Canadian Property Rights & Environmental Enforcement
“...people don’t have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.” Liberal Justice Minister David Lametti
Aug. 25, 2022 (updated 02/26/23)
“ The Canadian Bill of Rights is not a constitutional document, however, but merely a federal statute that applies only to the federal government. Its purely procedural protections can be legally overridden by another Act of Parliament. Furthermore, the courts have held that the due process requirement is satisfied if a law is passed that authorizes the infringement.”
Today I read a letter written to Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, signed by Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and composed by Jeremy Cockrill, the Minister in charge of Saskatchewan’s Water Security Agency. In the letter, Mr.'s Moe and Cockrill highlight three recent incidences of 'federal' employees conducting work on private land without permission; trespassing.
Premier Moe says that the Pense, Mossbank and Pilot Butte incidents won't be tolerated and reminded Minister Guilbeault of the penalties levied against trespassers in Saskatchewan. (LINK)
Now, you may be asking yourself if federal employees have not 'trespassed' in other parts of Canada without the fanfare and you would be correct, but other parts of Canada do not hold the same deep distrust of Ottawa as do Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. As Keean Bext at The Countersignal notes;
“What is more concerning to some than the actual trespass are the motivations of the federal agents. According to the land owners who confronted the federal agents trespassing on their land, they were told that the purpose of them being there was to test the water in the farmers’ dugouts to measure nitrate levels.
For those following recent news in the agricultural world, this is being seen as connected to the Trudeau government’s recently announced policy to reduce the use of fertilizer on Canadian farms by 30%. This policy has been widely criticized by farmers across the country and by provincial governments in the Western provinces.” (LINK)
Some observers have said that there is reason to suspect that these actions are the first steps in replicating the attacks on farmers that have provoked widespread unrest in the Netherlands and other places in Europe.
While the federal government has not yet confirmed it, there is speculation that the water sampling we now know is underway, will be used as baseline measurements to enforce reductions in fertilizer usage going forward.” (LINK), (LINK)
Certainly the fertilizer reduction demand is a contentious issue and Trudeau's government is following Sri Lanka plus some European nations down the path to social unrest, but those are not the only observations to come from this incident. This dispute between Provincial and Federal governments shines a rare light on Trudeau's 'Impact Assessment Act' of 2019 while promoting scrutiny of the property rights of Canadians because both of these play important roles in every Canadians future. (LINK), (LINK)
What was not revealed in Scott Moe's letter or in any legacy media reporting on the incident, is that the federal employees conducting the test were 'agents' for the new 'Impact Assessment Agency Of Canada' (IAAC). They are referred to as 'agents' by the IAAC itself and they claim immunity from existing Canadian laws, both Federal and Provincial.
Before 2019 the proper procedure for a Provincial Premier to address the Federal government on topics related to the Environment was to go through the Environment minister, just as Premier Moe has done. Yet today, under IAAC rules, Federal Environment Minister Guilbeault does not have any power over these agents of the IAAC other than being able to nominate them to their positions.
As part of the 2019 'Act', the Environment Ministers office is now known as the 'Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Canada' (ECCC), and although the office has reduced powers under the 'Act', the ECCC will be the public face of, and first line of defence for the all powerful IAAC. (LINK), (LINK)
When I say defence I mean armed defenders of the climate.
At this writing there is a 50,000 Ft2 building being prepared in Winnipeg to house hundreds of ECCC (IAAC) agents, analysts and enforcement personnel. It is 'claimed' that the building, “...will be home to a firearms armoury, interrogation rooms, biological labs, media relations offices, “controlled quiet rooms,” and intelligence facilities.”. If France can arm their environmental enforcement officers and the United States arm their IRS agents then I suppose Canada is not breaking any new ground here. (LINK), (LINK)
What I find more than a little disturbing about all of this is that the real power over the IAAC is held by the King of England through Canada's 'Governor General' and although the Ministers of Canada's three prairie provinces have failed to recognize the 'Act' of 2019, much of that prairie is still owned by the ‘Crown’.
More on that in a bit but first it is important to understand the reach and authority given to agents, employees and 'enforcement officers' of the IAAC because they are unprecedented in Canadian law and override most other current laws.
