PREAMBLE

This episode was not planned. It’s an impromptu response to the meeting that Three Rivers Council held on Monday evening, March 10, 2025, where the application for building permits submitted by the Great Wisdom Buddhist Institute (GWBI) was approved.

It should not have been approved. 

What happened at Three Rivers Council meeting a few nights ago can only be described as a kind of micro-tyranny posing as “local democracy”. 

The way the Mayor read from script at the outset of the meeting (in advance of 4 speakers being called to the microphone, who, one after another, spoke to the GWBI building permit issue with insight and passion) declared boldly that Council adhered to the highest ethical standards regarding transparency and citizen engagement, and demanded things be absolutely “civil” and respectful, etc., which was, of course, followed to a “tee” in outward appearance by each and ever one of them, as they gazed attentively at each of the four residents, displaying furrowed foreheads, with apparent sympathetic connection at times, with the really serious concerns raised.

They were all polite, quiet and attentive, like parents would patiently endure a pre-teen making his best case for not being deserving of the prescribed discipline; yet, despite all the civility, when the kid finally hits his “therefore” conclusion and stops his completely uninterrupted speech, those same parents listening calmly and patiently abruptly say: “O.k. mister, it’s back to your room!” 

That’s what council did to those four, poor, intervenors:

Civilized tyranny…that’s all that is! An oxymoronic phrase to be sure! To think that tyranny could ever be “civilized”. It just presents itself as such, while diligently hiding as much of the ugly, unethical and undemocratic stuff as possible.

That duplicity has dire consequences for democracy when employed in real life, as it obviously was at the Three Rivers Council meeting, because the really important issues and concerns brought to the attention of councillors were not even discussed…not one of them!

Those four residents who spoke were intellectually “water-boarded” with all that ethical eloquence and assurance of being taken seriously before going to the mic, brainwashed to believe what they were about to say was actually going to mean something; that it would possibly influence the outcome of the vote.

Councillors not only “didn’t address any of the issues,” they went beyond the “call of mutiny” by voting down a thoughtful Motion pointing out that more was needed to be known, that citizens had a right to know, and councillors didn’t even have the answers to those questions themselves, so the Motion called for a true public consultation to be held. I’ll leave further discussion of those issues for Part 2.

I regard “civil tyranny” as that obnoxious type of politics were politeness and “feelings” of being both privileged, powerful and protected seem to reign as the dominant spirit and mind-set, and it seems evident in so many who are, indeed, “elected democratically”.

They believe they get to do exactly what they want once that happens, i.e, they get elected, and proceed to serve their own personal interests and promote their personal biases when able, i.e., when they can get a majority vote on a Motion from fellow councillors, no matter how outrageous, and/or diametrically opposite to what was “promised if elected” that Motion might be.

And they usually get away with it without a mention.

There’s seemingly an embedded cultural fear of getting an “oh, so you think you can do any better@!?” challenge to any criticism raised against local councillors, followed by an abrupt, “then why don’t you run for council?”  for anyone who dares to speak up.

Such is the common response that anyone raising critical questions about decisions and plans of councillors notwithstanding those statements or actions being clearly against the long-term good of the community (i.e., deserving to be called out), so despite the fact that the vast majority of residents may oppose a decision, it’s likely only a few who will voluntarily make that known if it involves criticizing councillors.

Since most residents would likely be more inclined to do something (ANYTHING) else, and would never consider running for councillor,…well, fear of having to look wimpy saying, “oh no…not me” from that challenge is likely all it takes for many to stay mum about the “municipal majesty,” aka TYRANNY they witness, and detest, as everything becomes “form without substance”.

I’m sure it was more than disheartening for those trying to make local democracy “work” to see what transpired at that meeting!

The ‘spirit’ in play at the Three Rivers Council was entirely devoid of any awareness of what moral governance and true democracy entails. Councillors, the majority, seemed bent on simply going through the motions, literally and figuratively (i.e., a Motion to hold a “public meeting” was defeated).

To those who care, nothing I’ve written is news to you I’m sure.  I’m likely just pricking a wound bringing up bad memories. 

So why this “impromptu” article?

It – this article – has some clearly articulated “objectives”  but one overriding purpose: to offer residents of Three Rivers my honest take on what “strategic planning and action” is now required to make efforts to regain control of your destiny, and have any influence on altering the plans in place for Buddhists in Eastern PEI cemented in agreements many years ago by former Liberal Premiers Ghiz and MacLauchlan, and lucrative enough for enough Islanders to ensure adherence to the terms of that initial agreement.  

