Supreme Court Ruled: Canadians Have No Property Rights

[Feynman]

By implicaton, since you do not own the fruits of your labor, the government tells you that you are, by definition, a slave. Canada is nothing but stealth plutocracy/dictature

Feynman

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/property5.htm

NEWS RELEASE - July 29, 2003


SUPREME COURT RULED: CANADIANS HAVE NO PROPERTY RIGHTS
"Anything you own can be expropriated without due process and without
compensation" say the Supremes.

Yorkton - Today, Garry Breitkreuz, Official Opposition Critic for Firearms
and Property Rights, denounced a Supreme Court decision saying that the
government has the power to take anyone's property without due process and
without compensation simply by passing an "unambiguous" law. "We have just
lost one of our most important freedoms necessary for the existence of a
truly free and democratic society. The right to life and the right to
property go hand-in-hand - you can't have one without the other. When
Parliament resumes sitting in September, Canadian Alliance will be
introducing a motion calling for property rights to be entrenched in the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms," promised Breitkreuz.

What got Breitkreuz so riled was the Supreme Court's July 17th judgment in
the class-action suit Authorson v. Canada in which the Supremes ruled in
favour of the federal government and against mentally disabled war veterans
(see supporting documentation). 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
ruled: "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."

The Supreme Court ruling also stated: "Lastly, while substantive rights may
stem from due process, the Bill of Rights does not protect against the
expropriation of property by the passage of unambiguous legislation."
Breitkreuz asked, "So if the property rights guarantees in the Canadian Bill
of Rights don't protect an individual's fundamental property rights, what
good are they? They even ruled that the Bill of Rights 'does not impose on
Parliament the duty to provide a hearing before the enactment of
legislation.' Once again, we have a court ruling - this one by the highest
court in the land - that demonstrates an urgent need for my Private Members'
Bill C-313 (see supporting documentation) calling for amendments to
strengthen the property rights protection in the Canadian Bill of Rights.
If my bill were law, at least the Liberals would have to get a two-thirds
majority in the House to pass any law that runs roughshod over our property
rights," explained Breitkreuz. "This first step in property rights
protection in federal law is required while we are trying to convince seven
provinces with 50% of the population to approve our proposed constitutional
amendment to entrench property rights in the Charter."

"This Supreme Court ruling means that the Liberals can simply ram a law
through Parliament giving themselves the right and the power to confiscate
each and every bit of Canadian-owned property falling under federal law
without paying a dime in compensation to the legal owners," warned
Breitkreuz. "This Supreme Court ruling should raise concerns for all
Canadians over their ability to enjoy their own property including the
fruits of their labour. What more evidence do you need that Liberals are
undoing everything our ancestors fought for, for hundreds of years?"

"This wasn't just another bad ruling by the Supreme Court. A free and
democratic society needs to have the best protection of property rights or
else all is at risk. We must entrench property rights in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the Canadian Alliance has repeatedly
called for."

-30-


SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General) - July 17, 2003
Neutral citation: 2003 SCC 39 - File No.: 29207
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2003scc039.wpd.html


BREITKREUZ BILL C-313 - An Act to amend An Act for the Recognition and
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the
Constitution Act, 1867:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_individual.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=2&B
ill=C-313&BillType=public

[-=HUNGRYMAN=-]

Yeah, but we as Canadians, have not had any money since 1936 to buy any property anyways ... so is this not a moot point ??? :bonk:

[Evil Chris]

It seems moot now. Until they decide to build a highway through your property or build a new airport. (remember Mirabel?) :(

[Feynman]

I bet you always wondered why they kept that wide tract of wooded land along the Somerset axis (along the low voltage hydro line) and why the Jacques Bizard blvd is so wide while it is only allowed to local traffic (in Pierrefonds at least) ? Weird, isn't it ?

There is an urbanism plan that calls for an autoroute passing along the Sommerset/Jacques-Bizard axis and straight across the bridge and ensuing wide boulevard to join the 640, 440 and the 40 on a westward N-S axis.

Rumor is that Charest will get tempted to implement that plan for a variety of reasons.

[wsjb78]

Well, the Swiss Constitution guarantees any citizen the right for property and there are only two restrictions:

1.) Limit your rights to do with your property as you want (mostly applicable for buildings where you can't alter the outside appearance as you want, especially when you life in a historic setting).
For this you will not be compensated

2.) Seizure of property - but for doing so the government must compensate for your loss!

[-=HUNGRYMAN=-]

Originally posted by wsjb78
Well, the Swiss Constitution guarantees any citizen the right for property ...

When did we buy Switzerland ??? :eek:

I missed that one !!

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by Feynman
I bet you always wondered why they kept that wide tract of wooded land along the Somerset axis (along the low voltage hydro line) and why the Jacques Bizard blvd is so wide while it is only allowed to local traffic (in Pierrefonds at least) ? Weird, isn't it ?

There is an urbanism plan that calls for an autoroute passing along the Sommerset/Jacques-Bizard axis and straight across the bridge and ensuing wide boulevard to join the 640, 440 and the 40 on a westward N-S axis.

Rumor is that Charest will get tempted to implement that plan for a variety of reasons. What variety of reaasons? On my "certificat do localisation" the proposed autoroute 440 extension is right behind my property line. But this is something they have been talking about for 20 years. It will never happen. They won't cut the island in half with a highway extension.

There is just too much other money invested on Ile Bizard. Take for example the three golf courses, two of which are completely private, and the 3rd (St Raphael) just added another 18 holes.

I'm confident that Ile-Biz has more or less stopped with the build-up of more new homes and commercial space here for the time being.

[Feynman]

The problem with govt denying property rights is that they laugh at us and tell us "you are our slaves".

All property and production is the result of labor. Property rights does not limit themselves to land; they apply to everything. Every object, every "value".


For people to live, they have to produce. Production requires the spending of one's efforts and time, i.e. the exchanging of one's life for an end-result.

When they are denying property rights, they are denying that you own your labour, time, life, etc.

This condition is defined as slavery.

Slavery was abolished in Canada in the mid-1800 I think.

This judgment apparently contradicts it.

I.e. the slavedriving govt, i.e. the alledged representative of 50%+1 of the electorate keeps the 50%-1 of electors in bondage. In fact, since we are not a Republic, the elected slave-drivers can get away with whatever they want up until the next election.

They are thugs, plain thugs.

They should be reminded that they are nothing but mandated administrators, i.e. beancounters.

[SykkBoy]

You whacky leafy guys......

oh wait, out government has the right of eminent domain too.....