvent. The only reason for going to the regulator was to get barrel-loads of public money to stop it being insolvent. For that reason, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument falls down. We are not considering a company that was solvent in October 2001. By its own admission, it could not pay the debts and it wanted "millions of pounds by Monday morning". It could not get that. It was for the regulator to decide whether the company was insolvent. Railtrack knew that as well as the then Ministers. Railtrack despaired of following that route. Regardless of what it requested, it was up to the regulator to decide whether to give it anything. The regulator was independent and had rightly been severe about Railtrack's past performance. However, the route of approaching the regulator was cut off. The former Secretary of State has no answer to the question of why he got, in a meeting, the Prime Minister's personal authority to legislate, unless he feared that the regulator would produce a financial arrangement that would block the insolvency. There was no need to ask the Prime Minister for legislation if the regulator intended to do nothing. There was no need to contemplate emergency powers if Railtrack had accepted that it would not approach the regulator. The only reason for the device was to force an insolvency that the regulator might have stopped. The former Secretary of State told the regulator of his intentions only on the Friday before the Sunday when he made the application for the insolvency. I shall read the judge's account of the evidence that was given about the meeting with the regulator when the then Secretary of State told him of his intentions. Tom Winsor said "that Mr. Robinson's reaction would be likely to be an immediate application for an early interim review. Mr. Byers said that that had been thought of and that if such an application were made he had the authority (as he had) of the Prime Minister and Chancellor immediately to introduce emergency legislation to entitle the Secretary of State to give instructions to the Regulator. Mr. Winsor pointed out what adverse effects such legislation would have not just on railway financing but on regulated industries generally. He spoke, too, of implications under the Human Rights Act. He made no headway; Mr. Byers said an application to put the company into Railway Administration would be made on Sunday." The regulator was told that if he acted he would be sacked and that, even more important, his powers would be taken away. That makes it clear that there was only one motive: to ensure that he could not undertake a financial review and the company could not be rescued. Railtrack rolled over on the Sunday. It did not oppose the administration. By that time, it was disheartened, but the regulator had tried to stiffen its resolve. By Saturday, Mr. Winsor was talking to the chief executive of Railtrack. The judgment states: "Mr. Winsor, on the subject of the threatened legislation, pointed out that it would take time to be passed and was a difficult card for the government to play. It would be likely to be resisted by reason of its effect on other regulators and other regulated industries. It would be hard fought and might not be passed at all, but, despite that, Railtrack showed no interest. He suggested that they might call the government's bluff but Mr. Robinson just repeated that the government would do it." The unfortunate Mr. Robinson had lost heart and despaired. He considered a financial review and was told that the Government would legislate to remove the regulator's power and that there would be no review. The independent regulator invited him to call the Government's bluff because it would not have been easy to get the measure through the House. However, it was lucky for the right hon. Member for North Tyneside and the Government that Railtrack had finally had the stuffing beaten out of it. It was presented with a pistol but it did not fire it. It agreed to administration and the victims were the shareholders—the people who never discovered what the value of their company might have been. The scheme of putting the company into administration had been successful because the people in charge of Railtrack would not ask for a financial review. When told that the Government would legislate, they despaired. It is a sorry and disreputable story. It shows the process of government being subverted and misused. It shows motives that would never have come to light without the litigation. Only when the shareholders came to court did anybody know anything about the stage-by-stage discussion, planning and plotting that had gone on between a few people to produce such an appalling result. That is why we have tabled the motion and why the debate is important. Sooner or later, the style of government must be improved. When the current Chancellor becomes Prime Minister, my red hot tip for his successor is the current Secretary of State for Transport, who led for the Government in the debate. I hope that he raises the standard of government by an inch or two. To be fair to him, he did not defend all the processes that had been used; he tried to defend only the decision. To show that the matter is not simply a bee in the bonnet of Conservative politicians, I shall quote the comments that Simon Jenkins made in The Sunday Times on 17 July, when the judgment came out. [Interruption.] He is an independent commentator. He has said rude things about me in the past month or two, and about many other hon. Members. It is no good groaning about independent critics. He is also careful what he says: "The case is of massive significance to the integrity of British politics. It is the common man against Leviathan, the evidence portraying squirming ministers, bullying officials, money beyond dreams of avarice, chicanery and lies. Laid bare have been the inner workings of Tony Blair's courtier style of government. The Scott inquiry into arms-for-Iraq was small beer in comparison. The case tells us more about Whitehall's view of the world than ever did Hutton. It deserves a Spielberg movie to itself." I cannot say that that is overstated. I do not think that it is understated, either. We have had an opportunity, because of the court case, to see the veil ripped away and to see what actually happens in the new Labour Government when they handle a controversial decision. It is not a pretty sight. The Government should not escape censure for that, nor should the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. But the person who should be held responsible above all for this dreadful mess is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Stephen Ladyman Minister of State, Department for Transport 6:50 pm, 24th October 2005 Finally, with Mr. Clarke, we have at the Dispatch Box one of the real authors of the Railtrack misfortune. The party that says that it wants to look forward has given us a perfect opportunity to examine its past and rolled out one of its crustiest dinosaurs for us to have a look at. But the fact that the dinosaurs could roar did not mean that they were not finished. There was not a word of apology from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We did not hear a word about his role in the creation of Railtrack.—[Interruption.] We did not hear a mutter of regret from any of the sad remnants of the Major Government who are sitting on the Front Bench today; I can see at least three of them. There was not a breath of apology, not a murmur of regret, so let me start by putting the record straight.—[Interruption.] Sylvia Heal Deputy Speaker Order. The House must come to order. Stephen Ladyman Minister of State, Department for Transport The disaster that was Railtrack had its origins in the botched privatisation of the railway system, for which the Government whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman served were totally responsible. It was a disaster born of a feckless, economically illiterate and weak Government who were determined to force railway privatisation on the nation, whatever the price. As the price mounted, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who after all became Chancellor of the Exchequer before the privatisation was complete, once count the price? When he became Chancellor and the sale was being forced through before the general election, did he put his foot down and block the bargain basement disposal of national assets? Not at all. On the reorganisation of Railtrack, he was silent. When railwaymen and engineers were being elbowed from the board and replaced with retailers and property men, he did not utter a word to stop it—not a murmur. In an intervention, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, when he was in office, things would not have been done as they were done by this Government. He said that the Conservatives would have convened a Cabinet Committee and exchanged ideas in memos. Did those memos and those Cabinet Committees stop the disaster that was Railtrack? Instead, that Government and that Chancellor pushed ahead. If anyone has lost money on Railtrack, if railway travellers wonder why rebuilding the railways has taken so long, and if taxpayers want to know why so much money went into the pockets of Railtrack for so little return, they need look no further than that Conservative Government and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If they want to know what the Conservative party would have done in the same circumstances, they need look no further than the comments of Tory Front Benchers—[Interruption.] Nor from Tory Front Benchers was there a word of regret. There was none of the humility that Tom Brake suggested we should see from them. They have made it clear that, in the same circumstances, they would do what they did then, all leading to today's master-class in denial. My right hon. Friend Mr. Byers reminded us of the state of the railways at the time. He reminded us that the neglect of those railways led directly to Hatfield. Not only was Railtrack insolvent, but it was not even fulfilling its basic obligations to maintain the railway. Damian Green alleged that we wanted to renationalise, but provided absolutely no evidence of that. He mentioned special advisers. The role of such advisers was dealt with in some detail in the judgment, but time and again, Conservative Members said that those advisers were not considered in the judgment. I do not think that they have read it. They were dealt with in detail and that judgment vindicated the Government every step of the way. On the matter of advisers, I quote directly from the judgment: "Until a policy decision is made, at which point the government can be expected to present a united front in support of that policy, there are likely to be very different and often conflicting arguments within the several ministries or departments likely to be affected by the decision . . . One can thus expect, before a policy issue becomes a decision of government, that Ministers will be found to be expressing very different views as the prospective policy is thrashed out. Still less, at that or any stage, will views expressed by Ministers' respective Special Advisers be the views of government rather than their commonly being their individual attempts to argue their corner in support of what they know to be or what they hope to be their Minister's inclinations or with a view to leading the Minister to the inclination which the Special Adviser prefers." It is clear that the judgment specifically dealt with the role of special advisers. Grant Shapps mentioned that he was a director of a small business and said that its shareholders would be horrified at the idea that Government could take away their shares. The Government did not take away the shares of those who invested in Railtrack. Those shareholders were paid between £2.50 and £2.60 for each of their shares. If insolvency was absolutely inevitable, why did the Government try to intimidate the rail regulator and threaten him with abolition? Insolvency was not only inevitable, it was a fait accompli because the directors of Railtrack themselves had admitted that the company was already insolvent. That comes out of every page of the judgment. It comes out of every page of the witness statements. It comes out of every page of the bundle of evidence provided to the courts. What comes out of every single page of the judgment is that the Railtrack directors understood themselves that the company was already insolvent. They even had a document that told them that, when the company shares were trading at £8, they were worth just 60p. They even got a letter from one of their own advisers saying that 60p was an exaggeration and that the shares were actually worth 58p. The Government did not make Railtrack insolvent—it was insolvent all along. Indeed, post Railtrack being put into administration, the Government did act, when restructuring the industry, to provide £500 million for the shareholders of Railtrack, so the idea that we took away the shares and— Will the Minister give way? I have no time. I am sorry. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was only supposed to speak for 20 minutes, but like all his promises when in government, he broke that one, too. I put it to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield: what role does he think directors take in running a company? Whom should shareholders blame when things go wrong in a company? If his company went into insolvency, would he think that he had a right to go to his major customer and demand that it provide more money in return for no more services, just to keep his company going? Of course he would not. As we have heard, the judgment is a complete vindication of the Government's position. After weeks of evidence and weeks of cross-examination, the judgment found—[Interruption.] Graham Stuart Conservative, Beverley and Holderness Was gibberish a compliment, then, on the part of the judge?—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I could not hear what the hon. Gentleman said because his Conservative colleagues were making so much noise. The Government were right to put their contingency plans in place, and the idea that the Government should have funded Railtrack without limit and conditions was, in the judge's own words, a "hopeless proposition". The judge described what was the reasonable perception in Government of Railtrack in 2000 and 2001: "It was seen as 'frankly a mess', with weak management at the zonal levels. It was pilloried in the Press for bad management. It had difficulty even in funding the necessary regular maintenance. It had major projects without the skills to manage them. It was being ground down by the Regulator (so said its own advisers)." It was not the Government who sought not to go to the regulator. It was Railtrack itself that proposed to the Government that they should bail it out by giving it unlimited money, and freedom from the regulator for four years. When putting those plans to the Government, it insisted that the regulator should not be told about them. The directors of Railtrack were directly responsible for the management of their company. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the remnants of the Major Government need to take responsibility for the fact that they put incompetent people on the board of that company, which led directly to its collapse and to the problems that we have experienced in the rail industry. The Labour Government have been vindicated, every step of the way, by the judgment. I suggest that we regard the Conservative motion in the same way as the judge described the shareholders' proposition: it is a preposterous idea. Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:— The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 343. Link to this item In context Individually Division number 65 Railtrack Aye: 174 MPs No: 343 MPs Ayes: A-Z by last name Adam Afriyie Conservative Peter Ainsworth Conservative Sir David Amess Conservative Michael Ancram Conservative James Arbuthnot Conservative Peter Atkinson Conservative Richard Bacon Conservative Tony Baldry Conservative Gregory Barker Conservative John Baron Conservative Henry Bellingham Conservative Richard Benyon Conservative John Bercow Conservative Paul Beresford Conservative Brian Binley Conservative Crispin Blunt Conservative Peter Bone Conservative Tim Boswell Conservative Graham Brady Conservative Julian Brazier Conservative James Brokenshire Conservative Angela Browning Conservative Simon Burns Conservative David Burrowes Conservative Alistair Burt Conservative John Butterfill Conservative Gregory Campbell DUP Douglas Carswell Conservative Bill Cash Conservative Christopher Chope Conservative James Clappison Conservative Greg Clark Conservative Kenneth Clarke Conservative Derek Conway Conservative Patrick Cormack Conservative Geoffrey Cox Conservative Stephen Crabb Conservative David Curry Conservative Quentin Davies Conservative Philip Davies Conservative David Davis Conservative Jonathan Djanogly Conservative Nadine Dorries Conservative James Duddridge Conservative Alan Duncan Conservative Iain Duncan Smith Conservative Philip Dunne Conservative Tobias Ellwood Conservative Nigel Evans Conservative David Evennett Conservative Michael Fallon Conservative Mark Field Conservative Eric Forth Conservative Mark Francois Conservative Roger Gale Conservative Edward Garnier Conservative David Gauke Conservative Nick Gibb Conservative Dame Cheryl Gillan Conservative Paul Goodman Conservative Robert Goodwill Conservative Michael Gove Conservative James Gray Conservative Chris Grayling Conservative Damian Green Conservative Justine Greening Conservative John Greenway Conservative Dominic Grieve Conservative John Gummer Conservative Philip Hammond Conservative Stephen Hammond Conservative Greg Hands Conservative Mark Harper Conservative John Hayes Conservative Oliver Heald Conservative David Heathcoat-Amory Conservative Nick Herbert Conservative Sylvia Hermon UUP Mark Hoban Conservative Douglas Hogg Conservative Philip Hollobone Conservative Adam Holloway Conservative John Horam Conservative Michael Howard Conservative Gerald Howarth Conservative Jeremy Hunt Conservative Nick Hurd Conservative Michael Jack Conservative Stewart Jackson Conservative Bernard Jenkin Conservative Boris Johnson Conservative David Jones Conservative Daniel Kawczynski Conservative Robert Key Conservative Julie Kirkbride Conservative Jacqui Lait Conservative Mark Lancaster Conservative Andrew Lansley Conservative Edward Leigh Conservative Oliver Letwin Conservative Ian Liddell-Grainger Conservative David Lidington Conservative Peter Lilley Conservative Tim Loughton Conservative Peter Luff Conservative Andrew MacKay Conservative David Maclean Conservative Anne Main Conservative Humfrey Malins Conservative John Maples Conservative Michael Mates Conservative Theresa May Conservative Anne McIntosh Conservative Patrick McLoughlin Conservative Patrick Mercer Conservative Maria Miller Conservative Anne Milton Conservative Andrew Mitchell Conservative Malcolm Moss Conservative Andrew Murrison Conservative Brooks Newmark Conservative Stephen O'Brien Conservative George Osborne Conservative Richard Ottaway Conservative James Paice Conservative Owen Paterson Conservative Andrew Pelling Conservative John Penrose Conservative Eric Pickles Conservative Mark Prisk Conservative Mark Pritchard Conservative John Redwood Conservative Malcolm Rifkind Conservative Laurence Robertson Conservative Hugh Robertson Conservative David Ruffley Conservative Lee Scott Conservative Andrew Selous Conservative Grant Shapps Conservative Richard Shepherd Conservative Mark Simmonds Conservative Keith Simpson Conservative Nicholas Soames Conservative Caroline Spelman Conservative Bob Spink Conservative Richard Spring Conservative Anthony Steen Conservative Gary Streeter Conservative Graham Stuart Conservative Desmond Swayne Conservative Hugo Swire Conservative Robert Syms Conservative Peter Tapsell Conservative Richard Taylor Independent Ian Taylor Conservative David Tredinnick Conservative Andrew Turner Conservative Andrew Tyrie Conservative Shailesh Vara Conservative Peter Viggers Conservative Theresa Villiers Conservative Charles Walker Conservative Ben Wallace Conservative Robert Walter Conservative Nigel Waterson Conservative John Whittingdale Conservative Bill Wiggin Conservative David Wilshire Conservative Rob Wilson Conservative Ann Winterton Conservative Nicholas Winterton Conservative Jeremy Wright Conservative Tim Yeo Conservative George Young Conservative Michael Fabricant Conservative John Randall Conservative Nos: A-Z by last name Nick Ainger Labour Bob Ainsworth Labour Danny Alexander Liberal Democrat Janet Anderson Labour David Anderson Labour Hilary Armstrong Labour Charlotte Atkins Labour Ian Austin Labour John Austin Labour Adrian Bailey Labour Vera Baird Labour Norman Baker Liberal Democrat Edward Balls Labour Gordon Banks Labour Celia Barlow Labour Kevin Barron Labour Hugh Bayley Labour Anne Begg Labour Stuart Bell Labour Joe Benton Labour Roger Berry Labour Liz Blackman Labour Roberta Blackman-Woods Labour Hazel Blears Labour Bob Blizzard Labour David Blunkett Labour David Borrow Labour Tom Brake Liberal Democrat Colin Breed Liberal Democrat Annette Brooke Liberal Democrat Nick Brown Labour Lyn Brown Labour Jeremy Browne Liberal Democrat Malcolm Bruce Liberal Democrat Chris Bryant Labour Karen Buck Labour Richard Burden Labour Colin Burgon Labour Andy Burnham Labour Paul Burstow Liberal Democrat Lorely Burt Liberal Democrat Dawn Butler Labour Stephen Byers Labour Liam Byrne Labour Vincent Cable Liberal Democrat David Cairns Labour Menzies Campbell Liberal Democrat Ronnie Campbell Labour Alan Campbell Labour Martin Caton Labour Ian Cawsey Labour Colin Challen Labour Ben Chapman Labour David Chaytor Labour Michael Clapham Labour Paul Clark Labour Katy Clark Labour Charles Clarke Labour Tom Clarke Labour David Clelland Labour Ann Clwyd Labour Vernon Coaker Labour Ann Coffey Labour Harry Cohen Labour Michael Connarty Labour Frank Cook Labour Yvette Cooper Labour Rosie Cooper Labour Jeremy Corbyn Labour Jim Cousins Labour David Crausby Labour Mary Creagh Labour Jon Cruddas Labour Ann Cryer Labour John Cummings Labour Jim Cunningham Labour Tony Cunningham Labour Claire Curtis-Thomas Labour Alistair Darling Labour Edward Davey Liberal Democrat Wayne David Labour Ian Davidson Labour Janet Dean Labour John Denham Labour Jim Devine Labour Parmjit Dhanda Labour Andrew Dismore Labour Jim Dobbin Labour Frank Dobson Labour Brian H Donohoe Labour Frank Doran Labour Jim Dowd Labour David Drew Labour Gwyneth Dunwoody Labour Maria Eagle Labour Louise Ellman Labour Natascha Engel Labour Jeff Ennis Labour Bill Etherington Labour Paul Farrelly Labour Tim Farron Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone Liberal Democrat Frank Field Labour Mark Fisher Labour Jim Fitzpatrick Labour Rob Flello Labour Caroline Flint Labour Paul Flynn Labour Barbara Follett Labour Michael Jabez Foster Labour Don Foster Liberal Democrat Michael Foster Labour Hywel Francis Labour Mike Gapes Labour Neil Gerrard Labour Ian Gibson Labour Linda Gilroy Labour Roger Godsiff Labour Paul Goggins Labour Julia Goldsworthy Liberal Democrat Helen Goodman Labour Nia Griffith Labour Nigel Griffiths Labour John Grogan Labour Andrew Gwynne Labour Mike Hall Labour Patrick Hall Labour David Hamilton Labour Fabian Hamilton Labour Mike Hancock Liberal Democrat Harriet Harman Labour Tom Harris Labour Evan Harris Liberal Democrat Nick Harvey Liberal Democrat Dai Havard Labour John Healey Labour David Heath Liberal Democrat Stephen Hepburn Labour John Heppell Labour Stephen Hesford Labour Patricia Hewitt Labour David Heyes Labour Keith Hill Labour Meg Hillier Labour Sharon Hodgson Labour Jimmy Hood Labour Geoff Hoon Labour Phil Hope Labour Kelvin Hopkins Labour Martin Horwood Liberal Democrat George Howarth Labour David Howarth Liberal Democrat Lindsay Hoyle Labour Beverley Hughes Labour Simon Hughes Liberal Democrat Joan Humble Labour Mark Hunter Liberal Democrat John Hutton Labour Brian Iddon Labour Eric Illsley Labour Huw Irranca-Davies Labour Siân James Labour Brian Jenkins Labour Diana R. Johnson Labour Kevan Jones Labour Helen Jones Labour Lynne Jones Labour Tessa Jowell Labour Eric Joyce Labour Sally Keeble Labour Barbara Keeley Labour Alan Keen Labour Ann Keen Labour Paul Keetch Liberal Democrat Ruth Kelly Labour Fraser Kemp Labour Charles Kennedy Liberal Democrat Jane Kennedy Labour Piara S Khabra Labour Sadiq Khan Labour David Kidney Labour Peter Kilfoyle Labour Susan Kramer Liberal Democrat Ashok Kumar Labour Stephen Ladyman Labour Norman Lamb Liberal Democrat David Laws Liberal Democrat Bob Laxton Labour Mark Lazarowicz Labour John Leech Liberal Democrat David Lepper Labour Tom Levitt Labour Ivan Lewis Labour Martin Linton Labour Elfyn Llwyd Plaid Cymru Andrew Love Labour Ian Lucas Labour John MacDougall Labour Andrew MacKinlay Labour Angus MacNeil Scottish National Party Denis MacShane Labour Fiona Mactaggart Labour Shahid Malik Labour John Mann Labour Rob Marris Labour Gordon Marsden Labour Robert Marshall-Andrews Labour Eric Martlew Labour Thomas McAvoy Labour Steve McCabe Labour Chris McCafferty Labour Kerry McCarthy Labour Sarah McCarthy-Fry Labour Siobhain McDonagh Labour John Martin McDonnell Labour Pat McFadden Labour John McFall Labour Jim McGovern Labour Anne McGuire Labour Shona McIsaac Labour Ann McKechin Labour Michael Meacher Labour Alan Meale Labour Gillian Merron Labour Ed Miliband Labour Andrew Miller Labour Austin Mitchell Labour Anne Moffat Labour Laura Moffatt Labour Chris Mole Labour Madeleine Moon Labour Michael Moore Liberal Democrat Margaret Moran Labour Jessica Morden Labour Kali Mountford Labour George Mudie Labour Greg Mulholland Liberal Democrat Chris Mullin Labour Meg Munn Labour Paul Murphy Labour Jim Murphy Labour Doug Naysmith Labour Dan Norris Labour Mike O'Brien Labour Edward O'Hara Labour Mark Oaten Liberal Democrat Bill Olner Labour Sandra Osborne Labour Albert Owen Labour Nick Palmer Labour James Plaskitt Labour Greg Pope Labour Steve Pound Labour Bridget Prentice Labour Adam Price Plaid Cymru Dawn Primarolo Labour Gwyn Prosser Labour John Pugh Liberal Democrat Ken Purchase Labour James Purnell Labour Nick Raynsford Labour Andy Reed Labour Jamie Reed Labour Linda Riordan Labour John Robertson Labour Angus Robertson Scottish National Party Dan Rogerson Liberal Democrat Terry Rooney Labour Frank Roy Labour Chris Ruane Labour Joan Ruddock Labour Bob Russell Liberal Democrat Christine Russell Labour Joan Ryan Labour Martin Salter Labour Adrian Sanders Liberal Democrat Alison Seabeck Labour Jonathan R Shaw Labour Barry Sheerman Labour Jim Sheridan Labour Clare Short Labour Siôn Simon Labour Alan Simpson Labour Marsha Singh Labour Dennis Skinner Labour Andrew Slaughter Labour John Smith Labour Geraldine Smith Labour Angela Smith Labour Jacqui Smith Labour Andrew Smith Labour Anne Snelgrove Labour Peter Soulsby Labour John Spellar Labour Phyllis Starkey Labour Ian Stewart Labour Howard Stoate Labour Jack Straw Labour Gisela Stuart Labour Andrew Stunell Liberal Democrat Gerry Sutcliffe Labour Jo Swinson Liberal Democrat Mark Tami Labour Dari Taylor Labour Matthew Taylor Liberal Democrat David Taylor Labour Sarah Teather Liberal Democrat Emily Thornberry Labour Stephen Timms Labour Paddy Tipping Labour Mark Todd Labour Don Touhig Labour Jon Trickett Labour Paul Truswell Labour Desmond Turner Labour Neil Turner Labour Derek Twigg Labour Kitty Ussher Labour Keith Vaz Labour Rudi Vis Labour Joan Walley Labour Lynda Waltho Labour Claire Ward Labour Robert Wareing Labour Dave Watts Labour Steve Webb Liberal Democrat Alan Whitehead Labour Malcolm Wicks Labour Mark Williams Liberal Democrat Alan Williams Labour Roger Williams Liberal Democrat Betty Williams Labour Stephen Williams Liberal Democrat Hywel Williams Plaid Cymru Phil Willis Liberal Democrat David Winnick Labour Phil Woolas Labour Iain Wright Labour Tony Wright Labour David Wright Labour Anthony D Wright Labour Derek Wyatt Labour Richard Younger-Ross Liberal Democrat Kevin Brennan Labour Tom Watson Labour Link to this vote In context Individually Question accordingly negatived. Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):— Angela Eagle Labour Gavin Strang Labour Jennifer Willott Liberal Democrat forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to. Resolved, That this House welcomes the judgement in the recently concluded Railtrack court case which, after weeks of evidence fully tested by cross examination, completely dismisses the claimants' allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Government; further welcomes the fact that the judgement exonerates entirely the way the Government responded to its growing concerns about Railtrack's financial position and the propriety of the process that led to Railtrack being put in Administration, including the Government's stance in relation to the Rail Regulator; notes that the judge described Railtrack's request for unlimited public funding and support, which was made in part to maintain its share price, as a "hopeless proposition"; and that there were good public reasons for the policy developed; congratulates the Government for bringing under control the situation which resulted from the previous Government's botched privatisation and putting ownership of the track into the hands of a not-for-dividend company operating in the broad public interest; and recognises the significant progress that is being made by Network Rail in improving performance on the railway and in bringing costs under control, in stark contrast to the management incompetence shown by Railtrack.'.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745011

__label__wiki

Rutgers University-Newark: Acceptance Rate and Admissions Statistics Courtesy of Rutgers University - Newark Rutgers University-Newark is public research university with an acceptance rate of 63%. Founded in 1908 as the New Jersey Law School, the University of Newark became part of the Rutgers system in 1946. The 38-acre campus is in an urban setting south of New York City. The university offers over 56 undergraduate majors and has a 16-to-1 student / faculty ratio. High achieving students should look into the Honors College for special academic and professional opportunities. In athletics, most of the Rutgers-Newark Scarlet Raiders compete in the NCAA Division III New Jersey Athletic Conference. Considering applying to Rutgers University-Newark? Here are the admissions statistics you should know, including average SAT/ACT scores and GPAs of admitted students. During the 2017-18 admissions cycle, Rutgers University-Newark had an acceptance rate of 63%. This means that for every 100 students who applied, 63 students were admitted, making Rutgers-Newark's admissions process somewhat competitive. Rutgers-Newark requires that all applicants submit either SAT or ACT scores. During the 2017-18 admissions cycle, 95% of admitted students submitted SAT scores. This admissions data tells us that most of Rutgers-Newark's admitted students fall within the top 35% nationally on the SAT. For the evidence-based reading and writing section, 50% of students admitted to Rutgers-Newark scored between 510 and 590, while 25% scored below 510 and 25% scored above 590. On the math section, 50% of admitted students scored between 510 and 600, while 25% scored below 510 and 25% scored above 600. Applicants with a composite SAT score of 1190 or higher will have particularly competitive chances at Rutgers University-Newark. Rutgers-Newark does not require the SAT writing section or SAT Subject tests. Note that Rutgers-Newark participates in the scorechoice program, which means that the admissions office will consider your highest score from each individual section across all SAT test dates. Rutgers-Newark requires that all applicants submit either SAT or ACT scores. During the 2017-18 admissions cycle, 10% of admitted students submitted ACT scores. This admissions data tells us that most of Rutgers-Newark's admitted students fall within the bottom 46% nationally on the ACT. The middle 50% of students admitted to Rutgers-Newark received a composite ACT score between 19 and 24, while 25% scored above 24 and 25% scored below 19. Note that Rutgers-Newark does not superscore ACT results; your highest composite ACT score will be considered. Rutgers-Newark does not require the ACT writing section. In 2019, the middle 50% of Rutgers University-Newark's incoming class had high school GPAs between 3.2 and 3.9. 25% had a GPA above 3.9, and 25% had a GPA below 3.2. These results suggest that most successful applicants to Rutgers-Newark have primarily A and B grades. Rutgers University-Newark Applicants' Self-Reported GPA/SAT/ACT Graph. Data courtesy of Cappex. The admissions data in the graph is self-reported by applicants to Rutgers University-Newark. GPAs are unweighted. Find out how you compare to accepted students, see the real-time graph, and calculate your chances of getting in with a free Cappex account. Rutgers University-Newark, which accepts fewer than two-thirds of applicants, has a somewhat selective admissions process. If your SAT/ACT scores and GPA fall within the school's average ranges, you have a strong chance of being accepted. However, Rutgers-Newark's admissions process involves other factors beyond grades and test scores. A strong application essay and a rigorous course schedule can strengthen your application, as can participation in meaningful extracurricular activities. Students with particularly compelling stories or achievements can still receive serious consideration even if their test scores are outside of Rutgers-Newark's average range. Note that Rutgers-Newark does not consider letters of recommendation in the admissions process. In the graph above, the blue and green dots represent accepted students. Most successful applicants had SAT scores (ERW+M) of 1000 or higher, an ACT composite of 20 or higher, and a high school average of a B or higher. Note that many admitted students had scores and grades well above these lower ranges. If You Like Rutgers-Newark, You May Also Like These Schools Ramapo College of New Jersey All admissions data has been sourced from the National Center for Education Statistics and Rutgers University-Newark Undergraduate Admissions Office. How Competitive Is Rutgers University-Camden's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is Oakland University's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is University of South Carolina's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is Seattle Pacific University's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is Coastal Carolina's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is University of Toledo's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is Arcadia University's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is Fairleigh Dickinson University's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is California Baptist University's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is Monmouth University's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is Ave Maria University's Admissions Process? How Competitive Is Manhattan College's Admissions Chances? How Competitive Is Montclair State University's Admissions Process?

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745013

__label__wiki

Donald Trump's Anti-American Contempt for the Law When Donald Trump says that he thinks the Central Park Five, wrongfully convicted of rape as teenagers, are guilty despite the evidence, he reveals himself as someone with no respect for the system he wants to run. by Harry Cheadle Oct 7 2016, 8:20pm Trump likes the Ameircan flag, but the American court system, not so much. Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images You would think that someone who has spent a big-league amount of effort trying to become the ruler of a country would also be familiar with that country's laws, but that is because you do not think like Donald Trump. It's very difficult to understand how Trump thinks—sifting through all of his tossed-off public statements to divine his true opinions would require the patience of a Talmudic scholar and a graduate degree in doublethink—but one thing we can say for sure is that Trump has an utter contempt for the law. Having contempt for the law isn't the same thing as being a lawbreaker. I don't know if Trump University—a company Trump promoted but didn't have much oversight of—broke the law, and it also remains to be seen if all the sloppiness surrounding the Trump Foundation rises to the level of a crime. What contempt for the law means is you don't care about the set of legal norms that binds the country together. It means you reject the idea that the court system's decisions are valid, at least not when they don't conform to your own biases. It means—more on this in a second—that you hate America. That's a bad quality to have when you want to run America, and a bitterly ironic joke when you've made "law and order" one of your catchphrases. Trump's contempt revealed itself most obviously in a recent statement to CNN where he opined that the Central Park Five—a group of black teenagers who were wrongfully convicted for the 1989 rape of a New York woman, then paid a total of $41 million in 2014—were guilty. "They admitted they were guilty," Trump told CNN. "The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous." The fact that the authorities say you are guilty doesn't mean you are guilty, of course—Trump's companies have been investigated enough for racist practices that he should know that. And the teens' admissions of guilt we now know were false, since another man admitted to the crime in 2002 and DNA evidence showed that he, not the five, was responsible for the rape. Weighing against that evidence and the court's exoneration of them Trump has... what, exactly? Just his own contempt. Trump has made it clear over and over again that he doesn't care about the system of laws that hold the country together. He's publicly embraced war crimes against terrorism, said a judge was biased against him because the judge had Mexican heritage, proposed a ban on Muslim immigration many experts said was unconstitutional, mused about "opening up" libel laws to make it easier for him to sue people who say nasty things about him, and rambled about how Hillary Clinton should be in prison, even though she wasn't charged with a crime. As most of those examples suggest, Trump's contempt for the law tends to dovetail with his demonization of brown people. In 1989, during the trial of the Central Park Five, he bought a full-page newspaper ad that implicitly said the teens should be executed if they were found guilty. But back then, Trump was simply a rich guy with an opinion, part of the most entitled demographic in America. The ad was an ugly thing to put out there, with more than a hint of racism, but it was ultimately just a rant by a private citizen who liked to see his name in print. The best thing about America is that unlike many other countries it doesn't spring out of a shared language or ethnicity but an idea. A good summation, and stay with me here, is in the Steven Spielberg movie Bridge of Spies, when Tom Hanks, that American's American, tells a sneaky federal agent, "What makes us both Americans, just one thing, one, the rule book—we call it the Constitution, and we agree to the rules, and that's what makes us Americans, that's all that makes us Americans." The rules say that when a court exonerates someone, they're innocent. The rules say that what judges say matters, that the system, if not fair, is at least striving for fairness. Presidents disagree with court decisions all the time, but when they do, they do not delegitimize the judges or accuse them of bias. You may disagree with a court—there's nothing more American than disagreement—but when you do, you go out and do the hard work of changing laws and norms, as activists and lawyers across the political spectrum have done for generations. Trump's election, if it happened, wouldn't suddenly upend the system. He would still have to work with Congress and the courts to get things done, and it's likely he would face various legal hurdles to, say, bring back waterboarding. But he could do a fair amount of damage by simply running his mouth. What would happen if the president weighed in on a police shooting not to express sympathy during a tragedy but to say that an officer was justified? What about if President Trump went on TV and repeated his claims that Clinton should be imprisoned? Beyond words, would he actually direct his attorney general to look into individual people he doesn't like? That would sound like a ridiculous hypothetical if Trump didn't just imply that five innocent men who have spent two decades in prison should go back in. He would be the first president who actively rebelled against the rules—that is, the things that make up America. And there's one more question, one that doesn't depend on a Trump victory: If you've spent your whole life bragging about how much you win and spent a whole campaign spitting out conspiratorial nonsense, are you going to concede when the votes show you've lost? Or are things going to get even uglier? Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter. VICE US Views My Own Central Park Five

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745015

__label__cc

•More News 50 Most Popular Travel Destinations for Americans As beach vacations dwindle and the summer comes to a close, Hotels.com has identified the most popular destinations for travelers in the first half of 2014 with insights from the Hotel Price Index (HPI). By examining the top popular travel destinations for U.S. international travelers, and the top U.S. destinations for foreign visitors, the HPI is also able to forecast popular destinations for the rest of the year and beyond. For U.S. travelers, Latin America is trending on the 50 Most Popular International Cities for Americans list and is likely to continue its heightened popularity through the rest of the year and into 2015. New to the list by Hotels.Com is the resort town of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, which fell off the list in 2012. Puerto Vallarta is a Mexican beach resort city situated on the Pacific Ocean’s Bahía de Banderas and frequently visited by celebrities looking for a private hideaway. Many other Latin American cities are experiencing considerable developments in their hospitality sectors as well. During the first half of 2014, Mexico City (#16) and Cancun (#20) ascended four spots, while Panama City (#35) and Bogota (#38) each boosted their popularity ranking by four positions. This year also marks the debut of Lima (#44) on the list of 50 Most Popular International Cities for Americans. With five Mexican cities dominating the Latin American contingent, it is clear that the country’s efforts to rebound from the unfavorable spotlight over the past few years are making considerable traction. As the tourist board’s “Live It to Believe It” marketing campaign continues to saturate the airwaves and attract new visitors, Americans may opt to further explore the cultural offerings of other Mexican cities. THE POWER OF STEM CELLS & EXOSOMES Scientists have recently developed advanced protocols harnessing the power of exosomes to create a new class of therapeutics to improve the effectiveness of stem cell therapy. In particular, they have developed new protocols for neurological diseases such as Alzheimer´s, Parkinson´s, Autism and Multiple Sclerosis. Read More

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745016

__label__wiki

Last Night on Late Night Jimmy Kimmel Won’t Let G.O.P., “Phony Little Creep” from Fox Brush Him Off The comedian tore into Senator Bill Cassidy’s health-care plan and Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade, who criticized Kimmel on air but “whenever I see him kisses my ass like a little boy meeting Batman.” Jimmy Kimmel is not about to let Senator Bill Cassidy’s health-care bill slide through without a fight. On Wednesday night, the comedian tore into the proposed plan for a second night in a row. “[Cassidy] made a total about-face, which means he either doesn’t understand his own bill, or he lied to me,” the comedian said. “It’s as simple as that.” His sharp words came after Kimmel first ranted against the bill on Tuesday night, forcing the G.O.P. to respond—though Kimmel did not like what they said. On Wednesday, Cassidy tried to brush off the comedian by suggesting that “he does not understand” the proposed plan. And that night, Kimmel was having none of it. “Oh, I get it,” Kimmel said. “I don’t understand because I’m a talk-show host, right? Then help me out. Which part don’t I understand? Is it the part where you cut $243 billion from federal health-care assistance? Am I not understanding the part where states would be allowed to let insurance companies price you out of coverage for having pre-existing conditions? Maybe I don’t understand the part of your bill in which federal funding disappears completely after 2026, or maybe it was the part where the plans are no longer required to pay for essential health benefits like maternity care or pediatric visits.” As he did Tuesday, Kimmel once again listed a host of organizations that oppose the bill—including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the March of Dimes. “Which part of that am I not understanding?” he asked. “Or could it be, Senator Cassidy, that the problem is that I do understand, and you got caught with your G.O.P.-enis out?” Video: Just How Dangerous is Donald Trump? Kimmel’s words from Tuesday quickly went viral, much like the segment from May when he first spoke about health care through the lens of his son’s emergency open-heart surgery. Tons of viewers reached out with gracious feedback about Tuesday’s monologue, Kimmel said, but he also faced plenty of critics—including Brian Kilmeade of Fox & Friends, who called Kimmel a “Hollywood elite” and accused him of “pushing [his] politics on the rest of the country.” “The reason I found this comment to be particularly annoying,” Kimmel said, “is because this is a guy, Brian Kilmeade, who whenever I see him kisses my ass like a little boy meeting Batman. ‘Oh, he’s such a fan of the show!’ He follows me on Twitter. He asked me to write a blurb for his book, which I did. He calls my agent looking for projects. He’s dying to be a member of the Hollywood elite. The only reason he’s not a member of the Hollywood elite is because nobody will hire him to be one. And you know, the reason I’m talking about this is because my son had an open-heart surgery and has to have two more, and because of that I learned that there are kids with no insurance in the same situation. I don’t get anything out of this, Brian, you phony little creep. Oh, I’ll pound you when I see you. That would be my blurb for your next book: Brian Kilmeade is a phony little creep.” Kimmel also hit back at Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham, both of whom dissed him on air as well. And of course, he criticized Donald Trump, who claims to like the bill. “There’s no way President Trump read this bill that he says is great,” Kimmel said. “He just wants to get rid of [Obamacare] because Obama’s name is on it. The Democrats should just name it Ivankacare. Guaranteed he gets on board. Can you imagine Donald Trump actually sitting down to read a health-care bill? It’s like trying to imagine a dog doing your taxes.” Compared to late-night hosts like Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers, who have built their brands on incisive, biting political commentary, Kimmel does not frequently rage against the Trump administration. Instead, his general place is as the everyman of late night—extremely relatable, with an impish sense of humor and a reluctance to get mired in partisanship. That he’s sounding off now emphasizes how non-partisan the issue of health care actually is. As Kimmel said, he has nothing to gain from opposing the health-care bill; if anything, the usually apolitical host has probably lost some viewers thanks to his crusade (although it seems safe to assume he’s replaced them with a few new fans). But his monologues have been sincerely and incisively delivered, from a guy who doesn’t pretend to be any better versed in this stuff than his viewers—at least, not without doing a lot of research. “I did more homework this week than all my years of college combined,” Kimmel said Wednesday night. “This health-care bill, it’s confusing. Especially for the people who aren’t experts in the field.” To try and help his viewers understand it, Kimmel then did a round of “Barista Theatre”—using a Starbucks-inspired skit to demonstrate what the bill would do to health care. As he wrapped up, Kimmel had one last plea for his audience: call your local senators. “At the end of my monologue last night, I encouraged people who care about the subject to call their senators to let them know they care; I even gave out a phone number,” Kimmel said. “Now, this video of the monologue has millions and millions of views. It was all over the news. A lot of people have seen it and shared it, but The New York Times today contacted the office of Susan Collins, who is one of the key senators on this, and they claimed at her office that the call volumes she got is the same as usual. If that is true, this is why things like this keep happening—because we don’t do anything about them. So please stop texting for five seconds and make a phone call. Especially call these senators.” Kimmel then posted the numbers for Collins, Dean Heller, Lisa Murkowski, Shelley Moore Capito, and John McCain, conservatives whose votes on the new bill are still undecided or uncertain. “If you live in one of these states, call them; it really does make a difference. And who knows? Maybe you’ll meet somebody and fall in love,” he concluded. Comedians in Costume Jerry Seinfeld. See Jimmy Kimmel Field Mean Tweets from Furious Trump Supporters The comedian has traditionally steered clear of being too political, but times have clearly changed. Kimmel Furiously Rails Against Bill Cassidy’s “Scam” Health-Care Bill “There’s a new Jimmy Kimmel Test for you,” the late-night host said Tuesday. “It’s called the lie-detector test. You’re welcome to stop by the studio and take it any time.” “Anthony Scaramucci” Tells Jimmy Kimmel Why He Was Really Fired from the White House “You want to know why I was fired? The president doesn’t want anybody working for him who has a bigger [bleep] than his.”