Below are copied a few paragraphs from the Impact Assessment Act itself. Keep in mind that these new 'laws' are not intended to be enforced on terrorists, spies or other such elements but on farmers, businesses, landowners and soon even you...
Impact Assessment Act (LINK)
Administration and Enforcement - Enforcement Officers and Analysts
Authority to enter
Section 122 (1) An enforcement officer may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act, including an injunction ordered under section 140, enter a place in which they have reasonable grounds to believe a designated project is or was being carried out or a record or anything relating to a designated project is located.
Powers on entry
(2) The enforcement officer may, for those purposes,
(a) examine anything in the place;
(b) use any means of communication in the place or cause it to be used;
(c) use any computer system in the place, or cause it to be used, to examine data contained in or available to it;
(d) prepare a document, or cause one to be prepared, based on the data;
(e) use any copying equipment in the place, or cause it to be used;
(f) remove anything from the place for examination or copying;
(g) take photographs and make recordings or sketches;
(h) direct the owner or person in charge of the place or a person at the place to establish their identity to the enforcement officer’s satisfaction or to stop or start an activity;
(i) direct the owner or a person having possession, care or control of anything in the place not to move it, or to restrict its movement, for as long as, in the enforcement officer’s opinion, is necessary;
(j) direct any person to put any machinery, vehicle or equipment in the place into operation or to cease operating it; and
(k) prohibit or limit access to all or part of the place.
Warrant for dwelling-house
123 (1) If the place is a dwelling-house, the enforcement officer may enter it without the occupant’s consent only under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2).
Use of force
(3) In executing a warrant to enter a dwelling-house, an enforcement officer or analyst may use force only if the use of force has been specifically authorized in the warrant and the enforcement officer or analyst is accompanied by a peace officer.
Entry on private property
124 (1) For the purpose of gaining entry to a place referred to in subsection 122(1), an enforcement officer and analyst may enter private property and pass through it, and are not liable for doing so. For greater certainty, no person has a right to object to that use of the property and no warrant is required for the entry, unless the property is a dwelling-house.
In summary the IAAC is an agency independent of Canadian Ministerial jurisdiction but able to enforce its directives in Canada without having to face legal repercussions for its actions, nor is it required to disclose to Canada what its motives are or next actions will be.
According to the Act, if an agent, officer, analyst or anyone 'appointed' by the IAAC shows up on your door making demands you must supply any documentation they require, allow them access to everything in your business, dwelling and property and you must stop when they tell you to stop farming or lumbering or pumping water. If you do not comply to these arbitrary visits and demands then you will face fines in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably lose your business, farm, home and bank account.
If the above 'powers' sound ambiguous and open to abuse it is because the entire 'Act' is written in that fashion, allowing the IAAC to deem most any business, person or property in or outside of Canada to be in breech of 'sustainable development' directives. Directives which, as the IAAC document admits, are subject to change 'at their pleasure' (it is the King's directive after all). (LINK)
Given the overriding power granted to this agency and its employees it is no wonder the three Prairie Province Premiers do not recognize the 'Act', plus it is amazing to me that the other Canadian Provinces and Territories are in support of it. Perhaps it is not 'support' so much as it is that the 'Act' has been put 'out of sight and out of mind' by other Provincial governments and a compliant media, so that Canadians not immediately impacted by the IAAC do not know how egregious it is, or even of its existence.
Now let me return to “...much of that prairie is still owned by the Crown.” Or, as Liberal Justice Minister David Lametti says, “...people don’t have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.” (LINK)
University of British Columbia's study of Indigenous land acquisition in what became Canada clearly states that the country belongs to the royalty of Great Britain and that they alone determine disposition of the lands;
“The Royal Proclamation is a document that set out guidelines for European settlement of Aboriginal territories in what is now North America. The Royal Proclamation was initially issued by King George III in 1763 to officially claim British territory in North America after Britain won the Seven Years War.
