[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

The only way the NEP wasn't a violation of individual rights is if you don't consider property rights as being individual rights.

Err, really?! We're probably much too far apart on this to have a meaningful discussion.

BB is going into Bizarro right wing world on us.  In Canada property rights and individual rights are very different things, except for the fringiest of fringe right wingers.

Our Charter cases expressly deal with this issue and have long rejected the notion that property rights should be protected in the same way as the individual rights protected in the Charter.

You are aware that including property rights in the Charter was a major point of contention during negotiations.

A concept like property rights doesn't just vanish if not codified into the Charter.  It may not have legal protection, but the moral importance still exists.

First, there were certainly major points of contention.  I would not rank the inclusion of property rights as one of them.  The inclusion and formulation of the notwithstanding clause and whether Quebec's agreement was required were the major points of contention. 

Secondly, no one has made the claim that property rights vanished.  The simple point is that property rights are not equivalent to individual rights as you claimed.

Third, property rights were not included in the Charter for very good reasons.  One need only look to the jurisprudential mess in which our friends to our South find themselves to see the wisdom of keeping property right protection a matter of the common law and statute.

As I said, your claim that property rights should be viewed otherwise is a particular view of fringe right wingers, like Wildrose for example.

[Barrister]

The only way the NEP wasn't a violation of individual rights is if you don't consider property rights as being individual rights.

Err, really?! We're probably much too far apart on this to have a meaningful discussion.

BB is going into Bizarro right wing world on us.  In Canada property rights and individual rights are very different things, except for the fringiest of fringe right wingers.

Our Charter cases expressly deal with this issue and have long rejected the notion that property rights should be protected in the same way as the individual rights protected in the Charter.

You are aware that including property rights in the Charter was a major point of contention during negotiations.

A concept like property rights doesn't just vanish if not codified into the Charter.  It may not have legal protection, but the moral importance still exists.

First, there were certainly major points of contention.  I would not rank the inclusion of property rights as one of them.  The inclusion and formulation of the notwithstanding clause and whether Quebec's agreement was required were the major points of contention. 

Secondly, no one has made the claim that property rights vanished.  The simple point is that property rights are not equivalent to individual rights as you claimed.

Third, property rights were not included in the Charter for very good reasons.  One need only look to the jurisprudential mess in which our friends to our South find themselves to see the wisdom of keeping property right protection a matter of the common law and statute.

As I said, your claim that property rights should be viewed otherwise is a particular view of fringe right wingers, like Wildrose for example.

I just don't follow you.

Are you saying the concept of property rights doesn't exist?  Or that it's just a lesser right?  Or what are you saying?

The law implicitly recognizes property rights.  There's a reason we have laws around theft.  I'm sure you remember a whole first year law school class on property.  The idea that one is entitled to the safe possession and use of their property except through the operation of law is well established.

But yes, property rights are not specifically protected in the Charter of Rights.  The idea of including property rights in the Charter was not some fringe idea - it was proposed by Pierre Trudeau's government!  It was eventually dropped and thus wasn't the final battle that Notwithstanding and Quebec's consent was, but that didn't make it a non-issue.

Under the National Energy Plan oil producers were required to sell oil to other Canadians at rates well below the world market rate.  This was not taxation - revenue going to the government.  This was not an expropriation where fair market value was paid.  This was a direct transfer of wealth to individuals/corporations from western Canada to eastern Canada to the tune of billions of dollars.

How is that not a violation of property rights?

Look, I'm not a rights absolutist.  Section 1 makes perfect sense to me.  There is an argument that can be made that the NEP was in the overall net good for the country at the time (although I think history quickly proved that to be false).  Just because something might violate a right, like property rights or free speech rights or whatever, does not necessarily make it bad policy.

[Malthus]

It is interesting that some property rights *were* included in the ore-existing Canadian Bill of Rights, which was never repealed. See "enjoyment of property", section 1a.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/FullText.html

Arguably, this enshrines certain rights to property in a quasi-constitutional manner, albeit not within the Charter. At least, the SCC did not reject that argument, though they did find that the legislation in question was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, as these only protect against deprivation not in accordance with due process of law, and the valid passage of legislation is in accordance with law:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2072/index.do

See also:

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm

In any event, even assuming a right to enjoyment of property was enshrined in the Charter, it would still be subject to reasonable limitations under s. 1.

