PUBLICATION:
Montreal Gazette
DATE: 2004.02.02
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
Editorial / Op-ed
PAGE:
A15
BYLINE:
GARRY BREITKREUZ
SOURCE:
Freelance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time
to protect Canadians' right to property: Martin should give commitment.
Liberal
balks at idea of amending constitution to protect fundamental right
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's
Constitution: "Private property obtained legally shall not be
violated."
Canada's
Constitution: Zilch, zip, zero - absolutely no protection of property rights.
Why?
Because successive governments have liked it that way.
Case
in point: The class-action suit Authorson v. Canada. On July 17, 2003, the
Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government and against mentally
disabled war veterans. The government had amended the Veteran Affairs Act to
avoid paying hundreds of millions in interest on pension benefits the government
had held in trust for about 30,000 veterans.
The
case involved the 1960 Bill of Rights, just a simple law, because it seemed to
offer at least some protection to property rights; the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which is enshrined in the constitution, provides no protection for
property at all. The high court ruled that even the 1960 Bill of Rights doesn't
stop Parliament from taking the money: "Parliament has the right to
expropriate property, even without compensation, if it has made its intention
clear and (in the act) Parliament's expropriative intent is clear and
unambiguous" and "the Bill of Rights does not protect against the
expropriation of property by the passage of unambiguous legislation."
The
court even ruled that the Bill of Rights "does not impose on Parliament the
duty to provide a hearing before the enactment of legislation."
This
ruling follows a growing list of lower court rulings focused on the newer
Charter's omission of property rights. In 1999, to cite just one example, the
Manitoba Court of Appeal noted that "the right to 'enjoyment of property'
is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society."
The
Authorson case once again confirms what respected constitutional expert Peter
Hogg wrote in 1992, "the omission of property rights from Section 7 (of the
Charter) greatly reduces its scope. It means that Section 7 affords no guarantee
of compensation or even a fair procedure for the taking of property by the
government. It means that Section 7 affords no guarantee of fair treatment by
courts, tribunals or officials with power over purely economic interests of
individuals or corporations."
The
Supreme Court ruling also makes a mockery of the Liberal government's love
affair with the United Nations because it violates the property rights
guarantees articulated in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. This document,
ratified by Canada in 1948, says "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his property."
So
if the Liberal government can use its absolute power to deprive 30,000 disabled
war veterans of part of their pensions - property that was and still is
rightfully theirs - what hope do the rest of us have? So much for Liberal
compassion!
It
doesn't have to be this way. Sure, the Liberals supported leaving out our most
fundamental human right - property rights - of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in 1982, but today's government could correct this oversight if it
wanted. The problem is it doesn't want to. It wants the absolute power to take
our property, without compensation, without a hearing and without due process of
law, simply by ramming a bill through Parliament, where, as everyone knows,
nothing can stop it.
If
the Liberals do have any compassion, or any respect for economic liberty, they
have two choices.
One,
they could pass a resolution in the House of Commons calling for the right to
own and enjoy property to be added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
then petition the provinces to pass similar resolutions in their legislatures.
Or
two, they could support my private members bill when I re-introduce it this
week. My bill would require the government to get a two-thirds majority in the
House when it passes any law that runs roughshod over our property rights.
Thirty thousand disabled war vets would not have had their rights trampled on
with this provision.
Paul
Martin is always saying that we must get the economic "fundamentals"
right. Why then has he so far refused to provide adequate protection for our
most important economic freedom - our fundamental right to own and enjoy
property?
Martin
wrote the 1993 Red Book, but there is no mention of adding property rights to
the charter in that document. However, Prime Minister Paul Martin has another
chance. The Throne Speech to be delivered in Parliament today should contain a
commitment to protect property rights.
Today,
if Canadians hear Martin's Throne Speech and protection for their fundamental
right to own and enjoy property is not in it, then all Canadians will have a
real choice to make in the next election.
Garry
Breitkreuz is Conservative MP for Yorkton-Melville.