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745017

__label__wiki

Levin Report Trump Re-enacts Paris Terrorist Attacks, Says Armed Concert-Goers Would’ve Stopped Onslaught Yes, our president actually pantomimed shooting people. By Bloomberg / Contributor. For reasons as yet unknown, Donald Trump has a longstanding tendency to slip into impressions during speeches and off-the-cuff remarks. Past impersonations have included opponent (Marco Rubio), employee (Jeff Sessions), sworn enemy (windmills), and, of course, the media (memorably, a disabled reporter who wrote a story he didn’t like. So it wasn’t entirely surprising that he added another bit to his repertoire during a speech at a National Rifle Association convention on Friday, but it was slightly surprising that said bit involved . . . a terrorist attack that killed 130 people. Speaking to the crowd in Indianapolis, Trump told the room of gun-lovers, “Paris, France, they say has the strongest gun laws in the world,” arguing that hundreds of people died and 368 were injured because of such regulations. “If there was one gun being carried by one person on the other side, it very well could have been a whole different result,” the president said, claiming that if even a “tiny percentage” of concert-goers had been armed, the attack “probably wouldn’t have happened because the cowards would have known there were people and they’re having guns.” He then proceeded to re-enact the attacks, telling the audience while pantomiming firing into a crowd, “They shot one person, then another person, then another person, then another person . . . the shooting went on for so long and there wasn’t a thing you could do about it. ‘Get over here [boom], get over here [boom].” https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1121825194635665409 This isn’t the first time Trump has claimed the Bataclan tragedy could have turned out very differently had there been a “good guy” with a gun on hand. Last May, at another N.R.A. event, he told the crowd, “If just one employee or patron had a gun aimed at the opposite direction, the terrorist would have fled or been shot.” (Of course, if he actually cared about the people of France, he might not have spent the three-year anniversary of the attacks trashing their country.) His ideologically tinged fantasies extend to more local tragedies, too. After the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, he claimed, against all odds, that he would have charged into the school during the shooting. “I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon,” he told governors meeting at the White House to discuss school safety. If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe. President Jobs not super interested in giving jobs to Americans when it comes to his own resort Well this doesn’t sound very America First-y! For years, President Donald Trump has insisted it’s impossible to find Americans to fill seasonal jobs at his hotels, resorts, and wineries, leaving him no choice but to hire foreign guest workers instead. “You can’t get help,” he has said. But government records obtained by BuzzFeed News reveal for the first time that at least 58 U.S. workers applied for the temporary jobs as cooks, servers, and housekeepers at Mar-a-Lago and other Trump resorts from early 2014 through mid-2018. Only one of them appears to have been hired. Since being elected, President Trump has held himself up as a fierce defender of American jobs. He has pressured companies to keep struggling U.S. plants open, enacted tariffs against China, and threatened to close the border with Mexico. Earlier this month, Trump complained about the influx of undocumented immigrants from south of the border. “Our country is full,” he said. “Can’t take you anymore, I’m sorry.” Yet throughout that time, he has continued a practice—started more than a decade ago—of staffing his high-end resorts with foreign workers. Businesses owned by or bearing the name Trump have sought to hire more than 600 employees through the guest worker program, known as the H-2 visa, since he launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. . . . A White House official contacted BuzzFeed News to direct inquiries to the Trump Organization, which, along with Mar-a-Lago, did not respond to requests for comment. As BuzzFeed points out, industries that hire seasonal workers like the Trump Organization typically prefer to use foreign guest workers because they are “less likely to quit for another job or to complain about low pay, physically demanding tasks, or difficult schedules,” in addition to often being housed on-site, allowing them to work longer hours. As a number of investigative stories have have shown, the Trump Organization also had a penchant for employing undocumented immigrants, before Trump got into office and started demonizing people not born in the United States. Study: wealthy men the most likely to be full of shit Science has proven it: Researchers embarked on a novel study intent on measuring what a Princeton philosophy professor contends is one of the most salient features of our culture—the ability to play the expert without being one. Or, as the social scientists put it, to B.S. . . . Study participants were asked to assess their knowledge of 16 math topics on a five-point scale ranging from “never heard of it” to “know it well, understand the concept.” Crucially, three of those topics were complete fabrications: “proper numbers,” “subjunctive scaling” and “declarative fractions.” Those who said they were knowledgeable about the fictitious topics were categorized as B.S.ers. Using a data set spanning nine predominantly English-speaking countries, researchers delineated a number of key findings. First, men are much more likely than women to master the art of hyperbole, as are the wealthy relative to the poor or middle class. North Americans, meanwhile, tend to slip into this behavior more readily than English speakers in other parts of the globe. And if there were a world championship, as a true devotee might appreciate, the title would go to Canada, data show. Interestingly, the gender gap for this trait in the United States is the smallest among the countries studied, about half the size of the gap in England. Americans are, perhaps, more egalitarian in our exaggerations than our peers across the Atlantic. The study, led by John Jerram and Nikki Shure of the University College of London, and Phil Parker of Australian Catholic University found that the biggest B.S. artists are likely to claim expertise in multiple areas like, for example, a man who says nobody knows more than him about taxes, banking, trade, ISIS, the visa system, monetary policy, renewable energy, social media, debt, campaign contributions, and Senator Cory Booker. Elsewhere! Fake heiress accused of bilking New York City’s elite convicted of fraud (CBS News) Wall Street Nears a Big Win in the Latest Revamp of Volcker Rule (Bloomberg) Venezuela’s Trade Scheme with Turkey Is Enriching a Mysterious Maduro Crony (Bloomberg) Does Universal Basic Income Work? This Hedge-Fund Boss Wants to Find Out (Barron’s) In College-Admissions Scandal, Families from China Paid the Most (W.S.J.) TurboTax Deliberately Hides Its Free File Page from Search Engines (ProPublica) Hedge funds accuse Bed Bath & Beyond of nepotism (N.Y.P.) More Great Stories from Vanity Fair — Cover story: Nicole Kidman reflects on her career, marriage, faith, and texting with Meryl Streep — The investigations that could haunt Trump — A mega-church pastor’s drug-running hustle — Elizabeth Warren’s new approach: courting Game of Thrones fans? — Why L.A. is ground zero for the next tech apocalypse Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story. Trump’s 2020 Pitch: No One Cares More About the Environment Than Me The president is reportedly working on a re-election strategy that involves the bold claim that he’s a champion of environmental issues. Trump Now Wants the French to Pay for the Wall New plan! Candidates Eating Food . . . at Least Once Soon, the 2016 presidential race will reach the point when opposition research firms will unleash their full powers, releasing a tsunami of damaging information about candidates, dredged up from the obscure corners of their past and destroying their reputations on a nationwide scale. At VF.com, we have done our own opposition research, discovering in the process a horrifying trend among the people jockeying for power: at some point in their lives, several candidates have ingested things for sustenance. Should this evidence sway how Americans view these candidates? Does it destroy the idea that a president should be an android that neither eats nor sleeps, whose sole purpose is to run America? We report. You decide.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745018

__label__wiki

3rd phase of Anders Square development in Poznan Joint venture of the City of Poznan and Von der Heyden Group Location: Plac Andersa 7, heart of Poznan Estimated investment value: Euro 33 mln Usable area: 14.000 m2 Rentable area: 5 storey building: high class offices (app.11.200 m2, each floor of app. 2.800 m2) ground floor – prime retail space (app. 2.300 m2) Two levels underground car park: 150 places Above ground construction time: 14 months, estimated completion of construction works: September 2012 Investor and Developer: Von der Heyden Group, Andersia Business Centre Sp. z o.o. Architect: Pracownia Architektoniczna Ewy i Stanisława Sipińskich Sp. z o.o. Project Manager: Probuild Sp. z o.o. General Contractor: PORR (Polska) S.A. Exclusive Agent and Financial Advisor: Knight Frank Sp. z o.o. Financing Bank: Bank Zachodni WBK S.A. ABC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Andersia Business Centre (ABC) is a joint venture between Von der Heyden Group and the City of Poznan located in the very centre of Poznan. It constitutes the third phase of Anders Square development. For the realization of the ABC development project, a special purpose company, Andersia Business Centre Sp. z o.o. has been established. The first phase of Anders Square development, Poznan Financial Centre (“Intelligent Building 2001 Award”), and the second phase, Andersia Tower (“Building of the Year 2007), were also developed by Von der Heyden Group. PFC was sold to AIB Polonia Property Fund S.a.r.l. in December 2004 and Andersia Tower was sold to DEKA Immobilien in January 2008. Andersia Business Centre (ABC) combines modern office and retail functions. It will be a high class, 5 storey above ground, office complex located in front of the PFC and Andersia Tower Buildings in the neighborhood of the Old Town, Stary Browar and Poznan International Fairs. ABC will comprise of app. 14.000 sqm net usable area and two underground levels with 150 parking places. The investment value is estimated at app. Euro 33 million. The ABC building has been designed by the Architectural Studio of Ewa and Stanislaw Sipinscy who had also designed the previous two phases. Project management has been entrusted to Probuild Sp. z o.o. Porr (Polska) S.A. acts as a General Contractor. Knight Frank is an exclusive agent and a financial advisor. ABC LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY: The ABC building will harmonically complete the right hand side of Andres Square development, still to be followed by two more Towers in 2013/2014 to be located on the left hand side, closing the gap between the Novotel Hotel and aforementioned new developments. ABC will provide a representative frontage for Krolowa Jadwigi Street. Additionally, between PFC and Andersia Tower, a modern illuminated pedestrian passage will be created leading to an internal patio between Andersia Tower and ABC. Together with a neighboring Stary Browar, it will add even more life to this office, hotel and retail centre in Poznan. Andersia Business Centre has a very convenient communication access being surrounded by public roads. The building located close to Królowej Jadwigi Street is 7 kilometers away from the new A2 highway. It takes about 20 minutes (quick and convenient access) to get to the local Ławica airport, and it is a 10 minute walk to reach the train station. About 600.000 people live within 20 minute-drive radius from the building. Anders Square closes the cultural, entertainment and commercial route which runs from the Old Town and Półwiejska Street. As a commercial building together with the surrounding buildings it makes an attractive business-oriented area. CONTRIBUTING TO THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT: The Public private partnership at hand has paved the way to promote the city, its culture and history. The investor participates in city life and except for getting involved in sponsoring cultural and art events, taking part in social activities, it also makes own initiatives, for example “Time Gate” monument erected in front of the Andersia Tower Building. The previous undertakings included, for example the construction of the “Cyryl Ratajski Monument” – the famous first President of the City of Poznan and active support in the construction of the “Polish Cryptographers Monument” – those who decoded the German coding device Enigma. Besides the above mentioned activities, Von der Heyden Group via its subsidiaries supports various cultural and educational events. During its presence in Poznan, the Group has been the patron of e.g.: Garrick Ohlsson concert, Concert of Academic Choir of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Malta Theatre Festival, concerts of the Boys’ and Men’s Choir of the Poznań Philharmonic, the main sponsor of series of concerts preceding “Before the Carnegie Hall Debut” of Łukasz Kuropaczewski who as the first Polish guitarist performed in the prestigious Carnegie Hall in New York. ABC Press Conference – 23.11.2011 ENG

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745021

__label__wiki

Home SPORTS Juventus shareholders agree €300m boost to expand club globally Juventus shareholders agree €300m boost to expand club globally Juventus president Andrea Agnelli on Thursday got the overwhelming backing of the club’s shareholders for a 300 million euro ($333 million) capital increase to help boost the Italian club’s global ambitions. Despite losses of 39.9 million euros ($44m) last season, Agnelli asked shareholders for major investment as part of a five-year plan to keep pace with European rivals such as Real Madrid, Barcelona and Manchester United. The request was approved by 99.97 per cent of the shareholders present at the meeting. “The objective of this capital increase is the future development in a wide-ranging horizon,” Agnelli told shareholders at the club’s Allianz Stadium in Turin. “We must imagine this season as a new year zero, with the desire and determination to think big. “We must be extremely proud of our development and our growth rates, but we must keep with the pace. “These numbers seem enormous when compared to the Italian reality, but our point of reference is the great European clubs.” Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo’s signing in 2018 was central to Juventus’s ambitions to expand their brand globally. And Agnelli said that he hoped the 34-year-old would lift a sixth Ballon d’Or title this year. “I hope that Cristiano can win the Ballon d’Or because he deserves it,” said Agnelli. Despite their domination in Italy, winning the last eight Serie A titles, Juventus have not lifted the Champions League trophy since 1996. “Juve is the biggest football club in Italy but only one of the big ones in Europe,” he said. “If we look at the big names of England, Spain and Germany, their turnover is between 500 million and a billion,” said Agnelli. The recapitalisation would be part of a five-year development plan from 2019-24. “The vision of the new plan must be to make Juventus prosper as a global brand, recognized by all stakeholders and future generations as a modern, innovative and iconic brand,” he said. Club revenues up to June 30 last were 494.4 million euros, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year, Agnelli said. However, the financial year to June 30 closed in the red with losses of 39.9 million euros, nearly double the 19.2 million euro deficit in 2018. After ditching their iconic black and white striped jersey last season, the club also have a new ‘J’ logo, and on the pitch are looking for a new eye-catching style of football under new coach Maurizio Sarri. In addition, the team have invested heavily in their new “J-Hotel,” 300 metres from their Turin stadium and the “J-Medical”, the private clinic of the club. “We have allocated around 400 million euros to direct and indirect investments in real estate development,” said Agnelli. “Our growth is confirmed by our UEFA ranking: We are currently fifth but we have reasonable grounds to think about finishing fourth,” said Agnelli. “We have become the fourth fan base club in Europe. Furthermore, our new office in Hong Kong will allow us to grow further in that part of the world.” Agnelli said women’s football was an area of growth with their Juventus women’s team winning the last two Italian league titles. Juventus also announced that US car manufacturer Jeep had agreed to increase its sponsorship from 25 million euros to 42 million euros a year for the next two seasons. Jeep are owned by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which belongs to Juventus’s majority shareholder Exor, which belongs to the Agnelli family. Along with their deal with German sportswear manufacturer Adidas, it brings the club’s sponsorship to over $100 million per season. Jibril .O Juventus sha €300m Previous articleSoccer: China to host expanded Club World Cup in 2021 Next articleT20 World Cup qualifiers: Nigeria lose by 5 wickets Jibril Okehi

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745024

__label__cc

Warsaw Car Rental Warsaw Guide Warsaw Car Rental Comparison: Car rentals customized to your budget Welcome and compares the cheapest car rental in Warsaw.. Did you know that Warsaw is located in the area between Pike Lake, Hidden Lake, Center Lake, and Winona Lake? Best Way to travel: Car #1 Thing to do: JD's Roadhouse #2 Thing to do: Stonehenge Golf Club #3 Thing to do: Racoon Run Golf Club Fun Fact: Warsaw if referred to as the “Orthopedic Capital of the World”. The first orthopedic device manufacturer was the DePuy Manufacturing Company. #1 Car Rental Company: Avis Warsaw is a wonderful city located in Indiana, United States. The county seat of Kosciusko County, Warsaw has an area of 11.6 square miles and a population of more than 13,500 residents, according to the 2010 census. Warsaw is also known under the nickname of "Lake City", due to its location near Winona, Pike, Hidden and Center Lakes. Warsaw was settled in 1836, but it was incorporated as a town only in 1854. Throughout the years, Warsaw has developed impressively, the city being also known as the "Orthopedic Capital of the World", this being the place in which the first manufacturer of this industry created a working site. Nowadays, Warsaw is the destination of numerous tourists arriving from all around the state, but not only. Top Attractions within Warsaw Wagon Wheel Theater is one of the most popular cultural venues of Warsaw. The spot hosts numerous concerts and stage performances. In fact, this is the preferred Warsaw venue for live music and performances by local musicians. Billy Sunday Historic Site Museum is the best museum in the whole area, despiting the history of the city. In fact, this Warsaw museum is most commonly described as absolutely impressive, but it is not the only museum in the city. The Kosciusko County Historical Society Jail Museum is also worth to be visited. The Center Lake Park is one of the most beautiful natural areas of Warsaw. This spot hosts various concerts, mostly during the months of summer. The place is also great to visit each moment when you are willing to have a relaxing walk into a spot of a scenic beauty. El Arriero Restaurant is the perfect place to eat in while being in Warsaw. The venue is really beautiful, while the food is always tasty and quickly prepared. Since the menu of this restaurant is so varied and all the Mexican foods are so delicious, the only difficulty you will meet is choosing out of all specialties. However, there is nothing to worry about, as no matter what you will choose, you will get a tasty meal. 5 Things You Must Do in Warsaw Warsaw, Indiana (population 13,000), in Kosciusko County, is 102 miles southeast of Chicago, Illinois. Located in Northern Indiana along the historic Lincoln Highway, Warsaw was twice named as one of the "Top 100 Small Towns in America." It is known as the "Orthopedic Manufacturing Capital of the World," and is home to the largest printing presses in the world. 1. Lake City Greenway: Four and a half miles of this proposed eight-mile, multi-use trail for bicycling, walking, jogging, running, and rollerblading has been completed. The trail traverses between Warsaw and Winona Lake. 2. Kosciusko County lakes: The county has an astounding 103 lakes, including Indiana's largest (Lake Wawasee near Syracuse) at over 3,000 acres and the state's deepest (Tippecanoe Lake north of Warsaw) at nearly 120 feet. Warsaw itself has three lakes within its corporate limits -- Center, Pike, and Winona lakes -- offering every form of watersports. 3. Lincoln Highway marker: The Lincoln was America's first coast-to-coast highway, conceived in 1912. The highway connected Times Square in New York City with the Pacific Ocean at San Francisco's Lincoln Park with 3,300 miles of interconnecting roadways. Warsaw's Funk Park is home to one of the few Lincoln Highway markers still in existence; in fact, it is the only marker in the state in its original location and the last remaining marker known to exist along the 23 miles in Kosciusko County. 4. Amish Acres: This historic restoration's restaurants, hotels, a musical theater, and tours have earned Amish Acres the designation of "Indiana's number-one tourist attraction" by Travel Trade Magazine. The only Old Order Amish farm listed in The National Trust of Historic Preservation has 18 historic buildings, including numerous ones from neighboring farms that tell the story of 19th century rural America. Guided walking tours include an orchard, a kitchen garden, an original house, a bank barn, and outbuildings. A 16-foot covered farm wagon pulled by a tractor travels down gravel lanes around the pond, past historic buildings, and through the woods. 5. Chief Menominee Memorial: At the headwaters of the Yellow River about 15 miles northeast of Warwick is the first monument that any state erected to an Indian. The heroic-size statue of Chief Menominee (1791-1841), arrayed in full Potawatomi regalia, gazes across the land that once was his. The federal government schemed to remove the Potawatomis from their homeland, negotiating the purchase of the land with three other chiefs. Menominee refused to participate in the negotiations, and charged that the sale was fraudulent. The governor sent a hundred troops to remove the Potawatomis by force, and Menominee was arrested. More than 850 Indians started for Kansas on what became known as the Trail of Death. As the Potawatomis trekked west, they passed areas in the midst of a typhoid epidemic, and nearly 300 Indians contracted the disease. Forty-two Indians are buried along the trail. Top depots in Warsaw Avis Warsaw Center Shopping Center - 3155 East Center Street, Warsaw, . Budget Warsaw In - 3155 East Center Street, Warsaw, . Enterprise Warsaw - 215 North Lake Street, Warsaw, . Other locations near Warsaw No nearby location in 30 KM. Warsaw Map Seattle-Tacoma Airport

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745026

__label__wiki

These are the people who run Cardiff's most famous pubs They've been around for a while and the people behind these pubs have a few stories to tell Joshua KnapmanMultimedia Journalist There are loads of pubs in Cardiff, but some have stood the test of time - and are all the better-known for it. They might be your local, places you walk past every day or the first place you think of when someone asks "who's up for a pint?" But it's not easy keeping these traditional watering holes running - and the landlords and ladies behind them have a few stories to tell. These are the people who run some of Cardiff's most iconic pubs. 1. The Packet (Image: Walesonline) The best pubs in Wales in 2017: 50 places you really need to have a drink this year Caroline Maiorano has headed up the Packet for the last 14 years, but the docks watering hole has been around a lot longer. Opened in 1864, it's a pub steeped in history that has managed to outlive most of its original competitors. "It's the last docks pub," says Caroline. "I'm told there were 60 pubs from the bottom to the top of Bute Street and this is the last one." Caroline says the area, as it exists today, helps the business and is part of the reason why she's stayed afloat while so many have closed around her. The walk-in trade from the Wales Millennium Centre and new apartments has helped. "Since I've been here seven pubs that I know of have closed in this area. I'm just lucky where I am, I think." They've welcomed a number of famous faces over the years - according to Caroline: "Shirley Bassey apparently sang and danced on the bar." And more recently, The Packet welcomed the late John Hurt, during his filming stint on Doctor Who. He was in the pub every night for a week, talking to the regulars and taking photos with them. Caroline said the actor was "the perfect gentleman". All these places have closed in Cardiff so far this year But the regulars are a big part of the pub too - not just for their custom, but for the history they help Caroline uncover. Being one of the last remaining pubs in the area, the landlady asked her regulars to bring in any old pictures of the other pubs that have gone. "I've got pictures of a lot of the pubs around here that have gone now, the insides," Caroline said. So the walls are filled with old photographs from the Docks Non-Political, the Paddlesteamer, Casablanca, and The Greenhouse, as well as pictures of current customers' relatives from days gone by. There's even a picture of the customer through the door when Caroline took over - who'd actually been coming to the pub for years before that. And she's still a regular. "There was a picture in the Echo from 1982, and she's sat in the same place where she still sits now." 2. The Corporation The Corporation in Canton has picked up something of a tough reputation in recent years - something the new landlords, Tony Dix and Paul Clifton, are working to address. And it looks like it's working already, despite the fact they've only had the bar for a year and three months. "It was a Greene King-run pub," Tony says. "I used to work here part time for about a month [before taking over] - then they were sort of governed by their bosses, whereas we're not. "The issue before with the Corporation, it used to be a rough pub - lots of fights and everything. "We've eradicated that now, we've got door staff on Friday and Saturday." The LGBT guide to Cardiff Tony adds: "We've had one big fight in here since we've first opened. But everything was caught on CCTV, the police were involved and as far as we're aware it's still going through the courts. "We had door staff but we didn't have the door staff we've got now. If you see the door staff we have now, you won't want to get into a fight in here." Camra's best pubs in South East Wales have been revealed Tony says the pub has become more family-friendly and they've tried to give the place a more community feel. There's karaoke on a Saturday night, bingo on Sundays and even have the occasional drag artist. "It would have never have happened before, it's the way we've changed it. "We've made it more friendly and people don't feel threatened here. We've made people feel welcome and they come back. First and foremost, we've eradicated all the idiots." 3. The Old Arcade The Valleys pubs where your dad drank which aren't there anymore This traditional city centre pub has been around for a long time, and while the current landlord has only been running it for the last two years, he's already gotten to know his regulars pretty well. Mark Falzon, 51, has run around 10 pubs in his time, including the nearby Owain Glyndwr, but it's in the Old Arcade where he's been most impressed with the customer loyalty. "A gentleman was telling me he had his stag do in here in 1958 - and he's been drinking here ever since," said Mark. "It's a long time. He came here to watch the Lions from the top end of Cathedral Road, with no transport. To watch it here, he walked two miles - it's absolutely fantastic." And that's what Mark believes makes his pub so special. "These people, they're the lifeblood of the pubs. You have to be able to take time out and speak to people and that's what the old fashioned pubs have always done and that's what we try to do here," he said. "They're not just numbers. They come here because it's a special place for them to come, so we have to treat them with the same deal of respect." Running such an iconic pub, the landlord reckons he knows a thing or two about them. "The iconic pubs will always survive as long as we keep our identity," he said. "There's a lot of pubs going through transitions, trying to keep up with the times. And they're the pubs who end up struggling. "You know, people walk in here and their first reaction is 'wow, it's a pub' - it's rare, there's a handful of real pubs in the city centre. "It's a no brainer, Brains will never change this into something that it should never be. They might throw a tin of paint around, you know, but that'll be it. It's exactly what it is. "You could have an iconic pub and charge £5 a pint, but then you haven't got an iconic pub anymore, you've got a shut one," he says with a smile. 4. The Borough Debra Richards at the Borough will be the first to admit that her pub comes with a bit of a reputation. But the landlady has been in charge for 15 years now and believes she's done a lot to help turn the venue around. "It was a down-beaten pub when we first took over," Debra recalls. "I think being a bit older and wiser [helps run the pub]. I'm under no illusion that it doesn't suit everyone, this pub. "I don't try to make anyone come here - but if you're playing Frank Sinatra, you won't get 18-year-olds in." "We've got an older clientele, we must admit that." How every Wetherspoon pub in south-west Wales got its name Debra believes her experience has been key to turning the pub around and says that, despite its previous reputation, the city centre venue rarely has any trouble. And the landlady believes it's because of her strict policy and her eye for picking out the "naughty" customers. "When you work in this industry, you'll know a troublesome one. It's the body language - you just get to know the body language," Debra said. "You could get a degree in body language," she joked, adding: "You can't be scared to refuse people, because then our older clientele feel safe. "It's a safe environment because we are strict." Who really owns Cardiff? The massive companies who own the city's most famous buildings Debra, who comes from Grangetown where she also previously ran a pub, dubs herself a bit of a traditionalist - claiming she likes the old fashioned ideas of men popping into her pub after a day at work. She also says the pub's close nature with its customers is very important, and she said: "Say, for instance, a family member has come in and said about 'Bill down the street'. "We're aware of Bills problems. We won't let anyone take advantage of him. As long as he's comfortable and he can come in and have a conversation, we're doing a service. [Some customers have] been with us 10 years - if we didn't see him, it'd be a worry." But she explains that the staff rely on the punters too. "They'll tell us stuff as well ' did you know the bus route has a changed'. It's a two way stretch here. They're so unpretentious, older people." 5. The City Arms Chris Rowlands who runs the City Arms has a bit of a history with good beers and it's clear he's passionate about his trade. The 35-year-old, who previously worked with Tiny Rebel in Cardiff and The Goat Major, as well as a number of pubs in London, returned to Wales when the perfect opportunity came up. "I came back from London to run this place specifically, because it was a pub I always loved," said Chris, who's been at the City Arms now for two years. "There's no point running a pub if you don't love the pub." It seems running The City Arms presented Chris with the chance to be a part of two things he's passionate about - beer and offering a great atmosphere with top customer service. Discussing the beer side of things, Chris said: "We strive to be unique. We're very much an ale and cider house - we've got 10 different ales and 10 different ciders and 10 different craft beers that rotate all the time. "The whole idea is that we're a pub for beer lovers - and that just comes from me being someone who loves beer. "Every pub needs to be different - they need an identity. For us our identity is very much in keeping with the ales and the ciders." (Image: The City Arms) Tiny Rebel have launched a limited edition beer that's not for the faint hearted There's no doubt the City Arms has a great location. "You're right opposite the stadium and the streets are pedestrianised - so effectively it becomes the biggest beer garden in the world," boasts the landlord. "It's always a cracking atmosphere - it's such a carnival atmosphere." But does being in the city centre come with its problems? Well, Chris says "it's a rare thing," but there have been a few toilet-related dramas. He said: "In two and half years, it's been pretty straightforward. The people who like to cause trouble don't feel comfortable here. "We always have door staff - but it's not for the people in the pub, it's usually for the people outside. "Here, the worst I've had is the odd person wetting themselves. Somebody would stagger in at 11pm and we'd say 'no mate, you've had far too much to drink' and before he left, he left us a little present on the floor - and his own trousers!" And Chris reckons the secret to an iconic pub is keeping things simple. "Keep your lines clean, keep your beers fresh, keep your staff and customers happy and the rest will take care of itself," he said. "Really basic stuff, but that's the important stuff. You want to be constantly raising the bar - pun intended." 6. The Goat Major Nathan Hawksworth, who runs the Goat Major, is just 23. And he believes the reason the Brains pub is so iconic is because it hasn't changed much over the years. The pub, on High Street, has a great atmosphere that keeps people coming back, according to the fresh-faced bar manager. Nathan said: "It's a traditional city pub, it's not a fancy restaurant, it's not trying to be anything it's not. It's just a pub that sells good beer." The restaurants in Cardiff that have stood the test of time He's been with Brains for a few years now but this is first time running a pub. "I've seen a lot of differences to what I'm used to - match days are absolutely heaving," Nathan said. His highlights include the Champions League final, which he describes as the "best thing I've ever worked". "I've done match days before but that weekend was spot on. Everyone was expecting all sorts of trouble but it went off without any hassle." But while it was trouble-free in the pub, Nathan pointed out there was a spot of bother outside on the street , after fans got caught up in the heat of the moment and one of his team tried to cool things down. Discussing the trouble that comes with the job, Nathan said: "I've only been here six months and I've not had anything - even the regulars who've been drinking here for 30 years say it's very rare." He said: "I've not had a single issue where it has led to the police being called or anything, it's dealt with in-house." And when asked if he's had to ask anyone to leave, he said: "Yeah, but just for being a bit drunk really - it's never any hassle. "We don't have door staff on the weekend, and I think people find that quite comforting. There's no need for it." 7. The King's Castle This small pub on the corner of a Canton junction is one of those boozers where all the customers and the staff know each other by name. "I was brought up around here, there's a couple [of customers] I know from years ago," said Bryan White, the 29-year-old who runs The King's Castle. "I know exactly what they drink." 20 ways to have a brilliant stag weekend in Cardiff Bryan previously ran a social club just down the road and said local independent boozers stand out and help them keep going in the face of big chains. He said: "We always have people come in who've been in [the chains] and say all their staff are the same, they're not friendly, they're just on a wage." Which Cardiff pubs and clubs allow fancy dress?

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745029

__label__wiki

Music Tour Shack Track Box Merch Newsletter Be A Craig Fund boom. Walker Hayes uses the word often. “It just felt right,” the breakout country singer says of the title for his highly-anticipated new album. It’s a celebratory sort of thing, he’ll tell you. A new radio station adds his buzzing single, “You Broke Up With Me.” boom. He links up for a national tour with Thomas Rhett. boom. That rowdy performance at CMA Fest –the one that had the crowd singing every word of his music back to him? boom. It wasn’t always this way. Not by a long shot. Lately, though, Hayes has had occasion to bust out the word often. And he’s not complaining. A confessional, no-nonsense singer-songwriter, and one whose voice and perspective brims with relatability, Hayes is a tried-and-true Nashville standout. He’s an original in a town all-too-often rife with mimicry and compromise. And, now, he has audiences flocking to him in a major way. Conversational, honest and real in song, Hayes’ forthcoming debut album is the voice of a grinder laying it bare. It’s the stories of a man who realized the songs he couldn’t help but write — about family, struggle, vices and the sacrifices we make for a dream — were his and his alone. “It startles some people. Like, ‘Wow, he’s really putting out there,’” Hayes says of the raw songwriting that characterizes boom. and last year’s two break-out 8 Tracks releases. “But, that’s what my heroes did,” he says referencing the Willie’s and Waylon’s and Merle’s of the world. “I can only write something if I truly feel it.” And if the Mobile, Alabama native has learned anything over more than a decade spent in Nashville, it’s that he can only be himself. His music — from the unflinching and honest “Beer in the Fridge,” to the spare and tender love song “Beautiful,” to “Craig,” boom.’s gripping album closer that documents a friend who came to his family’s aid in a time of need — is entirely Hayes’ own, even if it’s not always pretty. Hayes knows only he can sing, or yes, sometimes rap his songs. Nothing thrills him more than having no rules and no restriction on his creativity. “As an artist that was so freeing,” he says of the flexibility from his label, the recently revamped Monument Records, to be his own man. “That was like somebody telling you to write for no other reason than to just write,” he says alluding to the freedom to pen attention-getting songs like “Shut Up Kenny,” his ode to songs like Kenny Chesney’s on the radio that can immediately snap you back into those memories. “No one was saying, ‘Your song has to go on this radio station.’ They just said, ‘Go, do what you love and love doing it every day.” He’d long had it drilled into his head that there existed finite rules that comprised a successful country song. So, Hayes is the first to admit it caught him off guard when listeners responded so passionately to the personal music he was writing. The singer says that, in time, he realized simply, “people want to hear the nitty gritty of life and the honesty and the authenticity. Just because there is something that typically works on radio right now doesn’t mean there’s not listeners out there that are craving that personal experience that they can relate to.” “When I didn’t settle for anything but the one-hundred percent truth in a song,” Hayes continues, “listeners were intrigued the most.” This father of six, who moved to Nashville on a hunch 12 years ago and for years and struggled to make it work, relishes his current moment. He’d been dropped from multiple record labels and admits there was a time he wondered how he’d feed his growing family. Not until he began peeling back the layers to his own life and subsequently documenting it in song did everything fall into place. “A song should move people like a conversation but be prettier and more memorable,” Hayes says of his current attitude toward songwriting. “For me, it’s just therapeutic to write.” Hayes has always been the type that had to be cajoled into doing what always came natural to him. The son of a real estate broker, Hayes loved music — piano recitals, noodling on his guitar — but figured he’d stick around home and log a normal 9-5. However, after constant needling from his father, Hayes finally agreed to perform at a local bar, if only to get dad off his back. It was a tiny stage, he remembers with a laugh — “a small crowd, but there was applause after my songs” — and it felt incredible. “For some reason, when I left that show that night I knew right then that’s what I wanted to do,” Hayes recalls. He called his wife, asked her if she wanted to move to Nashville, and she said yes without hesitation. He instantly fell in love with songwriting, landed a job with a publishing company, and even got a record deal. But, things in Nashville aren’t as easy as they seem and soon Hayes’ deals fell through. For years, he grinded it out: writing songs for other artists where he could, working odd jobs to pay the bills, lying in bed at night trying to convince himself to not love writing songs anymore “because all it does is mess me up. It makes a fool of me. It strings me through all this up and down and eventually breaks my heart.” But, of course, he’d wake up the next day and want nothing more than to write another song. In due-time he linked up with ace songwriter and GRAMMY award-winning producer Shane McAnally who signed Hayes to his SMACKSongs publishing company and soon released two volumes of Hayes’ music for free online — 8 Tracks, Vol. 1: Good Shit and 8 Tracks, Vol. 2: Break the Internet. As if without warning, the music quickly attracted a massive swell of popularity. “It’s when you almost lose that you really realize that maybe you were born to do this no matter what,” Hayes says. “It’s not about success or anything — it’s where you belong.” And now, with boom., Hayes is ready to pull back the curtain entirely and give all of himself to his music, his fans, his family –everyone who has stuck with him on this long and sometimes painful journey. Just like his songs, Hayes’ live show is completely inimitable. Having long played showcases in the round — ones where he’d sit on a barstool and tell stories before performing a tune; he now distinguishes his shows using a loop, he beatboxes, and he incorporates a backing band of musicians into the mix. “The show is growing on a weekly basis,” Hayes says. “When a crowd is so electric that you can feed off their energy you feel kind of invincible up there. It is amazing.” Hayes isn’t one to predict what comes next. All he’ll tell you is that he’ll be heeding his own advice because, hey, if nothing else, it’s gotten him to this point. “I started just trusting what felt right and what moved me and a lot of special songs came out,” he says of boom. For Hayes, then, going forward the process remains the same. Says the singer of the road ahead: “I’m just going to continue finding out who exactly I am.” WALKER HAYES PERFORMS NEW SINGLE “90’S COUNTRY” ON GOOD MORNING AMERICA Following the release of his latest album, boom., and his first ever headlining tour, Hayes continues to ride his wave of success this year with the premiere of his new single, “90’s Country.” The song is out now and is available for download on all music platforms HERE. Walker also premiered the song on Good Morning America. If you missed it, you can watch his performance HERE. The track, (written by Hayes, Shane McAnally and LYRX, and produced by David Garcia, McAnally and Hayes,) calls back to the classic country songs of the 1990s such as; “Strawberry Wine” by Deana Carter, “Cowboy Take Me Away” by The Dixie Chicks, “She Thinks My Tractor’s Sexy” by Kenny Chesney, and others that remind of us of the youthful simplicity of listening to your favorite songs on a summer country day. Sign up to receive updates and new music from Walker © 2020 Sony Music Entertainment. All Rights Reserved. Send us Feedback | Privacy Policy / Your Privacy Rights | Terms and Conditions | Why Music Matters Built by 45PRESS