[crazy canuck]

I just don't follow you.

Are you saying the concept of property rights doesn't exist?  Or that it's just a lesser right?  Or what are you saying?

The law implicitly recognizes property rights.  There's a reason we have laws around theft.  I'm sure you remember a whole first year law school class on property.  The idea that one is entitled to the safe possession and use of their property except through the operation of law is well established.

But yes, property rights are not specifically protected in the Charter of Rights.  The idea of including property rights in the Charter was not some fringe idea - it was proposed by Pierre Trudeau's government!  It was eventually dropped and thus wasn't the final battle that Notwithstanding and Quebec's consent was, but that didn't make it a non-issue.

Under the National Energy Plan oil producers were required to sell oil to other Canadians at rates well below the world market rate.  This was not taxation - revenue going to the government.  This was not an expropriation where fair market value was paid.  This was a direct transfer of wealth to individuals/corporations from western Canada to eastern Canada to the tune of billions of dollars.

How is that not a violation of property rights?

Look, I'm not a rights absolutist.  Section 1 makes perfect sense to me.  There is an argument that can be made that the NEP was in the overall net good for the country at the time (although I think history quickly proved that to be false).  Just because something might violate a right, like property rights or free speech rights or whatever, does not necessarily make it bad policy.

Like Oex I am coming to the conclusion this conversation is pointless. 

The answers to your questions are contained in my earlier post and I really don't want to simply cut and paste my answers all over again.

[crazy canuck]

It is interesting that some property rights *were* included in the ore-existing Canadian Bill of Rights, which was never repealed. See "enjoyment of property", section 1a.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/FullText.html

Arguably, this enshrines certain rights to property in a quasi-constitutional manner, albeit not within the Charter. At least, the SCC did not reject that argument, though they did find that the legislation in question was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, as these only protect against deprivation not in accordance with due process of law, and the valid passage of legislation is in accordance with law:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2072/index.do

See also:

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm

In any event, even assuming a right to enjoyment of property was enshrined in the Charter, it would still be subject to reasonable limitations under s. 1.

Yep, the Bill of Rights was toothless by the 80s so no need to amend it.  The courts had already interpreted that provision down to nothing more than common law and statutory rights ie due process of law.   When we bring injunctions to protect property we don't even bother mentioning it.

edit: if it was in the Charter it would be subject to the Oakes (and more likely Dore) test which would be a very different thing than common law and statutory protection that property rights currently have.

[Josephus]

Get a (court) room

[crazy canuck]

Get a (court) room

It might seem like a lot of legal mumble jumble.  It is hard to describe just how far out there BB's view that property rights are the equivalent of individual rights is.  But think of 18th century England.  Or Citizens' United.

[Barrister]

Get a (court) room

It might seem like a lot of legal mumble jumble.  It is hard to describe just how far out there BB's view that property rights are the equivalent of individual rights is.  But think of 18th century England.  Or Citizens' United.

Well for starter's you'd have to actually try instead of resorting to straw-manning...

[crazy canuck]

Get a (court) room

It might seem like a lot of legal mumble jumble.  It is hard to describe just how far out there BB's view that property rights are the equivalent of individual rights is.  But think of 18th century England.  Or Citizens' United.

Well for starter's you'd have to actually try instead of resorting to straw-manning...

Did you mean something other than property rights are the equivalent of individual rights when you said "The only way the NEP wasn't a violation of individual rights is if you don't consider property rights as being individual rights."

If so, I apologize.

[Barrister]

Get a (court) room

It might seem like a lot of legal mumble jumble.  It is hard to describe just how far out there BB's view that property rights are the equivalent of individual rights is.  But think of 18th century England.  Or Citizens' United.

Well for starter's you'd have to actually try instead of resorting to straw-manning...

Did you mean something other than property rights are the equivalent of individual rights when you said "The only way the NEP wasn't a violation of individual rights is if you don't consider property rights as being individual rights."

If so, I apologize.

This is just where I don't understand you.  What other kinds of rights are there but individual rights?  The right to own property certainly isn't a collective right (well I guess they can be in certain situations).  And I'm pretty sure you'd be upset if someone walked into your house and took your tv even if they said "there's no such thing as property rights".