A BIT ABOUT PARTS 1 & 2

Before getting into those “what now?” questions appropriate for the end of an article that seeks to plant seeds that might sprout into “action campaigns” among residents (if someone happens to take some seed, plants them and looks after them on a go-forward basis) it’s always wise to prepare some ground for planting in advance, just in case.

To be “armed for action” (spoiler alert) it will be necessary to accuse the local people “serving” on Three Rivers Council of being devoid of a spirit of democracy and moral governance, which is a serious charge, and not really all that pleasant a proposition.

It’s not something that either you nor I should do publicly without at least 2 things being in place, 2 conditions being met: (1) there’s an abundance of evidence; and, (2) that evidence regards a matter with a legitimate concern for the well-being of oneself and/or one’s community.

Before discussing in detail the long process (DENIED in 2020, APPROVED in 2025), i.e., the application to build  “student residences,” l want to first deal with a matter involving a Three Rivers Councillor – Wayne Spin – who conspired with a senior director of one of Bliss and Wisdom’s major companies several years ago to “circumvent the will and decision made by the Executive Council” to sell his land to foreign buyers, after having 2 requests to do so denied by Executive Council.

I covered that matter at the time in a couple of articles, and it was also in the media, with the NFU using this particular case to discuss how people were “circumventing” the land law’s intent using a strategy never expected (therefore, not “prevented from happening” in the legislation).

Wayne Spin ended up relying relying on a ‘loophole’ to finally succeed in selling his property to 15 monks in a monastery in mainland China.

To cover this issue properly, it’s necessary to provide a substantial amount of information. That’s why I’ve chosen to break this article up into two parts: my “strategic thinking” and more in-depth ethical and political critique of Three Rivers Council’s approval of GWBI’s building permit application will be dealt with in Part 2.

An Overview of Spin’s efforts to sell 75 acres of Land

I had begun to look into the Buddhists back in 2018, when, in the course of my review of land purchases and denials in the IRAC databank and Executive Council Orders I noticed parcels in Eastern PEI being both approved and denied by EC.

The names or organizations were different, but the land and houses were clearly being sold to people connected to Bliss and Wisdom Inc. at the highest levels, with those individuals often being a director of B & W itself, or one of its major international subsidiaries/arms.

Such was the case with a would-be purchaser of Spin’s 75 acres, Yongzhang xia, filing an application with IRAC on July 17, 2017. IRAC made their recommendation to EC, and Cabinet said “no” at an August 22, 2017 Meeting.

A little more than a week after Executive Council denied both those requests, the following Indenture was signed, then filed a couple of weeks later on September 11, 2017:

When this “private” land sale Incident Goes Public

This incident became public 8 years ago. I wrote about it then, in two articles.

The first article included a lengthy quote taken verbatim from an editorial in the Guardian penned by NFU PEI District Director, Doug Campbell. the indented part is what Doug wrote and I quoted:

[And regarding the exploitation of the “spirit and intent” of the Lands Protection Act; well, that’s no longer in question. Douglas Campbell’s more recent Article in the Journal Pioneer and Guardian offers precise details on one disturbing case that could – for all we know – be happening many times over:

The situation is as follows: around mid-2017, 75 acres of farmland came up for sale in Valleyfield, parcel #272336. A resident of Hebei, China, Yongzhang Xia, applied to the Island Regulatory Appeals Commission (IRAC) to purchase the land. The request was denied by Executive Council, whose authorization would have been required (EC2017-502). A second request for the same land came from a corporation, Universal Cihang Ltd, Prince Edward Island, Canada, in which the name of Yongzhang Xia again appears, now as a shareholder. The request was also denied (EC2017-495). Both denials are dated August 22, 2017. The NFU thanks the Executive Council for denying these two applications. The next phase of this story is very upsetting for the future of farmland in P.E.I. As most Islanders know, the Lands Protection Act allows non- residents to acquire up to five acres of land. No approval is required. It is ironic that while non-residents can easily take possession of five acres, resident Islanders can often afford only one acre for a building lot. We know the results of this five-acre allowance when we view the non-resident ownership of an estimated 50 per cent of our coast line. And many people have stories of how land for residential lots has been purchased by a group whose members conspire to take ownership of five acres each. Now back to Valleyfield. In the fall of 2017, in order to take possession of the desired farmland, 15 non-residents, all of Hebei, China, came together to purchase the 75 acres of farmland, each one supposedly taking ownership of five acres.