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745030

__label__wiki

Featured Industry News Facebook Launches Its First-Ever Small Business Pop-Up Featured Industry News No Comments As announced on the company’s business blog, Facebook has embraced the growing pop-up trend by launching its first-ever small business pop-up in nine separate Macy’s stores in the U.S. The pop-up is opening at Macy’s locations in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Fort Lauderdale, Las Vegas, San Antonio, and at “The Market” in NYC’s Macy’s store. According to the company’s blog, the pop-up will “bring 100 of the most-loved small businesses and digital-native brands on Facebook and Instagram into retail stores for the holiday shopping season.” Commenting on their reasoning behind launching the pop-up, Facebook explained how they “know the power of connecting businesses with the people who love them most, which is why we’re proud to play a role in expanding the communities of these businesses to in-store shoppers at one of the most beloved retail stores in the world.” On our end, we respect and appreciate Facebook’s mission to connect small businesses with consumers. It’s a largely benevolent cause, which simultaneously encourages the businesses to invest time and $$$ on Facebook and Instagram WHILST ALSO promoting direct revenue from the pop-up itself (for all parties involved). Keep the pop-ups coming, world! We’re going through Flamin’ Hot Cheeto withdrawal over here… REGISTER FOR TVG UPDATES: ©2020 THE VISIONARY GROUP All rights reserved. SITE CREDITS Design by Amy Risley Small · Development by piroc media

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745031

__label__cc

You are here: Home > Shopping > Barton Arcade Barton Arcade Type:Shop 48 Barton Sqare off St Ann's Square M3 2BH Barton Arcade was built in 1871, and is a beautiful Victorian structure of iron and glass. The arcade was extensively restored in the 1980s and now houses exclusive shops and a number of office suites. The original shop fronts have disappeared, as has the original decorative tiled floor, but Barton Arcade remains a beautifully restored piece of Victorian architecture. A late-Victorian, neo-Gothic masterpiece An incomparable venue in the city. People's History Museum People’s History Museum (PHM) is the national museum of democracy, telling the story of… Manchester Opera House A popular calling point for touring productions and concerts, including big-name West End…

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745032

__label__wiki

44 deaths and rising: Kentucky's hepatitis A outbreak claims another victim We answer all of your questions about hepatitis A, the highly contagious liver infection. Nikki Boliaux, Louisville Courier Journal Kentucky's hepatitis A outbreak has claimed another victim, bringing the outbreak's death toll to 44, according to the latest weekly state report posted Tuesday. So far, the nation's largest hepatitis A outbreak, declared in November 2017, has sickened 4,288, sending 2,065 to the hospital. Officials do not release details on victims or the location and dates of the deaths associated with the vaccine-preventable infectious liver virus. The new report also shows that cases are continuing a downward trend in rural Kentucky. Dr. Charles Noplis, a psychiatrist focusing on addiction medicine, said many of the Kentuckians who die from hepatitis A are more vulnerable because they have other health issues, such as hepatitis C. Among the general public, he said, death from hepatitis A is rare. Brandy Stafford shows a photo of her brother James Ramey from when he was a child outside the Circuit Court Clerks Office in Prestonsburg, Ky. On Jan. 9, 2019. Ramsey died due to complications due to Hepatitis A in November 2018. (Photo: Nikki Boliaux) "I would've never guessed the deaths would be this high," said Noplis, who practices at Renew Recovery and sees patients in London, Kentucky. "I think it underscores the biggest issues at hand in the southeastern portion of the state. We need better health care, better education." Noplis said he'd like to see more syringe services programs in the region, which can connect people with addiction treatment and disease testing. The hepatitis A outbreak spread mainly by drug users has hit 104 of Kentucky's 120 counties since it began. In the week ending March 2, 21 counties reported new cases. The state recorded 34 new cases statewide that week and 56 the week before, compared with a high of 151 cases per week last fall. The report came one day after Kentucky lawmakers advanced a resolution directing the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to review its response to the deadly hepatitis A outbreak. The measure has not been approved by both chambers of the legislature. "Kentucky could improve its response to future outbreaks by examining whether action should have been taken more quickly, more resources should have been leveraged to provide vaccine" and whether "access to the vaccine should have been more adequately distributed geographically," the resolution said. That followed a Courier Journal investigation that found the state's former infectious diseases chief lobbied unsuccessfully last spring for a more aggressive and costly state response to the outbreak in rural counties before it swept through Appalachian Eastern Kentucky and grew into the biggest and deadliest in the nation. Dr. Robert Brawley, former chief of the state health department’s infectious disease branch, recommended $6 million for vaccines and $4 million for temporary workers in thinly staffed local health departments. He also called for a public health emergency declaration to help pave the way for federal assistance. Others in the department also said they believed a stronger response was needed. The Department of Public Health, led by Commissioner Dr. Jeffrey Howard, instead sent $2.2 million in state funds to local health departments. Howard declined to declare an emergency. He said in a previous interview that he would be willing to seek more funding if needed. State public health officials have defended their approach, arguing they used limited budgets to target hard-to-reach rural drug users at county places such as jails, syringe exchanges and drug rehabs, spending $2.2 million in state funds alone, in addition to federal vaccine and money. But several federal lawmakers have also questioned the state's response. Eastern Kentucky Republican U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers has he was "disappointed by reports that clear warning signs and serious alarm bells were not heeded sooner" as the outbreak spread in Appalachia following vigorous efforts to contain it in Louisville. U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, a Louisville Democrat, "remains concerned about the state’s response, especially in light of yet another unfortunate death," his spokesman said Tuesday. "The people of Kentucky deserve a thorough review and proper oversight of all entities tasked with responding to this public health threat. He hopes that all parties at the state and local levels will continue to work together to determine what went wrong and what next steps can be taken to better address this dangerous situation." Cabinet officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the latest figures in the state's weekly report. But Howard told the Associated Press this week that he would welcome a department review. "We in public health and the cabinet are always looking at our responses, so this is nothing new," he said. "We'll just be making a report available to our legislators." Read or Share this story: courier-journal.com boeing 737 max 8 Health hep a hepatitis Kentucky's hepatitis slides Labels: boeing 737 max 8 Health hep a hepatitis Kentucky's hepatitis slides

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745038

__label__wiki

Edit Add artwork Translate Multiple upload Quick edit artworks Action History Home/ Artists/ Expressionism / Wolf Kahn Wolf Kahn Born: October 4, 1927; Stuttgart, Germany Nationality: American, German Art Movement: Expressionism, Abstract Expressionism Genre: landscape Field: painting Friends and Co-workers: Allan Kaprow Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Kahn Поделиться: Wikipedia article Wolf Kahn (born 1927) is a German-born American painter. Kahn, known for his combination of Realism and Color Field, works in pastel and oil paint. He studied under Hans Hofmann, and also graduated from the University of Chicago. Kahn is a resident of both New York City and, during the summer and autumn, West Brattleboro, Vermont. Wolf Kahn was born in Stuttgart, Germany, in 1927. He was the fourth child of Emil and Nellie Budge Kahn. Kahn's father was a notable figure in the music world. He was musician, composer, conductor, and teacher. In 1933, Kahn's father lost his appointment with the Stuttgart Philharmonic Orchestra when Hitler came to power and, with increasing antisemitism sweeping Germany, he and his second wife left Germany with Kahn's three siblings for the United States. Wolf was sent to live with his grandmother, Anna Kahn, in Frankfurt, Germany, at the age of three. He states that he began drawing at the age of four. In 1937, the summer of his 11th birthday, his grandmother signed him up for private art lessons with Miss von Joeden. He drew every day and was inspired by military pageantry, Napoleonic Wars and prominent historical figures including Adolph Menzel and Frederick the Great. In 1939, when Kahn was 12 years old, his grandmother arranged for him to leave Germany for England to live with a host family, first with the John Wade family and then with the Purvis Family. As quotas for immigrant applications in the United States changed, Kahn was able to reunite with his family in New York City in 1940 at the age of 13. In 1942, Kahn was accepted for his sophomore year at the High School of Music and Art in New York City. His drawings morphed into caricatures. Kahn cites David Low and Thomas Nast as favorite cartoonists. His first job was graphics editor of the school newspaper, The Overtone. He graduated in 1945. After a year in the Navy after high school, Kahn first attended the New School to study painting under Stuart Davis. With the aid of the GI Bill, he was able to continue his studies with Abstract Expressionist Hans Hofmann at the Hans Hofmann School. He became Hofmann’s studio assistant by the summer of 1947 at Hofmann's Provincetown, Massachusetts studio. In 1949, Kahn was accepted into the University of Chicago's Hutchins Program, where he completed a bachelor's degree in eight months. Kahn works in oil and pastel. His works usually covers the subject of landscapes and his own personal vision of nature. His convergence of light and color has been described as combining "pictorial landscapes and painterly abstraction". Surrounded from birth by the work of such artists as Hans Thoma, Carl Spitzweg, Wilhelm Trubner, Franz Winterhalter, by Edwardian furniture, books and bronzes of Schiller and Goethe, it is no wonder that Kahn started drawing at a very young age. While at the University of Chicago, he became interested in philosophy, particularly the writings of Immanuel Kant while making sketches of sailboats riding anchor on Lake Michigan. This is a part of the Wikipedia article used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). The full text of the article is here → http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Kahn Gray Cloud Magenta Water #145 Wolf Kahn 1991 Dark Band Wolf Kahn 2008 Yellowstone Silhouette Wolf Kahn 2008 Half Hidden Wolf Kahn 2009 Yellow Shoreline Wolf Kahn 2009 Seaweed Fingers Wolf Kahn ? Pink Road Wolf Kahn 2011 Pale Wolf Kahn 2010 Orange Barn Wolf Kahn 2010 Treeline in a Blue Haze Wolf Kahn 2008 Low Lying Barn Wolf Kahn 2008 Midvalue Horizon Wolf Kahn 2007 Glen Wolf Kahn 2007 The River on a Gray Day Wolf Kahn 2006 Evening Distance Wolf Kahn 2006 Pale Tree Row Wolf Kahn 2005 Subtle Pink Wolf Kahn 2000 Orange Cloud Over the Adriatic Sea Wolf Kahn 1996 Glimpse of Magenta Wolf Kahn 1993 Putney Valley Wolf Kahn 1976 Julio Pomar Hannelore Baron Moshe Kupferman Kazuo Nakamura Stefan Sevastre Grigor Khanjyan Andrzej Wróblewski Alice Baber Avigdor Arikha

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745043

__label__wiki

How XML Works - HTML XML doesn’t actually do anything on its own. It’s just a way to mark up text-based data. More specifically, it’s a methodology for describing how a structured document should handle sequences of characters. Getting started with XML parsers Before you begin creating XML documents, it’s a good idea to find a parser, which is software that can read an XML document. There are two kinds of parsers: validating and nonvalidating. A validating parser reads an XML document and determines if it is following the rules of a DTD. A nonvalidating parser doesn’t care about validation, and only checks an XML document to be sure that the syntax is correct. A document that follows these rules is called a well-formed document. The obvious examples of widely distributed nonvalidating parsers are Internet Explorer and Netscape 7.0, or any of the new Mozilla-based browsers. To open an XML document in Internet Explorer 5 or later, or in Netscape/Mozilla, you simply open it using the File menu in those programs, and choose Open. . . Both browsers will display the XML in a tree-based format. Begin with a prolog There are no pre-existing elements in XML. Most basic XML documents start with a prolog, which includes a declaration that states a document as being an XML document: <?xml version=“1.0” encoding=“ISO-8859-1”?> The declaration must come first, before anything else, and its characters must be the first the parser encounters (no white space before that question mark). A prolog can also include a Processing instruction. A processing instruction (PI) tells the parser to pass the data it contains to another application. For example, if a prolog has a processing instruction containing a style sheet, the following PI would tell the processor to pass the named file to software that can handle the style sheet processing: <?xml-stylesheet type=“text/xsl” href=“note.xsl”?> You’ll learn more about style sheets later in the chapter, in the section named Style Sheets for XML: XSL, but PIs are not limited to style sheet processing. They can pass all kinds of information to processors. The trick is whether the XML parser is actually capable of doing so. No rule exists to say that it must. Generally, when there is a lot of action with PIs, vendors create extensions to parsers or bundle them into larger XML processing components so that the processing is hidden. Microsoft’s XML parser, MSXML, for example, contains a processing component for style sheets. Understanding encoding Did you notice the bolded encoding attribute in the prolog (encoding=“ISO- 8859-1”) in the prolog example? That actually isn’t an attribute; it just looks like one, but it’s an important part of the XML prolog. Encoding, in fact, is a vital part to truly understanding XML. XML requires all XML parsers to handle an encoding named UTF-8. An encoding is sort of like a mapping between alphanumeric characters and the numbering system your computer understands. UTF-8 is a fairly new and comprehensive encoding that covers most languages of the world. It is based on Unicode, which is an amalgamation of various encodings such as UTF-8 and UTF-16, which is also supported by XML and is different than UTF-8 in the number of byte sequences used to store characters. In Unicode-based encodings, for example, the capital letter A is represented by the hexadecimal number U+0041. The small letter a is represented by the hexadecimal number U+0061. Every letter and numeric character in every alphabet in the world (almost) has such a number assigned to it. Note: The U+ in the preceding examples are not part of the hexadecimal number, but characters added to show they are part of Unicode. In a Web page, you would use &0041 and &0061; instead of U+0041 and U+0061. Each human language is a subset of the vast UTF-8 encoding attached to it. Western European languages, for example, use the ISO-8859-1 encoding, which is simply a table of mappings within UTF-8 dealing specifically with Western languages. This is important to XML development because XML is concerned with how sequences of these mapped numerical references are structured within an XML document. Your encodings need to be consistent to successfully parse XML. If you use Windows-specific encodings, for example, you’ll need to be absolutely sure that everything that interacts with Windows encodings is also a Windows encoding. This is because Windows uses a different set of tables for mapping characters to numbers than UTF-8. The Windows encoding for Latin-based languages, for example, is called Windows Code Page 1252 (sets of encodings are also called code pages). This code page, also referred to as ANSI (from the American National Standards Institute), isn’t a subset of UTF-8 the way ISO-8859-1 is. Luckily, most characters happen to map out to the same numerical references in both encoding sets, but not all do. For example, the™character used for trademarks does not map out to the same hexadecimal number in ANSI as it does in ISO-8859-1. Things get even more difficult when you’re dealing with Chinese alphabets, because two well-established encoding mechanisms are in use for Chinese languages. For example, in Taiwan, an encoding named Big 5 is used. Its mappings are quite different than UTF-8. Even though an XML-compliant parser must be able to parse UTF-8 documents, there’s nothing forcing developers to use UTF-8, and mostChinese-based Web sites don’t use it. This is a critical distinction to be aware of when working internationally. A sale element in a Big 5 document (assuming a Chinese translation, of course) is not a sale element in UTF-8, because element names are dependent on their encoding. This may seem like an awfully long explanation about something so arcane, but it is a virtual guarantee that at some point in your XML work you’ll encounter a square character or question mark in output generated from XML. It usually takes people hours or days to figure out the source of these character “anomalies.” You have the advantage of knowing they occur because of encoding problems. When a system doesn’t recognize a character, it generally emits a square character (a border with empty space), a solid black square, or a question mark. This is invariably related to an encoding issue. Make sure encodings between output and input within your XML environment are consistent, and you should avoid these kinds of problems. You can’t force a billion people to change their encodings to UTF-8, but you can develop a system in your own environment to handle Big 5 encodings, which is a lot easier to do anyway.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745048

__label__wiki

UNH researchers begin to understand squid camouflage Researchers identify pigments that contribute to sea creatures' colors Updated: 12:00 AM EDT Apr 21, 2016 © Hans Hillewaert SOURCE: © Hans Hillewaert University of New Hampshire researchers have identified the pigments that contribute to the colors of squid, cuttlefish and octopi and allow them to camouflage their appearance.The critters are cephalopods, which use multiple optical organs to sense and respond to the surrounding environment and quickly change their skin to blend in, or stand out, in the background around them.Thousands of color-changing organs, called chromatophores, are located in the skin. When muscle fibers contract, they cause the chromatophores to expand and distribute pigmented granules.The researchers focused on a squid because it is readily available off the coast of New England.Their next steps will be to understand what the purpose of the pigments is. They have to understand how the animals work and why."The holy grail is of course to be able to design systems that can behave how cephalopods do -- to sense different environmental conditions and adapt to them either by blending in or by standing out," said researcher Leila Deravi, an assistant professor of chemistry and materials science. "Now that we know the composition of the pigments they use, we can begin to think about integrating them into materials that are capable of these tasks." DURHAM, N.H. — University of New Hampshire researchers have identified the pigments that contribute to the colors of squid, cuttlefish and octopi and allow them to camouflage their appearance. The critters are cephalopods, which use multiple optical organs to sense and respond to the surrounding environment and quickly change their skin to blend in, or stand out, in the background around them. Thousands of color-changing organs, called chromatophores, are located in the skin. When muscle fibers contract, they cause the chromatophores to expand and distribute pigmented granules. The researchers focused on a squid because it is readily available off the coast of New England. Their next steps will be to understand what the purpose of the pigments is. They have to understand how the animals work and why. "The holy grail is of course to be able to design systems that can behave how cephalopods do -- to sense different environmental conditions and adapt to them either by blending in or by standing out," said researcher Leila Deravi, an assistant professor of chemistry and materials science. "Now that we know the composition of the pigments they use, we can begin to think about integrating them into materials that are capable of these tasks."

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745049

__label__wiki

Promising Young Tenor Comes To Connecticut To Tackle Biggest Opera Role Of His Career By Ray Hardman • Nov 15, 2019 American tenor Errin Duane Brooks Errin Duane Brooks / Facebook African-American tenor Errin Duane Brooks performs the title role in Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde with Connecticut Lyric Opera this weekend. The Detroit native is on tear recently. This year alone he made his Metropolitan Opera, Carnegie Hall, and Lincoln Center debuts. Brooks grew up in Detroit, the youngest of 4 children. “I had a strong foundation with my family,” said Brooks. “Even though we had it rough, we always had enough.” Brooks comes from a musical family. It was his mother who recognized his talent early on. Much to Brooks’ dismay his mother took him out of football and put him in the church choir instead. Brooks said he flourished as a church singer, but it wasn't until his junior year in college that he even thought about opera. “One of my voice teachers showed me clips of George Shirley, Leontyne Price, Marion Anderson, Jessye Norman, Paul Robeson, you know people who look like me that were doing opera, and that is when it hit me that maybe I can do this.” Brooks went on to get a Bachelor’s degree from Madonna University, and a Master’s degree from Bowling Green State University. After graduate school, he was accepted into Chicago Opera Theater's prestigious apprenticeship program – as a baritone. His apprenticeship proved to be a turning point, as he transitioned from baritone to tenor. A tenor with a really big voice. “I do mostly the big four - Verdi, Wagner, Strauss and Puccini,” said Brooks. This is Brooks’ first Tristan, the lead role in Richard Wagner's Tristan Und Isolde. It’s a role he hopes to do over and over again throughout his career. He said given Wagner's heavy, often boisterous orchestration, Tristan can be a very demanding role, both dramatically and vocally. “It is quite the marathon," said Brooks, "so you really have to pace yourself with this role, or else you won't make it to the middle of act two, let alone through the entire opera.” Brooks says he has to approach the role of Tristan the same way he would sing lyric roles like in the Italian operas of Verdi and Puccini. Tenor Errin Duane Brooks performs with Connecticut Lyric Opera this Saturday in Middletown and this Sunday at the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford. The show is in New London at the Garde Arts Center the weekend after Thanksgiving. 2016 NPR Tiny Desk Contest Winner Performs in Connecticut Bartek Buczkowski / Facebook NPR Tiny Desk Contest winner Gaelynn Lea was a fiddle teacher and performer in Duluth, Minnesota when she was encouraged by a friend to submit her song " Someday We'll Linger in the Sun" to the second ever NPR Tiny Desk contest in 2016. All Songs Considered Host Bob Boilen told NPR that when the judges of the competition heard Lea’s song they were completely floored. Violinist Kishi Bashi Reflects On The Past To Understand The Present By Carmen Baskauf & Lucy Nalpathanchil • Nov 1, 2019 Violinist and singer Kishi Bashi is Japanese American. His most recent musical project, Omoiyari, takes a look at the history of Japanese internment, when 120,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated, fueled by xenophobia during World War II. This hour, we sit down with Kishi Bashi to talk about why he’s turning to history to better understand our present, and we ask him about his unique musical style.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745050

__label__wiki

Lake Malawi - Lakes of the World Also referred to as Lago Niassa in Mozambique and Lake Nyasa in Tanzania, Lake Malawi covers 30,044 square kilometers abounding with freshwater fish. Shores of Lake Malawi with traditional canoes on the beach. Lake Malawi is a freshwater African lake shared by the nations of Malawi, Tanzania, and Mozambique. The lake occupies 20 percent of Malawi’s total area, and it has a surface area of 11,390 square miles. Lake Malawi's mean depth is 264 meters, and its maximum depth is 706 meters, according to World Lakes. The lake’s water volume is 2015 cubic miles, and this water has an estimated residency time of 114 years. In Tanzania it’s called Lake Nyasa, and in Mozambique it's known as Lago Niassa. The lake has three layers, with different densities due to variations in temperature at each depth. Due to the diversity of endemic fish species found in Lake Malawi, UNESCO has designated it as being a World Heritage Site. Historical Role When Dr. David Livingstone, the famed Scottish missionary, reached Lake Malawi during his expedition from 1858 to 1862, he found it being used as an ivory and slave trade route by Swahili and Arab traders. One of the slave traders, Salim bin Abdullah (or Jumbe), had set up his headquarters by the lake at Nkhotakota in the 1840s. Once the slaves’ total numbers reached 1,000, they were shipped across the lake to East African markets, according to UNESCO. At Nkhotakota, Dr. Livingstone negotiated a treaty with Jumbe and local Chewa chiefs calling for the halting of the slave trade there. Jumbe, however, didn’t stop the trade, though it ultimately ended in 1891, when Malawi became a British protectorate. During his time by the lake, Dr. Livingstone nicknamed it the "Lake of Stars", due to the reflection of the stars twinkling at night upon its surface. Modern Significance Lake Malawi houses more known fish species than any other lake in the world. There an estimated 500 to 1,000 fish species therein, belonging 11 fish families, according to a World Bank study. Of these, the endemic species of the Cichlidae Family make up over 90 percent of the fish species found in the lake. At the lake, the Cichlids control the vegetation, and in turn are food source for native birds like the African fish eagle. Lake Malawi is also a tourism destination and has state-maintained park areas set aside in and around it. The aquatic recreational activities at the lake are inclusive of snorkeling, scuba diving, yachting, fishing, kayaking, water skiing, sail boarding, and swimming. At the parks, the recreational activities include birdwatching, hiking, mountain biking, and walking upon the trails that circle the lake. Sports venues for volleyball and golf are available to visitors as well. Habitat and Biodiversity The mean annual temperature around Lake Malawi is 22.7 degrees Celsius, with the average annual rainfall amounting to 766 millimeters. This climate sustains the woodland and scrubby vegetation that is seen dotting the national park's hills and flatter expanses around the lake. Acacia, baobab, and ficus are the dominant trees species spread out in the park. There are also swamps and lagoons near the lake. Underwater rocks are coated densely with the algae which is an important food source for the lake's fish. Lake Malawi has within its bounds 15 percent of the varieties of freshwater fish species found globally. The diversity of species at the lake is supported by a range of underwater habitats, including sandy, weedy, rocky, and rock-sand terrains, as well as reed beds. Environmental Threats and Territorial Disputes Overfishing, water pollution from runoff like sewage, sediment loading, receding water levels due to climate change, increased nutrient inputs, and changes in phytoplankton composition are among the threats researchers cite as most greatly affecting Lake Malawi’s fragile ecosystems. The clearing of land around the lake for agriculture, the use of chemicals like fertilizers, and the continued deforestation activities seen here are also affecting biodiversity and ecological balance in and around Lake Malawi. When chemicals used on land get washed into the lake, especially fertilizer from cultivated crops, they promote the growth of blue-green algae, which is harmful to the aquatic life in the lake. Increased silt deposits are also interfering with places where the lake's fish have long laid their eggs to reproduce. How Big is Lake Malawi? Lake Malawi has a surface area of 30,044 square kilometers. By James Karuga European Countries That Are Leaders In Battery Recycling Here Are The Deadliest Tsunamis In History Top 10 Strangest Planets In The Known Universe Number Of Endangered Plants And Animals By Type In The United States Are Squirrels Nocturnal? Are Cheetahs Endangered? The Largest Lakes in the World Largest Lakes In The US The Largest Lake Islands In The World Which Country Has the Most Lakes? The Largest Lakes in Africa

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745051

__label__wiki

Juvenile lifer: Prisoner of his own conscience Convicted of murder as a teen, Michael Lehman hopes for a chance to leave prison. Juvenile lifer: Prisoner of his own conscience Convicted of murder as a teen, Michael Lehman hopes for a chance to leave prison. Check out this story on ydr.com: https://on-ydr.co/1RNyDWA Mike Argento, margento@ydr.com Published 10:32 a.m. ET Jan. 27, 2016 | Updated 10:45 p.m. ET June 23, 2018 Michael Lehman, now 42, was found guilty in 1990 of first-degree murder and related offenses in the death of Kwame Beatty, 23.(Photo: submitted) UPDATE: Lehman released after 30 years in prison. (This story was originally published Feb. 10, 2013.) Michael Lehman thinks about that night every day. June 18, 1988. It was a Saturday. It was the night Kwame Beatty was murdered. Every day, he thinks about what he did that day and what he did that night. He remembers walking across the field to the Children’s Home group home in North York, listening to the others talk about what they were going to do when they got there. He remembers them talking about “getting their stuff” from the home, not sure that they were, indeed, conspiring to kill the 23-year-old counselor. He remembers entering the building and being told to stay upstairs while the three others went to Beatty’s bedroom. He remembers sitting in the hallway, holding a knife, told to prevent anyone from leaving their rooms. He remembers hearing some noise and climbing down the stairs to see what was happening. He remembers peeking into Beatty’s room and being told to get back upstairs. He remembers being scared. He remembers sitting in that hallway, crying. He remembers it all. And it tortures him. “I think about what I did and what I should have done and I know I can’t change anything,” he said. “That’s what I think about all the time. It’s not so much that I didn’t run and get the police. Or that I could have yelled and alerted other people in the home to what was going on. I didn’t do anything. I didn’t even tell them to stop. I just went upstairs, sat in the hallway and cried. I don’t know why I didn’t leave. I don’t know why I didn’t try to go get help. I didn’t do anything. “That’s what I see when I look in the mirror, that coward. That’s what I live with. I know there is no way to make that right.” Lehman spoke those words in the visiting room at the Rockview State Correctional Institution — where he lives and, if his appeals are unsuccessful, where he will die. He is serving life without parole, having been convicted of first-degree murder in Beatty’s killing. He was an accomplice and, under the law, was just as responsible for Beatty’s death as the three men who went into that room and stabbed the youth counselor 21 times. Lehman was 14 at the time. Now, he is a few months from turning 40. He was a slight teenager and now, in middle age, he is still a slight person, painfully thin. His hair is mostly gone and he shaves his head. He has a goatee and wears wire-framed glasses. “That person, that 14-year-old kid, is long gone,” Lehman said. “But I still have to live with what he did. It’s always with me.” There were four people convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in Beatty’s murder. Miguel Yoder, 16 at the time, and Dwayne Morningwake, 15 at the time, are still in prison. Cornell Mitchell, 25 at the time and the ring-leader, died of AIDS in his second year in prison. And Lehman is also still in prison. But as bad as prison is — and it’s pretty bad, he says — nothing will punish Lehman more than his own thoughts, his own recriminations, his own conscience and his own self-loathing for his actions, or inaction, that night. “I don’t want anybody to pity me,” he said. “I don’t want that. No matter how you frame it, or shape it, or spin it, I made that decision that night. A better man than I’ll ever be is dead and I did nothing to stop it. I have to live with that. That’s my punishment. I will be haunted by that, my soul will be tortured by that, for the rest of my life.” That Lehman wound up facing the prospect of spending the rest of his days living in a 6-by-8 cell may not be surprising. His life is almost a textbook example. His natural parents, according to court and psychiatric records, were abusive and neglectful. He was put up for adoption when he was 7. His adoptive parents have said they were never told of the abuse he endured and when he developed behavioral, emotional and psychological problems; they were caught off-guard and were unsure what to do to help him. He’s been locked up since he was 14, first in York County Prison and then in the stateprison system. Essentially, he grew up in prison. It may come as a surprise that he is very intelligent, as many do not believe that intelligent people wind up serving life without parole. It’s just one of the contradictions and ironies of his life. For instance, he said, he had to go to prison to learn how to live with integrity, decency and honesty. “And this is not really an environment that fosters the good guys,” Lehman said. .......... He had a good mentor. Not long after Lehman entered the prison system, he became friends with Victor Hassine, who showed him the ropes and taught him how to do time, something that, in the end, Hassine was unable to do. Hassine, who was serving life without parole for the 1980 murder of man in Morrisville, a quaint little Bucks County town that boasts of its low crime rate on its website, had written what is considered among the definitive books about serving time — “Life without Parole: Living in Prison Today.” The book is still in print and is used in college-level criminal justice courses. Hassine taught Lehman about the system and how to survive. He encouraged him to get his GED and continue learning. “He always told me to go to school and do things to better myself,” Lehman recalled. Lehman grew up as a model prisoner. He taught GED courses to other inmates. He stayed out of trouble and avoided the bad crowds. He became active in the lifers’ association at Rockview and served as its president and secretary. He continued learning, reading voraciously. He reads a lot of science-fiction and fantasy — it’s what he read as a kid and it still provides him with escape. And he reads a lot of nonfiction and biography. He’s read “The Lucifer Effect,” a book about a study that explored why good people turn to evil. “He’s respected in the prison,” his lawyer, former state Attorney General Ernie Preate, an ex-con himself, said. “Some people get second chances. Hopefully, he’ll be one of them. He’s earned it.” Hassine’s story ended badly — he hanged himself in his cell in 2008. Lehman said he didn’t know him at the end and believed he had some psychological problems. Still, he said, “I can’t believe he did that.” But in a way, he can believe it. “It’s something I’ve thought about a lot,” he said. “If I get to a point where there’s no hope, that there’s no light at the end, that I’m absolutely sure I’ll never get out of here, why would I go on with this? What’s the point?” His mother, Sharon Swope, and sister, Alexis Sipe, also give him hope and a reason to live. “I wouldn’t want to do that to my mother and sister,” he said. “But there are times...it’s incredibly painful. It never ends.” Michael Lehman at 13. (Photo: Submitted) On May 1, 2001, a Tuesday, he met with Kwame Beatty’s sister, Shirley Woodyard. “I owed her that much,” Lehman said. “If she wanted to come in here and throw things at me, or yell at me, or spit in my face, I’d take it. I’d take her anger.” Woodyard didn’t do any of those things. On the four people convicted of killing her brother, she said she had the most hatred for Lehman. “He could have done something to stop it,” she reasoned, “and he didn’t.” But she knew that she couldn’t live with that hatred, that it would consume her. She knew she had to let it go. At the beginning of the meeting, Lehman told her he was afraid to meet with her, but felt he had to. Woodyard told him, “I want you to know that I don’t hate you. I forgive you.” Lehman recalled that it was as if a weight had been lifted off of him, that he felt lighter. Yet, deep inside, he knew it was still there, the guilt, and he was unable to forgive himself. He is reminded of it every time he looks in the mirror. .......... His chances of ever getting out of prison rest with the courts. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court declared mandatory life sentences without parole unconstitutional for minors. The state courts have yet to decide whether that ruling would apply to the nearly 500 juvenile lifers in Pennsylvania prisons. Even if the courts decide in favor of resentencing juvenile lifers, Preate said, “Michael’s case won’t come up for a couple of years.” And depending on how courts rule, Preate said, it wouldn’t necessarily mean Lehman would be up for parole immediately. It could be a decade. Lehman is aware of that. And he has mixed feelings. “I know I should want to be free,” he said. “But that’s because people tell me I should want to be free. I don’t have any experience with that. I don’t know what it is. I’m almost 40 years and I’ve been in prison for almost two-thirds of my life. This is what I know.” He wants to be free so his mother can see him as a free man. He wants to visit his sister’s home and play with his nieces and nephews. He wants to be free to make his own decisions. And he wants a second chance. “I have to convince people to give me a second chance,” he said. “I have to convince them that I’m a decent person.” At the same time, the idea of being free frightens him. He figures he may be 50 by the time he gets out of prison, if it happens at all. Who’s going to want to hire a 50-year-old ex-con? What could he do? What kind of woman would want to date him? Where would he live? How would he live? “I don’t know what freedom is,” he said. “To be free for freedom’s sake doesn’t make sense to me. There’s so much out there that I don’t know how to do. Driving a car. I have no idea.” And even if he does get out, he will still live in a prison of his own making, one where the bars and walls and razor-wire-topped fences are constructed from his memories. “There’s nothing you can say,” he said. “I made one horribly wrong decision that I’ll live with for the rest of my life. And I’m not sure that I shouldn’t pay for that for the rest of my life. It’s just one of the horrible memories I have. I’m tired. I’m tired of having them. I’m tired of living with them.” Read or Share this story: https://on-ydr.co/1RNyDWA Timeline of the York Daily Record's history An insider's guide to Hersheypark March 22, 2019, 11:07 a.m. How to size someone for clothes March 21, 2019, 12:32 p.m. York collector sold antiques to 'American Pickers' Escape rooms to visit in southcentral Pa. Archives: Driver pleads guilty in fatal I-83 crash Dec. 21, 2018, 12:08 p.m.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745054

__label__wiki

https://www.yourconroenews.com/neighborhood/moco/sports/article/FOOTBALL-Five-local-players-land-on-APSE-14919417.php FOOTBALL: Five local players land on APSE all-state teams By Jon Poorman, Staff Writer Published 2:32 pm CST, Thursday, December 19, 2019 Conroe wide receiver Michael Phoenix (4) was a first-team all-state selection after racking up 1,399 yards and 22 touchdowns this season. Photo: Jason Fochtman, Houston Chronicle / Staff Photographer Five Montgomery County football players were recognized for their performances on the field this week when the Associated Press Sports Editors all-state teams were released. Conroe senior wide receiver Michael Phoenix was the top local selection, earning first-team honors in Class 6A. Phoenix finished the season with 79 catches for 1,399 yards and 22 touchdowns for the Tigers. The player throwing Phoenix the ball was also selected. Senior quarterback Christian Pack was given honorable mention after completing 59 percent of his passes for 2,622 yards with 30 touchdowns and 12 interceptions. He also rushed for 1,256 yards and eight touchdowns and averaged more than eight yards per carry. Conroe senior cornerback Dakerric Hobbs was also given honorable mention. He finished the season with 47 tackles (four for loss), three interceptions, four pass breakups, two forced fumbles and five blocked kicks. The Woodlands senior defensive tackle Caleb Fox was given honorable mention after recording 89 tackles (20 for loss), 12 sacks, one forced fumble and one blocked kick. College Park senior offensive lineman Josh Bankhead, who signed with Texas A&M on Wednesday, was given honorable mention as well. Bankhead led the Cavaliers with 47 knockdowns this season. jpoorman@hcnonline.com

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745055

__label__cc

home | grants awarded Total Award Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc. $14,988,657 Sustainable Adoption EdLab Group Foundation (Formerly known as Puget Sound Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology) $4,153,833 Broadband Data & Development Silver Star Telephone Company(2) $5,063,623 Infrastructure Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc.(1) $5,608,179 Infrastructure University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development $62,540,162 Infrastructure Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc. Sustainable Adoption $14,988,657 Project serves: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming Broadband’s ability to expand educational and employment opportunities is especially meaningful for Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing, a community that faces unique challenges in education and that suffers from a rate of unemployment much higher than the national average. Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc. (CSD) intends to expand broadband adoption among people who are deaf and hard of hearing and provide them with online tools to more fully participate in the digital economy. The project proposes to employ a combination of discounted broadband service and specialized computers, technology training from an online state-of-the art support center customized to the community’s needs, public access to videophones at anchor institutions from coast to coast, and a nationwide outreach initiative. Thousands will gain online access to all the Internet has to offer, including sign language interpreters, captioned video services, and other content and functionalities designed especially to advance their educational, employment, and healthcare interests. Broadband Data & Development $4,153,833 Project serves: Wyoming Silver Star Telephone Company(2) Infrastructure $5,063,623 Project serves: Idaho, Wyoming Silver Star Telephone Company will use BTOP funding to complete key portions of its broadband network. The Expanding Greater Yellowstone Area Broadband Opportunities project proposes to close an 89-mile gap in its existing Wyoming fiber network between the continental divide at Togwotee Pass and Jackson, bringing comprehensive broadband services to 11 counties in the western part of the state. The Delivering Opportunities: Investing in Rural Wyoming Broadband project proposes to close a 38-mile network gap in northwest Wyoming over the Teton Pass to southeast Idaho, bringing broadband to five additional counties. Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc.(1) University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development Infrastructure $62,540,162 Project serves: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming As part of a longstanding project to connect essential community anchor institutions across the country, and facilitate closer collaboration and long-term benefits for education, research, healthcare, public safety, and government services, the University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development (UCAID) proposes a comprehensive 50-state network benefitting approximately 121,000 community anchors. The project proposes a large-scale, public-private partnership to interconnect more than 30 existing research and education networks, creating a dedicated 100-200 Gbps nationwide fiber backbone with 3.2 terabits per second (TBps) total capacity that would enable advanced networking features such as IPv6 and video multicasting. The project plans to connect community anchors across all disciplines into virtual communities with shared goals and objectives, including colleges, universities, libraries, major veterans and other health care facilities, and public safety entities, with additional benefits to tribes, vulnerable populations, and government entities.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745060