What level of protection property rights are is up for debate, but not the existence of them.  You indicated that property rights are entrenched in the common law.  I agree.  That doesn't make them not individual rights.

[crazy canuck]

Get a (court) room

It might seem like a lot of legal mumble jumble.  It is hard to describe just how far out there BB's view that property rights are the equivalent of individual rights is.  But think of 18th century England.  Or Citizens' United.

Well for starter's you'd have to actually try instead of resorting to straw-manning...

Did you mean something other than property rights are the equivalent of individual rights when you said "The only way the NEP wasn't a violation of individual rights is if you don't consider property rights as being individual rights."

If so, I apologize.

This is just where I don't understand you.  What other kinds of rights are there but individual rights? 

As just one example, In Rem Rights.  One of the strongest common law property rights that exists.

You seem to be confusing rights which protect an individual and rights to property an individual might wish to assert.  Those are two very different things.

[viper37]

But that also poses significant problems for the Federal conservatives.  How do they keep their prairie voters happy and win a federal election.  Let's see how O'Toole tries to figure that out.

O'Tool will need to defend the oil&gas industry tooth and nail, even if that means negating climate change, plus, he will need to allow free votes for its more socially conservative members.

Nothing that will gain the party seats in Quebec, unfortunately.

I don't expect any miracles.  And Trudeau is having a field day calling Albertan politicians "divisive".  Maybe Quebec politicians could claime some kind of cultural appropriation?  That role is usually reserved for the big, bad, scary seperatists and nationalists

So, anyway, whatever O'Toole will come with to appease the Prairies:
- Trudeau will be happy to say it runs against Canadian values and a strong appeal to nationalism is always a good bet
- Quebec will be displeased about so much emphasis being put on oil instead of looking toward the future + the Conservatives are already beginning with 2 strikes over here, not much is needed to alienate most of the electorate.

[viper37]

The Liberals and COnservatives responded saying that the focus of attention on the anniversary should be on the death of Pierre Laporte at the hands of domestic terrorists.

It's too bad you do not understand our country's other official language, there was a really interesting interview with Pierre Laporte's son on SRC.

I'll spoil you the punch-line: he has no love lost for Trudeau, leans toward the BQ positions on this, and said he will be forever grateful for Levesque's attempt to get Laporte freed from his kidnappers.  If Trudeau the younger refuses to apoligize to Quebecers in general, he could at least apologize to Laporte's family for failing to help them when it was time and instrumentalizing his death by rushing a state funeral.

I can only assure you that everyone remembers Pierre Laporte, there's been movies, documentaries, interviews with people who knew him, interviews with children of the FLQ cell members who executed him, no one forgets.  I felt it was cheap politics from both parties, knowing full well English Canadians will not listen to or read Quebec's medias.

Apoligizing for the internment of Japanese-Canadians in WWII does not mean we forget about all the dead soldiers and civilians of this war.  Why would apologizing to people unfairly detained because of a manipulation by Trudeau the elder who leaked a bogus story about the FLQ preparaing a coup to replace the Quebec government with a pro-seperatist one?

[viper37]

Why would anyone defend conversion therapy?

But why criminalize it?

because it apparently fucks up people more than it helps them?because it has been decided a long while ago that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disease and there's nothing wrong with it?

[crazy canuck]

But that also poses significant problems for the Federal conservatives.  How do they keep their prairie voters happy and win a federal election.  Let's see how O'Toole tries to figure that out.

O'Tool will need to defend the oil&gas industry tooth and nail, even if that means negating climate change, plus, he will need to allow free votes for its more socially conservative members.

Nothing that will gain the party seats in Quebec, unfortunately.

I don't expect any miracles.  And Trudeau is having a field day calling Albertan politicians "divisive".  Maybe Quebec politicians could claime some kind of cultural appropriation?  That role is usually reserved for the big, bad, scary seperatists and nationalists

So, anyway, whatever O'Toole will come with to appease the Prairies:
- Trudeau will be happy to say it runs against Canadian values and a strong appeal to nationalism is always a good bet
- Quebec will be displeased about so much emphasis being put on oil instead of looking toward the future + the Conservatives are already beginning with 2 strikes over here, not much is needed to alienate most of the electorate.

Right, that is the problem he faces.  Not only in Quebec.  If he does all of that the Conservatives will never form government, but if he doesn't the "base" in Alberta and Sask will see him to the door.