Are land occupations legal in Ontario?

We’ve passed the six month anniversary of the land dispute, and the McGuinty government has once again changed its position on the matter.  This past week, in front of the Court of Appeal, the Ontario government declared that it no longer considers the land occupation illegal.

All Ontarians have the right to be confused – on June 22nd, the Premier wanted the protesters to leave, saying “the continuing occupation is just not helpful, and it really constitutes the remaining potential for danger.”  In just two months, the government line has changed from opposing the occupation to, in effect, supporting it.

The about-face was revealed in the province’s recent appeal of Justice Marshall’s August 8th judgement ordering the Attorney General to take carriage of the ongoing contempt of court, and to report back at a later date.  While Marshall also directed that negotiations stop until the rule of law is restored, the appeal court has indicated that this direction was not part of the final orders.

In court on August 22nd, government lawyers argued that Justice Marshall’s orders should be set aside until the full appeal could be heard.  They pointed out that the province does not wish to remove the protesters from the occupied site, and therefore, does not believe the protesters are breaking the law.

In addition to the government lawyers, the court heard from Elected Chief David General’s advisor, Mr. Darrell Doxtdator; as well as several ‘friends of the court’, representing various perspectives; a lawyer for the OPP; and one representing the affected railway line going down to Nanticoke.

On August 22nd, one lawyer openly chastised the provincial government for failing to properly communicate its position to the residents of Caledonia.  He suggested that tensions could be reduced if the government would openly communicate – and clarify the McGuinty government’s position that the occupation is not illegal.

For months, people have been asking, “What’s on the negotiating table?”  Despite the veil of secrecy, the government occasionally provides us with clues.  Justice Marshall made it clear that the contempt of court should not be used as a bargaining chip – yet Mr. McGuinty is going to court for the right not to move forward with contempt proceedings.  This begs the question, is immunity from all criminal proceedings on the bargaining table? 

Several things are becoming clear –procrastination, flip-flopping, and secrecy aren’t working.  Mr. McGuinty’s government knew about the impending dispute for six months before the site was occupied – and did nothing.  Now, a year later, people are left scratching their heads as their Premier changes his mind every step of the way.

My position remains the same.  These constant flip-flops have made the Premier look weak – and you don’t negotiate from a position of weakness, and the rule of law is non-negotiable.

Now that Mr. McGuinty is on the side of an extended land occupation, he should publicly stand behind his position.  By implying that protesters should leave, while secretly supporting a continued occupation, he has raised the tension between all parties in this dispute.  Ultimately, our communities must live side by side, and Mr. McGuinty should avoid dividing us further.

As for me, I will continue fighting for clarity, communication, and leadership from the government.  Strong leadership can be the foundation upon which we rebuild our fractured communities.