__label__wiki

India: Varanasi flyover bridge collapse kills 18 By Wasantha Rupasinghe At least 18 people were crushed to death and 11 more injured on Tuesday when a portion of an under-construction flyover bridge collapsed on the busiest road of Varanasi, in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parliamentary constituency, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh (UP). The tragedy is a further indication that government authorities and profit-seeking construction companies are endangering the safety of workers and the public as a whole. During evening peak-hour traffic, two pillars of the flyover in Varanasi’s Cantt area collapsed, bringing down a huge slab that crushed at least 20 vehicles, including a mini-bus, six cars and numbers of two-wheelers. According to the state’s highest police officer, O.P. Singh, most of the people trapped were thought to be construction workers. While the authorities claim that police and rescue teams reached the site 30 minutes after the crash, the Telegraph reported that earth movers and other heavy equipment were brought to the site at 7 p.m., roughly two hours after the tragedy. The newspaper noted that angry people denounced the government’s delay in rescue operations. A First Post video showed Kailash Ram from Bhajipur, who lost three family members in the disaster, saying the government should take the responsibility because it failed to ensure that no people were around the construction site. The Hindustan Times quoted UP Engineers Association General Secretary Surjit Singh Niranjan, who blamed the district administration and the construction agency for not following safety norms. “Traffic should not be allowed to move under an under-construction bridge and a proper safety net should be put in place at the construction site,” he said. Official buck-passing began immediately. State government sources told NDTV that initial investigations pointed to negligence. Quoting state police sources, the Indian Express on Thursday reported that the police had sent at least five letters to the state-run Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation (UPSBC), which was in charge of the construction, since last November and registered an FIR (First Information Report) in February for traffic safety regulation breaches. UPSBC Managing Director Rajan Mittal, however, told the Express that the corporation had asked district officials and the police for traffic management during construction. “There was pressure to meet the deadline but no compromise was made on quality and it would be clear during the inquiry,” Mittal said. District Magistrate Yogeshwar Ram Mishra rejected this claim. He told the Express: “It is wrong to say that they had written to us.” He repeated the police story of sending five letters to the UPSBC. “But they did not [act accordingly] and that is why the FIR has been registered against them.” A Hindustan Times editorial on Thursday said the section of the flyover that collapsed had been constructed in February. “This suggests shoddy execution and possibly poor quality material, something that plagues many construction projects in India,” it said. “Projects are undertaken in haste, often before elections, are executed with little planning and with scant regard to engineering norms. Most infrastructure projects suffer from huge delays that push costs up and encourage contractors to cut corners. This causes lethal structural failures as seen in the Varanasi case and other projects.” On Wednesday, to defuse the public anger, UP Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad suspended four UPSBC officials, including Chief Project Manager KR Sudan. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, from the Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP), promised “more punitive action” after a government-appointed investigation panel submitted its report within 48 hours. He announced meagre compensation of 500,000 rupees ($US7,369) for the kin of those killed in the incident, and 200,000 rupees for those injured. As is his usual practice in such catastrophes, BJP Prime Minister Narendra Modi rushed to his Twitter account to shed crocodile tears, saying he was “extremely saddened by the loss of lives.” He continued: “I pray that the injured recover soon. Spoke to officials and asked them to ensure all possible support to those affected.” Modi has no any genuine concerns over the loss of lives. In the past, he has repeatedly posted similar “condolence” tweets, with some minor adjustments, but such disasters only continue. In March 2016, a half-constructed flyover collapse in Kolkata, the capital of West Bengal, killed more than 25 people. Referring to that tragedy, a Times of India editorial on Thursday noted: “[A]n expert committee found that multiple factors such as faulty design, poor quality of raw material and lack of proper oversight contributed to the collapse. Afterwards it was recommended that the flyover be razed but two years on local shopkeepers and residents are still living with the structure that has become unstable. This story of malpractices, apathy and delay in addressing urgent safety concerns is likely being repeated too frequently for comfort.” The UPSBC website claims that it has won a number of national and international awards for its “Quality, Economy and Time Management with continual improvement of products and processes” and its paid-up capital has grown to 150 million rupees. It has constructed bridges and flyovers in many Indian cities, as well as in Iraq, Yemen and Nepal. However, according to a Hindustan Times article on Wednesday, the UPSBC had come under investigation twice before. It quoted an unnamed public works department engineer who said the 1086-metre Chillgahat Bridge, built at a cost of 6.5 billion rupees, cracked within 13 days of its inauguration in 2010. The engineer said the UP state government had ordered an inquiry but took no action against top engineers and officers. Similarly, in 2016, a cavity developed on the Lohia Bridge in Lucknow. The UP state government constituted a four-member probe committee that indicted engineers for poor quality work, but the report was put “in cold storage,” a senior UPSBC engineer told the Times. Given that record, the current government investigation will most likely make no difference. The capitalist system and its political representatives do not care about human lives, just profits. For this, dozens of workers and poor people die every day in workplaces all over the country. The UPSBC website boasted: “No wonder, many clients have reposed confidence in UPSBC Ltd. by repeatedly awarding work to it in the face of global competition in India and abroad.” Driven by this “global competition,” the evidence already indicates that the corporation has resorted to cost-cutting operations, brushing aside basic safety norms, and costing the lives of workers and poor people. Massive all-India general strike protests Modi’s pro-investor, communalist policies Indian workers need a revolutionary socialist program to fight Modi, capitalist austerity, and communal reaction Indian army chief denounces mass protests against BJP government’s anti-Muslim citizenship law

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745062

__label__wiki

Six months of AMLO: Jacobin defends the Mexican president By Alex González Six months after Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) assumed the presidency, Jacobin magazine, affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, has stepped up its efforts to provide AMLO with a left cover by painting him as a progressive and even a socialist. Jacobin has intervened to promote AMLO at a moment when the intensification of the class struggle, the mass roundup and deportation of immigrants, and the Mexican government’s subservience to the fascistic Trump administration have all exposed his administration as an enemy of the working class in the eyes of millions of workers in Mexico and across Central America. The May 26 article by Jacobin, titled “AMLO Can’t Do This Alone,” alleges that AMLO is a great progressive but that, despite his best efforts, he is under siege from organized crime, opposition politicians, domestic and foreign finance capital, and even the leadership of his own party, the Movement for National Regeneration (Morena). “Both Mexican and international elites want to scuttle AMLO’s progressive agenda,” the article begins. According to Jacobin, AMLO possesses “energy, charisma, and frenetic activity” and is seeking to “storm the castle.” However, he is supposedly “fighting against a formidable array of forces” and “a party that is being infiltrated by opportunists.” In the face of such a sweeping endorsement of AMLO’s credentials, what has been the real record of his administration? Almost a year after his election and sixth months after the beginning of his administration, his government has only deepened and intensified its attacks on the working class, in many cases going further than the openly right-wing parties that have ruled Mexico for 89 years. Acting as a subservient stooge of the Trump administration, AMLO has escalated the assault on immigrants while cynically claiming to protect their “human rights.” In December, his government agreed to violate international law to enact the so-called “Remain in Mexico” policy. This has forced asylum seekers to stay on shantytown tents and makeshift facilities on the Mexican side of the border while their cases process in US courts. Deportations from Mexico to Central America have tripled under AMLO. He has deported 80,000 workers back to their home countries. Humanitarian visas have plummeted from 11,000 in January to 1,500 in March and almost zero since. After the Trump administration’s threat of imposing a five percent tariff on Mexican goods, AMLO has stated that he wants to be a “friend of President Trump” and pledged “cooperation.” This can only mean agreeing to carry out ever more ruthless attacks on mostly Central American women and children to please Trump’s fascistic base. If in Jacobin ’s fantasy being a “progressive” means attacking immigrants, then the magazine’s claim that AMLO is a “consummate master of mass organizing” also translates to repressing the class struggle in the service of capitalist property relations and US imperialism. AMLO’s public comments on the massive wildcat strikes which swept through the northern border city of Matamoros earlier this year urged workers to “consider the companies’ situation” and find “balance.” AMLO’s administration actively intervened to shut down the strikes, from declaring them illegal in federal courts to dispatching troops to assault workers on the picket line. AMLO similarly denounced striking teachers in Mexico’s impoverished south as “right-wing” and demanded they go back to work and accept his cuts to education. The resurgence of the class struggle takes place under conditions of historic levels of social inequality. A recent United Nations report revealed that Mexican society features development indices of Switzerland in the richest areas of the country and Burundi in the most destitute. Under these urgent conditions, what has AMLO’s “progressive agenda” offered the working class? Of the two examples cited by the article, a railway train in the Yucatan peninsula, is in fact deeply opposed by the local indigenous population for causing deforestation to the region’s second largest rainforest ecosystem outside of the Amazon. AMLO’s self-described “austerity budgets” are so ruthless that they have even won the praise of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which specializes in giving out loans in exchange for massive cuts in social programs and privatizations. On May 29, IMF chief Christine Legarde spoke before members of the Mexican Congress and praised AMLO’s “prudent fiscal policy” that would ensure that “inflation stays low.” The message is clear: there will be no increases in social spending or significant moves to increase wages. Jacobin does make one true statement regarding the character of the AMLO administration. In the article, the magazine is compelled to admit that the Mexican government is subordinated to the global economy and the whims of domestic and foreign finance capital. “Democracy cannot be allowed in Mexico if the result is a government that bucks international economic nostrums, however mildly,” writes Jacobin. “And if it persists in attempting to do so, mechanisms such as free-trade agreements and financial markets must be activated to slap down any of that ‘supreme self-confidence’ it dares to have.” If this statement is true, why support AMLO and his nationalist program? Ultimately, the subservience of the Mexican economy to Wall Street is precisely why AMLO will always be a puppet of the dominant economic powers in Washington. In the era of globalization, where plants and investments can move to any corner of the world, the framework for a national reformist program has been completely undermined. This is especially true in a historically oppressed country such as Mexico. The entire experience of the 20th century attests to the fact that whatever their tactical differences, the ruling elite will make accommodations between themselves and the imperialist powers many times over to guarantee their own interests rather than to risk mobilizing the working class. The article itself admits that AMLO “has not called for a single mobilization since taking office.” So much for AMLO the “consummate master of mass organizing”! Jacobin and the DSA support a politician that opposes the class struggle and seeks to strike a deal with Trump at the expense of defenseless immigrant workers from areas devastated by over a century of exploitation by US imperialism. Real socialists seek to mobilize the working class and fight for its political independence from all sections of the ruling class on the basis of the fight for the unity of the working classes of the US, Mexico and Central America. As the WSWS recently wrote, Jacobin does not speak for the working class but for “liberal investors, well-paid tenured academics, and other layers of the upper-middle class affluencia who sincerely believe that some of the money sloshing around at the apex of capitalist society should be distributed more equitably among those who fall within the 90 to 99 percent income bracket.” In contrast, socialists call for the establishment of the United Socialist States of the Americas. The Politics of the Pseudo-Left Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in the same party as Joe Biden Left Party prepares to cooperate with far-right Alternative for Germany in Thuringia At Davos, Spain’s PSOE-Podemos government shows the banks its credentials Germany: Left Party supports Libya conference and possible military deployment Mexican President López Obrador breaks up migrant caravan Asarco strike poses need for unity of US and Mexican copper miners New migrant caravan departs Honduras defying stepped-up controls Former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe linked to international drug trafficking through Sinaloa Cartel Jacobin Magazine and the Democratic Socialists of America As contract vote approaches, DSA defends sellout by Chicago Teachers Union Democratic Socialists of America “International Committee” denounces “reckless” withdrawal of US troops from Syria Labor Notes, DSA line up with UAW bureaucrats against GM strikers Democratic Socialists of America launches nationwide campaign for Bernie Sanders The Democratic Socialists of America Convention: A marketing gimmick for the Democratic Party

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745063

__label__wiki

There are some intriguing instances of foreknowledge of September 11 from unlikely sources: On September 10, a fifth-grader in a Dallas suburb told his teacher World War III would begin the next day, and the United States would lose. This occurred in a northern suburb of Dallas. Just a few days before the student's remarks, the FBI had raided InfoCom Corporation, a website hosting company for clients in the Middle East, which is located in the nearby suburb of Richardson. Across the road from InfoCom's offices is the headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charitable organization which was the largest Islamic charity in the U. S. and whose chairman was a vice president of InfoCom, and which has been accused of being a sponser of Hamas terrorists in Israel (there may also have been family connections between Hamas and InfoCom). The Holy Land Foundation was subsequently shut down by the U. S. government. The FBI investigated the matter of the prescient student and dismissed it on the rather unsatisfactory grounds that the teacher later decided she could not be certain the boy had actually predicted World War III would begin on the same day as the terrorist attacks (do they think she must have imagined this story?). The most famous story of foreknowledge is that of the 14-year-old student in Brooklyn, who supposedly stared out the window of his school at the WTC on September 6, and predicted that the towers would not be standing the next week. The story was investigated but the issue appears to remain a mystery and the student remains in the school. There are a few other similar stories around (see the Insight article), most of which are probably legends, but this story appears to be an example of true foreknowledge. A writer for the Village Voice was in a cab driven by an Arab cab driver on July 16, 2001. The driver told her that he would be going home to Egypt sometime in late August or September, as Osama bin Laden had planned big terrorist attacks for New York and Washington for that time. She reported him on September 13, which caused him to be questioned, but not arrested, by the FBI. Over a year later she asked him about it. After initially denying that that he told her about the attacks, he admitted that he had, saying: "But many people knew this." He said it was merely common knowledge in the Arab world. There are other stories involving cab drivers not working on the morning of September 11, which are probably mostly urban legends. The common factor in these stories is an odd reluctance by the authorities to believe any of them. Of course, it is now very embarrassing to all American police and intelligence agencies, not to mention the Bush Administration, that knowledge of the attacks should have been so readily available, and therefore they have an interest in downplaying any stories of foreknowledge. It seems to me that there were rumors in the Arab community that were taken semi-seriously, but these rumors were never reported as people felt, no doubt correctly, that the authorities would not believe them. Schoolchildren and talkative cab drivers were the only ones who would mention them outside the community. In the wake of the massive number of arrests of young Arab men who were held unconstitutionally, often without proper legal representation, and eventually released, the Arab community will probably take future warnings much more seriously but will not dare report them to the authorities. There is a cost to racial profiling and the denial of constitutional rights. at 11/30/2002 04:04:00 AM 0 comments Links to this post Sebastian Junger, in two interviews on CNN (referring to his article in Vanity Fair which does not appear to be on the internet), presents further examples of foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks coming out of an area in South America called the Triple Border (where Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil meet). Junger depicts this area as a hotbed of terrorist activity including al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Irish Republican Army, the Spanish ETA, and even right-wing American extremists. Seven months before September 11, a former Argentinian intelligence officer wrote a letter to the American Ambassador in Argentina warning that in the next half-year or so suicide pilots would fly planes into buildings (i. e., exactly what Condoleezza Rice said was not predictable). He said some possible targets were the White House, Congress, the WTC and the Pentagon. He thought the planes would have explosives in them. A Moroccan who was an al-Qaeda operative in Brazil named Abdel Fatah (or Abdel Fattah or Gadan Abdel Fattah) had a change of heart and went to the authorities, where he was arrested on other charges. He wrote a letter to the United States embassy warning about attacks, specifically attacks to occur on September 11. He gave that letter to his lawyer a week before September 11 (this story is eerily similar to that of Delmart Vreeland). Fatah was questioned by Brazilian, US consular, and US law enforcement officials who all apparently concluded that there was no (or here) corroborating evidence that he had any real knowledge of any terrorist attacks (to put that into common sense terms, it means they couldn't prove that he didn't know, but they weren't clever enough to find any corroboration - you'd think that merely being able to predict the future, including the specific day of the attacks, would be corroboration enough). The sheer volume of instances of specific foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks, not to mention the diversity of the sources of this foreknowledge, means that it was one of the worst kept secrets in the world. It appears that the Bush White House was one of the few places that was clueless. Bush has appointed Henry the K to chair his phony commission to investigate the intelligence and security flaws that occurred leading to the events of September 11. This is good for the following reasons: Henry the K can no longer travel outside the United States for fear of being arrested as a war criminal, so this will give him something to do instead of travelling. The apoplexy that this appointment will cause may kill Christopher Hitchens. The appointment is arrogant and an insult to the American people, especially the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks, and eventually this type of arrogance will be noticed by the voters. We all know that this commission will be a whitewash anyway, so appointing a chairman as ridiculous as Henry the K (I guess Ronald Reagan was otherwise engaged) will just make it all that much more easy to see it for the charade that it is. The Warren Commission was an exactly similar bit of nonsense, but the good reputation of Chief Justice Earl Warren made the nonsense more difficult to see. Chairing such a vile coverup is a fitting cap on the career of Henry the K. In spite of the fact that this commission will certainly be a mass of lies, Gary Hart might prove to be a very interesting commission member. This article, published in an American newspaper (!), shows an unusual understanding of how the colonial history of Arabia relates to current attitudes of the inhabitants of the area towards the United States (you can contrast the intelligence in this article against the whole collected works of such 'experts' as Pipes and Lewis). The last paragraph is particularly good. There are some odd stories about foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks. On September 7, 2001, while officiating at a wedding in Todi, Italy, a priest named Father Jean-Marie Benjamin told (or see here) a judge and several politicians that he had been told that a terrorist was preparing an attack, with hijacked passenger planes, on American and British population centers. Father Benjamin has not revealed to the press who told him these things. He has also learned that the attack on the British target failed at the last minute. He had some interesting things to say about the terrorist organization (I have removed some words inserted in the article from his quote and put some words in italics): "In the past, these organizations had autonomous activity, without any links to other bodies. But now they have developed a very different apparatus. Bin Laden alone is linked to 70 of his organizations in some 30 countries. In turn, these groups are in touch with some 900 Muslim organizations, located in all the continents, and they have thousands of militants, some of whom are Westerners, who do not have an Arab surname and who don't even believe in Islam." So much for racial profiling! Father Benjamin is an activist against the use of radioactive weapons in the Gulf War, the embargo against Iraq, and the horrors of the ongoing American-British bombing attacks against Iraq. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) says that Iain Hook, the man killed by the Israelis in Jenin, was shot in the back at a time when there was no military action in the area, and thus is stating that the Israelis have lied about the incident. UNRWA has also protested that, on November 22, "an IDF combat unit of 20 to 30 heavily armed troops surrounded the Bethlehem home of Allegra Pacheco, UNRWA’s Field Legal Officer" who "was held at gunpoint in the open air for two hours while her house was searched, her mobile phone was taken from her". In addition, her husband was made to partially strip and was taken into IDF custody. Twenty-three of UNRWA's Palestinian staff are being held by the Israelis, all but three without charge. When you consider these facts with the pressure being put on the United States to stop funding UNRWA, and the fact that UNRWA is in many cases the only agency standing between the Palestinians and starvation, it is becoming increasingly clear that the attack on Mr. Hook was part of a larger plan to force UNRWA out of the Occupied Territories and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians by forcing them to leave due to lack of food. The Indonesians are being conspicuously and suspiciously successful in their efforts to 'round up the usual suspects' and completely solve the Bali bombing case in record time. I would be very surprised if the Indonesian military didn't play a role, and perhaps the major role, in the attack, and blaming the whole thing on a few fundamentalists is extremely convenient. Do you think the Australians will accept the Indonesian Official Story? Israel is ethnically cleansing the Occupied Territories of Palestinians using a number of techniques, but the main method now seems to be starvation. One of the sole agencies standing between the Palestinians and utter annihilation is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The Israeli military has now shot and killed an employee of this agency, Mr. Iain Hook. Initially, they claimed he was killed in an exchange of fire so it was unclear whether he was killed by the Palestinians or by the Israelis, then that he was killed in error in the course of a gun battle with Palestinians, some of whom were firing from a UNRWA compound (UNRWA doesn't accept these explanations, and denies that there was any firing from its compound). In fact, it appears that any Palestinian firing had stopped two hours before Mr. Hook was shot, and he may very well have died due to the Iraaeli Army prohibiting a clearly marked UN ambulance from evacuating him and transporting him for nearly an hour. When it turned out the Palestinians weren't shooting, the Israelis claimed he was killed 'in error', as they mistook his cell phone for a grenade (or perhaps a gun). This seems unlikely, as he should have been recognized by the Israelis. He seems to have hurried out of the UNRWA building with his cell phone as he was arranging the evacuation of UN workers from the compound. Israelis and their U. S. (and Canadian) supporters have been using the argument that UNRWA is actually a supporter of terrorism, and therefore it should be abolished or at least the United States should stop funding it. Of course, another method to make it impossible for UNRWA to operate would be simply to start killing its employees in cold blood. If, as has been alleged, the Israelis then made the ambulance take a longer detour to the hospital rather than go through one of its checkpoints, it will become certain that the newest in the line of Israeli crimes against humanity is the slaughter of relief workers. Mr. Hook's job was arranging for the rebuilding of homes that were destroyed in the Jenin massacre, so his death must have been particularly satisfying (I wonder if they just tried to kill any UNRWA employee, or whether, since they were aware he was unsuccessfully trying to convince them by phone to cease fire long enough so the UN workers could be evacuated, he was particularly targeted for symbolic reasons). Mounir El Motassadeq, a Moroccan accused of being the paymaster for the September 11 terrorists, is being tried in Germany. One of the witnesses in the trial is the former girlfriend of Ziad Jarrah, Aysel Sengun. She testified: "He called me on September 11...he was very brief. He said he loved me three times. I asked what was up. He hung up shortly afterwards... It was so short and rather strange him saying that repeatedly." We are supposed to take from this, I suppose, the idea that this was the last phone call made by Jarrah before he hijacked Flight 93. However, it seems equally possible that this is the phone call of a man who knows he will have to disappear after September 11 as it will no longer be safe for him to appear in public as 'Ziad Jarrah' (he might have even been aware that he was to be killed). There are just too many reasons to suppose that there were at least two men using the 'Ziad Jarrah' identity to conclude that this cryptic phone call means that the man on the phone was phoning as he was about to hijack an airplane. If the real Jarrah loved her enough to telephone her and tell her three times that he loved her, would he be able to immediately go out and martyr himself? Zacarias Moussaoui has maintained that he was a member of an Islamic fundamentalist group, but had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorism. Captured al-Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh has now apparently given evidence to support the claims of Moussaoui. Binalshibh has stated that Moussaoui met with terrorist planner Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Afghanistan in the winter of 2000. Binalshibh also met with Moussaoui in Karachi in June 2001. However, he and Mohammed decided that Moussaoui was too unreliable and too much of a blabbermouth to use in the terrorist attack unless it was absolutely necessary, and would only give Moussaoui instructions at the last minute if they decided to use him. This basically confirms Moussaoui's story, and may explain why the U. S. government is so loathe to allow Moussaoui to call Binalshibh as a witness. Indeed, the case against Moussaoui, which was weak to begin with, is falling apart so much that the government is floating the idea of labelling Moussaoui an 'enemy combatant', shipping him to Guantanamo Bay, and possibly eventually trying him in a military tribunal. It's bad enough that they are thinking of using military tribunals, but the idea of using military tribunals after they have decided to use the regular court system but don't look to be successful there is really repugnant. The way the United States is going, you can foresee defendants being shuffled down through various layers of courts with decreasing levels of constitutional protections until the prosecutors find one that will provide a conviction. Abdulaziz Alomari was a Saudi who was studying at the University of Colorado. He had his identification stolen in 1995, and reported the theft at the time. There is a picture of him in this article (and here). You can immediately see that he is not the same guy as the famous hijacker (picture here and here, and, in Portland with Atta, here). The oddity is that the real Alomari was 43 years old, while the imposter appeared to be 15 to 20 years younger than that, and listed his date of birth as May 28, 1979 or December 24, 1972 (to add further to the confusion, the imposter Alomari appears also to have stolen the identity of a Saudi pilot who was taking flying lessons in Florida named Abdulrahman (or Abdul Rahman) Alomari, a 41 year-old man with a family, which explains why early descriptions of the hijacker confuse him with this man). There was also a man named 'Abdulaziz Alomari' who attended the Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School in San Antonio, Texas - this man is quite possibly the hijacker, having stolen the original Colorado Alomari's identity, and, like a number of the actual hijackers including Atta, attended a U. S. military school using his stolen identity. Another person studying at the University of Colorado was Ahmed Alghamdi (picture), a man with the same name as another one of the hijackers. A man with that name was later listed with Saeed Alghamdi as living in housing for foreign military flight trainees at Florida's Pensacola Naval Air Station, thus oddly putting him in a connection with another stolen identity (Saeed Alghamdi also had his identity stolen, and it appears the person who used that identity used it while attending Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, California, again fitting the profile of a man using a stolen identity attending a U. S. military school). Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmad Alnami and Ahmed Alghamdi all may have trained in Pensacola. Ahmed Alghamdi also lived for a while in a house in Vienna, Virginia with yet another man who was using a stolen identity, Waleed Alshehri (a man about whom I will have to write more, as his story is very complicated). There were such wild goings on at this house that neighbors phoned the FBI and even the CIA!. I actually think that this kind of connection is an important hint. What appears to have happened in a number of cases is that an original fundamentalist terrorist operative has been used to scout out potentially usable identities of Arabs living (usually studying) in America. The operative has then either stolen the identity himself or has passed the information on to someone who could steal the identity. The stolen identity has then been assumed by one of the imposters who we now think of as the hijackers (and these imposters sometimes used the stolen identity while attending a military school). Some of these identites were stolen in the United States (e. g., Alomari), some were stolen in Europe or the Middle East (e. g., Atta, Jarrah). I feel that these imposters are likely not to be al-Qaeda members, but appear to be mercenary thugs who have been engaged to do most if not all of the technical work behind the hijackings. To give two examples: Ahmed Alghamdi found the identity of Abdulaziz Alomari, which was then stolen and used by the terrorist (as I have already written, it is possible that the man who died on the flight was yet another imposter, subbing for the first imposter Alomari so that man could escape). Marwan Alshehhi possibly discovered the original Mohammad Atta and Ziad Jarrah living in Hamburg, and was able to supply their names so that their idenities could be used by mercenaries. The general pattern is that the al-Qaeda member finds the useful identity, either he or someone else researches the identity and steals the paperwork, and a mercenary who has some terrorist skill assumes the stolen identity. Thus the hijacking cadre consists of two groups, the original fundamentalist terrorists and the mercenaries (more accurately, I think there were two kinds of fundamentalists: those who lived in the United States and were involved in the early planning or at least the setting up of the operation, and those who arrived very late to assist as the 'muscle' in taking over the airplanes). As time goes on it is becoming apparent that at least part of the mercenary group was associated with the illegal drug trade, exactly the sort of thing that you would expect them to be involved with (the other likely area of involvement is gun smuggling). It has become abundantly clear that U. S. government intelligence agencies have used the drug trade to further their own goals, and the type of mercenaries I am thinking about keep popping up in such areas as the JFK assassination, various attempted attacks on Castro, Iran-Contra, and the CIA involvement in allowing the sale of crack cocaine in the United States. Three things follow from all this: Identifying who of the terrorists was a mercenary helps to understand the dynamics of the operation, and may help in actually identifying the group or groups out of which the mercenaries came. Al-Qaeda had no way of obtaining access to a group of the type of thugs who are involved in this shadow world between organized crime and intelligence work. September 11 had to be a joint operation of Islamic fundamentalists and whoever runs these mercenaries. Al-Qaeda supplied some manpower, some money, the intellectual ideas, and most importantly, the right party to blame after the attack was completed. The mercenaries, equipped with new stolen identities, supplied the technical expertise to succeed in such a complicated operation. Most importantly, 9-11 wasn't a unique type of operation but fits neatly into the pattern of intelligence operations that we have seen for the last 40 years. Some 'progressives' tell us that the United States has a duty to rescue Iraq from Saddam and lead its people to American standards of democracy and progress. They expect us to believe this will happen despite the fact that the last two attempts at nation building by the U. S., in Bosnia/Kosovo and in Afghanistan (see also here and here), have been abject failures. The obvious reason for these failures is that the Americans have not the slightest interest in improving the lot of the inhabitants of the countries that are their targets. The Americans just want to achieve their geopolitical goals and leave. The talk of improving the condition of the inhabitants of these victim countries is always just propaganda to appease the lefties, who are happy to find a rationalization to grab on to. 'Progressives' who claim that things will be different in Iraq are either stupid or disingenuous. The story of John Muhammad's guns should be relatively simple, but it's not: I have already referred to problems with the original story, a story which was quickly scrubbed from the internet. The original story identified the Bushmaster rifle with a specific serial number, a serial number of a gun that Muhammad had owned but which he no longer owned. This was either an odd mistake or a hint of something more sinister. The second version of the story was simply to remove reference to the serial number. The third version of the story is just an elaboration of the same mistake, and states that Muhammad bought the gun from a gun shop called 'Welcher's Gun Shop' (note this article, which expressly states that it has been corrected, presumably to remove the confusion of the two guns, but still manages to confuse them). Muhammad passed the background check at the time of the purchase of this rifle. What is said to have happened is that Muhammad then sold the gun back to the same gun shop, which then sold it to another customer who still has it. It is even possible that Muhammad sold the gun back because he was not supposed to possess a weapon under the terms of the restraining order that his wife had obtained against him. Oddly, it appears that the arrest warrant that was used against Muhammad was based on his possession of this rifle, even though it was clear that Muhammad no longer owned the rifle and a lawyer should be able to make the argument that it is a bit much to arrest the guy on the basis of evidence obtained because Muhammad was complying with the restraining order by selling the rifle (although to be fair the affidavit also refers to the testimony of Mr. Holmes regarding what may be another rifle). Since he wasn't at the hearing when the restraining order was issued, it is possible that his sale of the rifle was his attempt to comply with the restraining order as quickly as possible. The whole arrest warrant situation requires more investigation. The fourth version of the story was that Muhammad bought the gun from a gun shop called Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington. The gun in question is supposed to have arrived at the shop from the factory on June 2, after which all record of it apparently disappears. The gun was no longer in the shop, but a search revealed that the box for the gun was still there, and the shop had it listed in its inventory. The only problem with this version is that the gun shop in question has no record of having sold the gun to Mr. Muhammad. In fact, it turns out that they have no record of up to 340 guns that are alleged to have gone through that shop in recent months, and there was another incident two years previously where an additional 150 guns were not accounted for by the proper paperwork and background checks. Did this previously reputable gun shop decide to just up and take a couple months off from complying with the law? Very unlikely. So what is going on here? I can only guess, but I imagine these two groups of guns never in fact arrived at the shop. What this looks like is gun running, whereby large groups of guns are falsely routed through a reputable gun shop, which probably had no idea it was being so used, for the purposes of organized crime or some intelligence agency. The guns are shipped to what appears to be a reputable address, thus allowing the manufacturer to comply with its duties, but mysteriously never arrive at their destination (it will be very telling if the investigation leads to no punishment, or a nominal punishment, for the gun shop). Bushmaster claims that it shipped the gun to a 'distributor' in Washington, which is completely ambiguous (one article said the gun arrived at the gun shop "from the factory", but another article refers to the distributor as if it were a wholesaler). If there was a third-party wholesaler, I'd be very interested in knowing what its background is. Bushmaster is owned by a man who, coincidentally, is a big financial supporter of George Bush and had for a time in 1999 been Bush's chief find-raiser in Maine (what a small world it is). George Bush just happened to benefit from the shooting in that it possibly scared the Senate, already threatened by the anthrax attacks, to clearly support the resolution on the war on Iraq (remember the shootings started when the Iraq war was being discussed, and one day after Ari Fleischer stated that the problem in Iraq could be solved by one bullet), and it continued the climate of fear in the United States which helped the Republicans to their great mid-term election victory. I note that such worthies as James Earl Ray and Jack Ruby were involved in gun running, people who may have been associated with the JFK assassination may have also been involved in the theft of military supplies from the U. S. army in Louisiana, and some people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald may have ordered his famous Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as part of an undercover investigation for some U. S. government agency on the shipment of guns by mail. If Muhammad's gun was part of a shipment of untraceable guns, how did he get it? Remember, he always seemed to have lots of guns despite the fact that he did not obviously always have an obvious source of money, and he told someone in Baton Rouge he was working for "a secret Special Forces unit that included military retirees and was tracking 500 pounds of explosives that had been stolen from the military and brought to Louisiana." While this seems wildly improbable, it is exactly the sort of thing that might be told to a gullible and patriotic man to get him to travel accross the United States at the control of some sinister agent. Was Muhammad involved in some sort of gun running scheme, or in what he felt was the investigation of gun runners? If so, who was he really working for? If he didn't obtain the gun, how did it end up shooting someone in Montgomery, how did it end up shooting people in Maryland and Virginia, and how did it end up behind the rear seat of his car? One of the first reports on the capture of Muhammad and Malvo stated that there was no gun found in the car: "A federal search warrant was being sought, but one official told CNN no weapon was found in a preliminary check of the car." A tripod was found in the trunk, but the gun was described as being found in the car, meaning that they would presumably not need to look in the trunk to find the gun. On top of that, it isn't even clear that they needed a warrant to search the car, as they had probable cause for such a search due to Muhammad's previous possession of a gun while a spousal restraining order was in force. In any event, perhaps just to be safe, they went to obtain a search warrant (here is the application to obtain the warrant not in the pdf format). It is also possible that the original reason for the arrest was based on the mistaken assumption that Muhammad still had the original Bushmaster he had sold, and the confusion meant that there was no probable cause to search the car - of course, it is also possible that the police knew that when they obtained the original warrant. As the police had the excuse that they could not search at least the trunk without a warrant, they had the ability to remove the car from the scene of the arrest and later search it at their leisure (of course, out of the sight of any witnesses). The rifle was said to be found behind the rear seat of the car (is that another way of saying in the trunk?). Or was it actually found behind the front seat, in which case it would have been in plain view? The witnesses to the shooting in Montgomery, Alabama saw Muhammad and Malvo use only hand guns, but the two were tied to the shooting by the ballistics of the Bushmaster rifle. This has put the authorities in the interesting position of having to allege that Muhammad and Malvo must have had an accomplice in Montgomery who fired the shot from the rifle. This is very odd, as the two apparently moved very quickly from Baton Rouge up to Maryland, and no one has ever seen them with anyone else. The Montgomery Police Chief, in referring to the killing, said: "Just at the time you figure it out, it grows another leg." The police have now managed to tie Muhammad and Malvo into numerous killings and shootings in various ways. Of course, all these connections depend on the gun and other items being found in the car. Only Malvo's fingerprints were found on the rifle. Police interrogated Malvo for nearly eight hours without giving him access to an attorney, and apparently obtained lots of inculpatory testimony. It is quite possible that Malvo was told by the police that he, as a minor, would obtain relatively lenient treatment for his crimes, but that his friend Muhammad would fry for them. Do you think it is possible that Malvo 'confessed' based on this type of misleading by the police in order to save his friend? Could his fingerprints have ended up on the rifle as part of this deception? that police agencies often protect certain people or criminal operations from investigation by other police agencies, sometimes for good reasons (e. g., if the person being protected is a police informant), and sometimes for bad reasons (e. g., the police agency has been corrupted to protect the criminals, or someone is using the criminal operation for some political goal); and that it is not uncommon for the United States government to use and abuse the illegal drug trade for various geopolitical and intelligence goals; and that the Saudi Royal Family may have paid for some of the weapons flown from the United States to the Contras in Nicaragua; and that the current Bush regime is merely an intentional continuation of what was going on under the Reagan-Bush regime (even Poindexter is back doing really, really bad things!); and you read an article like this one (the article, if it moves, can probably be found on the same site under the title "Terror Flight School Owner Implicated in 'Protected' Drug Trafficking Ring"), you might be forgiven for seeing the events of September 11, 2001 as just a continuation of Iran-Contra in another form. There was a recent shootout in the Ansal Plaza shopping center in Delhi, India, in which the two apparent shooters were left dead. The Indian police immediately blamed the incident on Pakistani terrorists. The only problem was that the entire incident was probably staged, presumably by the Indian police for political purposes (a witness disputes the account of the police, the police have attacked the credibility of the witness, but the police attack seems rather weak). There are lots of reasons to question the handling of the incident by both the police and the Indian government. It is worth remembering how easy it is for the authorities to create a faked terrorist attack, especially these days where the governments of both Britain and the United States are setting up their respective citizens for attacks which will presumably remove any lingering doubts about the sense of the coming massacre of the people of Iraq. The movie The Godfather, Part 3 contains a rather confusing version of the crimes committed by and around the Vatican Bank, crimes for which no one has ever been punished. The death of Roberto Calvi, suposedly a suicide, meant that much of the evidence was lost. Many have suspected that Calvi was murdered to cover up the sins of the Vatican, the Mafia, and various prominent businessmen. It turns out that Calvi probably was murdered. They've even found a safety deposit box owned by Calvi in Milan, a box which contained, amongst other things, a brick, possibly sone kind of reference to Freemasonry. Investigation of the case is being reopened in Italy. This could get very interesting. Here's yet another article arguing that it should be the liberal American position to support the war on Iraq. I was going to try to refute the arguments made in this article, but they are preposterous on their face. There seems to be an idea that the United States is so uniquely filled with virtue, the sole "shining city on a hill", that it has a moral duty to flit around the world using its bombs to improve the lot of those individuals not fortunate enough to be Americans. The United States is a country that, since the end of the Second World War, has caused more death and suffering than any other country other than China under Mao and the Soviet Union under Stalin, and there are still 'liberals' who have the audacity to think that the United States is on some exalted moral plane that requires and entitles it to fix the problems of the world. Since the Marshall Plan the United States has not taken one major step to improve the lot of anyone other than the richest Americans, and the idea that an attack will turn out well for the Iraqis is ridiculous. Read this last paragraph and see if you can keep from vomiting: "We liberals have much to do in the world. We must encourage America to fight wars on poverty and hunger and disease and pollution. Such is the burden of a worldview that compels us to repair the earth on which we live. And so long as dictators and terrorists stride the global stage - torturing their own, menacing others - there is no reason that we should exempt them from this worldview. They too must be fought." Saddam is in place as the leader of Iraq because it pleased certain U. S. oil interests that he be the leader of Iraq. Until he turned against short-term U. S. geopolitical interests, his torturing and manacing were never mentioned by the 'liberals' who now find it so moral that he be removed. When are American liberals going to wake up and realize how bad things really are? There's a funny argument going around that the United States should fight the war against Iraq because Saddam is a really bad guy and the removal of Saddam will be something that progressively-minded people should applaud. Thus, even if the Bush junta's motives are highly questionable, the results of the war will be good. A variation on this is that Saddam is going to be forced out anyway, and therefore it is better to force him out in an orderly manner, protecting various minority groups from what might be a messy situation. I have a few comments: This is really just a version of the old excuse for British colonialism, the 'white man's burden', to forcefully improve the lot of the various benighted races who lack the benefit of having a certain form of genes. Has American military intervention ever benefitted the invaded country. Cuba? No. Colombia? No. Grenada? Maybe a wash, though the invasion was completely unnecessary. Panama? Perhaps thousands killed (all hushed up), but perhaps an improvement only because the Americans removed their own evil stooge, Noriega. Haiti? No. Any of the other numerous places in Central and South America? No. Vietnam? Vietnam doesn't really count as the U. S. lost that war, but they were well on the way to destroying the villages in order to save the villages. Kosovo? No - a complete disaster. Afghanistan? No - a complete disaster and rapidly getting worse. The promises of reconstruction aid were lies. So if every other major effort by the U. S. at saving countries by attacking them has been an utter humanitarian disaster, why is Iraq going to be any different? There is no reason to suppose that Saddam's regime is in any way threatened by internal attacks. All manner of U. S. tricks over the years to destabilize Iraq by supporting enemies of Saddam have failed miserably. If the Iraqi people want to be truly rid of the Saddam legacy the only way is for them to remove him themselves. Pym Fortuyn, before he was so rudely interrupted, was making the rather bold argument that Islamic immigration into the Netherlands should be stopped because the fundamentalist views of many of the immigrants were not in accordance with traditional Dutch liberalism and tolerance. Some progressives are taking the view that the evil fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East should be replaced by Western military might, thus bringing these poor souls into the Enlightenment which they haven't had the good fortune to experience. One of the Crusaders marching on Jerusalem would have completely understood this type of argument. You can even add to it by suggesting that the problems of the Middle East have been caused by the effects of Western colonialism, and therefore an American war is only undoing the bad done by the Western colonial powers. This type of thinking is utterly arrogant and disrespectful of the lives of the victims of these 'humanitarian' wars. I makes me mad when I read columnists who I know haven't given Iraq a second thought in ten years suddenly jumping to the tune of the Bush junta in becoming insistent that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction suddenly pose an imminent threat to the United States. Have these people no shame? No, they have none. Whatever you think of Saddam, this war will set a precedent destroying the last hundred years of international law that will be used in the future by the United States and other countries to excuse whatever wars they want to fight. All the laws and international understandings created as a result of two world wars will be destroyed. Could anyone possibly think that a war destroying Iraq will encourage other repressive states in the region to suddenly become models of liberal and democratic virtue? It is much more likely that the Iraq example will put an end to any experiments in tolerance. In order for people to feel tolerant they need peace and security. It is probable that at least tens of thousands of innocent people are going to die, and the toadies of the Hegemon are perfectly content to cook up rationalizations for what is essentially the theft of the oil fields. Hitchens the Orwellian doesn't see the irony of the fact that he appears to be a clever propagandist for a bunch of warmongers. Everyone knows what is going to happen. The United States is going to kill as many Iraqis as it needs to remove Saddam. It is then going to defend the oil fields, taking as much as it dares as 'reparations' for the costs of the war, and parcelling the control of the oil to American and British oil companies (and perhaps the oil comapnies of other countries who the Americans had to buy off to get Security Council votes). It will then completely abandon all the people of Iraq, there will be terrible civil wars, and much more death and suffering. I've put off writing about the American election because it gives me a headache and I'd rather not think about it too much, especially given all the suffering that the results are going to inevitably cause. There seem to be two related reasons being given for the Democratic disaster: The Democrats failed to take any positions different from the Bush junta on any important issue, and the completely 'tactical' campaign they attempted to run just didn't work. The general theory of the leaders of the Democrats was that they could win by default by scrupulously failing to take a position on any issue that someone might disagree with, and fall back on a general displeasure in the electorate with Bush's handling of the economy and his connections to crony capitalism. The official reasons why this didn't work appear to be: 1) it is logically impossible to simultaneously support every position of the party you are running against while claiming that that party is doing a wonderful job at managing those issues, and make the argument that the electorate should vote for you instead of them; and 2) the only issue that the electorate was concerned about was the fear of further terrorist attack, and the electorate was satisfied with the Bush Administration's position on fighting the war on terror, thus making the 'tactical' campaign of the Democrats completely irrelevant. Neither of these reasons is completely convincing. While the Democrats did support too much of the Bush agenda, they were resisting the worst of the plutocrat tax cuts, they were putting up opposition to Bush's friends' crony capitalism, and they were beginning to resist some of the worst excesses of the fascist security state. Despite the best efforts of the junta with all its phony terrorist warnings (and perhaps the October distraction of the snipers), it does not appear that the majority of the population supports the permanent state of war that the junta proposes, and, in particular, the majority of the population is not convinced of the prudence of a war on Iraq. Given that, the 'tactical' campaign should have worked, particularly given the propensity of any electorate to pass a message on to their leaders in mid-term elections by voting for the minority party (this propensity means that it won't do for the Democrats to claim that they really lost control of the Senate by only the cumulative effect of a few thousand votes, as they really should have won, given the circumstances, by many thousands of votes). Clinton destroyed the soul of the true Democratic Party by introducing large-scale corporate fundraising, which in turn led to a sharp turn in political philosophy to the right, and the corresponding loss of Democratic values. The idea appears to be that this dilution of the pure Democratic message caused traditional Democrat voters not to vote, thus leading to the extremely low turn-out and the loss of control of the Senate. Certain people have been on this 'Clinton did it' rant for years. It is amusing that the Republicans seems to hate Clinton as he was so successful at using traditional Republican methods against them, and the Democrats who hate Clinton hate him for the same reason. It strikes me that Clinton is a symptom, and not a cause, of the problems of the Democrats. If it had not been for his embracing of the Republican style of politics, the Democrats might not have won the two Presidential elections that he won. The idea that the Democrats would obtain more democratic success if they moved sharply to the left, to their supposedly historical roots, is laughable. Had they moved sharply to the left in this past election they would have done even worse than they did. So why did the Democrats lose so badly? There has been a constant shift over the years from Democrat to Republican in all areas of politics. This was particularly noticeable during the Clinton era, and predictably, has been blamed on Clinton. I think this is unfair to Clinton, as the shift has been going on for many years. When was the last time that the Democrats actually outright won a Presidential election, rather than just winning by default? The JFK and Johnson wins. Carter only won because of the general disgust with Watergate, and Clinton only won because of the general exhaustion with 12 years of Reagan/Bush (and was reelected as he ran basically unopposed, and the complete lack of credible opposition is ironically the reason why Gore won). It is important to realize why Johnson was the last Democratic candidate for President who won because the electorate wanted to vote for him, rather than because it rejected the Republicans. Johnson brought in the civil rights legislation and much of the social welfare legislation that the Democrats rightly believe were the glory of the party (it is quite ironic, and perhaps instructive, that an ogre as bad as Johnson should have presided over such good legislation). In so doing, however, Johnson inadvertantly created the basis for the essentially racist hold that the Republicans have over American politics. The Vietnam War and the ensuing mass protests led to the creation of a gulf of perception between Nixon's 'silent majority' and what was then described as the counterculture, a rift that still exists to this day in a different form. Republican strategists wisely created the idea, based on a rather stupid nationalism, that war protestors were traitors, and associated such treason with the Democrats. The view was created that the civil rights movement and various social redistributive efforts by the Democrats were hidden forms of oppression of the white majority in favor of non-white minorities, and were just another form of the same treason. All of this is now hidden in the code words used by Republicans to describe Democrats. When Jeb Bush described McBride as a 'tax and spend' Democrat, cracker Florida voters had no problem reading that as a description of a man who wanted to redistribute white tax money to non-whites, and the race, with the Democrats running a perfectly credible candidate in an election where the electorate still should have been mad at Jeb for the last election fiasco, wasn't even close. Whenever you hear the words 'liberal' or 'soft on crime', there is a corresponding racist subtext. The whole war on drugs and the creation of the prison-industrial complex, not to mention the U. S. gun fetish and the fear that Democrats are 'gun grabbers', is part of the same subtext. The brilliance of the Republican strategy was to add to the racist vote the politically organized Christian religious fundamentalist vote, a group whose leaders have great powers to get the vote out. The Democrats, in their heroic shift from the party of racist oppression in the South to the party of social conscience, also lost any chance of doing well with voters who could be provoked to associate race issues with jingoistic U. S. nationalism (and the Republicans have now completely sewn up the traditionally Democratic South). The Vietnam protests allowed the Republicans to connect the Democrats to a form of treason which became associated with anti-white actions, and this same nationalism was successfully stirred up by 9-11. Of course, in 9-11 the racism was generally directed at Arabs and Muslims, and helps to explain why there was essentially no protest at the unconstitutional imprisonment of the thousands of young Muslim men who were (and are) imprisoned in the aftermath of 9-11. The Republican message is still that it is only the Republicans who have the will to protect white Christian folk from attack from other races or religions. This reached its height in the fact that a chicken hawk in Georgia was able to easily defeat war hero Senator Cleland by claiming that he was soft on terrorism for not supporting the Homeland Security legislation, when, with an essential irony that shouldn't be lost on the Democrats, Cleland's objection to the bill concerned the Republican attempt to sneak in a further erosion of labor union rights. The role of fighting non-white foreign terrorists is simply too powerful a weapon in the hands of the Republicans for the Democrats to be able to mount any kind of effective challenge. What does this mean?: The United States is fundamentally a much nastier place under the surface than most people are willing to believe. The deep racism of American politics makes possible the evils of American foreign policy, and explains the rather bizarre way that many Americans have of voting against their class interests in order to ensure preservation of what they perceive as their race interests. There is no real strategy that the Democrats can take that will ensure that they will win any given election. They have effectively been marginalized into what amounts to a third party. While the Gephardt/Daschle/McAuliffe strategy was stupid, and the Democrats should get rid of the lot of them, the strategy itself wasn't the fundamental reason for the Democratic disaster. The Democrats are not finished, and no doubt will do well again. The current Administration is now so completely arrogant that it will get into all sorts of trouble. If the war on Iraq goes well, that will just encourage them in their series of colonialist wars until they start one that runs into a disaster. The draft is sure to come, and the tens of thousands of body bags will just as surely follow. The obviously Republican judges will decimate the popular reproductive choice protections, and the continued crony capitalism will become even more outrageous. The environment will start obviously to be destroyed, and by the second George term or the first Jeb term the lack of American industrial competitiveness caused by the American failure to follow the Kyoto protocol will start to become obvious as wasteful American firms won't be able to compete with countries that have learned how to produce the same output using less energy. Eventually, some foolish war will result in destruction of the oil fields somewhere, leading to another fake 'oil crisis', and, in the ultimate political problem, SUV's will have to be parked. Even after stealing the Iraqi and Saudi oil fields, the cost of all the wars will destroy the U. S. economy. There's plenty of hope for the Democrats yet. Mir Aimal Kansi, who I recently wrote about, is slated to be executed by the State of Virginia on November 14, 2002. The U. S. State Department has issued a 'Worldwide Caution', based on the fear that this execution may trigger retaliatory attacks against Americans. Just as in the case of McVeigh an execution is going to occur where evidence is going to be irretrievably lost, and just as in the case of McVeigh this will presumably suit some in the U. S. government just fine. Kansi is calling for there to be no retaliatory attacks, and claims that his actions were not terrorism, but were a response to U. S. policy in the Middle East and American support for Israel. I still find this extraordinarily suspicious, as I do not see how to make any sense out of his taking random shots at people based only on the fact that they might have worked for the CIA, and then disappearing without drawing any political connection until after he was caught. Did he think that shooting a few Americans who possibly worked for the CIA would be a logical response to U. S. policy in the Middle East? Was this supposed to change U. S. policy? What does he mean when he claims that what he did "had nothing to do with terrorism"? Commuting his sentence to life imprisonment would: 1) preserve the possibility of obtaining evidence from Mr. Kansi, particularly as he does not seem to hold a grudge against the United States but only claims to have had a problem with certain American actions; and 2) preserve the lives of those Americans who will probably be killed in retaliation for the execution. Just how important is it to prevent Kansi from ever being able to tell the real story of what happened? The most important piece of evidence in a shooting case is the gun. If you can connect the gun to the victims through ballistics, and the gun to the shooter through fingerprints, possession, or some kind of documentary evidence, then you have excellent evidence to convict your suspect of the crime. This type of evidence is critical when you lack witnesses and lack a confession, as we do in the case of John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo. When these two suspects were apprehended, a search of the car revealed a number of pieces of evidence, including a gun. This gun was then linked ballistically to almost all of the shootings (due to the damage to some of the bullets, the tests were inconclusive in two of the murders). Case closed, right? Well, maybe not. Here's how the issue was reported by CBS News in an article dated October 25, 2002: "Law enforcement officials tell CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart they recovered a .223 caliber Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle from the suspects' car. Police also found a scope and a bipod in the vehicle." "The gun recovered from the trunk was a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, .223 caliber, model A-35, XM15." This was the gun that was apparently ballistically linked to the shootings. The oddity is that another version of the same story exists in a number of places on the internet (see here and here and here and here and here), with an interesting change to the sentence I quoted above, which reads as follows (with the changed words in italics): "Sources tell CBS News that the gun recovered from the trunk was a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, .223 caliber, model A-35, xm15-e2s, serial number l-166036." Apparently, someone at CBS has seen fit to slightly change the article to remove reference to the serial number (this type of change to articles on the internet is called 'scrubbing'). The really interesting thing about this serial number is that we know it ties the gun conclusively to John Muhammad. A State of Washington Firearm Transfer form, referred to in court documentation concerning the restraining order issued against Muhammad (which court documentation is itself referred to in what appears to be an October 2002 Complaint and affidavit by a BATF Agent), "reflects that on or about May 23, 2000, JOHN ALLEN MUHAMMAD transferred a Bushmaster rifle, semi-automatic .223 caliber, model A-35, XM15-E2S, serial number L166036." L166036. This seems to conclusively prove the John Muhammad owned the gun found in the car, and should be perfect evidence against him. Actually, it may be conclusive evidence to show he was framed. There are a whole lot of problems with this gun: Notice that the form is a State of Washington Firearm Transfer form. Muhammad was selling the gun to the gun shop from whence he had bought it. Muhammad had bought the gun from the gun shop before he was in trouble with the law over violence against his wife, and therefore had no original difficulty in buying the gun. If he had wanted to buy it back, however, a computer check should have shown the gun shop that it was illegal for Muhammad to buy the gun due to the restraining order that was outstanding against him, and they should not have sold it to him. How, then, did he get it back? He may have stolen it from the gun shop, but according to the people who work there, their procedures make that highly unlikely. The gun shop itself appears to have no records of its sale (although they have the box it came in), and did not report it stolen, as is required by law. An additional huge problem with the gun is the records of the manufactuter, Bushmaster. Whatever serial number was supplied to Bushmaster by the authorities described a gun that was shipped to a distributor in Washington state in June 2002. How could this gun be the same gun that Muhammad owned in May 2000? When the authorities went in to examine the Texas School Book Depository in November 1963, they originally removed a rifle, the supposed weapon used by Lee Harvey Oswald, which police detectives skilled in firearms identified as a 'Mauser'. Soon, this weapon was identified as the now-famous 'Mannlicher-Carcano'. Why the change? There was documentary evidence tying Oswald into the purchase by mail (as if an assassin would purchase his weapon in a traceable manner!) of a Mannlicher-Carcano. It thus appears that the gun that was found, a Mauser, was replaced with a gun that could be tied to Oswald. In the Muhammad case, it appears very likely that the gun which could be tied to Muhammad, the gun with the serial number 'l-166036', was used to commit the shootings and was planted in his car to tie him to the shootings (it needn't be the exact same gun, but just a gun of the same type whose serial number was changed to the number that gun records showed had belonged to Muhammad). This was a fairly sophisticated operation, as the same gun was apparently used in a shooting in Baton Rouge, and in Montgomery, Alabama. It is important to note that Muhammad and Malvo were only seen with a handgun at the Montgomery shooting, meaning that someone else used the magic gun to leave ballistic evidence at the site (how can we be sure that it was Muhammad who phoned the police to tie him and Malvo to the Montgomery crime, a connection which eventually solved the whole case?). Someone had obtained a gun which could be tied to Muhammad (or a similar gun with an altered serial number), used it to murder people in Baton Rouge and Montgomery and used it in the Maryland/Virginia shootings (perhaps driving a white van), and then given it to the authorities, who then planted it in Muhammad's car or at least claim they found it there. Some overeager 'source' then described the gun to CBS News, foolishly including the serial number, a serial number which CBS dutifully reported. Some higher officials probably read the report and realized to their horror that the serial number was way too much information, allowing someone to put the pieces together and realize that Muhammad must have been framed. Thus, the serial number was scrubbed from the report on the CBS website, but lives on in the various other places it was reprinted before it was edited (the story was so convoluted that some press reports were completely mixed up, an example of which is here). The only possible more innocent explanation is that the 'source' assumed that the serial number on the gun found must be that of the gun which Muhammad last owned in May 2000, but since Muhammad sold the gun it is difficult to see why the 'source' would make that assumption unless he also knew that Muhammad had been framed with the gun but didn't realize the danger in making the connection too explicit, and it doesn't begin to explain how the ballistics matches with the Alabama shooting if Muhammad and Malvo only used a handgun. It is much more likely that the perpetrators outsmarted themselves by using a gun which could be tied to Muhammad, not realizing that the connection to Muhammad also tends to make it look like he was framed. 'Lee Harvey' Muhammad and 'James Earl' Molvo were patsies, and their patsy-fication follows the same guide that has been used to establish U. S. patsies to hide political crimes for at least 40 years. Their extremely wide-ranging travels without any obvious source of funds reminds me of the travels of both James Earl Ray and Arthur Bremmer (the man who shot George Wallace). The general method seems to be to send the patsy on a 'mission' for his country (like Oswald or McVeigh, these people tend to be very patriotic, which is also why, like Muhammad, they tend to have a lot of military service), a mission which establishes guilt and leaves them in a compromised situation at the time that the political crime is committed.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745065

