How do we Address the CA’s and Wetland Designations? by Donna Burns

This article is in response to the updated wetland mapping and new policies recently issued by the Rideau Valley, South Nation, and Raisin River Conservation Authorities.

Go to Wetland Mapping to see if your property has been designated.

See also Watershed authorities unleash sneak attack on dry, wooded land — redesignating as wetlands |

How many MPP’s do you think understand the difference in where provincial authority lies…..or, as I have come to realize, they don’t.  They act strictly on what they are “told” by their staff – the same as what happens in municipal councils.

What we need to do is:

  1. Put it out there that the province owns or has control over 87% of the land mass in Ontario!  This is on their own website:
  2. The Province (Min. of Natural Resources & Forestry) acknowledge they do not have authority on Crown Patented Land.  This used to be on their website but they removed it when the OLA started educating the public on the Crown Land Patents.  Lawyers were not taught about them in Law, therefore, they don’t understand their true significance.  The knowledge of these documents were hidden from the public and the educators; and for years, nobody paid any attention to them because nobody knew what they were.
  3. Those in the Real Estate industry were never educated on them as well; otherwise, they would have been included as part of many property transactions.
  4. Today, lawyers (including Zella Phillips from the Canadian Justice Review Board) only learned about the Crown Land Patents through Elizabeth Marshall, Researcher for the OLA.  Zella writes an article but uses the Bob Mackie case to present an entirely different concept of the Crown Land Patents implying that municipalities have the right to regulate private property.  Bob died before his case was ever completed, as we all know …. but does Zella Phillips and all other lawyers who use his case to form their opinion, realize this case was never completed to the end?
  5. Did anybody stop to think about why the Province acknowledges they own or have control over 87% of the land mass in Ontario.  IF ….. municipal bylaws can be enforced on private property, then why would the province admit they only have control over 87% of the land mass?  Why not say they have control over 100%?  Because these lawyers (using Bob Mackie’s case) believe municipal bylaws are enforceable on private property.
    • The province writes the Legislation.  As we all know, the wording “private property” is not mentioned in any pieces of their legislation.  Would it not seem logical that their pieces of Legislation are only meant to be enforced and complied to by their employees and staff in order for them to enable better control and management the 87% of the land mass they are responsible for?
    • The province charges a fee to anyone requesting a TRUE CERTIFIED COPY of the Crown Land Patent that runs with their property.  Through this, they are legitimizing the authenticity of the Crown Land Patents.  If the Ministry of Natural Resources has no authority on Crown Patented land, then how would Conservation Authorities or Municipalities have authority?
    • When the Crown acknowledges in their Crown Land Patents that they give up all rights, title and interest with certain reserved conditions like mineral rights, etc to a parcel of land – the 13% of the land mass in Ontario that is NOT under the control or management of the province or federal government, then how can it be interpreted that conservation authorities and/or municipalities have control?  Conservation Authorities were not even created until the 1940’s.
    • So, the Crown made a deal with the first settlers that their 13% of the land mass was theirs to develop without government interference or intrusion.  Is this not WHY we have government elections by the people …. to put individuals that the people want in place to sit with government staff when making decisions to improve the economy BUT also these elected individuals are obliged to protect the 13% of the privately owned land to ensure that government does NOT interfere or intrude with privately owned land operations and development.  Which explains why government legislation states within it that if they want to do a “work project” or whatever on “private land” they must get the consent of the property owner in the form of an agreement … or expropriate that land at fair market value.
    • The province KNOWS they don’t have authority on private land and they’re very careful not to state that within their written legislation.  However, they don’t mind setting up the municipalities and writing language to municipalities and conservation authorities (I assume as well) to IMPLY they have such authority to regulate private land ….. but WHERE is it written in the Legislation?  It is not …. and that is why Elizabeth Marshall keeps repeating “nobody is reading the legislation“.

Am I wrong?  Can anybody dispute what I am saying is wrong?  Why the separation of the 87% and the 13%?  It’s all in how it is presented to the people…..AND to the judges in court.  There is a reason for the 13% separation.  You need a certain percentage to keep the balance of power in check.

You have to think about WHY the province is so determined to get our 13% of land.  A significant part of the 87% of the land mass they still manage is way up north with most of it being forestry.  They have to preserve the forests and then, of course, a lot of the Indigenous people live up north as well. They can’t build cities in the middle of the forest and how much employment can they offer up there. They pushed away our manufacturing industry and forced it out of the country.    It seems the me, the bulk of the 13% privately owned land is in southern Ontario – already heavily populated along with the best agricultural land for farming.  From a business perspective, it seems to me if they could “acquire” most of the 13% of privately owned land through misinformation in letting the majority of the public believe they have the authority to regulate that land…..then, you might see them bring back more “manufacturing” to the province such as they plan to do in taking the 700 acres of good farmland away from the people for a “private” industry (which is also illegal because they are expropriating land and not using it for “public” services).

Therefore, I think we need to really push the 87% and 13% land mass to the people and educate our lawyers and politicians that if we lose that 13% — we ALL will be living in a DICTATORSHIP REGIME being forced to live like slaves serving government and not owing anything of our own.  There will be no further need for lawyers or judges or politicians because there will no longer be any people – who’s rights they are there to protect and defend.

Donna Burns is Co Vice-President of the Ontario Landowners Association and President of the Renfrew Pembroke Nipissing County Chapter