Property Rights - Literally? King in OWN Castle

Progressive Canadian Party of Canada favours the amendment of Canada's constitution to include protection of private property rights. This is not a new position for any party in Canada or, indeed throughout the western world. This concept dates back to as early as 1215 and the Magna Carta. Private property rights have been part of English Common Law for centuries. It was also entrenched in the United States constitution in 1791. It has been said that for the above reasons and others it could be argued that private property rights are already part of Canadian Law. David Johansen, in an October 1991 paper states that "entrenchment of property rights in the Charter would do more than simply protect those who own real property from expropriation without compensation." http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm My question.... Is this discussion about OWNERSHIP of land? Most would say it is AND more! I think it would be interesting to ponder exactly what ownership means in the context of Canadian land. Who owns Canadian land? The Crown? What is the Crown? Is it the people of Canada collectively as I have argued it should be? Is it the personification of the Government of Canada, as most think it is? Is the Crown an office or an actual person, specifically the Queen of Canada? It seems to me that actually owning land means, for one, that you don't have to pay yourself rent as one does who is renting from an actual landlord. Right? What in actual fact is the government's legal justification for charging land 'owners' property taxes? Perhaps it is that land is actually 'owned' by some entity other than the man, woman, persons, corporation or group that has paid to be granted title. Perhaps the entire issue of private property rights is moot, in the context of a government that claims to actually own all the lands within it's borders.... or perhaps NOT. If someone does, in fact, actually own land AND it is an entrenched RIGHT in Canada's constitution, could that be interpreted by the courts as meaning that one is not required to pay property taxes? Does anyone even have durisdiction within the boundaries of your 'privately OWNED'lands? If the Crown does not own all of Canada then what authority does it have to exercise durisdiction over this land in the first place? I wonder.... is it possible that OWNING land that was previously OWNED by the Crown, corporate/government/office/personally means that sovereignty may also have been transferred AND with a constitutionally entrenched Private Property guarantee..... means..... One might actually be in FACT, literally King of your OWN castle!