__label__wiki

Home / Bible Commentaries / The Pulpit Commentaries The Pulpit Commentaries Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Book Overview - Amos by Joseph Exell § 1. SUBJECT OF THE BOOK AT the time when Amos prophesied both Israel and Judah stood high in prosperity and wealth. The warlike Jeroboam II. had overcome the Syrians, and recovered the original territory of his kingdom from Hamath in the extreme north to the Dead Sea (2 Kings 14:25, 28). Uzziah King of Judah had subdued the restless Edomltes and Philistines, reduced the Ammonites to subjection; and, while largely encouraging agriculture and the arts of peace, he raised a powerful army, and strongly fortified Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 26.). Israel, secure from outward enemies and strong in inward resources, was very far from expecting ruin and destruction. Prosperity in Both kingdoms had produced its too common fruits — pride, luxury, selfishness, oppression. In Zion and Samaria alike such sins were rife; hut in the northern kingdom they were accentuated and increased by the calf-worship which was still practised there. To Bethel, the central seat of this idolatry, Amos was sent from Jerusalem. His mission was to rebuke this iniquity, and to announce to these careless sinners the approach of Divine judgment. It was probable that, in a kingdom where impostors abounded, a seer, coming from a foreign district and claiming to be commissioned by the Lord, might command respect; though the issue proved very different. Never since the man of God came out of Judah by the word of the Lord in the days of the first Jeroboam (1 Kings 13.) had any southern prophet gone on such an errand. Now a second message was sent; and in this book the utterances of the prophet on this great occasion are gathered together and arranged in due order. Though his special mission was directed to Israel, Amos does not confine himself altogether to denunciations of this kingdom. His cry extended to Judah and to the hostile nations which surrounded the covenant people. The book naturally divides itself into four parts — an introduction; addresses; visions; and Messianic prophecy. The introduction (Amos 1, 2.) consists of denunciations of the heathen kingdoms bordering on Israel, foretelling the destruction thai shall befall them, viz. Damascus, Philistia, Tyro, Sidon, Edom, Ammon, Moab. Judah, too, is placed in the same category, because it also was alienated from God. The judgment on Israel is proclaimed here in general terms; the remainder of the book particularizes the denounced sins and confirms the awful sentence. The second (Amos 3-6) contains three prophetic addresses, divided by the recurrence of the solemn refrain, "Hear ye." The first address convicts Israel of ingratitude for God's past mercies; shows that the Lord must needs punish the nation, and that he has commissioned the prophet to announce the judgment, Israel has sinned by injustice and violence; its palaces and holy places shall be destroyed, and its people carried into captivity. The second address depicts the sins of oppression and idolatry; tells how God had visited the people with various chastisements, but they were still incorrigible; therefore he will inflict further punishment, to see if perchance they will repent. In his third address Amos laments the fate of Israel, exhorts earnestly to amendment, and then, with a double "Woe!" he shows how hopeless is their trust in their covenant relation to Jehovah, and how baseless their fancied security from danger; for ere long their land should be invaded, their cities should be destroyed, and they themselves should be carried into captivity. This last "woe" is to affect Judah also, even "them that are at ease in Zion" (Amos 6:1). The visions (Amos 7-9:10) are closely connected with the preceding addresses, and carry on the warnings there enunciated, giving, as it were, the stages or gradations of punishment. The first two visions, of locusts and fire, correspond to the visitations mentioned in Amos 4:6-11. These chastisements stop short of utter destruction, being alleviated at the intercession of the prophet. The third and fourth visions confirm the irrevocable character of the judgments threatened in the previous addresses. The plumb line intimates that forgiveness is now not to be expected. Here Amos introduces an historical episode, detailing Amaziah's opposition to his prophecy and God's sentence upon him. He then proceeds to the fourth vision, which, under the figure of a basket of summer fruit, exhibits Israel as ripe for judgment; and he enforces this lesson by foretelling that their feasts should be turned to mourning, and that those who now despise the Word of God shall some day suffer a famine of the Word. The last vision displays the Lord destroying the temple and its worshippers, yea, the whole sinful nation. Yet it should not be utterly annihilated. "Sifted" shall the people be among the nations, yet shall not one good grain perish. The prophecy ends with one promise — the only one in the book — that the fallen kingdom should be raised again, should be extended by the incoming of the heathen, should be glorified and enriched with Divine graces, and that its duration should be eternal — a promise which has its fulfilment, not in any temporary restoration of Israel to its own land, but in the foundation of the Christian Church and its final conquest of the world (see the reference to this prophecy by St. James in Acts 15:16). Amos nowhere mentions the person of the Messiah, but his reference to the house of David includes and leads up to Christ. § 2. AUTHOR. Amos is the third of the minor prophets. His name is usually taken to signify "Carrier," but is better interpreted "Heavy" or "Burden," in allusion to the grievous message which he had to deliver. Jewish commentators suggest that he was so called because he stammered or was slow of speech, as St. Paul says of himself that his speech was considered contemptible. In old time he was by some confounded with Amoz, the father of Isaiah; but the final letter of the two names is different, being samec in the case of the prophet, and tzadi in that of the other. The name does not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament; but in St. Luke's genealogy of our Lord (Luke 3:25), we meet with an Amos, son of Naum and father of Mattathias. Amos was, as he himself tells, a native of Tekoah, a small town of Judah, situate on a hill about five miles south of Bethlehem, lying in a pastoral district. "A road," says Dr. Thomson, "leads from Hebron, through a rough and mostly deserted region, to Tekus, the ancient Tekoah ....The ruins of that city are some three miles south of the Pools of Solomon, and cover a broad swell of the mountain, which runs up to a great height towards the southwest". "Tekoa," says Mr. Porter, "is now, and has been for ages, an uninhabited waste. So complete has been the overthrow that I could not find oven a fragment of a wall sufficient to shade me from the scorching sun. The ruins are scattered over the broad summit of one of the highest hills in the Judaean range. The view is magnificent and full of interest. On the west is seen the sweep of the range from Mispah to Hebron; on the east, 'the wilderness of Judah' sinks down, white, rugged, bare, to the Dead Sea. In that wilderness David kept his sheep, and afterwards wandered a refugee from the court of Saul. On the north, a few miles off, I saw Bethlehem. To the right, in the bottom of a wild ravine, is the cave of Adullam. Further down, on the shores of the Dead Sea, are 'the cliffs of the wild goats,' from whose side springs the fountain of Engedi. And beyond the sea is the wall-like ridge of Moab, and to the south the ruddy-tinted mountains of Edom. A mournful and solitary silence broods over that wonderful panorama. In the touching words of the old Hebrew prophet, 'the earth mourneth and languisheth'". From Tekoah came the wise woman who, suborned by Joab, made use of a parable to incline David's heart to his banished son Absalom (2 Samuel 14.). It was also one of the places fortified by Rehoboam as a defence against invasion from the south (2 Chronicles 11:6). Thither Jonathan and Simon, the Maccabeans, fled to escape the attack of Bacchides (see 1 Macc. 9:33, etc.). At this place Amos was born. At first a herdsman and a poor cultivator of sycamore trees (Amos 7:14), he received the Divine call, and, untrained in the schools, no prophet nor prophet's son, was sent to prophesy against Israel. So, like an apostle, leaving all at his Master's word, travelling from Judah he came to Bethel, the temple and summer palace of the king, in order to raise his voice against the worship of the calf which prevailed there in profane union with the service of Jehovah. Here he was opposed by Amaziah, the idolatrous high priest, who complained of him to the king as a dangerous conspirator. He was accordingly banished from the northern kingdom, and compelled to return to Judah, where probably he composed the book in the for in which it has reached our hands. But he seems to have found opportunity to deliver his stern message in Samaria (Amos 3:9; 4:1) before his final expulsion at Bethel; for Amaziah complains that he had "conspired in the midst of the house of Israel," and that "the land was not able to bear his words" (Amos 7:10). Though of such humble extraction, Amos had an eye to the geographical peculiarities of his native land, so as to use with effect his knowledge of various localities; nor was he unacquainted with the history of his own and other countries. Tradition (ap. Pseudo-Eplph., c. 12., 'De Vit. Proph.') asserts that he was cruelly maltreated at Bethel, and returned to Tekoah only to die. His tomb there was still shown in St. Jerome's time. § 3. DATE. Amos is said (Amos 1:1) to have prophesied "in the days of Uzziah King of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash King of Israel." Uzziah's reign (according to data corrected by Assyrian monuments) lasted from B.C. 792 to 740, and Jeroboam's from B.C. 790 to 749. The time specified above probably refers to the period during which the two monarchs were contemporaneous, viz. from B.C. 790 to 749, a period of forty-one years. Another computation assigns Jeroboam's reign to B.C. 816-775; but there is still some uncertainty about the exact date. Hence we cannot determine the time of our prophecy with perfect satisfaction. It could not have been the commencement of Jeroboam's reign, as Amos intimates that this king had already overcome his enemies and regained his lost territory (Amos 6:2, 13, compared with 2 Kings 14:25); nor could it have been the end, because he makes no mention of the Assyrians who about that time were beginning to threaten Palestine. The further specification in the text, "two years before the earthquake," is not determinate, as that event is not mentioned in the historical books. One that happened in Uzziah's day, as Jewish tradition said, in consequence of or coincident with his usurpation of the priest's office (Josephus, 'Ant.,' 9:10), was well remembered some centuries afterwards (Zechariah 14:5), and is perhaps alluded to elsewhere (e.g. Joel 3:16; Isaiah 2:19); but we are unable to fix the date of the occurrence. Every detail in the prophecy confirms the authenticity of the statement in the introduction. Jeroboam is mentioned (Amos 7:10), and the circumstances of his time, as we noted above, are accurately alluded to. The taking of Gath by Uzziah is inferred (Amos 6:2 compared with 2 Chronicles 26:6). The prophet uttered his warnings, not at intervals during all the period named, but at some definite time therein, and probably during a very short space. He must have been contemporaneous with, if not a little earlier than Hosea, and later than Joel, as he takes up this prophet's words in the commencement of his own prediction (comp. Amos 1:2 with Joel 3:16), and quotes him in Amos 9:13 (see Introduction to Joel). § 4. GENERAL CHARACTER, Critics since Jerome have called Amos imperitus sermone, reasoning from his occasional use of homely images drawn from flock and herd and pastoral life, the matters with which his occupation was concerned (Amos 2:13; 3:4, 5, 8, 12; 4:6-9; 5:11, 17; 6:12; 8:8; 9:5). And certainly his style is not sublime or pitched in the highest strain of poetry, but it is notable for clearness and energy, and shows considerable literary skill both in the arrangement of rhythm and in the grouping of parallelisms. The imagery based on scenes amongst which he dwelt, far from being a defect in the work, adds a special charm; and one would be very loath to miss the vividness and naturalness which are thereby imparted to it. The changes in nature (Amos 4:13), the dangers from wild beasts, the starry sky (Amos 5:8), flood, tempest, lightning, were observed by him in his watchings and wanderings, and left their reminiscence in his language. If at times, as some critics suppose, he uses the dialect of the people instead of the more refined terms of court and school, this would be in entire keeping with his simple life and character. We are not to suppose that inspiration overrides a man's habitual mode of expression, or compels an untrained peasant to adopt the language of a learned scribe. The book, at any rate, shows that we have received it such as its author wrote it, without adventitious ornamentation or amendment. If he speaks mostly in prose, surely visions such as he narrates, denunciations such as he utters, are thus more effectively presented. The very simplicity of his language makes it impressive. We see in him a confirmation of the theory with which Wordsworth has made us familiar, that the diction of uneducated people has in itself a certain poetic power which raises it to an equality with that of higher social station. Without anything of poetry in the words, what force is there in that sudden and unexpected summons, "Because I will do this [what?] unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel" (Amos 4:12)! There is true pathos when, having shown how the luxurious spared nothing in ministering to their own selfishness, Amos ends with the accusing cry, "But they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph." The strophic arrangement of some of the periods is very remarkable. The oft-recurring formula, "for three transgressions, and for four" (Amos 1, 2.), the sorrowful burden, "Yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord" (ch. 4.), are patent instances of this. This uneducated prophet's accurate acquaintance with the Law of Moses denotes much more than a familiarity with the national traditions. His knowledge of the Pentateuch appears not only in general allusions to history, ritual, ceremony, but in the actual use of verbal forms and expressions which belong to the Mosaic writings. "Blasting and mildew" are the punishment of disobedience (Amos 4:9 compared with Deuteronomy 28:22); "gall and wormwood" are the bitter fruits into which the sinners turned righteousness and judgment (Amos 6:12 with Deuteronomy 29:18); the sad refrain mentioned above (Amos 4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11) is founded on Deuteronomy 4:29, 30. The oppressors "lie down on clothes laid to pledge" (Amos 2:8 with Exodus 22:26), "turn aside the way of the meek, and turn aside the poor in the gate". Unnatural immorality "profanes God's holy Name" (Amos 2:7 with Leviticus 18:21; 20:3). One hardly need multiply quotations to prove the prophet's knowledge of the history and ritual of the Mosaic books. He alludes to the Exodus, the overthrow of Sodom, the gigantic stature of the Amorites, the sacrifices of the Law, the Nazarite vow. His threats and promises are often couched in Mosaic language. Thus Amos presupposes that his hearers were well acquainted with the Pentateuch, and had a firm belief in its history; otherwise much of the prophecy would have lost its force or have been unintelligible. Hosea and Jeremiah seem to have borrowed from or to have been acquainted with our prophet. Compare, for instance, Amos 2:5 with Hosea 8:14; Amos 7:17 with Hosea 9:3; Amos 1:4 with Jeremiah 49:27; Amos 1:15 with Jeremiah 49:3. Further parallelisms will be found noted in the Exposition. We may conclude that in simple, unadorned eloquence, in structural regularity, in natural vigour, and in loftiness of thought, Amos reaches a well grounded eminence; and, as Lowth decides ('De Poes. Hebr. Prael.,' 20:1), the author of such writings was in no wise behind the very chiefest of the prophets. § 5. LITERATURE We need not enumerate the commentators who have written upon the whole of the minor prophets, patristic, mediaeval, and modern, as the chief of them have already been mentioned in the Introduction to Hosea. Two recent Roman Catholic commentaries, however, may be specially noted, one by L'Abbe Trochon, containing the Latin Vulgate with a French translation, and a commentary considerably indebted to Keil, and the other by J. Knabenbauer, forming a part of the 'Cursus Scripturae Sacra,' edited by Jesuit Fathers. It consists of a commentary written in Latin, and containing useful answers to the rationalistic theories of the present day. Here, too, may be mentioned Archdeacon Farter's 'The Minor Prophets,' in the 'Men of the Bible' series. Among monographs on this prophet may be mentioned the following: Luther, 'Enarratio in Prophetam Amos; ' Gerhard, 'Annotationes'; Harenberg, 'Amos Expositus'; Dahl, 'Amos, neu ubers. und erlaut.'; Bishop Horsley, 'Critical Notes;' Baur, 'Der P. Amos erklart'; Bishop Ryan, 'Lectures'; and works by Uhland, Justi, Vater, Benefield, and Laurent. Of the above, the commentary of Baur, with a valuable introduction, is most generally useful. Articles by Wellhausen, in the 'Brit. Encyclop.' 13., and by Noldeke, in Schenkel's 'Bibel-Lexicon,' will repay examination. § 6. ARRANGEMENT OF THE BOOK IN SECTIONS. The book is best arranged in four parts. Part I. (Amos 1, 2) Approaching judgment: a prelude. § 1. (Amos 1-2:3) Summons of the nations bordering on the Holy Land. § 2. (Amos 2:4, 5) Summons of Judah. § 3. (Amos 2:6-16.) Summons and general denunciation of Israel. Part II. (Amos 3-6) Three addresses particularizing the sins of Israel and announcing imminent punishment. § 1. (Amos 3) First address. § 2. (Amos 4) Second address. § 3. (Amos 5, 6) Third address. Part III. (Amos 7-9:10) Five visions, with explanations. § 1. (Amos 7:1-3.) First vision: locusts. § 2. (Amos 7:4-6.) Second vision: fire. § 3. (Amos 7:7-9.) Third vision: plumb line. § 4. (Amos 7:10-17.) Historical parenthesis. § 5. (Amos 8:1-14.) Fourth vision: basket of fruits. § 6. (Ch. 9:1-10.) Fifth vision: the Lord at the altar. Part IV. (Amos 9:11-15.) Epilogue: establishment of the new kingdom. Commentary Navigator Search This Commentary Enter query in the box below

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745074

__label__cc

The Pre-Impressionists: Charles Jacque and Léon Jacque Hello everyone. I'm not intending to revive this blog, as I simply don't have the time, but I have found a few posts that are so nearly complete that it seems a shame not to post them. So here's an addition to the posts I made about Barbizon artists quite a while back. The Jacque brothers, Charles Émile and Léon, are minor figures in the Barbizon School compared to Corot, Millet, Rousseau, and Daubigny, but their art has an honesty and charm that still keeps it alive today. Charles Émile Jacque was born in Paris in 1813, and died there in 1894. The younger brother Léon Jacque was born in 1828, and surprisingly his date of death appears to be unknown. I haven't come across any work by Léon Jacque after 1872, so I would hazard a guess at a death in the early 1870s. The whole Jacque family seem to have been artistically gifted; there are also Charles Jacque's sons Émile, Frédéric, and Maurice, and a Marcel Jacque who seems to be some kind of relation. Léopold Massard, Charles Émile Jacque Charles Émile Jacque was born and died in Paris. Charles was apprenticed to an engraver of maps at the age of 17; wishing to become an artist, he made his first original etching at this period, a head of a woman after Rembrandt. Unable to support himself as an artist, Charles Jacque then joined the army for a period of seven years, taking part in the siege of Anvers. During this time Jacque continued making drawings, which he sold for a franc apiece. After a further two years as a wood engraver in England, Charles Jacque returned to France, and established himself in Paris. Charles Jacque, L'escalier Charles Jacque, Les Gaudes Relief etching (procédé Comte), 1852 Charles Jacque, A Cottage Charles Jacque, La fenêtre de l'auberge Etching after Adraen van Ostade, 1845 Charles Jacque Etching after Meindert Hobbema William Brassey Hole, Le retour du troupeau Etching after Charles Émile Jacque, 1888 Charles Jacque made his Salon debut with etchings in 1845. Jacque became a prominent member of the group of plein-air landscape painters known as the Barbizon School. He was particularly close to Théodore Rousseau, and influenced by Millet, who was his neighbour at Barbizon for many years. Léon Jacque, L'étable Léon Jacque, Environ de Fontainebleau Léon Jacque, Pensée amoureuse (femme de profil cousant) Etching after Edmé Bouchardon, 1864 Léon Jacque exhibited at the Salon de Paris for only a brief period, from 1864-1866, and contributed original etchings to the revue L'Artiste between 1863 and 1872. His brief career seems to have been lived very much in his older brother's shadow, yet Léon Jacque was a very accomplished artist in his own right. I wish I knew more about him. Marcel Jacque, La bouillie Etching after Jean-François Millet, date unknown I would guess the etching above, made by Marcel Jacque in facsimile of the original 1861 etching by Millet, dates from around the mid-1890s, when Eugène Delâtre commissioned various artists to create loving facsimiles of Millet's etchings, the original plates being no longer available. I'll reproduce more of these when I get round to Millet in this series of posts on the Pre-Impressionists. Posted by Neil at 3:31 PM Labels: Barbizon School, Charles Emile Jacque, Leon Jacque The Pre-Impressionists: Charles Jacque and Léon Ja...

