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 Paul Martin’s Liberals like it that way.
Case in point:
The class-action suit Authorson v. Canada on July 17, 2003 when the
Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government and against mentally
disabled war veterans. The
government 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 Supreme
Court stated: “Parliament has the right to expropriate property, even
without compensation, if it has made its intention clear and, in s. 5.1(4),
Parliament's expropriative intent is clear and unambiguous” and that “the
Bill of Rights does not protect against the expropriation of property by the
passage of unambiguous legislation.” They even ruled that the Bill of Rights “does not
impose on Parliament the duty to provide a hearing before the enactment of
legislation.”
This
appalling Supreme Court ruling joins a growing list of similar lower court
rulings and 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.
So
if the Liberal government can use its absolute power to deprive 30,000 disabled
war veterans 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 deliberately left our most fundamental human right – property
rights – out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, but the
Government of Canada could easily correct this oversight if it wanted to.
The problem is they don’t want to.
They want 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 them.
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 next
week. My bill would require the
Liberals to get a two-thirds majority in the House whey they pass 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?
MP
Paul 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.
He is presently writing a throne speech to be delivered in Parliament
next week and could easily add a sentence on protecting property rights in that
document.
On February 2nd, if Canadians read Paul Martin’s Throne Speech and protection for your 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.
“Parliament has the right
to expropriate property, even without compensation.”
Supreme Court of Canada – July
17, 2003
“The
right to ‘enjoyment of property’ is not a constitutionally protected,
fundamental
part of Canadian society.”
Manitoba
Court of Appeal - February 4th, 1999
“No
one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
Article
17(2) of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
Ratified by Canada - December 1948