In the Royal Proclamation, ownership over North America is issued to King George. However, the Royal Proclamation explicitly states that Aboriginal title has existed and continues to exist, and that all land would be considered Aboriginal land until ceded by treaty. The Proclamation forbade settlers from claiming land from the Aboriginal occupants, unless it has been first bought by the Crown and then sold to the settlers. The Royal Proclamation further sets out that only the Crown can buy land from First Nations.” (LINK), (LINK)
Since coming into being in 1867 the Federal Government of Canada has introduced both a 'Charter' and a 'Bill of Rights' to benefit Canadians but neither of those documents address land ownership. As it stands today the lands of Canada remain solely owned by the heir of King George, King Charles III who exercises his powers as head of state through Canada's Governor General. Most 'Private' land in Canada is held under a common law grant from the Crown with the exception of land held under Aboriginal Title, for example, on reserves.
As the World Atlas notes, “...only 9.7% of the total land is privately 'owned' while the rest is Crown Land. The land is administered on behalf of the Crown by various agencies or departments of the government of Canada. The Canadian Acts, Charters and Bills offer no provision for any Canadian to own physical land in Canada. Canadians can only own an interest in an estate.
Of the land owned by the (Crown), 50% is administered by the provincial governments and the rest by the federal government. The Crown Land administered by the federal and provincial governments can be defined as land not assigned in freehold tenure.” (LINK)
Here is a .pdf on Canadian property 'rights' from an article compiled by the University of Alberta, Alberta Land Institute (LINK) and below a few excerpts from that document;
“The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted as part of the Constitution Act, 1982, which affirmed the Constitution as the supreme law of Canada and provided that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is of no force or effect. The Charter guarantees certain individual rights against intrusion by the state and gives the courts the power to provide a remedy to anyone whose Charter rights are denied.
But property rights were deliberately excluded from the Charter (the reasons for this omission are subject to some debate that cannot be summarized adequately in this guide), and subsequent proposals to amend the Charter by adding protection for private property have not been successful.
Canada enacted the Bill of Rights in 1960. Like the Charter, it recognizes various rights of the individual. Unlike the Charter, it protects a right to the “enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.” The Canadian Bill of Rights is not a constitutional document, however, but merely a federal statute that applies only to the federal government. Its purely procedural protections can be legally overridden by another Act of Parliament. Furthermore, the courts have held that the due process requirement is satisfied if a law is passed that authorizes the infringement.
Under Canadian law as it currently stands, the outright taking of private land for public purposes ordinarily triggers a right to compensation in accordance with expropriation legislation. But if the government does not acquire the land, but merely regulates its use, or imposes other restrictions – even if very severe, and even if the result is drastic loss of value – there is rarely a right to compensation.”
Just as Canada arming its 'environmental police' is not breaking new ground, the discussion of land ownership has been around since feudal times, with those who claim authority to the land doing all they can to avoid letting go of what they see as theirs. When trying to answer the question of 'Who really owns Canada?', Canadian 'state-controlled media' has routinely distracted people from the issue by blaming 'foreign interests' for Canada's strict policies while skirting the issue of land ownership altogether. (LINK)
As distracting as they are, Canadian media do routinely remind us that Canada has always been more of a 'foreign business interest' than a sovereign nation. Despite our patriotic, flag-waving rhetoric expounding freedoms hard fought through two world wars, Canadians have, since the first beaver pelt was exported, been living in a large 'company town' and renting the land upon which they farm, build, work and live. (LINK), (LINK)
Today the 'company' has decided it is time to re-assert their 'ownership' on Canada in order to achieve more control over the 'renters'. Canada, or rather the family of King Charles are using their invented rush towards 'sustainable development' to justify the implementation of carbon taxes, resource restrictions, industrial and agricultural contractions. To further these ends ideas of 'ownership' and 'personal sovereignty' must be removed from public discourse.
Sustainable Development - Further Reading:
OECD Land Use Policy in Canada (LINK)
Trudeau, Guilbeault and Nitrogen – Sustainable Development Goals and Advocacy (LINK)
1,740; the number of non-government organizations, government affiliated organizations, not-for-profit groups, industrial, academic groups plus many people, groups and organizations affiliated with the United Nations that are acknowledged members of weADAPT (LINK)
Sustainable Development as a Belief System (LINK)
Thank You for reading!
Ted