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745080

__label__wiki

A Discussion Forum on Fiscal and Monetary Policy in the Euro Area EABCN 21 Sep 2012 10:15 to 13:00 The Auditorium of the National Bank of Belgium Rue Montagne aux Herbes Potageres 61 Date :Friday 21st September 2012 Lunch 12.15 – 13.00 Presentation and Discussion 13:00 - 15:00 This EABCN Discussion Forum will consider a range of issues, such as, moving from rescue packages to a better steady state, coordination of fiscal policy among euro area country members, criteria for fiscal sustainability and enlarging the role of the European Central Bank. This event will bring together leading academics, regulators and practitioners from across Europe and around the world. Guest speakers include: Christopher Sims (Princeton University) Jordi Gali (CREI) Jean Pisani-Ferry (Bruegel and Université Paris-Dauphine) Stephanie Riso (European Commission) Albert Marcet, Scientific Chair of the EABCN will be moderating the discussion. Each speaker will provide a 15-minute presentation on issues related to the topic. This will be followed by a one-hour discussion that will be open to the floor. Our aim is to have an informal, off-the-record, discussion that will engage and involve all participants in response to the presentations. We would very much welcome your personal participation. Please register your interest in attending at http://www.cepr.org/meets/ltm/1804/ as soon as possible; Should you require any further information about this event, please contact Craig Rooney, Meetings Assistant, at crooney@cepr.org or + 44 (0) 207 183 8817. I look forward to seeing you on 21 September. Albert Marcet Scientific Chair, EABCN Christopher Sims Christopher Sims is currently the John F. Sherrerd ‘52 University Professor of Economics at Princeton University. Together with Thomas Sargent, he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2011. His Nobel lecture was on statistical modeling of monetary policy and its effects, and the award cited their "empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy". He earned his A.B. in mathematics from Harvard University in 1963 and his PhD in Economics from Harvard in 1968. He has held teaching positions at Harvard, University of Minnesota, Yale University and, since 1999, Princeton. He has published numerous important papers in his areas of research: econometrics and macroeconomic theory and policy. Among other things, he was one of the main promoters of the use of vector autoregression in empirical macroeconomics. He has also advocated Bayesian statistics, arguing for its power in formulating and evaluating economic policies. He also helped develop the fiscal theory of the price level and the theory of rational inattention. He is a Fellow of the Econometric Society, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1995 he was the president of the Econometric Society and is currently president of the American Economic Association. He also wrote the article 'The precarious fiscal foundations of the EMU', De Economist, 1999, about the subject of the current event. Jordi Galí is currently Director of the Centre for Research in International Economics (CREI), in addition to being a Research Professor at the Barcelona GSE and Professor at the UPF. He earned his PhD in Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1989. He has also held academic positions at New York University and Columbia University, and was Visiting Professor at MIT. In 2005 he received the Yrjö Jahnsson Award in Economics, and has also won the Rei Jaume I Prize for Economics (2004), the VII Prize of the Catalan Society of Economics (2008) and the Catalan National Research Prize (2011). His main areas of research are macroeconomics, monetary theory, and macroeconometrics. His influential findings have had a large impact on a variety of topics, particularly business cycles, inflation, exchange rates and the conduct of monetary policy. He is Fellow of the Econometric Society, President of the EEA, and holds research positions at the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) in London, and at the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). He has written a large number of articles on the subject of the event. As an example, he was one of the authors of ‘The Monetary Policy Strategy of the ECB Reconsidered’ (2004) and ‘Defining a Macroeconomic Framework for the Euro Area’ (2001) in the series ‘Monitoring the European Central Bank’, edited by CEPR. Jean Pisani-Ferry Jean Pisani-Ferry is currently the Director of Bruegel and professor of economics at the Université Paris-Dauphine. After having held positions in research and government in France, he joined the European Commission in 1989 as economic adviser to the Director-General of DG ECFIN. From 1992 to 1997 he was the director of CEPII, the main French research centre in international economics. In 1997, he became senior economic adviser to the French minister of Finance and was later appointed executive president of the French prime minister’s Council of Economic Analysis (2001-2002). From 2002 to 2004, he was senior adviser to the director of the French Treasury. He has held teaching positions with various universities including Ecole polytechnique in Paris and Université libre de Bruxelles. His research interests include economic policy, international macroeconomics and European economics. He has regular columns in Le Monde, Handelsblatt, and the Chinese magazine Century Weekly. He is a contributor to The Financial Time’s A-List and to Project Syndicate. Stephanie Riso After her university studies in economics, concluded by a DEA in international economics and finance at Paris-Dauphine, Stéphanie Riso joined the European Commission in 2000, after a short period in the world of finance. After having worked as Economist in the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) on different issues (monetary and exchange rate issues, budgetary policy, structural reforms), she joined in 2007 the private office of Commissioner Almunia in charge of the Economic and Monetary Affairs and in 2010, she became Deputy Chief of the private office of Commissioner Rehn in charge of the Economic and Monetary Affairs. Last October, she was nominated Head of the unit in DG ECFIN dealing with budgetary policy and surveillance. Meeting of Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) The ECOFIN Council covers the coordination of the economic policies. ECOFIN monitors the economy and keep control of the budgetary policy, public finances, the euro, financial markets and capital movements. Eurogroup Meeting The Eurogroup is composed of the Eurogroup President, presently Jean-Claude Juncker, the Finance Minister of each Member State of the euro area, the Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, and the President of the European Central Bank. Which country will be the European healthcare champion 2012? Does the financial crisis threaten quality of care? Winners and losers in the new EU healthcare market? Crisis Creates Opportunity: A Burson-Marsteller event on the new era of financial supervision in the EU Crisis Creates Opportunity: A Burson-Marsteller event on the new era of financial supervision in the EU - To register, please email: isabelle.merillet@bm.com , Burson-Marsteller - Brussels Press Club, Rue Fr National Anti-Fraud Congress 2012 This conference is an initiative of the IFA (the Institute of Forensic Auditors) and organised by EBP. For more details please click here. 06 Jun 2012 to 07 Jun 2012 First European Congress of Actuaries - How are actuaries looking at the financial crisis within the theme of The European Actuary of the Future. Towards a Democratic Foundation of Europe's New Economic and Financial Constitution Event date: Wednesday 27 June 2012 15:00 to 18:00 Location: BRUSSELS EP Room PHS 5B001 Presentation the "Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa Group " Report Notre Europe is pleased to invite you to the presentation of the report of the Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa Group, "Completing the Euro – A road map towards fiscal union in Europe". Monday 9 July 2012 Economic and Financial Affairs Council Modernising European insolvency law: a second chance for businesses towards stabilizing the real economy and ensuring better financial stability? ACCA and UEAPME invite you to hosted by Sajjad Karim, MEP Conférence-Débat: Plans d'austérité, l'UE dans l'impasse? Dans le cadre de la Semaine de l’Europe, Eyes on Europe vous invite à sa conférence de rentrée! Plans d'austérité, l'UE dans l'impasse? Avec: Progetto ABI Banche 2020 - Le banche italiane per la crescita e la coesione Bruxelles, 13 Novembre 2012 ore 18.30 Parlamento Europeo, sala PHS 4b001 Apertura dei lavori: 13 Nov 2012, 14 Nov 2012 EUROPEAN MORTGAGE FEDERATION - ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2012 EUROPEAN MORTGAGE FEDERATION 14 & 15 November | Brussels EU Summit - Greens/EFA budgetary spokesperson Helga Trüpel at the EU Summit Helga Trüpel, budgetary spokesperson of the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament will be present at the EU Summit today, 22 November, as from 20.00 and on Friday, 23 November as from 1o.30 am and be available for comments. EU banking union legislation to be voted in EP Press breakfast When: Thursday, 29 November - 8.00 (a.m.) Success Stories Made in Greece Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Organized by MEP Dr. Theodoros Skylakakis GUE/NGL PRESS BRIEFING Session Press Briefing Tuesday 11/12/12 @14h30, EP Press Room Airport package Participating MEPs he Eurogroup, composed of the Member States whose currency is the euro, meets normally the day before the Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting and deals with issues relating to the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Unleashing entrepreneurial potential in Europe UEAPME and ACCA invite you to UEAPME conference room , rue Jacques de Lalaing , 4, 1040 Brussels The Economic and Financial Affairs Council ("Ecofin") is composed of the Economics and Finance Ministers of the Member States, as well as Budget Ministers when budgetary issues are discussed. It meets once a month. The Action Plan on Corporate Governance and Company Law: What’s in it and why? 4th February 2013, “The Action Plan on Corporate Governance and Company Law: What’s in it and why?“, jointly organised by ecoDa, EuropeanIssuers and ACCA. The Action Plan on Corporate Governance and Company Law: What's in it and Why? European economies have been faltering. We look to the business sector to generate the growth on which economic recovery depends.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745081

__label__wiki

Artful Journey Musings on How to Live a Creative Life Edgar Allan Poe: A Demon in My View October 6, 2010 Karen Poe Poetry :: From “Israfel” I recently added some amazing Public Domain Images that Edmund Dulac illustrated for a collection of poems by Edward Allan Poe. The book is The Poetical Works of Edgar Allan Poe and was published in 1921 by George H. Doran in New York. Dulac’s dark and shadowy paintings fit the mood of Poe’s poetry perfectly. Even when Poe appeared to be trying to write a love poem or something “uplifting,” he just doesn’t quite seem to pull it off. There’s always this melancholy gloom that seem to hang over his work, which Dulac captures beautifully. Edgar Allan Poe Pictures :: Portrait I found this great little biography of Poe’s life in the 1911 edition The Encyclopedia Britannica that I thought I’d share. Edgar Allan Poe, American poet, writer of fiction and critic, was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on the January 19, 1809. The family was of English origin, but was settled in Ireland, before the poet’s great-grandfather emigrated to Maryland. His grandfather, David Poe, served with credit as a soldier in the War of Independence, was known to Washington, and was the friend of Lafayette. His son David Poe was bred as a lawyer, but deeply offended his family by marrying an actress of English birth and by going on the stage himself. In 1811 he and his wife died, leaving three children—William, Edgar, and a daughter Rosalie—wholly destitute. William died young, and Rosalie went mad. John Allan a tobacco merchant of Scottish extraction adopted Edgar, seemingly at the request of his wife, who was childless. The boy was indulged in every way, and encouraged to believe that he would inherit Mr. Allan’s fortune. Mr. Allan, having come to England in 1815, placed Edgar in a school at Stoke Newington in England, kept by a Dr. Bransby. In 1820 Mr. Allan returned to Richmond, Virginia, and Edgar was first placed at school in the town and then sent to the University of Virginia at Charlottesville in 1826. Poe Poems :: From “To Helen” Here the effects of a very unwise training on a temperament of inherited neurotic tendency were soon seen. He was fond of athletics, and was a strong and ardent swimmer, but he developed a passion for gambling and drink. His disorders made it necessary to remove him, and Mr. Allan, who refused to pay his debts, took him away. Edgar enlisted on the 26th of May 1827 in Boston, and served for two years in the United States army. As a soldier his conduct must have been exemplary, for he was promoted sergeant-major on the 1st of January 1829. It is to be noted that throughout his life, when under orders, Poe could be a diligent and capable subordinate. In May 1820, Mr. Allan secured Edgar’s discharge from the army, and in 1830 obtained a nomination for him to the West Point military academy. As a student, Edgar showed considerable faculty for mathematics, but his aloofness prevented him from being popular with his comrades, and he neglected his duty. When court-martialed for missing drills, parades, classes and church, he made no answer to the charges, and was expelled on the 6th of March 1831. Edgar Allan Poe :: From “To the River” Mr. Allan’s generosity was now exhausted. The death of his first wife in 1820 had doubtless removed any influence favorable to Edgar. A second marriage brought Mr. Allan children, and at his death in 1834, Mr. Allan left his adopted son nothing. A last meeting between the two, shortly before Mr. Allan’s death, led only to a scene of painful violence. In 1827 Poe had published his first volume of poetry, Tamerlane and other Poems, in Boston. He did not publish under his name, but as “A Bostonian.” In 1831 he published a volume of Poems under his name in New York. His life immediately after his departure from West Point is very obscure, but in 1833 he was living in Baltimore with his paternal aunt, Mrs. Clemm, who was his protector throughout his life, and, in so far as extreme poverty permitted, his support. In 1833 he won a prize of $100 offered for the best story by the Baltimore Saturday Visitor. He would have also won the prize for the best poem if the judges had not thought it wrong to give both rewards to one competitor. The story, “MS. Found in a Bottle,” is one of the most mediocre of Poe’s tales, but his success gave him an introduction to editors and publishers, who were attracted by his striking personal appearance and his fine manners, and who were also touched by his manifest poverty. From 1833 till his death he was employed at different magazines in Richmond, New York, and Philadelphia. His famous poem “The Raven,” was published first in 1845, and soon became extraordinarily popular, but Poe received barely any money for it. Dulac :: From “The Raven” The facts of Edgar Allan Poe’s life have been the subject of very ill-judged controversy. The acrimonious tone of the biography by Rufus Griswold, prefixed to the first collected edition of his works in 1850, gave natural offense, and attempts have been made to show that the biographer was wrong as to the facts. But it is no real kindness to Poe’s memory to deny the sad truth that he was subject to chronic alcoholism. He was not a gracious companion, and never became callous to his vice. When it seized him he drank raw spirits, and was disordered by a very little. But when he was free from the maddening influence of alcohol he was gentle, well bred, and a hard worker on the staff of a magazine, willing and able to write reviews, answer correspondents, propound riddles or invent and solve cryptograms. His value as a contributor and sub-editor secured him successive engagements on the Southern Literary Messenger of Richmond, on the New York Quarterly Review, and on Graham’s Magazine at Philadelphia. It enabled him in 1843 to have a magazine of his own, the Stylus. However, Edgar’s mania sooner or later broke off all his engagements and even ruined his own venture. In 1835 he married his cousin, Virginia Clemm, a beautiful girl of fourteen years of age and Mrs. Clemm’s daughter. A false statement as to her age was made at the time of the marriage. She died of consumption (tuberculosis) in 1847 after a long decline. Poe made two attempts to marry women of fortune—Mrs. Whitman and Mrs. Shelton. The first of these engagements was broken off. The second was terminated by his death in a hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, on the 7th of October 1849. Poe’s life and death had many precedents, and will always recur among Bohemian men of letters and artists. What was individual in Poe, and what alone renders him memorable, was his narrow but profound and original genius. In the midst of much hackwork and not a few failures in his own field, he produced a small body of verse and a handful of short stories of rare and peculiar excellence. The poems express a melancholy sensuous emotion in a penetrating melody all his own. The stories give form to horror and fear with an exquisite exactness of touch, or construct and unravel mysteries with extreme dexterity. He was a conscientious literary artist who revised and perfected his work with care. His criticism, though often commonplace and sometimes ill-natured, as when he attacked Longfellow for plagiarism, was trenchant and sagacious at his best. What a great, tragic story. Has anyone done a movie about his life? It seems to have all the perfect elements: orphans, love, death, scandal, addiction, poverty. Why, Poe’s life could have been written by Dickens! Here’s one of my favorite poems by Poe; it’s a great complement to the biography. From childhood’s house I have not been As others were; I have not seen As others saw; I could not bring My passions from a common spring. From the same source I have not taken My sorrow; I could not awaken My heart to joy at the same tone; And all I love I loved alone. Then—in my childhood, in the dawn Of a most stormy life—was drawn From every depth of good and ill The mystery which binds me still: From the torrent, or the fountain, From the red cliff of the mountain, From the sun that round me rolled In its autumn tint of gold, From the lightning in the sky As it passed my flying by, From the thunder and the storm, and the cloud that took the form (When the rest of Heaven was blue) Of a demon in my view. Dulac Illustrations :: From “Alone” Artists, Musings, Public Domain Images edgar allan poe, edmund dulac, poe 7 Comments Get updates by email... Ian Shields on Cemetery Girl Miss Marion on A New Kind of Journey – Living with Breast Cancer Karen on A New Kind of Journey – Living with Breast Cancer Mary Hood on A New Kind of Journey – Living with Breast Cancer Karen mrozinski | Greenere on Angels in Olema Assemblage Art Altered Book Links Altered Board Books Altered Book Altered Book Art Altered Book Ideas Altered Book Journal Altered Book Pages Altered Book Techniques Gesso Altered Book How to Make Altered Books Making Altered Books Image Site Links Christian Image Source U.S. History Images Karen's Whimsy Links Artistic Resources Karen’s Whimsy 10k breast cancer coat of arms coat of arms design edgar allan poe edmund dulac family coat of arms francis ford coppola Golden Gate Bridge heraldic art heraldry Laguna Seca lumpectomy mastectomy Monterey motorcycles new year poe running rustic teaching Yountiville Archives Select Month January 2015 (1) September 2014 (2) August 2014 (2) August 2012 (1) May 2012 (3) October 2011 (1) July 2011 (1) June 2011 (1) March 2011 (1) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (1) September 2010 (1) August 2010 (1) July 2010 (3) May 2010 (1) January 2010 (1) August 2009 (1) January 2009 (1) November 2008 (1) October 2008 (1) September 2008 (1) August 2008 (1) July 2008 (2) June 2008 (1) November 2007 (3) September 2007 (1) July 2007 (2) April 2007 (1) January 2007 (3) December 2006 (2) November 2006 (2) October 2006 (2) September 2006 (2) August 2006 (2) July 2006 (3) May 2006 (1) March 2006 (3) February 2006 (1) January 2006 (7) November 2005 (2) October 2005 (4) September 2005 (3) August 2005 (6) July 2005 (1) June 2005 (2) May 2005 (3) April 2005 (5) March 2005 (2) Artful Journey. All rights reserved. Unite Theme powered by WordPress.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745084

__label__wiki

Thai princess finds tumult in politics, like life FILE - In this March 24, 2010, file photo, Thai Princess Ubolratana poses for a photo at the Thai Gala Night in Hong Kong. Thai Raksa Chart party selected Friday, Feb. 8, 2019, the princess as its nominee to serve as the next prime minister, upending tradition that the royal palace plays no public role in politics and upsetting all predictions about what may happen in the March election. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung, File) Leader of Thai Raksa Chart party Preecha Pholphongpanich, right, hands a paper with a picture of Princess Ubolratana at election commission of Thailand in Bangkok, Thailand, Friday, Feb. 8, 2019. The political party has selected the princess as its nominee to serve as the next prime minister, upending tradition that the royal palace plays no public role in politics and upsetting all predictions about what may happen in the March election. (AP Photo) In this March 24, 2010, photo, Thai Princess Ubolratana poses for a photo during her visit to promote Thailand's film industry at the Entertainment Expo Hong Kong Filmart. Thai Raksa Chart party selected Friday, Feb. 8, 2019, the princess as its nominee to serve as the next prime minister, upending tradition that the royal palace plays no public role in politics and upsetting all predictions about what may happen in the March election. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu) In this Oct 27, 2017, photo, Thai Princess Ubolratana Mahidol waves to Thai people outside Grand Palace in Bangkok , Thailand. The selection of the elder sister of Thailand’s king as a political party nominee for prime minister has upended a tradition of the palace playing no public role in politics. Most but not all modern monarchies steer clear of direct involvement in electoral politics or governing. (AP Photo) BANGKOK — Princess Ubolratana Mahidol, the first child of Thailand's beloved late king, has always been a bit of a rebel, and on Friday she shook Thai society by becoming the first member of the royal family to say she would enter party politics. But hours later, her younger brother, King Maha Vajiralongkorn, commanded her to halt her bid to become prime minister, saying in an order read on television that no member of the royal family should be involved in politics. It wasn't the first unexpected turn in a somewhat turbulent life. Ubolratana, 67, was born into royalty but is not exactly a royal princess, which distinguishes her from her three siblings: Vajiralongkorn, 66, Princess Sirindhorn, 63, and Princess Chulabhorn, 61. She lost her special royal titles more than four decades ago when she married a commoner, an American, but is still called and widely regarded as a princess. But in practical terms, she today enjoys all, or most, of the same privileges as her siblings — except she is expected to be subservient to her younger brother, the king. Energetic and ebullient, her main public activities involve a youth anti-drug campaign she founded called "To Be Number One," and promoting Thai tourism and movies at international forums. She dresses down when she's with the children she seeks to help and turns up the glamor at the official events. On the side she does some acting — movies and TV dramas — some singing and occasional writing. She's on Instagram, where she often posts photos of her lifestyle along with un-royal casual comments for her almost 100,000 followers. More than 1,000 posted comments Friday, mostly congratulations on her bid to become prime minister. She was registered Friday as a prime ministerial candidate for the Thai Raksa Chart Party, which is associated with the political machine of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, abhorred by conservative royalists as a corrupt rival for power. The army staged coups against Thaksin in 2006, and against a government that his sister had led in 2014. Her nomination was made in the name Ubolratana Mahidol — after her paternal grandfather's surname — but her formal name is Ubolratana Rajakanya Sirivadhana Barnavadi. Her legal residence was listed as "Boromphiman Throne Hall" and "inside the Grand Palace." Many Thais had assumed that she would not seek the nomination without her brother's blessing and were surprised that he would have supported her association with a party considered unsympathetic to the monarchy. But the king's surprise late-night order strongly suggested otherwise. Because Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, the king and his immediate circle are not supposed to involve themselves directly in politics. Ubolratana falls into a gray area, since she no longer has her highest titles but is still regarded as a princess. Her path to Friday's stunning developments diverged considerably from that taken by her brother and sisters, whose lives were mostly dictated by the demands of palace protocol, even though her brother in his younger days as heir apparent led the kind of lifestyle that caused his mother, Queen Sirikit, to describe him as a "Don Juan." Her more dutiful sisters were often tied down with confining ceremonial obligations. Ubolratana was born on April 5, 1951, five years into the reign of her father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The young king was not yet the hyperactive advocate of development he later became, incessantly touring the remote corners of his kingdom, so she likely spent more time in his company than her younger siblings. Visual evidence of how closely they bonded can be found in an iconic photo that shows father and daughter piloting a small sailboat together. The pair won a joint sailing gold medal at the 1967 Southeast Asia Peninsula Games. It was shortly after that when Ubolratana's life took a soap opera turn. In the late 1960s, she was admitted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, not far from where her father was born while his own father was doing medical studies at Harvard. Hippie and anti-war culture was near its height in the United States, and the already independent-minded Ubolratana may have absorbed her fair share of it. In what could be seen as an act of rebellion, she fell in love and in 1972 married a fellow student, an American named Peter Jensen. King Bhumibol more or less disowned her after her marriage to a commoner and she was kept out of the limelight for almost a decade. The estrangement wasn't absolute. Queen Sirikit and other family members visited her in the U.S., particularly after she gave birth to two daughters and a son. Ubolratana to some extent was living the typical American life, calling herself Mrs. Julie Jensen, having adopted the nickname Julie during her youth, reportedly in tribute to American singer Julie London. Her marriage was perhaps too typically American — it ended in divorce in 1998. Ubolratana made her first trip back to her homeland in 1980 for one of her mother's birthdays. More visits followed, and by 2001, she had moved back to Thailand and was regaining a sense of a normal, if privileged, life. As if trying to make up for lost time, she threw herself into a whirlwind of high society and celebrity building activities, including a provocative fashion shoot for a popular Thai women's magazine. Tragedy struck in 2004 when her autistic 21-year-old son Bhumi died in the Indian Ocean tsunami. Her social life slowed down after that, and she doted on daughter Ploypailin, 37, a musician who is married with children of her own. Her other daughter, Sirikitiya, 33, has kept a low profile and appears to have returned to live in Thailand after an extended period in the United States. China launches second space station, Tiangong 2 China has launched its second space station in a sign of the growing sophistication of its... Argentine soccer star Carlos Tevez signs $40M... Argentine striker Carlos Tevez has signed to play for Shanghai Shenhua, becoming the latest in a... China auto market has bumper year but 2017... Industry figures show China's auto market had a bumper year in 2016 as sales grew by 15 percent,... Chinese factory makes giant inflatable... A Chinese factory has been doing a brisk business selling giant inflatable roosters, some as tall...

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745085

__label__cc

Tag: father Hope for Resurrection in this world The revival of hermeticism in Christianity that, as we said, was foreign to the spirit of the religion of Israel – the latter being based wholly on family and community – was not in any way the result of an ‘Indian influence’ on Christianity. Neither St Anthony of Thebes nor St Paul the Hermit had been influenced at all by India. The same is true for St Jerome and all the other hermits (the Irish Anglo-Saxon hermits included)of whom history has related anything definite. Christian hermeticism arose out of a profound need of the soul – namely, the need to personally experience the truth of the tradition. And the fact that this need is at the same time the living core of Hindu Buddhist spiritual life, only makes it more plausible that the eternally valid kernel of Hinduism and Buddhism reappeared in transfigured form – that is to say, was resurrected. Its transfiguration consists in this: the ideal of redemption of the self from the world became the ideal of the redemption of the world: the striving for eternal rest in nirvana became a striving after unity with the living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and the yearning for deathlessness in the world became the hope for resurrection in this world. The Christianity of the hermits, as the essential core of Indian spiritual life resurrected within Christianity, was no passing phenomenon limited to a few centuries only. Today it still lives with all the intensity of its youth. Though it may not be deserts and thick forests into which one can retire into an undisturbed solitude nowadays, there are still people who have found or created in the deserts of the great cities and among the thickets of the crowds a solitude and stillness of life for the spirit. And as before, their striving is devoted toward becoming a witness for the truth of Christianity. The way into the depths has not led them to an individualistic brand of belief, but has given them unshakable security in the truth of the Christian revelation as transmitted and taught by the Church. They know the truth of the following: Extra Ecciesiam non est salus (‘there is no salvation outside the Church’); the Holy Father is not and cannot be the mouthpiece of an ecumenical council; the Holy See alone can make decisions in questions of faith and of morals – a majority of bishops cannot do so, and even less can a majority of priests or congregations do so; the Church is hierarchic theocratic – not democratic, aristocratic, or monarchic – and will be so in future times; the Church is the Civitas Dei (‘the City of God’) and not a superstructure of the will of people belonging to the Church; as little as the shepherd follow the will of the herd does the Holy Father of the Church merely carry out the collective will of his flock; the Shepherd of the Church is St. Peter, representing Christ – his pronouncements ex cathedra are infallible, and the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven belongs to him, and him alone. In other words, those who become solitary in order to seek profundity may reach on their path of spiritual experience to the unshakable insight that the dogmas of the Church are absolutely true. And so it can happen that, as they did at the time of the Arian darkening of the Church, the ‘hermits’ of today may again come to the assistance of the Holy See, leaving their solitude to appear in witness to the truth of Peter’s Throne and its infallible teaching. In those times it happened that St Anthony of Thebes left the desert and hurried to Alexandria to support St Athanasius with the weight of his moral authority – St Athanasius who became the standard-bearer for the divinity of Christ. The darkening that today is described as ‘the present crisis of the Catholic Church’ can lead to the necessity for the solitary sons of the Church to hurry to the aid of the Holy Father, the most solitary of solitaries, in order to save the Church from the abyss toward which she is moving. Valentin Tomberg, Lazarus Come Forth! Prayer for a Revelation of the Supreme Mystery In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. An-Soph, Yah, Soph Yah. Thou, the most Holy Divine Sophia, the substantial image of beauty and the delight of the transcendentally extant God, the bright body of Eternity, the soul of the worlds and the queen-soul of all souls, by the fathomless blessedness of Thy first Son and beloved Jesus Christ, I implore Thee to descend into the prison of [the] soul, fill this darkness of ours with Thy radiancy, melt away the fetters on our spirit with the fire of love, grant us freedom and light, appear to us in a visible and substantial manner, become Thyself incarnate in us and in the world, restoring the fullness of the aeons, so that the deep may be covered with a limit and God may become all in all. Vladimir Solovyev, Prayer for a Revelation of the Supreme Mystery Lubet of the Divine Liberty And this was the death; for the soul’s fire proceeding from the Father’s property turned itself away from the Son’s property, in which alone the divine life consists. Thus the property of the soul remained naked only with its will in the outward Sulphur, and the inward disappeared, and continued steadfast in the eternal unchangeableness, as in an eternal nothing, wherein there was no more any effecting [or working efficacy to bring to pass]. Thus man with his outward body lived barely and merely to the time; the precious gold of the heavenly corporality, which tinctured the outward body, was disappeared, and so the outward body stood barely and alone in the life of nature’s desire, in the soul’s fiery property; understand in the form and property of Mars, in the wrath of God, which is the wrath in Sulphur, the property of God’s anger and the dark world: But seeing the outward body was created out of the time, therefore the time, the constellation with the four elements, presently obtained the dominion in him; and the divine property, the desire of the Deity (which ruled and tinctured time, so that there was a holy life in the creature out of the time), was vanished; its own peculiar love in the divine desire was turned to water, and it became blind and dead in the will and desire of God; and the soul must help itself with the sun’s light. But seeing that time has beginning and end, and the will with the desire has given up itself to the temporal leader, therefore the dominion of time destroys its own contrived spirit, and so the body also dies and passes away; and this is that which God said to Adam, that “he should not eat of the tree, or plant, of the knowledge of good and evil,” of both properties, lest he died; as it also came to pass, he died in the Sulphur; the Sul in the kingdom of God, the lubet of the divine liberty, out of which the light of God shines, and in which the divine love, the love-fire burns [disappeared and withdrew from him]. Now there was no remedy for him, unless God’s desire entered again into his dead Sulphur, that is, into his Sul, which was dead, into the dead [or mortified] essentiality, and again enkindled it with the love-fire; which came to pass in Christ: And there the heavenly body, wherein God’s light shines, did again arise. But if this must be effected, then the love-desire must again enter into the desire of the enkindled anger, and quench and overcome the anger with the love; the divine water must enter again into the soul’s burning fire, and quench the wrathful death in the astringent fiat, in the desire to nature, that the love-desire, which desires God, might be again enkindled in the soul. Jacob Boehem, The Signature of All Things The Four Winds The spiritual revelation recorded in the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel affords us what we need for our task. In that chapter, the karma of evil is boldly outlined. The delineation begins with the picture of “the four winds of heaven [that] strove upon the great sea” (Daniel 7:2). This figure shows us the cosmic scene of the conflict between good and evil. Space – with its four cardinal points of north, south, east, west – is neither one of the three abstract categories of Kantian philosophy, nor is it merely the distance that must be covered to reach some particular point; it is an ocean of forces at rest, set in motion by four active forces. These four active forces are the spiritual influences within the elemental world – the “winds” that cover the elemental world. The currents caused by the four “winds” in the elemental world give rise to the four elements, which are impregnated by the four realms of elemental beings (salamanders, sylphs, undines and gnomes). These four groups of elemental beings are simply the lowest expression of the “four winds”. Their origin is rooted in the eternal Trinity, from which issue the cosmic impulses called ‘north’, ‘south’, ‘east’ and ‘west’. The Father being works through the cosmic impulses of north and south’ the Son and the Holy Spirit are active in the impulses of east and west. When these impulses work together, cosmic good results; when the “four winds” work against one another, the result is cosmic evil. This is why the description of Daniel’s night vision begins with this image: “The four winds of the heaven strove.” These winds striving against one another are the four currents of cosmic evil. They are not controlled from Heaven, but from the depths of the ‘sea’; their origin must be sought in the “four….beasts” that appear out of the depth of the sea:”And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse from one another” (Daniel 7:3). Christ and Sophia, Valentin Tomberg Cosmic Conscience The “I” is the member of the human being that continues on from incarnation to incarnation. The result of each incarnation continues to live in the “I”, forming what is often called a “string of beads” in Indian symbolism, of which the individual “beads” are the “I” being of various incarnations, while the “string” represents the continuity of consciousness from incarnation to incarnation. Thus, the “I” being of former lives lives on and represents the “inner” past that is inseparable from an individual. This miracle of healing indicatees a power that affected not only the present but also the past “” being – the “I” that passed through death with the responsibility for the previous life course. “I” consciousness of the past, which preserves its activity from the previous incarnation and in which many human beings live and act, is called consciousness of the “dead” in the Gospels, and those who live under the “I” impulse of the past are simply called “The dead”. Thus, healing the paralysed man involved more than merely the present “I”; the “dead”, in particular, heard the “voice of the Son” and experience a conversion in his past consciousness. “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will (John 5:21). These words of Jesus Christ have a direct connection with the healing and refer to it. And words that follow express it even more clearly: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (John, 5:25). True, only a few of the dead had heard this voice – a fact expressed, for example, in these words: “Let the dead bury their dead.” (Luke 9:60). This is the fundamental challenge to which we must respond if we wish to gain spiritual hearing. It is a summons to conquer ourselves again and again and, shutting out all personal impulses, repeatedly listen in silence to the voice of conscience. The sounds that the spiritual world uses to speak are moral and spiritual voices, not fixed “vibrations” for the purpose of being caught by a sensory organ. Those voices can be heard only after the soul has adapted to the voice of conscience; those who are prepared to follow the dictates of conscience without hesitation are thus prepared to hear the voices of cosmic conscience.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745090

__label__cc

Home\Learn more about the Czech Republic\Architecture in Czech Republic Traces of the development of Central European architecture which are more than 1000 years old can be found in Czech Republic. The best architects have left amazing structures in the country including secular and church structures, private and public buildings, decorative and utility facilities of monumental as well as minimalist design. The oldest preserved sights of historical interest in Czech Republic can be traced back to the early Middle Ages. The Romanesque style spread to Bohemia from the west and the south in connection with the settlement of the country by the Slavic population. It was adapted to the local environment and natural conditions. Buildings in this style included massive rotundas, simple churches, basilicas, solid stone town houses, castle sites and towers. In the 11th century the Premyslid family built a network of Romanesque castles, monasteries and churches. The Middle Ages were characterized by the wealth and power of the Catholic Church. In that period of time a lot of fortified monasteries, sanctuaries, centers of education and Gothic cathedrals appeared. Starting in the 13th century Gothic architecture influenced the Czech milieu for three whole centuries. Existing towns underwent their first reconstruction and new towns were established based on a large-scale concept. First High Gothic buildings At the time of the first great expansion of the Bohemian state in the 14th century important building works were created in the style of High Gothic under direction of first-rate foreign and local architects like Matthias of Arras, Petr Parler and others. The Renaissance art and its authors found an outstanding creative environment in Bohemia and Moravia which were rich with investors and builders who were knowledgeable from centuries of gothic constructional craftsmanship. The first Renaissance building in Czech Republic was the castle gate in Moravska Trebova, which dates from 1492 and the Vladislav Hall in Prague Castle. Baroque style The beginning of the 17th century brought a dynamic Baroque style. Specific and completely distinctive chapters in Czech Baroque comprise the so-called baroque-gothic, which is exclusively represented by Jan Blažej Santini and rustic Baroque which even today gives the countryside a distinctive character, particularly in South Bohemia. A typical collection of folk architecture can be found in the village of Holašovice, which is on the list of UNESCO World Heritage sites. Comments to "Architecture in Czech Republic" I like this albom and stile this group! My Pussy want hot sex and i like when Fuck My ASS http://yzgbw.milfalone.com/c/da57dc555e50572d?s1=2919&s2=16123&s3=Disco&click_id=com volcano. Hot baby!! savonte robinson that’great

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745093

__label__wiki

Home Headline CCJ orders GOB to pay Ashcroft US$67.3 million CCJ orders GOB to pay Ashcroft US$67.3 million Saturday, October 1st, 2016 BELIZE CITY, Thurs. Sept. 29, 2016–The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Belize’s final appellate court, handed down a decision today ordering Financial Secretary, Joseph Waight to pay the former shareholders of Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL)—Dunkeld International Investments Ltd. and BTL Employees Trust, two companies controlled by British billionaire Michael Ashcroft—a total of US$67.3 million, in the specified US currency. Eamon Courtenay, SC, attorney for the Ashcroft companies, had told the CCJ last week that his clients have over BZ$130 million they can do nothing with. His clients have been demanding the funds in US currency, which would allow them to repatriate the money from Belize. “I was hoping for a check by now,” Courtenay told us this evening. Waight told the press after today’s CCJ session that, “…the Belize dollars [paid to Ashcroft] will have to be returned to us.” Then, the Government would have to find the US$66 million out of the foreign reserves, “and that’s a big number!” he added. Meanwhile, the Government suggested, via a press release, that it intends to pay the funds in installments. In a statement issued today, the Government said that it is disappointed with the CCJ decision, but it is one that it must accept. Courtenay told Amandala that if the Government won’t pay immediately, as the court has ordered, the Government needs to engage the former shareholders, and hopefully they can come to an understanding to avoid having to go back to court, which will be another costly endeavor. “GOB is now determining, together with the Central Bank, the best-case scenario to avoid any withdrawal of too large an amount at any one time from the Central Bank Foreign Reserves. Thereafter, GOB will put that scenario to the CCJ for approval. On that basis, GOB is comfortable that the ruling will cause no shock to Belize’s foreign exchange position,” the Government’s press release said. Outgoing Central Bank Governor, Glenford Ysaguirre, had signaled via letter to the Financial Secretary after the demand was made to the Government in July, that drawing that volume of funds from Belize’s foreign reserves, when it is faced with mounting demands and declining export earnings, would spell trouble for the Belizean economy. Ysaguirre told Amandala today that things have gotten even worse after Hurricane Earl hit Belize last month, “and we know that Hurricane Earl impacted some of the export industries like banana and citrus…” “I don’t know how we will manage [paying those US dollars]. It will tax the reserves,” Ysaguirre told us. He said that the International Monetary Fund had already warned in their medium-term projection for Belize that the country’s foreign reserves could see a marked decline in 2019-2020, and the removal of US dollars now, said Ysaguirre, would hasten that decline. In court today, CCJ Justice Rolston Nelson, who presided over the hearings, said that, “…issues as to whether the government has money or foreign exchange … are not relevant!” after he affirmed that the Government must pay the second tranche of the compensation to the Ashcroft companies in US dollars forthwith. Last September, when Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Dean Barrow announced two months before the general elections that he had reached a compromise with Ashcroft, the Government paid an initial deposit of 72 cents US currency per share, amounting to $65 million. The matter was then left to a foreign arbitration panel to resolve after the companies invoked the UK Investment Treaty, to which Belize is a party. That panel handed down its decision on June 28, and the Government of Belize was given 10 business days to come up with the second tranche of payments, which it did by the specified date on July 13, paying $29.5 million is US dollars and $134.9 million in Belize dollars in compensation, plus 827,000 British pounds in legal fees and 33,000 Euros in arbitration costs. However, the Ashcroft group demanded that the portion paid in BZ dollars should be paid in US dollars instead. Denys Barrow, SC, attorney for the Government of Belize, argued in court that the Government and the former shareholders had agreed that the portion of the award attributed to the accommodation agreement should be paid in Belize dollars and held for the benefit of the people of Belize. Although that figure is 60% of the total award, the way the agreement was drafted; it turns out to be even less than 50%, based on the finding of the CCJ. Justice Nelson found that what the Government has claimed is not in the written agreement—the settlement deed. “We have scoured the agreement and haven’t found anything…” he said. In fact, he declared that according to the agreement, the Ashcroft companies are to receive 50% of the funds, and those payments are not subject to any deductions. We asked Senior Counsel Barrow what the real effect of the CCJ’s decision is. “The real effect is that the people of Belize have lost out on a number of millions of dollars which the government negotiated with Lord Ashcroft’s companies should have gone for the benefit of the people of Belize—that really is the short of it. The other more immediate consideration is the crunch it puts the country in as regards the availability of foreign exchange…” he told us. There is still the question of what portion of the pie would come back to Belizeans. Courtenay told us that the issue is unresolved. He said that the Dunkeld liabilities—which include legal fees—have to be brought into account and those have not been finalized. The figure, said Courtenay, would have to be deducted from the balance, and the Belize dollar portion left would go to Hayward Charitable Trust for projects in Belize. However, Courtenay told us that all costs incurred by the BTL Employees Trust and Dunkeld, the two Ashcroft companies, in fighting all these cases following the 2009 nationalization of BTL would be deducted. Today, the CCJ ordered the Government to pay court costs for the Ashcroft companies. Courtenay said that all parties “went into this with all eyes open.” Previous articleDamn the torpedoes – full speed ahead! Next articleJoy Grant replaces Glenford Ysaguirre as Central Bank Governor Kobe Bryant, basketball great, dead at 41 BELIZE CITY, Mon. Jan. 27, 2020-- At first, it sounded like fake news in social media. That was the reaction of many who got...

