A Supplementary Note Regarding My Interview with 56Below TV 关于 56Below TV 采访的一点补充说明
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to 56Below TV for interviewing me and reporting on my story. I would also like to thank everyone who took the time to watch the video, leave comments, and share different points of view.
56Below TV interview: https://youtu.be/7b5MdnVxUWA?si=fpIPWvPJ0SkRtLno
After the interview was published, I read many comments. Some expressed support, encouragement, and sympathy, while others raised questions, criticism, or different opinions. I am grateful for all of these voices. I have always believed that public matters should not allow only one point of view. What truly matters is that the facts, documents, legal procedures, and ultimately the judicial outcome are allowed to speak for themselves.
The report by 56Below TV, together with the discussion among viewers and readers, has helped bring what was originally my own personal experience into a broader public discussion.
YouTube: “After Seeing What Happened to Him, Would You Still Dare to Immigrate to Canada?”
At the same time, because of the limited length of the program, some important background information that helps explain why I have continued to pursue this matter was not fully addressed in the video. I would therefore like to add several points here.
Since 2003, I have maintained a blog based on the principle of “Cherish Life, Mutual Help and Mutual Care.” I later founded and remained involved with the nonprofit organization UCMA. Over the years, I have been concerned about vulnerable people, self-represented litigants, and ordinary individuals who encounter difficulties in administrative, legal, and social systems, and about how they can receive basic understanding, assistance, and fair treatment.
For that reason, my continued efforts today are not only about one property of my own, nor are they only about a particular financial loss.
To me, the greater significance of this matter is to use my own experience to help others see what avenues may remain open to an ordinary person when facing government administrative processes, land-related disputes, oversight bodies, and the justice system over a prolonged period of time.
At present, the court proceedings involving the Alberta Ombudsman have not yet concluded. I am still waiting for the written decision, order, or written clarification from Justice Dario arising from the hearing on July 6, 2026. My MLA has also continued to follow developments in the matter, and my communications with provincial bodies, including Municipal Affairs, are also ongoing.
There are also several factual issues closely connected with my dispute with the Village that were not fully explained in the video.
These include the issue of the Village depositing large amounts of snow removed from local streets onto my property over many years. I also placed certain municipal property tax amounts from 2021 to 2024 into an in-trust account, and I have taken the position that those amounts should be considered together with the charges I claim arose from the Village’s long-term use of my property for depositing street snow.
I have also continued to raise issues concerning section 610 of Alberta’s Municipal Government Act. In discussing these matters, I am not asking the public to reach a legal conclusion based on a social-media post. Rather, I hope the relevant documents, facts, and applicable law will receive a complete and fair review.
One reason I place particular importance on media scrutiny is because of a well-known historical case in Canada involving Eddy Haymour and Rattlesnake Island in British Columbia.
Haymour was a Lebanese immigrant who purchased Rattlesnake Island in the early 1970s and planned to develop a tourism project there. A long-running dispute later developed between him and the Government of British Columbia. The 1987 Annual Report of the BC Ombudsman recorded that the provincial Cabinet accepted the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations in the Haymour matter. The government paid Haymour $140,000 in ex gratia compensation, paid $10,000 to his former wife, covered certain legal costs, and publicly expressed regret. The report also noted that the BC Supreme Court had strongly criticized the government’s handling of Haymour’s development proposal.
B.C. Ombudsperson:
https://bcombudsperson.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/1987-Annual-Report-of-the-Ombudsman.pdf
CBC’s The Fifth Estate also reported on the story of Haymour and Rattlesnake Island. The case later became an important historical example in Canada of public accountability, investigative journalism, and Ombudsman review of government administrative conduct.
Background on Eddy Haymour:
https://eddyhaymour.blogspot.com/
I am not suggesting that Haymour’s case and my case are identical. The historical period, legal relationships, and specific facts are clearly different.
What I am trying to say is this:
When a dispute between an ordinary person and government continues for many years, and when administrative decisions may have a major impact on that person’s family, livelihood, and life, the courts, the Ombudsman, elected representatives, and the media should each have the opportunity to perform their proper role.
That is why I continue to persevere today.
Finally, I would once again like to thank 56Below TV for giving me the opportunity to tell my story, and I also thank every person who has watched, commented, and taken part in the discussion.
Whether people support me, question me, or hold a different view, I respect those differences.
My only hope is this:
Please do not judge a person’s experience only by a headline, and do not judge an entire matter only by one person’s account.
Please continue to examine the documents, the facts, the legal process, and ultimately the formal decisions made by the courts and other relevant authorities.
I am willing to let the facts be tested. And I am willing to let time provide the answer.
