News from Ontario’s New Democratic Party
Queen’s Park, Ontario, September 17th, 2015 – Ontario NDP MPP forNiagara Falls Wayne Gates presented his Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act which passed its second reading in the Legislature this September 17th.
Niagara Falls, Ontario MPP Wayne Gates
The Private Member’s Bill will now go to committee. The bill would ensure that people in Ontario have access to the shorelines of the Great Lakes by foot and other means of non-motorized transportation.
“All around the world, as near to us as Michigan, the people have a right to access the shorelines of lakes, oceans and rivers. The Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act would allow public walking rights along the shoreline of our Great Lakes and would specifically forbid the creation of fences or signs that try to impede on this right,” said Gates.
Gates went on to note that the lack of clarity around this issue in Ontario law has created confusion and frustration for property owners and beachgoers alike. In addressing some of the issues raised during previous attempts to bring this bill forward, Gates specifically mentioned that the bill does not take away land from private property owners.
Property owners along one stretch of Lake Erie in the Fort Erie, Ontario area have shoreline fenced off right down to the water.
“This bill is explicit – people cannot stop on the property, they cannot camp out on the property, they cannot bring motor vehicles onto the property, and if they break a rule or get hurt then they are liable. This bill does one simple thing – it allows them to walk along the shoreline.”
“It’s a way we can preserve our great lakes for future generations and a way that people can enjoy the property they own. It will make regulations clear and concise and remove any confusion,” said Gates.
Visit Niagara At Large at www.niagaraatlarge.com for more news and commentary for and from the greater bi-national Niagara region.
(NOW IT IS YOUR TURN. Niagara At Large encourages you to share your views on this post. A reminder that we only post comments by individuals who share their first and last name with them.)
Niagara At Large 
This issue of shoreline access is dear to the heart of Niagara Falls’ former MPP, Kim Craitor, who worked long and hard to see a similar bill passed in the Legislature. Wayne Gates’ initiative seems to me an excellent example of cooperation across party lines, and does honour to both men. Let’s hope we see this bill passed into law at long last.
LikeLike
Fences along our Lake Erie shoreline is a disturbing memory from my growing-up years, when embarking on a pristine summer’s day for frolicking in the sun, sand, and water of our local valuable beach resource is clouded by the image of restrictive perimeters, and we Canadians feeling like second-class residents in our own country. In a peculiar way, we were not unlike a hemmed-in crowd of refugees, where a security guard kept watch over the public beach, comprised of a packed assembly of sun worshipers and novice skin and scuba divers. To see this from a half mile out in the water was akin to viewing a mass of multi-colored ants clustered on a single drop of honey, along an exclusive shoreline of picturesque beauty, where a toe in that sand could get a harsh rebuke from a haughty U.S. landowner. I realize that historically, it’s “our own fault”, but I’d like to see some loosening up of the archaic and unfair rules.
LikeLike
There is already Common Law to accommodate walking the shoreline. The lap line of any given day is the Bed of Navigable Waters and one is not trespassing. One is trespassing when they walk on dry land between the natural boundary referred to as “line of the wood”, “approximate line of vegetation”, ” high water mark” and the water’s edge Some private cottage properties have decks in that space. Not only their privacy would be encroached upon but their property trespassed on as well.
How would you like someone to walk just inside your property boundary, on your land?
How is it any different?
LikeLike
The Great Lakes belong to the Federal Governments of USA and Canada . a 66 foot chain reserve is federal property, from the waters edge up shore belongs to the Crown , we already have that right enshrined in a document called ” The Treaty of Ghent” which decided our borders. What is out of the Federal sphere are small Provincial land locked lakes , they were not covered in that treaty. All this Act of our Queens Park does, is to clarify the rights we already have. access to the shoreline. The Lakes are called seas in the Treaty of Ghent not Lakes .We should run a bulldozer along the sea shore and any encroachment be wiped off our land..
LikeLike
If one builds on public land….OUR land, we have every right to walk on said “property”.