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745094

__label__wiki

Home Editorial The power versus the people The power versus the people Saturday, July 2nd, 2016 Nobody likes being held to ransom. However, this is a real world; and in international affairs there is a certain inevitability to the consequences of what the diplomats like to call “power disequilibria.” In that context, we are obliged to grasp the nettle now and accept the painful fact of the territorial sea concession. For the alternative is a stalemate in the negotiations, the possible premature pullout of the British troops, and the certain erosion of our international support. The danger attendant on such circumstances is too horrible to contemplate. In other words, our real choice may be to give up a little now, or risk losing a whole lot later. And that is no exaggeration. – pg. 17, AMANDALA, Friday, October 18, 1991, BELIZE AND GUATEMALA: THE LARGER PICTURE, by Dean Oliver Barrow Every now and then, the veil of purity over the face of the power structure in Belize is drawn aside, for one reason and another, and the Belizean people can see the portrait of Dorian Grey: we can see the reality of the oppression, the injustice, and the collaboration with regional and international white supremacy at the highest levels of our society. In the last week or so, there are two different cases of the power structure’s veil of purity being drawn aside, and it was for those Belizeans with eyes, to see. These are the matters of The Reporter editorial of last weekend and the exclusion of the lady sprinter, Kaina Martinez, from Belize’s Olympic team for Rio de Janeiro 2016. Let’s begin with Kaina. When you rise from amongst the people to become a star in Belize, it is not a development which is viewed with favor by Belize’s power structure. This is because the power structure in Belize is jealous of its power, and the power structure, although it is very, very well entrenched, becomes nervous. The reason for their nervousness, we submit, is because they know their positions are derived from family, from favor, from connections, from Buckingham Palace, and so on, and not from talent. The power structure in Belize is fearful of talent, and they always seek to crush native talent, no matter the danger of their bureaucratic perfidy’s being exposed. In a country like the United States, on the other hand, for all America’s evils, they welcome stories of young citizens rising from anonymity to fame: the Americans see it as proof of equal opportunity in America. But, the power structure in Belize doesn’t cut black youth any slack, as we would say. Belize is bogus. The people of Belize have taken some days to react to the Kaina Martinez issue. But, with Mose Hyde’s call for justice Wednesday morning on his KREM TV/KREM Radio morning show, the Kaina matter may become a firestorm. We saw almost the exact same thing happen last year. The power structure decided that Deon McCaulay had gotten too big for his britches. There’s a glass ceiling in this territory once you’re a black youth from the Southside. The power structure conspired to leave the great Deon off the Belize national football team for our World Cup qualifiers against the Cayman Islands. It was the people of Belize who had to dig deep, campaign militantly, and raise money for Deon to be included for the Dominican Republic qualifiers after the Belize team barely got past the lowly Caymans. You know, we had watched the leading anti-Deon conspirator do something similar more than two decades ago. Belizeans don’t pay enough attention to sports programs in Belize, maybe because life is so hard. If you paid attention to sports, you would understand that what the local sports programs are about, or should be about, ideally, is establishing who are our best athletes and coaches to represent us and defend our honor in regional and international competition. At its peak, in 1994, the Kremandala sports program had produced back-to-back semi-pro basketball champions, the Kremandala Raiders, coached by Marshall Nunez. But when the Belize national basketball team prepared to travel to the Bahamas for the CARICOM basketball tournament tin 1994, the conspirator denied Marshall the head coaching assignment, an assignment Nunez had plainly earned. The conspirator unilaterally chose, instead, one of the coaches defeated by Marshall Nunez’s team in both 1993 and 1994. The conspirator was never asked to explain his act of blatant discrimination. In 1994, you see, the United Democratic Party (UDP) was in power, Kremandala was non grata, and Marshall Nunez was suspect politically. When the conspirator pulled a similar stunt with Deon McCaulay in 2015, the people of Belize rose up. Hopefully, the conspirator has learned his lesson. But now, someone of a similar stature must be responsible for this Kaina exclusion debacle. Bun fayah! Bun fire! We move now to The Reporter editorial of last weekend. In it, the newspaper’s publisher expressed very controversial opinions about the ownership and nature of the Sarstoon River, which represents the southern boundary of the nation-state of Belize. Some would go further than “very controversial,” but, as Mr. Lawrence’s professional colleagues, we must restrain ourselves. The UDP Government of Belize used the Chief Executive Officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to deliver a mild public rebuke to The Reporter publisher, but it went no further than that. When you consider the daily weekday savagery of the UDP’s radio station targeting opponents of the administration, and when you read the same kinds of weekly attacks on critics of the administration in the UDP’s newspaper, you may have expected similar treatment for Mr. Lawrence. Not so. Because, a story goes with this. The publisher of The Reporter is an appointed ambassador of this UDP government. He is the Ambassador to the Holy See (the Vatican in Rome) appointed by the Government of Belize of Prime Minister, the Right Honorable Dean Oliver Barrow. It goes deeper than that. While Mr. Barrow was in law school in Jamaica in 1973, the publisher of The Reporter was one of the founders of the aforementioned United Democratic Party. He was the UDP candidate for Belize Rural South in the 1974 general elections, and he also ran as a candidate for the UDP in Belize City Council elections. The thing is that, in retrospect, what the UDP represented at the time it was founded in September of 1973, was the end of the leadership of the Opposition by Hon. Philip Goldson. And what the end of Mr. Goldson’s Opposition leadership represented, was a move by the Opposition towards more friendly relations with Guatemala based on a shared neoliberal capitalist thinking. Mr. Goldson had come out of the General Workers Union (GWU) era of the People’s United Party (PUP), and he was not neoliberal. Perhaps more important, his leadership of the National Independence Party (NIP), which preceded the UDP as the leading Opposition party from 1958 to 1973, was characterized by militancy against the Guatemalan claim. And remember, as we point out elsewhere in this issue of our newspaper, the Guatemalan claim to Belize was at its most aggressive during the presidency of General Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes, which lasted from 1958 to 1963. It is fairly clear today that the movers and shakers of the Opposition made a kind of Mephistophelian deal with the United States government of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger when they formed the UDP in 1973. The key aspect of this deal was the change in Opposition attitude towards Guatemala, in line with Bethuel Webster’s Seventeen Proposals of 1968. Hence, when we see the 2015 and 2016 UDP behave in this strange manner which Mr. Goldson would undoubtedly have condemned, it is a case of the chickens of 1973 coming home to roost. Mr. Goldson was something special. The UDP is troubled by his memory. In 1991, angered by the collusion of the Esquivel/Barrow UDP leadership in the Maritime Areas Act, Mr. Goldson left the UDP to form the National Alliance for Belizean Rights (NABR). Even though he agreed to form a coalition government with the UDP in June of 1993, Mr. Goldson died as a NABR in 2001. He never returned to the UDP. Because of his trade union past, Mr. Goldson did not fit in well with the neoliberal UDP. But, from 1974 to 1991, he was loyal to the UDP, and there is no doubt that his decision to fall in line with the Dean Lindo-led UDP when he returned from studying law in London, contributed greatly to the growth of UDP credibility. The question today is, of course: what would Mr. Goldson think, what would Mr. Goldson say, and what would Mr. Goldson do about the Sarstoon situation? This is the question the Belizean people must ponder. Belize cannot afford to make mistakes with this Guatemalan claim on The Jewel, otherwise we will be swallowed up. We will be swallowed up demographically, legally, and militarily. Power to the people. Previous articleFamily Court sentences repeat violator to $12,000 and 5 years Next articleOpen letter to Hon. Elodio Aragon, Jr. Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745095

__label__wiki

Naqia-Zakutu and her son King Esarhaddon Naqia-Zakutu Naqia-Zakutu and her son King Esarhaddon of Assyria in the temple of Marduk, circa 681-669 B.C.E. Bronze (originally gold-plated), Louvre Museum, Paris. Naqia-Zakutu may not have as familiar a name as her grandson Ashurbanipal, who is famed for amassing a significant collection of cuneiform documents for his royal palace at Nineveh and is mentioned in the Bible, but she is nevertheless an important female figure in ancient Near Eastern history. The suggestion that Naqia-Zakutu originally came from the West is based on this fragment of a bronze relief, in which she is depicted standing behind the king, her son Esarhaddon. She holds a mirror in her left hand and a plant in her right hand. Scholars point out that the motif of a woman holding a mirror is Syrian/Anatolian in origin and appears in Assyrian art here for the first time. A region in northern Mesopotamia whose kings ruled most of the ancient Near East in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.E. The writing system of ancient Mesopotamia, consisting of wedges pressed into clay. A Babylonian deity who becomes the chief god of the Babylonian pantheon, as recounted in the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745097

__label__wiki

Hetch Hetchy Canyon German-born American Hudson River School Painter, 1830-1902 Bierstadt was born in Solingen, Germany. His family moved to New Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1833. He studied painting with the members of the D??sseldorf School in D??sseldorf, Germany from 1853 to 1857. He taught drawing and painting briefly before devoting himself to painting. Bierstadt began making paintings in New England and upstate New York. In 1859, he traveled westward in the company of a Land Surveyor for the U.S. government, returning with sketches that would result in numerous finished paintings. In 1863 he returned west again, in the company of the author Fitz Hugh Ludlow, whose wife he would later marry. He continued to visit the American West throughout his career. Though his paintings sold for princely sums, Bierstadt was not held in particularly high esteem by critics of his day. His use of uncommonly large canvases was thought to be an egotistical indulgence, as his paintings would invariably dwarf those of his contemporaries when they were displayed together. The romanticism evident in his choices of subject and in his use of light was felt to be excessive by contemporary critics. His paintings emphasized atmospheric elements like fog, clouds and mist to accentuate and complement the feel of his work. Bierstadt sometimes changed details of the landscape to inspire awe. The colors he used are also not always true. He painted what he believed is the way things should be: water is ultramarine, vegetation is lush and green, etc. The shift from foreground to background was very dramatic and there was almost no middle distance Nonetheless, his paintings remain popular. He was a prolific artist, having completed over 500 (possibly as many as 4000) paintings during his lifetime, most of which have survived. Many are scattered through museums around the United States. Prints are available commercially for many. Original paintings themselves do occasionally come up for sale, at ever increasing prices. Related Paintings of Albert Bierstadt :. | Old Faithful | Sunset over the River | Beach at Nassau | Figures_in_a_Hudson_River_Landscape | The Catskills | Fritz von Uhde German, 1848-1911 was a German painter of genre and religious subjects. His style lay between Realism and .Uhde was born in Wolkenburg, Saxony. In 1866 he was admitted to the Academy of Fine Arts in Dresden, but later that year he left his studies for military service, and from 1867 to 1877 he was a professor of horsemanship to the regiment of the assembled guard. He moved to Munich in 1877 to attend the Academy of Fine Arts. In Munich he particularly admired the Dutch old masters, and in 1879 he travelled to Paris where his studies of the Dutch painters continued under Mihely Munkecsy's supervision. In 1882 a journey to Holland brought about a change in his style, as he abandoned the dark chiaroscuro he had learned in Munich in favor of a colorism informed by the works of the French Impressionists. His work was often rejected by the official art criticism, and by the public, because his representations of ordinary scenes were considered vulagar or ugly. The critic Otto Julius Bierbaum was more sympathetic; in 1893, he wrote, "As a painter of children, for example, Uhde is extraordinarily distinguished. He does not depict them as sweetly as used to be popular; in other words not as amusing or charming dolls, but with extreme, very strict naturalness." In about 1890, Uhde became a professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich. Johannes Gumpp 1626-after1646 Emanuel de Witte (1617 - 1692) was a Dutch perspective painter. In contrast to Pieter Jansz Saenredam, who emphasized architectural accuracy, De Witte was more concerned with the atmosphere of his interiors. Though few in number, de Witte also produced genre paintings. De Witte was born in Alkmaar and learned geometry from his father, a schoolmaster. He joined the local Guild of St Luke in 1636. After a stay in Rotterdam, he moved to Delft and studied with Evert van Aelst. In 1651 de Witte settled in Amsterdam where his first wife, Geerje Arents, died in 1655. He then married a 23-year-old orphan, Lysbeth van der Plas, who exercised a bad influence on de Witte's adolescent daughter. In December 1659 both were arrested for theft from a neighbor.Lysbeth, pregnant, had to leave the city for a period of six years; she lived outside the city walls and died in 1663. Following the arrest of his wife and child, de Witte was forced to indenture himself to the Amsterdam notary and art dealer Joris de Wijs, surrendering all of his work in exchange for room, board, and 800 guilders annually. De Witte broke the contract, was sued by the dealer, and forced to indenture himself further as a result. Several patrons provided de Witte with support, but these relations did not work out well, for he tended to shout at his clients and at people watching him at work in churches. Records tell of his gambling habit and a fight with Gerard de Lairesse. According to Arnold Houbraken, after an argument about the rent, de Witte hanged himself from a canal bridge in 1692. The rope broke and de Witte drowned. Because the canal froze that night, his corpse was not found until eleven weeks later

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745098

__label__wiki

Sushant Singh Rajput joins the charity bandwagon Bollywood may be infamous for its scandals and nightlife but when it comes to charity Bollywood stars do not shy. Recently Khiladi Kumar aka Akshay Kumar came forward and donated a whopping sum of Rs 90 lakhs to help the drought hit farmers of Maharashtra. According to reports he distributed Rs. 50,000 to each of the 30 widows in Beed district in Marathwada, who are battling with financial crisis after their husband committed suicide. Akshay Kumar was inspired by his colleague actor Nana Patekar, who along with famous Marathi actor Makrand Anaspure gave financial assistance to around 113 families of farmers in Latur and Osmanabad districts of Marathwada. Now the latest news is that upcoming actor Sushant Singh Rajput, who has just found success with movies like PK and KAI PO CHE! has decided to help deserving students who due to financial difficulties cannot pursue their education. According to reports Sushant, who was dropped out of engineering college due to money issues has decided that like him no other should be deprived of education due to financial crisis. Hence in the memory of his late mother Sushant is launching an initiative that will provide scholarships to students, who do not have the funds required for higher studies. In an interview Shushant confirmed that he has decided to offer scholarship in education because education is the cornerstone of one’s life and students who are intelligent should definitely be encouraged to fulfill their goals. “I have started the initiative in the memory of mother as she has instilled the virtues of charity in me and she always emphasized on the significance of education,” he added. Shekhar Kapur in dilemma over making sequel to MR.... Shammi Kapoor and his penchant for music Mahesh Bhatt working on Hindi version of woman cen...

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745110

__label__wiki

Eric Schmidt: I ‘Screwed Up’ on Facebook Updated Apr. 24, 2017 3:31PM ET / Published Jun. 01, 2011 2:24AM ET Bloomberg / Getty Images Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt wasn’t making any excuses for the company’s social strategy. “I screwed up,” he told the D: All Things Digital conference Tuesday. He admitted Google had missed “the friend thing,” explaining "I clearly knew that I had to do something and I failed to do it." He noted that Google tried several times to form partnerships with Facebook but was rebuffed. Read it at The Wall Street Journal

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745114

__label__wiki

Security Precautions - We will have a look at facts that will prove the Deity of Jesus. The following is taken from the Book "The Best of Josh McDowell, A ready Defense" compiled by Bill Wilson.. Starting with His trials. The following shows that there is no mistake about who was put to death. It is Jesus who died on the cross, and not a substitute, we will examine the facts that prove His resurrection. Security Precaution #1 Six Trials Jesus Christ went through six different trials. One was before Annas, the high priest (John 18:13), another was before Caiaphas (Matthew 26:57), the third before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 16:59), the fourth before Pilate (Matthew 27:2), the fifth before Herod (Luke 23:7), and the sixth was back before Pilate (Luke 23:11-25). There were three Jewish trials and three Roman trials. The Jewish legal system was made up of two different Sanhedrins. One Sanhedrin was composed of 23 members who tried cases involving capital punishment. The other Sanhedrin of 71 could serve as a trial court for cases involving the head of state, the high priest, or for offenses against the state of the Temple. The Sanhedrin of 71 could not try a case involving capital punishment. It was probably the Shanhedrin of 23 that tried Jesus. One was located in every major city in Judea Finally after the six trials, the Jewish authorities, in conjunction with the Roman authorities, delivered Jesus to be crucified (Matthew 27:26). Various "security precautions" were taken to make sure that when Jesus was dead He would remain dead and buried. Death by Crucifixion Alexander the Great introduced crucifixion into the Mediterranean world -- mainly Egypt and Carthage. From all indications, the Romans learned the practice from the Carthaginians. A Cruel Death Death by crucifixion developed into one of the world's most disgraceful and cruel methods of torture. Cicero called it "the most cruel an hideous of tortures". Will Durant wrote that "even the Romans ... pitied the victims. Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was an advisor to Titus during the siege of Jerusalem, had observed many crucifixions and called them "the most wretched deaths". The Custom of Whipping After the verdict of crucifixion was pronounced by the court, it was customary to tie the accused to a post at the tribunal. The criminal was stripped of his clothes, then severely whipped by the lictors or scourgers. The whip, known as a flagrum, had a sturdy handle to which were attached long leather thongs of varying lengths. Sharp, jagged pieces of bone and lead were woven into them. The Jews were limited by their law to 40 lashes. The Pharisees, with their emphasis on strict adherence to the law, would limit their lashes to 39, so that if they miscounted they would not break their law. The Romans had no such limitations. Out of disgust or anger, the Romans could totally ignore the Jewish limitation, and probably did so in the case of Jesus. A Medical Perspective Dr. C. Truman Davis, a medical doctor who has meticulously studied crucifixion from a medical perspective, describes the effects of the Roman flagrum used in whipping. The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across a person's shoulders, back, and legs. At first the heavy thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. The small balls of lead first produce large, deep bruises which are broken open by subsequent blows. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. When it is determined by the centurion in charge that the prisoner is near death, the beating is finally stopped. Eusebius, a third-century historian, confirms Dr. Davis's description when he writes: "The sufferer's veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure. A Crown of Thorns After placing the crown of thorns on Christ's head they began to mock Him saying, "Hail, the King of the Jews." They also spit on Him and beat Him with a rod. Then they led Him away to be crucified. The Crossbar Burden A man condemned to be crucified had to carry his own crossbar from prison to the place of his execution. Dr. Pierre Barbet points out that "they began to use a long piece of wood, which was used for barring doors and was called the patibulum (from patere, to be open)." The patibulum weighed approximately 110 pounds and was strapped to the victim's shoulders. Crucifixion With Nails Upon reaching the execution site, the condemned person was nailed to bound by ropes to the cross. Many have questioned the historical accuracy of the nailing of the hands and feet. The reason for this skepticism is that there has been almost zero evidence of it in history. Dr. J.W. Hewitt, in his Harvard Theological Review article entitled, "The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion," said, "To sum up, there is astonishingly little evidence that the feet of a crucified person were ever pierced by nails." He went on to say that the victim's hands and feet were bound by ropes to the cross. For years Dr. Hewitt's statement was quoted as the final word. The conclusion, therefore, was that the New Testament account of Christ being nailed to the cross was false and misleading. Crucifixion by use of nails was considered legendary. It was believed that nails would have ripped the flesh and could not have supported a body on the cross. A Dead Man Speaks Then, a revolutionary archaeological discovery was made in June 1968. Archeologist V. Tzaferis, under the direction of the Israeli Department of Antiquities and Museums, discovered four cave-rooms at the site of Giv'at-ha-mivtar (Ras el-Masaref) just north of Jerusalem near Mt. Scopus. In Ossuary 4 of Tomb I, inscribed with the name Yohanan Ben Ha'galgal, were found the bones of an adult male and of a child. A large 7 inch spike had been driven through the heel bone, and both legs had been fractured. Haas reported: "Both the heel bones were found transfixed by a large iron nail. The shins were found intentionally broken. Death caused by crucifixion." The bones in Ossuary 4 confirm another passage in the New Testament: The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they say that He was already dead, they did not break His legs )John 19:32,33). Purpose for Breaking the Legs To understand why the legs were broken, one must study the means of execution. The soldiers would feel for the depression at the front of the wrist, then drive the heavy wrought iron spike through at that point. Next, the legs were placed together and a large nail was driven through them. The knees were left moderately flexed, and a seat (known as a sedecula) was attached to the cross for the buttocks of the victim. Dr. Truman Davis, the M.D. whom I quoted before, describes what happens to the human body after a short time of exposure on the cross: As the arms fatigue, great waves of cramps sweep over the muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless, throbbing pain. With these cramps comes the inability to push Himself upward. Hanging by His arms, the pectoral muscles are paralyzed and the intercoastal muscles are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs, but cannot be exhaled. Jesus fights to raise Himself in order to get even one short breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the bloodstream and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, He is able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen. After a while, orthostatic collapse through insufficient blood circulation to the brain an heart would follow. The only way the victim could aboid this was to push up by his feet so the blood could be returned to some degree of circulation the upper part of his body. When the authorities wanted to hasten death or terminate the torture, the victim's legs were broken below the knees with a club. This prevented him from pushing himself upward to relieve the tension on the pectoral or chest muscles. Either rapid suffocation or coronary insufficiency followed. In the case of Christ, the legs of the two thieves crucified with Him were broken, but Christ's were not because the executioners observed He was already dead. Spilling of Blood and Water One of the executioners thrust a spear into Christ's side, and as recorded in John 19:34, "Immediately there came out blood and water." Davis relates that there was "an escape of watery fluid from the sac surrounding the heart. We, therefore, have rather conclusive postmortem evidence that Christ died, not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium. A Job Well Done Pilate required certification of Christ's death before the body could be turned over to Joseph of Arimathea. He consented to Christ's being removed from the cross only after four executioners had certified His death. The efficiency of execution by crucifixion was quite well known in the time of Christ. Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, writes, True, there is a recorded instance of a victim being taken down from a cross and surviving. The Jewish historian Josephus, who had gone over to the Roman side in the rebellion of A.D. 66, discovered three of his friends being crucified. He asked the Roman general Titus to reprieve them, and they were immediately removed from their crosses. Still, two of the three died anyway, even though they apparently had been crucified only a short time. In Jesus' case, however, there were the additional complications of scourging and exhaustion, to say nothing of the great spear thrust that pierced His rib cage and probably ruptured His pericardium. Romans were grimly efficient about crucifixions: Victims did not escape with their lives. Security Precaution #3 - Solid Rock Tomb The body of Christ was placed in a new tomb, hewn out of a solid rock, in a private burial area. Jewish tombs usually had an entrance 4-1/2 to 5 feet high. The New Testament is very clear that the burial of Christ followed the customs of the Jews. In preparing a body for burial, the Jews would place it on a stone table in the burial chamber. The body would first be washed with warm water. It was the custom, as verified in the New Testament, to prepare the corpse (after cleansing) with various types of aromatic spices. In the case of Christ's burial, 75 pounds of spices were used. One might regard this as substantial, but it was no great amount for a leader. For example, Gamaliel, grandson of the distinguished Jewish scholar Hillel, also was a contemporary of Jesus. Saul of Tarsus studied under him. When Gamaliel died, 86 pounds of spices were used in his burial. Josephus, the Jewish historian, records that when Herod died, it required 500 servants to carry the spices for his body, So the 75 pounds for Jesus was not at all unusual. After all the members of the body were straightened, the corpse was clothed in grave vestments made out of white linen. There could not be the slightest ornamentation or stain on the cloth. The grave linens were sewn together by women. No knots were permitted. For some this was to indicate that the mind of the dead was "disentangled of the cares of this life". To others, it indicated the continuity of the soul through eternity. No individual could be buried in fewer than three separate garments. At this point, the aromatic spices, composed of a fragrant wood powdered into a dust known as aloes, were mixed with a gummy substance known as myrrh. Starting at the feet, they would wrap to the armpits, put the arms down, then wrap to the neck. A separate piece was wrapped around the head. I would estimate an encasement weighing a total of between 92 and 95 pounds. John Chrysostom, in the fourth century A.D., commented that "the myrrh used was a drug which adheres so closely to the body that the graveclothes could not easily be removed." Very Large Stone Matthew records in his writings that a large stone was rolled against the front of the tomb (Matthew 27:60). Mark said the stone was extremely large (Mark 16:1-4). In today's language, he would have said, "Wow! Get a loada that rock!" Just how large was that "Wow, get a loada that rock" stone? In the Mark 16:4 portion of the Bezae manuscripts in the Cambridge Library in England, a parenthetical statement was found that adds, "and when He was laid there, he (Joseph) put against the tomb a stone which 20 men could not roll away." The significance of this statement is realized when one considers the rules for transcribing manuscripts. It was the custom that if a copier was emphasizing his own interpretation, he would write his thought in the margin an not include it within the text. One might conclude, therefore, that the insert in the text was copied from a text even closer to the time of Christ, perhaps, a first-century manuscript. The phrase, then could have been recorded by an eyewitness who was impressed with the enormity of the stone which was rolled against Jesus' sepulcher. One and a Half to Two Tons After my lecture at Georgia Tech, two engineering professors went on a tour of Israel with other Georgia Tech faculty members. They remembered the comments I had made about the large size of the stone. So, being engineers, they considered the type of stone used in the time of Christ and calculated the size needed to roll against a 4-1/2 to 5 foot doorway. Later, they wrote me a letter containing all the technical terms, but they put their conclusions in simple language on the back of it. They said a stone of that size would have to have had a minimum weight of 1-1/2 to two tons. No wonder Matthew and Mark said the stone was extremely large. One might ask, "If the stone were that big, how could Joseph move it into position in the first place? He simply gave it a push and let gravity do the rest. It had been held in place with a wedge as it sat in a groove or trench that sloped down to the front of the tomb. When the wedge was removed, the heavy circular rock just rolled into position. Roman Security Jewish officials panicked, because thousands were turning to Christ. To avoid a political problem, it was to the advantage of both the Romans and the Jews to make sure Jesus was put away for good. So the chief priest and Pharisees gathered together and said to Pilate, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again, ' Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first" (Matthew 27:63). Pilate said to them "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." An so "they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone" (verse 65). Some people would argue that Pilate said, "Look, you have your Temple police. You take your Temple police, and go make it secure." The Temple Police Now, if you want to say it's a Temple guard, you need to realize who made up that guard. It consisted of a group of 10 Levites who were placed on duty at different places at the Temple. The total number of men on duty was 270. This represented 27 units of 10 each. The military discipline of the Temple guard was quite good. In fact, at night, if the captain approached a guard member who was asleep, he was beaten and burned with his own clothes. A member of the guard also was forbidden to sit down or lean against something when he was on duty. A Roman Guard However, I am convinced it was the Roman guard that was placed at the grave of Christ to secure it. A.T. Robertson, noted Greek scholar, says this phrase is in the present imperative and can refer only to a Roman guard, and not the Temple police. According to him, Pilate literally said, "Have a guard." Robertson adds that the Latin form koustodia occurs as far back as the Oxyrhynchus papyrus in reference to the Roman guard. The Jews knew Pilate wanted to keep the peace, so they were sure he'd give them what they wanted. What was the Roman Guard? A Roman "custodian" did a lot more than care for a building. The word "custodian" represented the guard unit of the Roman Legion. This unit was probably one of the greatest offensive and defensive fighting machines ever conceived. One helpful source for understanding the importance of the Roman guard is Flavius Vegitius Renatus. A military historian, he lived several hundred years after the time of Christ when the Roman army started to deteriorate in its discipline. He wrote a manual to the Roman Emperor Valentinian to encourage him to instill the methods of offensive and defensive warfare used by the Romans during the time of Christ. Called The Military Institutes of the Romans, it is a classic today. Vegitius wanted to see the Roman armies restored to the efficiency an might which characterized them at the time of Christ. These armies were great because they were highly disciplined. He wrote, "Victory in war does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. We find that the Romans owed ... the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training, exact observation of discipline in their camps and unwearied cultivation of the other arts of war." There are two other excellent sources. At Indiana University, Dr. George Currie did his doctoral dissertation on the Roman custodian, and Dr. Smith edited a dictionary entitled, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, The Force of the Roman Guard These and other sources point out that the Roman guard was not a one-, two-, or three man force. Supercilious (dismissive, disdainful) pictures or the tomb of Jesus Christ show one or two men standing around with wooden spears an mini-skirts. That is really laughable. A Roman guard unit was a 4 to 16 man security force. Each man was trained to protect six feet of ground. The 16 men in a square of 4 on each side were supposed to be able to protect 36 yards against an entire battalion and hold it. Normally what they did was this: 4 men were placed immediately in front of what they were to protect. The other 12 were asleep in a semi-circle in front of them with their heads pointing in. To steal what these guards were protecting, thieves would first have to walk over those who were asleep. Every four hours, another unit of 4 was awakened, and those who had been awake went to sleep. They would rotate this way around the clock. Historian Dr. Paul Maier writes, "Peter would be guarded by four squads of four men each when imprisoned by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12), so sixteen would be a minimum number expected outside a prison. Guards in ancient times always slept in shifts, so it would have been virtually impossible for a raiding party to have stepped over all their sleeping faces without waking them." High Priest Offers Bribe Even Matthew records that it was a multi-man force when he wrote that "some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened" (Matthew 28:11). A critic at this point might say, "see, they came to the high priest. It shows that they were the Temple guard". The context is clear, however, that they came to the high priest because he had influence with the Roman authority and because it was the only possible way to save their necks. The high priest tried to bribe them (which would have been a mockery if they had been Temple police). He gave them money and told them what to tell the people. When the news reached Pilate, the high priest said he would keep them from being killed. Normally, they would receive the death penalty, because the story was to be that they had fallen asleep while guarding the tomb. It is significant that the governor had to be satisfied, because I have not been able to find any account in history - secular, Jewish or Christian - indicating that the Roman governor had anything at all to do with the Temple police. Even if the guard at the tomb had been made up of Temple police, the security would have been no less thorough. A Fighting Machine T.G. Tucker, in his book, Life in the Roman World of Nero and St. Paul, describes one of these Roman guards: Over his breast, and with flaps over the shoulders, he will wear a corset of leather covered with hoop-like layers, or maybe scales, of iron or bronze. On his head will be a plain pot like helmet, or skull cap, of iron. In his right hand he will carry the famous Roman pike. This is a stout weapon, over 6 feet in length, consisting of a sharp iron head fixed in a wooden shaft, and the soldier may either charge with it as a bayonet, or he may hurl it like a javelin and then fight at close quarters with his sword. On the left arm is a shield, which may be of various shapes. The shield in not only carried by means of a handle, but may be supported by a belt over the right shoulder. In order to be out of the way of the shield, the sword -- a thrusting rather than a slashing weapon, approaching 3 feet in length -- is hung at the right side by a belt passing over the left shoulder ... On the left side, the soldier wears a dagger at his girdle. Polybius, the Greek historian of the second century B.C., records that, in addition to all this, the men are adorned with a crown made of feathers and with three upright feathers, either purple or black, about a foot and a half high; when they add these on the head along with the other arms, the man appears twice as big as he really is, and his appearance is striking and terrifying to the enemy. The men of the lowest property classes also wear a bronze plate, 8 inches square, which they place in front of their chests and called the heart guard; this completes their armament. But those worth more than 10,000 drachmae, instead of wearing the heart guard, along with the rest of their equipment, wear a coat of mail. Roman Seal Matthew records that along with the guard they set a "seal on the stone"(Matthew 27:66). A.T. Robertson says this could be placed on the stone only in the presence of the Roman guards who were left in charge. Vegitius indicates the same thing. The purpose of this procedure was to prevent anyone from tampering with the grave's contents. After the guard inspected the tomb and rolled the stone in place, a cord was stretched across the rock. This was fastened at either end with sealing clay. Finally, the clay packs were stamped with the official signet of the Roman governor. A parallel to this is seen in Daniel: "And a stone was brought and laid over the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet ring and with the signet rings of his nobles, so that nothing might be changed in regard to Daniel" (Daniel 6:17). Purpose of the seal Henry Sumner Maine, a member of the Supreme Council of India, formerly regius professor of the civil law at the University of Camberidge, speaking on the legal authority attached to a Roman seal, said, "seals in antiquity were actually considered as a mode of authentication." To authenticate something simply means to prove that it is real or genuine. So this seal on Jesus' tomb was a public testimony that Jesus' body was actually there. In addition, because the seal was Roman, it verified the fact that His body was protected from vandals by nothing less than the power and authority of the Roman Empire. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law and power. Grave Robbers Warned In Nazareth, a marble slab was discovered with a very interesting inscription - a warning to grave robbers. It was written in Greek and says, "Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that grave and tombs remain perpetually undisturbed for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors or children or members of their house. If, however, anyone charges that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing or other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In case of violation I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charges of violation of sepulcher." Maier observes, "All previous Roman edicts concerning grave violation set only a large fine, and one wonders what presumed serious infraction could have led the Roman government to stiffen the penalty precisely in Palestine and to erect a notice regarding it specifically in Nazareth of the vicinity." It well could be a response to the commotion caused by Christ's resurrection. Facts to be Reckoned with. Now something happened. Something happened almost two thousand years ago that changed the course of history from B.C. (Before Christ) to A.D. (the Latin Anno Domini - the year of our Lord). That "something" was so dramatic it completely changed eleven men's lives, so that all but one died a martyr's death. That something was an empty tomb! An empty tomb that a 15 minute walk from the center of Jerusalem would have confirmed or disproved. Even after the two thousand years since that time, mankind hasn't forgotten the empty tomb nor the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ. If you wish to rationalize away the events surrounding Christ and His resurrection, you must deal with certain imponderables. In fact, you might say that both the Jews and the Romans outwitted themselves when they took so many precautions to make sure Jesus was dead and remained in the grave. These "security precautions" -- taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing and the guarding of Christ's tomb -- make it very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead! Consider these seven facts: Fact #1 -- Broken Roman Seal The first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men responsible. When they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. Your guts ran into your throat. So people feared the breaking of the seal. Even the disciples displayed signs of cowardice, and hid themselves. Fact #2 - The Empty Tomb Another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach Christ raised from the dead; they went right back to the city of Jerusalem where, if what they were teaching were false, their message would have been disproved. The resurrection could not have been maintained for a moment in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty. Dr. Paul Maier says, Where did Christianity first begin? To this the answer must be: "Only one spot on earth - the city of Jerusalem". But this is the very last place it could have started if Jesus's tomb remained occupied, since anyone producing a dead Jesus would have driven a wooden stake through the heart of an incipient Christianity inflamed by His supposed resurrection. What happened in Jerusalem seven weeks after the first Easter could have taken place only if Jesus' body were somehow missing from Joseph's tomb, for otherwise the Temple establishment, in its imbroglio (confused state) with the Apostles, would simply have aborted the movement by making a brief trip over to the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea and unveiling exhibit A. They did not do this, because they knew the tomb was empty. Their official explanation for it -- that the disciples had stolen the body -- was an admission that the sepulcher was indeed vacant. There are both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions that acknowledge an empty tomb. These sources range from the Jewish historian Josephus to a compilation of fifth- century Jewish writings called the Toledoth Jeshu. Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine." Gamaliel, who was a member of the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the Christian movement was of God (Acts 5:34-42); he could not have done this if the tomb had been occupied, or if the Sanhedrin had known the whereabouts of Christ's body. Even Justin Martyr in his Dialogue With Trypho relates that the Jerusalem authorities sent special representatives throughout the Mediterranean world to counteract the story of the empty tomb with the explanation that His followers stole the body. Why would the Jewish authorities bribe the Roman guard and propagate the "stolen body" explanation if the tomb was occupied? Historian Ron Sider concluded that: "If the Christians and their Jewish opponents both agreed that the tomb was empty, we have little choice but to accept the empty tomb as an historical fact." Fact #3 - Large Stone Moved On that Sunday morning, the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of that 1-1/2 to 2 ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mentioned the removal of the large stone. Up an Incline For example, in Matthew 27, it is said that a "large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb." Here the Greek word used for roll is kulio, meaning "to roll." Mark used the same root word kulio. However, in Mark 16, he added a preposition to explain the position of the stone after the resurrection. In Greek, as in English, to change the direction of a verb or to intensify it, you add a preposition. He added the preposition ana, which means "up or upward." So, anakulio can mean "to roll something up a slope or an incline." For Mark, then to have used that verb, there would have had to be a slope or an incline coming down to the front of that tomb. In fact, that stone was so far "up a slope" that Luke used the same root word kulio, but added a different preposition, apo. Apo can mean, according to the Greek lexicons, "a separation from," in the sense of "a distance from." Apokulio, then, means to roll one object away from another object in a sense of "separation" or "distance from it." Now they saw the stone moved away in a sense of distance from "what?" Let's go back to Mark 16. In Sunday morning, the women were coming to the tomb. You might say, "Wait a minute! Why were those women coming to the tomb Sunday morning?" One reason was to anoint the body over the graveclothes with a mixture of spices and perfume. Another might ask, "Why would they come since the Roman security unit was there guarding the grave?" That's quite simple. The guard did not examine the body and secure the sepulcher until Saturday afternoon. On Friday afternoon the women had watched as the body was prepared in a private burial area. They lived in the suburb of Bethany and therefore were not aware of the Roman and Jewish actions about putting extra security at the place of Christ's burial. Let's go back to Mark 16 again. The women are saying, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" Here, they used the Greek word for entrance. That's logical, isn't it? But, when they got there they said, "Who rolled the stone away from ...?" and here they changed the Greek word for "the entrance" to the word used for the entire massive sepulcher. Apokulio, then, means "away from" in the sense of at a "distance from the entire massive sepulcher." Picked Up and Carried In fact, the stone was in such a position up a slope away from the entire massive sepulcher that John (chapter 20) use a different Greek verb, airo, which (according to the Arndt and Gingrish Lexicon) means "to pick something up and carry it away." Now, I ask you , if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, then roll the stone over and steal the body, why would the have moved a 1-1/2 to 2 ton stone up a slope away from the entire massive sepulcher to such a position that it looked like someone had picked it up and carried it away? Those soldiers would have had to be deaf not to have heard that stone being moved. Fact #4 - Roman Guard Goes AWOL The Roman guard fled. They left their place of responsibility. This has to be explained away because the military discipline of the Romans was exceptionally good. Justin, in his Digest #49, mentions all offenses which required the penalty of death: a scout remaining with the enemy, desertion, losing of disposing of one's arms, disobedience in war time, going over the wall or rampart, starting a mutiny, refusing to protect an officer or deserting one's post, a drafted man hiding from service, murder, laying hands on a superior or insult to a general, leading flight when the example would influence others, betraying plans to the enemy, wounding a fellow soldier with a sword, disabling self or attempting suicide without reasonable excuse, leaving the night watch, breaking the centurion's staff or striking him when being punished, escaping guard house, and disturbing the peace. To the above, one can add "falling asleep." If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in duty, then lots were drawn to see who would be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Fear of Punishment One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes, then burned alive in a fire started with the garments. The entire unit certainly would not have fallen asleep with that threat hanging over their heads. The history of Roman discipline and security testifies to the fact that if the tomb had not been empty the soldiers never would have left their position, nor would they have gone to the high priest. The fear of the wrath of their superiors and the possibility of the death penalty meant they paid close attention to the most minute details of their job. Dr. George Curie, who studied carefully the military discipline of the Romans, with that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches." Dr. Bill White is in charge of the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem. His responsibilities have caused him to study quite extensively the resurrection and the events following the first Easter. White makes several critical observations about the Jewish authorities bribing the Roman guard. If the stone were simply rolled to one side of the tomb, as would be necessary to enter it, them they might be justified in accusing the men of sleeping at their posts, and in punishing them severely. If the men protested that the earthquake broke the seal and that the stone rolled back under the vibration, they would still be liable to punishment for behavior which might be labeled cowardice. But these responsibilities do not meet the case. There was some undeniable evidence which made it impossible for the chief priests to bring any charge against the guard. The Jewish authorities must have visited the scene, examined the stone, and recognized its position as making it humanly impossible for their men to have permitted its removal. No twist of human ingenuity could provide an adequate answer or scapegoat and so they were forced to bribe the guard and seek to hush things up. Fact #5 - Graveclothes Tell a Tale In a literal sense, the tomb was not actually empty. Instead, an amazing phenomenon occurred. After visiting the grave and seeing the stone rolled away, the women ran back and told the disciples. Then Peter and John took off running. John outran Peter, and upon arriving at the tomb he did not enter. Instead, he leaned over and looked in and say something so startling that he immediately believed. He looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain. There were graveclothes, in the form of a body, slightly caved in and empty -- like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That was enough to make a believer out of anybody! He never did get over it! The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb -- but the empty graveclothes, undisturbed in their form and position. Fact #6 -- Appearances of Christ Confirmed On several occasions, Christ appeared alive after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter. A Principle to Remember When studying an event in history, it is important to investigate whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the event were published. This is helpful to validate the accuracy of the published report. If the number is substantial, the event can be fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and in a week the police report turns out to be composed of fabricated lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it. In other words, when a book is written about an event, the accuracy of its contents can be validated if enough people are alive at the time it is published who have been either eyewitnesses or, or participants in, the events recorded. Several very important factors often are overlooked when investigating Christ's post- resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that first Sunday morning. Fifty Hours of Eyewitnesses One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul (1 Corinthians 15). The apostle appeals to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than five hundred people at one time. Paul reminds them that the majority of these people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Ewin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: What gives a special authority to the list [of witnesses] as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, "If you do not believe me, you can ask them." Let's take the more than five hundred witnesses who say Jesus alive after His death and burial and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of these five hundred people were to testify only six minutes each, including cross examination, you would have an amazing fifty hours of firsthand eyewitness testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you could well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history. Variety of People the second factor often overlooked is the variety of locations and people involved in Jesus' appearances. Professor Merrill C. Tenney of Wheaton College writes: It is note worthy that these appearances are not stereotyped. No two of them are exactly alike. The appearance to Mary Magdalene occurred in early morning; that to the travelers to Emmaus in the afternoon; and to the apostles in the evening, probably after dark. He appeared to Mary in the open air. Mary was alone when she saw Him; the disciples were together in a group; and Paul records that on one occasion He appeared to more than five hundred at one time (1 Corinthians 15:6). The reactions also were varied. Mary was overwhelmed with emotion; the disciples were frightened; Thomas was obstinately incredulous when told of the Lord's resurrection, but worshipped Him when He manifested Himself. Each occasion had its own peculiar atmosphere and characteristics, and revealed some different quality of the risen Lord. In no way can anyone say His appearances were stereotyped. Hostile Viewers A third factor very crucial to interpreting Christ's appearance is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced. Over and over again I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using this argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the eyewitness accounts -- but this line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul or Tarsus to have been a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. He despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers (Acts 8:1; 9:1-2; Philippians 3:5-6). For Paul it was a life shattering experience when appeared to him (Acts 9:3-6). Although Paul was not at the time a disciple, he later became one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few." Fact #7 - Women Saw Him First Another authenticating feature of the resurrection narrative is that the first appearances of the risen Christ were not to His disciples, but rather to women -- to Mary Magdalene and the other women. This must have been an embarrassment to the apostles, Christ's inner circle. They were likely quite jealous. According to Jewish principles of legal evidence women were invalid witnesses. They did not have a right to give testimony in a court of law. Unreliable Testimony Dr. Maier accurately observes that since the testimony of a woman was deemed unreliable, the "initial reaction of the Eleven was understandably one of suspicion and disbelief. Again, if the resurrection accounts had been manufactured .. women would never have been included in the story, at least, not as first witnesses." It Changed Their Lives The changed lives of those early Christian believers is one of the most telling testimonies to the fact of the resurrection. We must ask ourselves: What motivated them to go everywhere proclaiming the message of the risen Christ. Had there been visible benefits accruing to them from their efforts -- such as prestige, wealth or increased social status -- we might logically account for their actions. As a reward, however, for their wholehearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ", these early Christians were beaten, stoned, thrown to the lions, tortured, crucified, and subjected to every conceivable method of stopping them from talking. Yet they were the most peaceful of men, who physically forced their beliefs of on one. Rather they laid down their very lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message. Those Hardest to Convince There was the skeptical family of Jesus (John 7:1-5). His Brothers did not believe in Him. They were embarrassed to hear their brother say to the people, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me," and "I am the vine, you are the branches," and "I'm the shepherd, you are the sheep" (John 14:6; 15:5; 10:11). What would you do if your brother did that? There was James, His brother. He was found in the company of the Pharisees. James and his brothers mocked Jesus. However, after Jesus went to that degrading death on the cross disgracing the family, and was buried, where do we find those hardest to convince -- His own family? We find them in the upper room with the disciples waiting for the Holy Spirit to be sent (Acts 1:13-14). Now, since they mocked Him while He was alive, what happened in a matter of a few days to turn their lives upside down? James became a leader in the early church and wrote an epistle stating, "I James, a bond- servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ [his brother] ..." (James 1). Eventually, for the cause of Christ James died a martyr's death -- he was stoned. The best explanation I know is recorded by Paul: "Then He appeared to James" (1 Corinthians 15:7). His Cowardly Followers What about the fearful disciples of Jesus? When the authorities captured Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, "all the disciples left Him an fled" (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50). During Christ's trial, Peter went out and denied Him three times (John 18:15-27; Mark 14:66-72). After Christ was crucified, the fearful disciples hid themselves in an upper room and locked the doors (John 20:19). But something happened within days to totally change this group of cowardly followers into a bold band of enthusiasts who faced martyrdom without fear of hesitation. Peter, who had denied Jesus, was imprisoned for his persistence in preaching a "risen Christ" and later was himself crucified upside down. What happened? The most logical explanation is that the resurrected Jesus "appeared to Cephas [Peter] ... then to all the Apostles" (1 Corinthians 15:5-7). A Jewish Fanatic Converted And how about Paul, the religious persecutor of the Christians? This Jewish Fanatic so hated the followers of Christ that he obtained special permission to go to other cities and incarcerate Christ's disciples. He ravaged the church (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2; 22:3-5). But something happened to this persecutor. He turned from an antagonist to a protagonist of Jesus. He changed from a bitter interrogator of Christians to one of the greatest propagators of the Christian faith. The irony is that Paul began to confound the Jewish authorities "by proving Jesus is the Christ," the Son of God (Acts 9:22). He was eventually killed for his devotion to Christ. What happened? This historical explanation is Paul's statement that Jesus "appeared to me also" (1 Corinthians 15:8; Acts 9:3-22). It would be very difficult to explain the transformation of these men if the resurrection were not true. Professor Robert Grant says: "The origin of Christianity is almost incomprehensible unless such an event took place." A Resurrection Explains All the Facts Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf, a man who lectured for years on how to break down testimony and determine whether or not a witness is lying, concludes: It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths they asserted. A believer in Jesus Christ today can have the complete confidence, as did those first Christians, that his faith is based not on myth or legend but on the solid historical fact of the empty tomb and the risen Christ. The End Return to Jack's Home page