Further developments and related events can be followed through my petition: https://c.org/7RLVYP5Sbn
关于 56Below TV 采访的一点补充说明
首先，我衷心感谢 56Below TV 对我的采访和报道，也感谢所有认真观看这段视频、留下评论、提出不同意见的朋友。
56Below 电视采访: https://youtu.be/7b5MdnVxUWA?si=fpIPWvPJ0SkRtLno
这段采访发布以后，我看到了许多留言。其中有支持、鼓励和同情，也有质疑、批评和不同看法。对这些声音，我都表示感谢。因为我一直认为，公共事件不应该只允许一种声音存在。真正重要的是，让事实、文件、法律程序以及最后的司法结果自己说话。56Below TV 的报道和读者们的讨论，让这段原本只属于我个人的经历进入了一个更广泛的公共讨论空间。YouTube 看完他的遭遇你还敢移民加拿大吗
同时，由于节目篇幅有限，有一些对理解我为什么坚持维权非常重要的背景，并没有在视频中得到充分展开，因此我想在这里作一点补充。
我从 2003 年开始建立“珍惜人生，互助互爱”博客，后来又创立并长期参与公益机构 UCMA 的工作。多年来，我一直关注弱势群体、自诉者以及普通人在行政、司法和社会制度中遇到困难时，如何能够得到基本的理解、帮助和公平对待。
因此，我今天继续坚持，并不只是为了我自己的一处物业，也不仅仅是为了某一笔经济损失。
在我看来，这件事情更重要的意义，是希望通过自己的经历，让更多人看到：当一个普通人面对政府行政程序、土地问题、监督机构以及司法程序时，如果出现长期争议，他究竟还能够通过什么途径让自己的声音被听见。
目前，我与 Alberta Ombudsman 相关的司法程序仍未结束。我仍在等待 Justice Dario 就 2026 年 7 月 6 日庭审相关事项所作的书面裁决、命令或书面说明。我的 MLA 也一直在关注有关后续进展，我与省级 Municipal Affairs 等部门之间的沟通也仍在继续。
此外，视频中还有几项与我和 Village 之间争议密切相关的事实背景没有充分展开。
其中包括，多年来 Village 将街道清理产生的大量积雪堆放在我的物业上的问题；我也曾将 2021年至2024年的部分地税款存入 in-trust 账户，并主张这些款项应当与我认为 Village 因长期使用我的物业堆放街道积雪所产生的费用一并处理。
我还长期提出与 Alberta Municipal Government Act 第 610 条有关的问题。对这些事项，我并不是希望通过一篇帖子预先得出法律结论，而是希望有关文件、事实和适用法律能够得到完整审查。
我之所以特别重视媒体监督，也与加拿大历史上一个著名案例有关——Eddy Haymour 与 BC 省 Rattlesnake Island（响尾蛇岛）事件。
Haymour 是一名黎巴嫩移民，他在 1970 年代初购买 Rattlesnake Island，并计划进行旅游项目开发，之后与 BC 省政府发生长期争议。BC Ombudsman 1987 年年度报告后来明确记录：省内阁接受了 Ombudsman 关于 Haymour 案的调查结论和建议，政府向 Haymour 支付 14 万加元 ex gratia compensation，向其前妻支付 1 万加元，并承担相关法律费用，同时由省政府公开表达遗憾。报告还指出，BC Supreme Court 曾对当时政府处理 Haymour 开发项目的行为作出严厉批评。B.C. Ombudsperson
CBC The Fifth Estate 也曾报道 Haymour 与 Rattlesnake Island 的故事，这个案件后来成为加拿大公共监督、媒体调查以及 Ombudsman 介入政府行政行为的一个重要历史案例。Eddy Haymour
我并不是说 Haymour 的案件与我的案件完全相同。时代、法律关系和具体事实都有明显不同。
我真正想表达的是：当一个普通人与政府之间的争议持续多年，当行政决定可能对一个人的家庭、事业和生活产生重大影响时，司法程序、Ombudsman、民选代表以及媒体监督都应该有机会发挥各自的作用。
这也是我为什么直到今天仍然继续坚持。
最后，我再次感谢 56Below TV 给我一个讲述经历的机会，也感谢每一位认真观看、留言和讨论的朋友。
无论大家支持我、质疑我，还是持有不同观点，我都尊重。
我唯一希望的是：
不要只凭一个标题判断一个人的经历，也不要只凭一个人的陈述判断整个事件。
请继续看文件、看事实、看法律程序，也看最后司法机关所作出的正式决定。
我愿意让事实接受检验。
也愿意让时间作出回答。相关的事件及发展可以在我的请愿书的链接中跟进：https://c.org/7RLVYP5Sbn
Peter Pan 潘振国
Calgary, Alberta
September 28, 2026