LikeLike
This act is a continuation of the Sewall plan for water access trail along the edge of lake Ontario from 25 years ago. It ran the same problem in that many private owned properties have ownership titles some to the water and some out into the lake. Its fine for a politician to envision a grand plan however the government of Ontario has no legal authority (no matter what they say) to give the public access to private ownership lands without first negotiating that access and or compensating the property owner. The Expropriation Act of Ontario is supreme in protecting private property rights and it clearly states that any such action by the government will require fair compensation to the land owner. I have no problem in the government giving access to the lake on lands it owns or has contracted with private owners to gain access however the Supreme court of Canada has already ruled the government has no authority to grant public access across or use of private owned lands. There is a critical court case ruling that exactly address’s this issue in that it involved the Ontario Government trying to allow public access to the lake across public owned lands:
“In the case of Ontario (Attorney General) v Rowntree Beach Assn, the court found that the Ontario government was not able to restrict or limit the uses of a property owners rights under their Crown Patents. Ontario (Attorney General) v Rowntree Beach Assn., 1994 CanLII 728 (ON SC)
Effectively the members bill if passed will not be legal and will be overturned by the courts in that the Supreme court has made a ruling already with respect to this exact issue.
Aside from the members bill being illegal is the issue of rights. If they can pass an act, ignoring your property rights as enshrined in your crown grant, which allow’s you to legally trespass onto someone else’s land then what’s to stop them from to exercise that same right to allow people to walk through your property to gain faster access to other non waterfront public lands or even through your property as a shortcut to a doctors office if they have a walking problem.
Now if private property owners have encroached on government owned lands or lands of other private citizens then the issue is simple – kick them off.
In closing, I’d love to walk the waters edge, but I’m not prepared to do it at the expense of another citizen’s rights and property ownership. If the land is bought in a fair and equitable value, without using force of legislation and expropriation then the government upon its ownership, has the right of ownership to do with it what they will, but otherwise — Government Butt Out- The Supreme Court has already told you what you want to do is illegal!
Don Johnson
LikeLike
Thank you Don. People need to learn respect for private property. People need to know government and law. People need to learn the ten commandments. What is that saying do on to others as you would have them do onto you? There are so many nimbys (Not In My Back Yard) but they will use others. The world is full of takers.
LikeLike
Don, the State of Michigan very recently took this issue to the Supreme court, and they reinforced the rights of the public to use their entire shoreline which covers the entire state. Federal Treaties trump every time.!!!
LikeLike
You are right. The only people that respect property is the owner. I have seen where Conservation Authorities have expropriated property and it is not looked after. They do not look after it. The previous owners had pride and were stewards of the land. Most often farmers. How can any one even think that the lakes would be better off with public abuse. That is what will happen. There are too many takers. There are too many as you said nimbys.
LikeLike
A property owners idea of caring for a property an a conservation authority’s idea are vastly different. A CA would have the land as a wilderness with native flora and fauna, preserving wildlife, while a property owner would have flower beds and manicured lawns and gazebos. In any case the shores of any waterway in Canada up to the high-water mark are public lands.. Because a property owner has a deed granting him ownership of the land doesn’t mean it’s his. The deed is false. The land is public land regardless of what the deed says. If the property owner adjacent to the public beach didn’t know that he should have. His lawyer should have informed him at time of purchase.
LikeLike
Dear Chuck, With regards to your comment “The land is public land regardless of what the deed says. If the property owner adjacent to the public beach didn’t know that he should have. His lawyer should have informed him at time of purchase”. Please refer to Ron Stewart http://www.freemanrealty.com/realestateservices/Legal/1000416EB. It is uncanny how some people want to use someone else’s private property yet would call the police if someone was using theirs.
Ontario Crown Land consists of 87% of the province, 937,000 km2 including 164,000 under water. No one needs to trespass on private property.
“The rule is the public interest is always paramount but NEVER at the expense of a private individual”. Ontario Legislative Assembly February 11, 1965 – vol. 1 p. 478
LikeLike