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745117

__label__cc

Canapeel I Don’t Like Mondays Tank Grrl! Vioxx and Ambulance Chasers October 4, 2004 Colin Over the last couple of days, Vioxx was pulled from the market — too many side effects. Not being one to miss an opportunity, Terry Crouppen and his group have started airing commercials aimed at those folks who might have taken Vioxx. They’re very CNN-esque, looking official with a crawler, overlays and big ol’ Terry (who has more guts — just listen to his commercials… or look at him for yourself, and make your own decision!) basically telling you that Vioxx was dangerous, and you might be due some money. In fact, Brown and Crouppen’s web site — which I’ve only first visited today — touts their expertise with personal injury, medical malpractice, work-related injury, dangerous drugs and devices, harmful chemical exposure and bad faith insurance. And, to encourage you further, there’s a whole scroller under the banner of legal news, chocked full of Vioxx-related fodder, along with stories about folks who have won “legal lotto” and been awarded huge sums of cash. Now, I’m in favor of making those responsible for wrong-doing to pay — that’s fair. However, I think there’s waaaaaay too many attorneys out there that seem to be trying to drum up the big dollar cases. Is there legitimacy in all those cases? Probably not. I’d bet, though, me and loads of others, will be paying for them for the rest of our lives. Previous PostInto the Wild Blue YonderNext PostOne Down, Ten to Go! can·a·peel (noun) ˈkan-ə-pēl – A meal with a lot of variety, where each participant finds and cooks their own food. These are the ramblings of Colin Wright, a sometimes funny, always obsessive photographer, beginning guitarist and technology nut, brought to you from the Heartland of America. I'm also a colon cancer survivor. Take it from me, if you get screened, or take early action on your symptoms, you can beat colon cancer! Search the ‘Peel Virtual Racing and Parkinson’s! Ghostwriters in the Sky Emergency Updates! A Slow 2017 Domain Hijinks Mutti on Ghostwriters in the Sky Mutti on Domain Hijinks Mutti on A Tale of Two Drobos Colin on I Don’t Like Mondays Running Blogs 50 After 40 Cupcakes and Miles Medal Slut Run Ginger Run Trekkie Lianne Wayback Machine Select Month April 2018 (1) January 2018 (2) November 2017 (1) October 2017 (1) July 2017 (1) April 2017 (2) March 2017 (4) February 2017 (3) January 2017 (2) December 2016 (1) November 2016 (7) October 2016 (2) September 2016 (4) August 2016 (6) July 2016 (2) June 2016 (6) May 2016 (4) April 2016 (4) March 2016 (8) February 2016 (5) January 2016 (9) December 2015 (9) November 2015 (13) October 2015 (9) September 2015 (10) August 2015 (10) July 2015 (10) June 2015 (7) May 2015 (5) March 2015 (7) February 2015 (4) January 2015 (8) December 2014 (6) November 2014 (2) October 2014 (3) September 2014 (3) August 2014 (2) July 2013 (3) April 2013 (3) March 2013 (3) January 2013 (1) December 2012 (2) October 2012 (1) September 2012 (1) August 2012 (3) July 2012 (6) June 2012 (2) April 2012 (1) March 2012 (3) November 2011 (1) October 2011 (3) September 2011 (2) August 2011 (3) July 2011 (10) June 2011 (2) May 2011 (8) April 2011 (3) March 2011 (4) February 2011 (12) January 2011 (6) December 2010 (2) November 2010 (14) October 2010 (9) September 2010 (18) August 2010 (14) July 2010 (13) June 2010 (21) May 2010 (25) April 2010 (28) March 2010 (26) February 2010 (24) January 2010 (25) December 2009 (7) November 2009 (7) October 2009 (8) September 2009 (16) August 2009 (17) July 2009 (9) June 2009 (7) May 2009 (21) April 2009 (11) March 2009 (8) February 2009 (16) January 2009 (18) December 2008 (8) November 2008 (14) October 2008 (7) September 2008 (17) August 2008 (8) July 2008 (6) June 2008 (23) May 2008 (9) April 2008 (8) March 2008 (16) February 2008 (12) January 2008 (12) December 2007 (5) November 2007 (5) October 2007 (21) September 2007 (13) August 2007 (23) July 2007 (19) June 2007 (12) May 2007 (11) April 2007 (19) March 2007 (12) February 2007 (14) January 2007 (22) December 2006 (16) November 2006 (14) October 2006 (17) September 2006 (16) August 2006 (19) July 2006 (25) June 2006 (27) May 2006 (32) April 2006 (24) March 2006 (21) February 2006 (15) January 2006 (17) December 2005 (19) November 2005 (24) October 2005 (30) September 2005 (19) August 2005 (24) July 2005 (15) June 2005 (23) May 2005 (20) April 2005 (25) March 2005 (15) February 2005 (22) January 2005 (20) December 2004 (12) November 2004 (22) October 2004 (31) September 2004 (30) August 2004 (24) July 2004 (19) June 2004 (10) May 2004 (15) April 2004 (21) March 2004 (17) February 2004 (23) January 2004 (28) December 2003 (23) November 2003 (16) October 2003 (11) September 2003 (15) August 2003 (11) July 2003 (3) June 2003 (3) May 2003 (2) March 2003 (12) February 2003 (11) January 2003 (2) December 2002 (2) November 2002 (5) October 2002 (1) September 2002 (1) August 2002 (7) July 2002 (4) June 2002 (2) May 2002 (7) April 2002 (2) Apple Existence Blatant Commercialism Fresh Art Geek-Speak Katy Trail Bike Stories

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745120

__label__wiki

Butlins Memories | Home | Forum | Ayr | Barry Island | Bognor Regis | Clacton | Filey | Minehead | Mosney | Pwllheli | Skegness Bognor Sections Bognor - Your Memories | Bognor Over The Years | Bognor Postcards | Bognor Photos | Bognor Maps | Bognor Entertainment Guides | Bognor Newspaper Articles | Multimap Aerial View Opened in 1960, the Bognor camp was the first of the postwar camps to be built in mainland Britain. Occupying 60 acres it was located a short distance east of this popular holiday town on the south coast of England. Flooding caused by heavy rain had made building difficult so when the first campers arrived the camp was not quite finished. They were offered alternative accommodation at Clacton, many took up the offer but a few also stayed and helped fix doors and window frames. Billy Butlin gave each camper a free bottle of Champagne. When completed it could accommodate around 5,000 campers and another 5,000 day visitors. After escaping the first round of closures in the early 1980s the camp underwent a £16 million facelift in 1987 and was renamed Southcoast World. In common with the other Butlin sites the investment included new and updated accommodation as well as a new indoor water complex. Bognor also survived the second round of closures (despite many local rumours) and is now one of only three camps left in the Butlin's empire. A second investment program was announced in 1998 and a further £45 million was pumped into the site. In common with Skegness and Minehead, the centrepiece of the new development was a large undercover structure known as the Skyline Pavilion. This enables many of the facilities to be placed under cover and allows for year-round operation. The refurbishment also included updating the chalets ("apartments") and giving the famous Redcoats a new designer outfit. The centre was re-launched by pop star Ronan Keating in May 1999. Following on from the Bourne Leisure purchase of Butlins from Rank in 2000, the Bognor centre has continued to change and be gradually updated. In 2005, further work was undertaken to update the camp with the introduction of the Shoreline Hotel. £10 million was spent on the hotel and its surrounding landscaped gardens. With big porthole windows, and a ship-like prow, the four-floor hotel was designed with a slightly nautical feel. The hotel provides 160 rooms of three different grades, each including hi-tech equipment and luxurious furniture. Guests staying at the hotel can enjoy the sea-views, room service, modern bistro restaurant and cocktail bar, in addition to the regular Butlins facilities. The addition of the "Shoreline" unfortunately meant that part of the York building was demolished to make way for a car park to replace the one on the site of the new hotel. Shortly after the opening of the hotel, the Green Baize snooker room opposite was converted to the Shoreline Conference centre, marking a new direction for Butlins. Following on from the success of the Shoreline, the Ocean Hotel opened in August 2009 on the site of the old boating lake. The Ocean Hotel features a disco lift, allowing guests to travel between floors in style, and a Spa which features, amongst other things, a snow cave and a disco shower. Building work for the Ocean Hotel included the demolition of the former reception building and of the outside pool, changing the look of the front of the camp and with the sports green being landscaped in the process. With both hotels proving popular, construction of the Wave Hotel began in 2011, with the hotel opening in July 2012. Chalets in Oyster Bay (formerly West Camp) have been demolished to make way for this hotel with the eventual plan being that all Oyster Bay chalets will be replaced with hotels. If you have any further information or images of the Bognor Regis camp then please e-mail contact@butlins-memories.com

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745121

__label__wiki

Notices & News Type of Church Architecture & Fittings Funerals & Burials Details of the painting remnant mounted in the south wall of the Chancel In 1977, when the plaster ceiling in the nave was removed and the 15th century roof timbers were exposed, there were found two damaged pieces of boarding, on which there was some Mediaeval painting, dated as belonging to the first half of the 15th century. These two pieces were carefully examined, pieced together, cleaned and treated with preservative. They are now displayed on the south wall of the church for all to see. There is little doubt, that they are the upper portion of a ‘Doom’ or ‘Judgement’ painting, which was a favourite subject in the Mediaeval era and such paintings on timber boarding, were particularly common in the 15th century. Even though only this fragment remains, there is a clear ‘cross nimbus’ in the centre, which in ‘Iconography, only appears in the Halo surrounding the head of Christ. The upper part of the head of Christ, showing only His hair, is visible. At each end of the board, can be seen the heads of two winged Angels. The Angel on the left holds the spear which pierced the side of Christ, while the Angel on the right, is holding one of the nails. Running along the back is the upper member of a ‘Tau Cross’, while to the left, there is seen the ‘Crown of Thorns’. The remainder of the picture must be surmised and for evidence we must look at ‘Doom Paintings’ of the same period in other churches. The central figure of Christ was probably shown as seated in Judgement on a rainbow; surrounded by angels bearing the symbols of the Passion. Below this would be depicted on one side, the souls of the Saved, being escorted by angels into the Heavenly mansions, while on the other, would be the souls of the Lost, being driven by demons into the jaws of Hell. The ‘Doom Paintings’ were intended as visual aids for those who could not read or write and served as a reminder to them, of the great Judgement Day at which time, every soul would be judged. They were always sited high up between the Nave and the Chancel; always in view of the worshipping community. The discovery of part of a ‘Doom Painting’ in Buttsbury Church, although merely a fragment, nevertheless serves to remind us that in Pre-Reformation days, the interiors of our Parish Churches were ablaze with colour. Walls were covered with mural paintings; windows aglow with stained glass, while screens, roofs, fonts and other furnishings, were brilliantly coloured and gilded, all executed by dedicated craftsmen to the Honour and Glory of God; the best that they could give. Copyright © St Mary's Church Buttsbury Essex - See website terms of us St Mary's is part of a benefice that includes St Margaret's Margeratting and St Giles Mountnessing

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745122

__label__cc

A guide to ORBX products (Global, Vector, openLC...) You often ask about ORBX products. How they fit into FSX or P3D?… http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Capture-2.jpg 774 1180 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2017-08-08 14:58:592018-12-26 22:09:09A guide to ORBX products (Global, Vector, openLC...) P3D & FSX addons for 2017 My choice of add-ons for Flight Simulator X and Prepar3d. 2017. http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/fsx-1.jpg 1017 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2017-08-01 15:12:362017-08-01 15:12:36P3D & FSX addons for 2017 Perfect PC for FSX and P3D (Jan. 2017) How to build a perfect PC for FSX and P3D? Look at my suggestions for a dream PC and for a budget version. http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/perfect-pc.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2017-01-12 13:46:002018-03-12 09:55:54Perfect PC for FSX and P3D (Jan. 2017) vasFMC foolproof installation manual vasFMC - foolproof installation manual. How to install vasFMC to be sure that it will work properly. http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/vasfmc11.jpg 456 640 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2016-04-27 01:48:042018-12-26 22:09:10vasFMC foolproof installation manual Perfect PC for FSX and P3D (spring 2016) http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/perfect-px.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2016-03-21 20:20:352018-03-12 09:53:05Perfect PC for FSX and P3D (spring 2016) FFTF - (not) a cure for FSX blurries (FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION) How FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION can help you with blurries in FSX and why it's not a good idea to use this tweak. Optimize your HDD first! http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/fsx-1-1.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2015-12-09 17:52:562019-01-06 21:52:34FFTF - (not) a cure for FSX blurries (FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION) FSX and P3D Scenery Add-ons Explained - Guide Mesh, vector, textures, sceneries, area sceneries, photosceneries... It's confusing, isn't it? My Guide to FSX/P3D scenery add-ons. http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/37.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2015-12-02 14:00:472015-12-02 14:00:47FSX and P3D Scenery Add-ons Explained - Guide FSX Scenery Library order (ORBX Global) How to arrange Scenery Library entries in Flight Simulator X? What should be on top and what needs to be lower - especially when ORBX FTX Global + Vector and openLC are installed. http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fsx-12.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2015-11-28 01:12:032017-08-08 12:25:44FSX Scenery Library order (ORBX Global) SmallPartRejectRadius - fix disappearing traffic in FSX Steam If you experienced disappearing traffic in FSX:SE - I have an easy fix for you! SmallPartRejectRadius will prevent planes vanishing and popping in 0.3-0.5 mile distance. http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fsx-11.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2015-11-27 20:35:142017-05-02 22:15:33SmallPartRejectRadius - fix disappearing traffic in FSX Steam mklink /j - useful tool for moving FS files If you need to store files on a different drive (for example move ORBX out of FSX folder) - mklink may help you set up a symbolic link. How to use it? http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fsx-1.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2015-11-19 13:50:552015-11-19 13:56:35mklink /j - useful tool for moving FS files Clean Reinstall of FSX How to completely remove Flight Simulator X from your system. Use this procedure before installing standalone FSX Steam Edition. http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Capture-e1449607824904.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2015-11-16 19:05:292015-12-08 20:50:33Clean Reinstall of FSX Moon, roads, rocks and trees - freeware for FSX & P3D Another set of improved textures for FSX and P3D. Moon, roads, railways, rivers, rocks and forests in High Definition and for free! http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Freeware-textures.jpg 800 1920 Wojciech Przybylski http://c-aviation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CalypteAviation.png Wojciech Przybylski2015-11-14 18:29:212015-11-14 18:29:21Moon, roads, rocks and trees - freeware for FSX & P3D

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745123

__label__cc

Mixing lettuce varieties could help provide protection against the chain reactions of free radicals, molecules that can cause cell damage and generate various diseases, suggests a study. The findings, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, said that mixing lettuce, one of the indispensable vegetables in the Mediterranean diet, could be a good idea as not all lettuce varieties have the same antioxidant effect. The researchers from the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) in Spain and the University of Pisa in Italy analysed the compounds of three lettuce varieties: the green-leaf ‘Batavia’, the semi-red-leaf ‘Marvel of Four Seasons’, and the red-leaf ‘Oak Leaf’. Using Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) techniques, they were able to observe the behaviour of the speed (kinetics) of the antioxidant compounds of each variety. The results showed that the green-leaf lettuce contains water-soluble, antioxidant compounds that act at a slow and intermediate speed, the red-leaf one has compounds with intermediate and rapid kinetics, and the semi-red-leaf one has three kinds of compounds, with a rapid, intermediate and slow speed. “The fact that there are compounds that act at different speeds does not mean that some are better or worse than others,” said Usue Perez-Lopez, researcher at UPV/EHU. It is also important that our bodies should acquire foods with antioxidants that have slower kinetics so that the latter will continue to act over a longer period of time. “That is why people say that it is very interesting to mix different types of lettuce because they have different, complementary characteristics,” Perez-Lopez added. Free radicals harm our body by causing, in the best of cases, ageing and, in the worse, serious diseases. Lettuce is rich in antioxidants, as it contains compounds like phenolic acids, flavonoids, anthocyanins, and vitamins A and C, among other things, the researchers said. Diet soda increases belly fat: Study Why regular exercise is good for health More Life Style All you need to know about organic foods Food and exercise tips for summer slim down

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745127

__label__cc

Home / Other News / Inside Copenhagen’s race to be the first carbon-neutral city | The Guardian Inside Copenhagen’s race to be the first carbon-neutral city | The Guardian Green growth and ‘hedonistic sustainability’ have helped keep the public on board as the Danish capital seeks to reach its goal by 2025 – and so far it’s all going according to plan Derek Robertson in Copenhagen Last modified on Thu 17 Oct 2019 13.19 BST “We call it hedonistic sustainability,” says Jacob Simonsen of… [Read More] Added on October 19, 2019 by CamdenCyclist Green growth and ‘hedonistic sustainability’ have helped keep the public on board as the Danish capital seeks to reach its goal by 2025 – and so far it’s all going according to plan Derek Robertson in Copenhagen Last modified on Thu 17 Oct 2019 13.19 BST “We call it hedonistic sustainability,” says Jacob Simonsen of the decision to put an artificial ski slope on the roof of the £485m Amager Resource Centre (Arc), Copenhagen’s cutting-edge new waste-to-energy power plant. “It’s not just good for the environment, it’s good for life.” Skiing is just one of the activities that Simonsen, Arc’s chief executive, and Bjarke Ingels, its lead architect, hope will enhance the latest jewel in Copenhagen’s sustainability crown. The incinerator building also incorporates hiking and running trails, a street fitness gym and the world’s highest outdoor climbing wall, an 85-metre “natural mountain” complete with overhangs that rises the full height of the main structure. It’s all part of Copenhagen’s plan to be net carbon-neutral by 2025. Even now, after a summer that saw wildfires ravage the Arctic Circle and ice sheets in Greenland suffer near-record levels of melt, the goal seems ambitious. In 2009, when the project was formulated, it was positively revolutionary. “A green, smart, carbon-neutral city,” declared the cover of the climate action plan, before detailing the scale of the challenge: 100 new wind turbines; a 20% reduction in both heat and commercial electricity consumption; 75% of all journeys to be by bike, on foot, or by public transport; the biogas-ification of all organic waste; 60,000 sq metres of new solar panels; and 100% of the city’s heating requirements to be met by renewables. link to original article Filed under: Other News

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745129

__label__wiki

The mimicry of AI: from the knowledge of images of the world to the generation of possibilities 2018 / English, Imagination artificielle The growing media debate about AI often takes the form of opposition between those who believe it will be able to reproduce and even surpass its human model and others who assert that human intelligence is by nature irreducible to its automation. This dialectic between the two seems unsatisfactory as the arguments are so interchangeable and hide, on both sides, the conditions of possibilities of their own elaboration. Between solutionism and anthropocentrism, a pas de deux is elaborated, leaving unthinking what should be thought: why do we apprehend AI according to a mimetic model? Moreover, the fact of conceiving the AI as an Alien intelligence which would have no relation with the human being and which could surprise us so much that it would remain inaccessible to us according to the image the black box (Minsky), only inverts and repeats the naive mimicry in something ineffable. The issue of AI mimicry seems self-evident because it is not clarified. My objective would not be to develop in its entirety the question of the mimicry that runs through history, but simply to point out certain salient points for future work by stressing that mimesis is also a philosophical and artistic question. Mimicry poses an original and a copy. It is a reproductive act that contains a part of repetition and a part of singularization. Mimicry is the balance between these two sides. By applying it to AI, we assume that technology in general is mimetic in the sense that it is instrumental and at the service of the human being who is its model. The technique would be a somatic extension and exteriorization. To consider it as an autonomous singularity is only an inversion of this instrumental and anthropological conception. Moreover, mimicry is not only about the artificial, but also about intelligence. If we think we are talking about the first perhaps it is to hide the fact that the reasoning concerns the second. Indeed, classical philosophy has set as its objective the intelligence to give access to reality and to unify the chaotic diversity of perceptions in an understandable form. Between disorganized matter and unified form a good part of metaphysics is played out (Derrida, Simondon). Now, in the first edition of the CRP, Kant finds the principle of this unification in the transcendental imagination. The movement from intelligence to imagination is a fundamental movement, because if the unity of the concepts of intelligence comes from the ability to produce images (according to Kantian categorization of reproductive and productive images) it is because imagination is the self-affection of the unit taking itself for its own object. Unity is not internal to what is perceived, the world, but is in subjectivity and in particular in its relationship to the time when the sequence of the now converges through the unified experience of that sequence. This self-affection of time, which bears the name of transcendental imagination, allows us to understand that if intelligence is reproductive it is only because it forgets its imaginary foundation which is productive. In this sense, the reference of language before indicating the world, indicates a transcendental experience of imagination. This problem is strongly embodied in recent research in the field of NRNs and GANs. Indeed, one of the first objectives of these so-called artificial intelligences was to give machines the possibility to recognize the world in the form of images. For example, machines could distinguish a bird from other objects in an image. However, this faculty of cutting an object on a background, of sensitive (re)knowledge and intelligence with the world was quickly articulated with the generation. What do you mean? Recognizing a bird was also about having the ability to generate a bird (this relationship is not technical, it is simply factual in the order of technical development). This bird was possible in the sense that it is different from all the birds present in the machine’s database (reproductive memory) and could be recognized as possibly belonging to it (mimetic memory as a step towards the productive imagination). Thus, intelligence as the ability to detect the presence of a bird in an image, that is, to form units against a background of disorganization, is linked to the ability to imagine possible birds because a network of neurons does not recognize the bird according to a preliminary morphological model in the order of definition and then extension, but according to a prediction. The software predicts if it can be a bird because it fights against itself between a generator and a discriminator reintroducing the margin of error into the system. It is therefore in the order of predicting what is possible, not describing what is necessary. It could not give an exhaustive definition of the bird, but producing possible birds, it can practically detect them in an image of the world. We recognize something because we are able to produce it imaginatively, even in its absence. Imagination does not produce this or that bird belonging for example to a particular species. By producing a bird that does not exist, it produces a possible bird and paves the way for recognition of all birds. The fact that knowledge of NRNs is based on generation is analogous to the fact that intelligence is based on imagination and that is why there is some absurdity in requiring the machine to understand the world. The machine recognizes the bird without knowing what the bird is as essence. Rather, it generates the possibility. It is therefore understandable why the dialectic between the two current positions about AI veils the fact that the real debate is not about the artificial, but about intelligence. They presuppose that what is at stake is always and again intelligence and they forget a blind angle of reason which is the relationship between the reproductive imagination, i.e. intra-mundane and the productive imagination, i.e. possible or infra-mundane. By passing from the paradigm of artificial intelligence to that of artificial imagination, we allow ourselves to think about the conditions of possibility of discourse and we no longer so clearly separate the technological from the anthropological. We penetrate the grey area between the two by understanding that ImA is as much the ability of machines to generate possible images as our own ability to imagine this imagination of machines. In this sense, the production of images is no longer a regional question, it is at the foundation of the transcendental unity of all possible experience and the artistic production that has made it, throughout history, its fundamental object, then takes on a singular dimension.

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745131

__label__cc

Peter Zamora of MALDEF Takes Job on Capitol Hill Friday was Peter Zamora's last day as the Washington regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Zamora sent me a brief e-mail saying he's accepted a job as the senior education counsel for U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico. I mention Zamora's job change on this blog because he has been one of the most prominent voices among nonprofit advocacy organizations speaking about English-language learners at various education meetings in the nation's capital. On behalf of MALDEF, he has supported the No Child Left Behind law's current requirements (and U.S. Department ... Language-Learning Blog Carnival Has Been Posted Nik Peachy has published online the latest edition of the blog carnival for teaching English-language learners. One of the sites he selected that relates the most to the education of ELLs in primary and secondary schools in the United States (the subject of this blog) is a post, "The Best Sites for K-12 Intermediate English-Language Learners," by Larry Ferlazzo, who founded this particular carnival. Lindsay Clandfield also has an interesting post, "Six computer games to use in an English-language classroom." Peachy includes in his edition of the language-learning carnival criteria for what makes for a good blog post: informative, complete, ... May 14 Webinar on 'Best Practices' for ELLs in High School The National High School Center in Washington will host a Webinar on research-based methods for educating ELLs in high school. A school principal and two researchers will talk about "best practices" for educating ELLs and how these practices can be supported by policies at the district, state, and national levels. The event will be held on Thursday, May 14, from 2 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. Eastern Time. Click here for more details. While the question of how to improve high schools for ELLs is getting more attention in education circles (see this earlier post of mine), I ... May 26 Webinar at WestEd On Using Stimulus Funds for ELLs WestEd is sponsoring several free webinars about the education goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. One of them will feature members of the English Language Learner Working Group, a group of researchers who have made recommendations for how states and school districts can use federal stimulus funds to improve schooling for ELLs. That webinar will take place on Tuesday, May 26, from 10:30 a.m. to noon Pacific Time. For more details, scroll down to the last event publicized here. Federal education officials have included one example of how to use stimulus funds for ELLs in a ... Want to Ask/Say Something More About Assessing ELLs? By Mary Ann Zehr April 9, 2009 at 3:09 PM I received more questions and comments for today's chat with Margo Gottlieb about assessing ELLs than I could use during the hourlong event. (Find a transcript of the chat here.) Gottlieb told me that if anyone feels his or her voice wasn't heard or topic wasn't addressed, she's willing to respond to questions by e-mail at [email protected] One topic that was really hot on the chat was how to tell whether an English-language learner has a learning disability. If you'd like to weigh in on this or add to the chat discussion in some way, please use the ... Duncan Doesn't Mention ELLs While Visiting Bilingual School By Mary Ann Zehr April 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan focused on early childhood education, not the needs of English-language learners, while visiting the Oyster-Adams Bilingual School yesterday, according to my colleague Christina Samuels, who reported on the press conference there. Samuels told me this morning she can't recall that he made any mention of ELLs. That's despite the fact he was visiting a school that gives instruction in both English and Spanish to all students, including many ELLs. He could have worked ELLs into the conversation in a number of ways, but didn't. I'm puzzled why the Obama administration seems to be ... Chat Today on Assessing ELLs at 2 p.m. Eastern Time By Mary Ann Zehr April 9, 2009 at 8:51 AM Margo Gottlieb, the lead developer for the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment, or WIDA, consortium, will be answering questions about assessing English-language learners today in a chat. I'll be the moderator. Find more details here.... Boston Superintendent Names New Director of ELLs Superintendent Carol R. Johnson of Boston Public Schools announced today that she's chosen a new director of programs for English-language learners. The new director is Eileen de los Reyes, who served as a program director for the school system from 2002-05. She then led a team responsible for program and professional development for ELLs. She's also been a faculty member for the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Goddard College. (A source tells me the ELL director position had been open for months.) The press release says that Johnson has selected de los Reyes "to reform education of English-language learners ... Who Are Miriam Flores and Miriam Flores? By Mary Ann Zehr April 7, 2009 at 12:54 PM After nearly a decade of reporting about Flores v. Arizona, a long-running federal court case concerning funding for ELL programs in Arizona, I finally interviewed the Flores women who are plaintiffs in the case. I talked with Miriam Flores, the parent, a few weeks ago in Nogales, Ariz. I later interviewed her daughter, who has the same name and lives in Tucson, by telephone. They contend that programs for ELLs were deficient and underfunded during the years that the younger Miriam Flores attended schools in Nogales—and still are. The young Miriam is now 22 and a student at the ... What COULD Arne Duncan Say About ELLs at a Press Conference? It's not easy these days to get insight into the Obama Administration's priorities for English-language learners. But maybe U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will fill us in a bit more during his press conference, scheduled for 10 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow at the Oyster-Adams Bilingual School here in the Washington area. The preK-8 school provides all instruction through dual language programs, in which students who are native speakers of English and students who are native speakers of Spanish learn both languages in the same classrooms. The school always has a waiting list for students who want to ...

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745137

__label__wiki

On the air: jazz takes a hit; is variety a lost cause on radio? This is the first week of being jazzless on a summer day now that WGLT-FM 89.1/103.5, the Bloomington-Normal public radio station, has gone to news-talk throughout the day. As we’ve noted before, the station decided to push its jazz programming to the evening based on research with listeners, folks that apparently expressed an interest to hear even more news and talk than the station had already been providing. Station manager Bruce Bergethon said he didn’t take the decision to whack daytime jazz lightly. He’s been at the station for the 20 years that the outlet has been presenting jazz so this isn’t a case of someone coming in and rearranging things. While news fans win, the big losers in all this are listeners who enjoyed the free-form, uplifting music that WGLT has provided over the years, blending new and old jazz artists in what had been a singularly distinctive radio format. You can’t say that now. I won’t go so far as to call WGLT just another NPR outlet because the station, not unlike WCBU 89.9 in Peoria, has an outstanding news team. But it no longer provides a daytime sanctuary for the central Illinois listening public on weekdays. The fact is that WGLT had a superior daytime product, particularly when Laura Kennedy or John Norton were on the air. What you had with those two was the perfect blend of music and talk, of entertainment and information, that you just don’t find on the air anymore. Oh, you can get still get jazz on WGLT. The evenings provide programs and there’s a 24-7 jazz stream on the station’s website but it taint the same. There are countless jazz jukeboxes to experience online but the spontaneity and involvement that Kennedy/Norton provided isn’t there. Mike Reay, president at Advanced Music Partners, a Peoria radio group, doubts whether you’ll see a commercial station try to fill WGLT’s shoes. Reay helped run a smooth jazz format on Peoria radio a number of years ago that, while providing a hit with some advertisers, didn’t draw a large enough audience to continue, he said. “We were a single station at the time,” he said of the smooth jazz operation. Now with station groups, it’s tougher for more diverse formats to get traction, said Reay, suggesting that the “tried and true” approach wins out when you’re working the bottom line. I can’t help but wonder why a little variety couldn’t work, however. Looking at the line-up of Peoria FM music stations, I see repetition: two contemporary hits stations, four classic hits/rock outlets and three country operations. Thankfully, we have WWCT-FM 99.9 that plays a wide variety of rock (that’s one of Reay’s AMP stations, by the way) but that’s about it when it comes to local variety. Here’s a suggestion (and this isn’t just because I covered an event at Maui Jim’s today), why not a format called the Island where you’d play Buffett, Beach Boys, surf music, “Blue Hawaii,” Wes Montgomery, a little reggae, maybe some Latin sounds, etc? I’m sorry to keep bringing this up but I think we need a station to relax to and I can’t be the only one who might tune in. Come to the Island! Author Steve TarterPosted on August 6, 2013 October 17, 2013 Categories MediaLeave a comment on On the air: jazz takes a hit; is variety a lost cause on radio? CUB looks for best energy song The Citizens Utility Board usually is usually involved with fighting utility rate increases or warning us about telephone scams so it’s a change of pace when they come up with a contest for best “energy song.” The payoff is one month of free electricity (up to $100) for a randomly selected participant who votes and enters the contest by Aug. 15. Participants can vote on and /or submit a video of any song with lyrics that mention an energy-related word or topic at CUB’s Facebook page, www.facebook.com/cubillinois. Click on the “Energy Songs” tab. In early voting, Eddy Grant’s 1982 hit, “Electric Avenue,” was in the lead, followed by another 1980s classic, “The Power of Love,” by Huey Lewis and the News, and MGMT’s 2008 song, “Electric Feel.” Never one to turn away from a list, here’s my top five: 1–“Powerhouse.” You’ve probably heard this Raymond Scott tune dozens of times if you’ve ever watched any Warner Brothers’ cartoons. 2–“Telephone Line” by ELO. 3–“Wichita Lineman” by Glen Campbell. “I hear you singing in the line.” 4–“So Very Hard to Go” by Tower of Power. 5–“Revolution #9” by Beatles. “Turn me on, dead man.” Raymond Scott, composer of ‘Powerhouse” Author Steve TarterPosted on July 31, 2013 October 17, 2013 Categories Energy/Transportation, MediaLeave a comment on CUB looks for best energy song "Mars Attacks:" far-out trading cards from 1962 Mars just sits out there in the solar system, waiting. It’s a planet that’s up to something. We all know that. Just look at how it’s viewed in our media: “War of the Worlds,” “Angry Red Planet” and, lest we forget, those “Mars Attacks” trading cards. The cards had nothing to do with Tim Burton’s 1996 film by the same name but were published in 1962 by Topps, the baseball card folks, who apparently decided to turn their hand at pop culture topics. Complaints that the cards were too violent (one card depicted an alien zapping a dog while a youngster screamed in horror) brought the grand experiment to a premature halt. So now, like everything else, the limited-edition printing has become a collector’s items (a mint set is valued at $25,000, according to the Wall Street Journal). Focusing on Mars comes as no surprise since the planet has been a fictional focal point ever since H.G. Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs (“A Princess on Mars”) and Ray Bradbury (“Martian Chronicles”) looked skyward with pen in hand. There was Orson Welles’ infamous 1938 radio show, of course, along with pop songs (such as “Martian Hop” by the Ran-Dells (1963), movies, TV shows and even poetry (“The News from Mars” by Wendy Battin (1991). But trading cards made our preoccupation with Martians something special. Frankly, we need more such ideas for trading cards. It may be too late for CD and DVD promotions but special card sets might have spurred sales. After all, can’t you just see how effective “Walking Dead” trading cards would be, sealed up in some cereal box? To see a set of "Mars Attacks" trading cards:http://www.retrocrush.com/archive/marsattacks/default.htm Author Steve TarterPosted on November 6, 2012 December 30, 2014 Categories MediaLeave a comment on "Mars Attacks:" far-out trading cards from 1962

cc/2020-05/en_head_0068.json.gz/line745139