With the obvious gaps in information about what is going on with land sales and purchases in PEI, one would think all Standing Committee members would welcome an opportunity to have a conversation with members of the GEBIS community, with Cavendish Farms, and with Vanco Farms.- See my article, “Allen Roach Should Recuse Himself from the Standing Committee Investigating Land,” March 23, 2018.].

I addressed this issue again in a subsequent article on land a month later titled, “We need remedies, not a rules review,” April 24, 2018.

The following excerpt from that article looking at the same land transaction as I’m discussing now is relevant and insightful, despite it being 8 years later:

Non-residents are using different methods. A recent Guardian article (March 17) by NFU District Director, Douglas Campbell, explained how Yongzhang Xia, a resident of Hebei, China, was first denied purchase of a 75 acre parcel of land as an individual, then as a director of a corporation, but then acquired the land with signatures from fourteen other individuals (all non-residents from Hebei, China).

When asked at the NFU Convention whether that 75 acre parcel had been divided up into 15 separate five acre parcels, Brown said he expected it had been. It wasn’t. Government issued a single deed. This is one loophole that could easily be plugged by simply forbidding the sale of larger land parcels to groups of non-residents divided into five acres portions (on paper) going to each individual.”

Minister of Communities, Land and Environment, Hon. Richard Brown, has asked IRAC to review non-resident and corporate land holdings in PEI “…to determine whether anyone is breaking the rules” (CBC, April 23, 2018).

At the  particular incident went public as a VERY good reason to fix the legislation, to stop any further attempts to circumvent what the original drafters of the Act never envisioned happening  – especially in such an egregious way, i.e., 15 different people living in communist China.”

There was just ONE Deed, not 15 “parcels” each apportioned to one of those 15 people from mainland China.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THOSE TWO APPLICATIONS

The first thing to notice about those two seemingly different offers competing for Spin’s 75 acres is that they were mysteriously submitted on the same day, just as they were rejected by Executive Council on the same day.   

The second thing to notice is that the individual applying is also a director of the corporation applying, as was noted 8 years ago by Doug Campbell in his Guest Editorial in the Guardian, to give credit where its due:

Notice the address for Xia is 2027 St. Mary’s Road, the same address for others listed. The “Stratford” address is also shared among other directors.

This is an easy way to show “over-lapping” with the different Bliss & Wisdom Inc. subsidiaries operating in PEI – you will see the same people and/or the same registered address on the different entities.

I was going to present a web of such connections for you, but it is a ton of work to show, and IRAC will be doing that for us anyways, right?

 Just in case IRAC slips up on that score, I’ll be doing that with some telling examples in a subsequent episode in this series.

PART 1 SUMMARY

At the time this land deal first became public involving 15 Chinese and 75 acres, it wasn’t seen to be significant  “who” the Islander behind it was. The focus was exclusively on the “purchaser” using this shady strategy to ACQUIRE land, but as they say, “It takes 2 to fandango”!

In fact, I don’t believe Wayne Spin’s name was even mentioned at all in association with Buddhists and this land deal at the time, by me or anyone publicly.

Wayne Spin was not at the council meeting when they voted to deny this permit at a mtg., . in September, 2020. [Technically, they “postponed it,” if you review the record].

There was to be a bunch of things happen before the matter was revisited, which didn’t, some of which I’ll look at in Part 2.

My question now in ending part 1 is this:

“Knowing that he would be asked to speak to, and vote on, this matter, did Wayne Spin ever disclose that connection and involvement with Council?”

If Spin did disclose his land deal with the Chinese/Buddhists, then the fact that the entire Council had no problem with him “not seeing that land deal as a REASON to abstain” shows the depth of the problem residents are facing with regard to this group governing the communities in which they live and raise families.

If they, the other councillors, didn’t know….seriously, how is that even possible?

If ONE knew, they all know. This is PEI remember.

Whether Spin ever disclosed his involvement prior to the March 10th mtg. or not, the fact that he remained mum at the Council mtg. a week ago despite being pointedly asked…well that should be a problem for Spin!

If Council didn’t know about it, they’ll know after this article gets around [PEI…remember], so if you never hear about it from them, of if brought up they put a friendly-spin on it, well, we’re back to the “entire bunch are rotten” scenario it would seem.

Remember…Form & Substance…….Box asking for any “conflicts of interest” for the official record….√

Note for minutes: None Reported