[hackbinary]

No. "Crown Land" in Canada is owned by the provinces.

There is no such thing as a "British Crown Corporation."

Crown Corporations are a Canadian thing.

I lived in Canada for 30 years and now live in the Scotland. CalMac and Scottish Water are not "Crown Corporations," but are nevertheless owned and controlled by the Scottish Ministers. This is contrast to BC Ferries, ICBC, and BC Hydro which are Crown Corporations.

In the UK there is something called the Crown Estate, which is somethint again different.

[skeeter2020]

>> No. "Crown Land" in Canada is owned by the provinces.

Crown land is owned by the Canadian Crown; the monarchy owns all crown land officially. It's administered by a split across federal and provincial jurisdictions.

[hackbinary]

>> Crown land is owned by the Canadian Crown; the monarchy owns all crown land officially. It's administered by a split across federal and provincial jurisdictions.

No, Crown Land is controlled by the provinces. No, the Canadian monarchy does not own crown land. The Crown owns crown land. Essentially The Crown in Canada is its own legal entity and instrument for the purposes of administration of public lands. The Crown Estates of England and Scotland are something different again, and the Crown Estate owns things like tidal lands and actual real property.

There is Federal Crown Land, but that is almost completely in the northern territories. This is down to Canada's constitutional makeup because provinces control resources.

The Federal government can expropriate land from the provinces when it has a reason to do so like for military bases.

Here is a link that shows Canada Lands. The white area are Provincial Lands.

https://clss.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/data-donnees/sgb-maps-dag-car...

[bawolff]

Yeah but there is a difference between crown land owned by the crown in right of a province vs in right of the federal gov.

(From what i understand. IANAL)

[II2II]

I suspect that was a reference to the Hudson's Bay Company. I would have to brush up on my history, but they effectively controlled a huge tract of land pre-Confederation and continued to serve many smaller towns until well into the 20th century. I don't think the Hudson's Bay Company was considered a crown corporation, but they were granted a royal charter.

[hackbinary]

Yes, HBC has a Royal Charter from King Charles II which granted HBC exclusive economic activity in the lands that drained into Hudson Bay.

HBC lands were surrendered to the British government in 1868 ahead of confederation.

[ryanbrunner]

HBC (which is now a department store) was still required to give the crown 2 elks and 2 beavers whenever they visited Canada up until 1970.

[Mikeb85]

I think they're referring to the fact that the Hudson's Bay Company used to be the legal owner of vast swaths of what is now Canada before selling/surrendering the land to the Canadian government.

[ipaddr]

In Canadila about half of the crown land is federal and the other half provincial. In 2013 11% was private, 41% federal crown and 46 provincial crown

[hackbinary]

Federal Crown Land is almost exclusively in the northern territories.

Resource administration is a constitutional power that provinces administrator.

The area in white in the below map are not Canada Lands which makes them Provincial Lands, ie Provincial Crown Lands.

https://clss.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/data-donnees/sgb-maps-dag-car...

[ShroudedNight]

I expect gp was referring to The Hudson's Bay Company / Rupert's land

[kelseydh]

You're at a National Park. In Canada, it's crown land. In America, it's your park. The Canadian mentality is different.

[hackbinary]

National Parks are not Crown Land. National Parks are reserves of land owned and managed by the Federal Parks Department and development is not allowed on that land whatsoever.

Crown Land is land owned and administered by the provinces. Crown Land can be licenced for many uses and sometimes it can be purchased.

Also, Provincial Parks are not Crown Land.

[ryanbrunner]

We also have national and provincial parks, Crown land is different. A national park is maintained for visitors and for nature, crown land is closer to unused or unclaimed land, generally nothing is done with it unless it's sold off. You are free to camp on crown land, but it's nothing like going to a park, it's full on wilderness camping with no amenities, sites, or anything else.

[kelseydh]

My point is, Canadians think of government land philosophically as something that is not theirs, but rather, owned by the crown -- the Queen. While Americans see public land as their shared land. This mentality penetrates into many of the differences between the two countries in how they govern.

[ryanbrunner]

"Crown" (or "Royal", "Regina", etc.) is used pretty extensively in the Canadian governmental or legal system, and any association in Canadian's minds with the Monarch are pretty much nil.

If you talked about "crown corporations", or "Regina vs." (for criminal cases) no one would associate that with Elizabeth II. "Crown" and anything like that basically just means government.

[hackbinary]

No, Canadians do not see Crown Land as owned by the Canadian Monarchy, they see Crown Land and owned and controlled by the government as a public asset.

Canadians see the Canadian Royal Family as nothing more than a figurehead of the state.

I am a Canadian and I have studied British and North American History extensively.

[tempestn]

I somewhat agree with your main point, but I don't think most Canadians associate the "Crown" as in Crown Land or Crown Corporations with the literal monarchy. Rather it's just a synonym for the (Canadian Federal) government. Most Canadians don't tend to think about the monarchy much at all. (Certainly the Canadian Governor General, theoretically the Queen's representative as head of state, would never be expected to actually take instruction from the Queen.)