Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Why does the Constitution not recognize private property?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't have the right to property.

Seems to me it would be a good thing to include the right to own private property in the Constitution.  Without that right, it makes it easier for the government to take away someone's property or maybe for a native band to claim it in court and have a judge take away someone's property.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Seems to me it would be a good thing to include the right to own private property in the Constitution.  Without that right, it makes it easier for the government to take away someone's property or maybe for a native band to claim it in court and have a judge take away someone's property.

Why should I care if government takes away your property ?  If there's a good enough reason, they should be able to take it as far as I'm concerned.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is usually referred to as private property in Canada is actually a 'Freehold Lease.' All land is owned by the Crown. If the Crown terminates your lease for, say the construction of a road, the Crown pays compensation. Sometimes, as in the case of the Regina GTH, the Crown pays an unusually large sum. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, blackbird said:

why the Canadian Charter of Rights does not include the right to own private property in Canada?

 

Simple, the then Trudeau government, buoyed by the courts, didn't want the enshrined headaches associated with such rights.........think First Nations, treaty rights and land claims and magnify it to include the entire country and its population.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Nowhere near as easily as is done in Canada........where people don't have property rights.

Easily or not, they still do it.  So what's the difference?  Americans have property rights on paper, but not in fact.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Easily or not, they still do it.  So what's the difference?  Americans have property rights on paper, but not in fact.  

 

The difference is the rights themselves.....in the United States, eminent domain simply allows the US Federal government to purchase (or lease) land from an individual....not to take........so the difference, the US Government is forced to pay fair market value, versus in Canada, where the Government/Crown can simply take (granted by convention, they will offer what they deem fair market).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Derek 2.0 said:

 

The difference is the rights themselves.....in the United States, eminent domain simply allows the US Federal government to purchase (or lease) land from an individual....not to take........so the difference, the US Government is forced to pay fair market value, versus in Canada, where the Government/Crown can simply take (granted by convention, they will offer what they deem fair market).

 
 

And if a US citizen doesn't want to sell or lease their property?  Does the government just go away?   Apparently not:

Quote

A CNN analysis of lawsuits filed the last time the government seized land to build a border fence in 2006 found that property owners who fought to keep their land always lost and that the government often offered them thousands of dollars less than the land was worth.

 

I repeat:  Private property rights do not in fact exist in the States any more than they do in Canada, despite the paper rights.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I repeat:  Private property rights do not in fact exist in the States any more than they do in Canada, despite the paper rights.  

And you're repeating an incorrect assertion........the very fact that your link mentions hundreds of lawsuits that will be required to build the Wall........versus in Canada, where the local City has more legal protections then its taxpayers....and at its discretion can decide when and where it can force you into forfeiture of "your land".......

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

And you're repeating an incorrect assertion........the very fact that your link mentions hundreds of lawsuits that will be required to build the Wall........versus in Canada, where the local City has more legal protections then its taxpayers....and at its discretion can decide when and where it can force you into forfeiture of "your land".......

 

For the landowner, the end result is the same:  he/she loses the land.  In the States, it just costs the landowner more if they choose to fight a court battle over it.

But we can agree to disagree about how effective property rights are in the States.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

The difference is the rights themselves.....in the United States, eminent domain simply allows the US Federal government to purchase (or lease) land from an individual....not to take........so the difference, the US Government is forced to pay fair market value, versus in Canada, where the Government/Crown can simply take (granted by convention, they will offer what they deem fair market).

So there's no difference, really.  Are property rights in the US constitution ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So there's no difference, really.  Are property rights in the US constitution ?

Yes, in a section of the 5th. However under federal law the congress can pass an act xferring the private property ownership directly to the government. Then the landowner has to sue to get compensation. A bit of a mixed bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So there's no difference, really.  Are property rights in the US constitution ?

 

That's a subjective opinion..........Americans (and most in Democratic Commonwealth nations), unlike Canadians, have their rights to property protected.......a Canadian's ownership of property will always be subject to the determinations of any level of government...........without such enshrined protections, good luck with legal recourse against ones own Government. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there's really no difference. If either government wants your property they can take it. Canadian law says you must be "made whole" by the expropriating body, but if you feel their offer is not acceptable then you can sew. The US government can pass the authority along to public utilities including railroads. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:

Imagine trying to build roads and other infrastructure. Andrew Scheer brought up enshrining property rights in the constitution and I saw someone bring up that you'd never get pipelines built if they were.

I think if private property were recognized in the Constitution, they could easily have an exception allowing government to buy private property for reasonable market value for the purpose of pipelines, infrastructure, railways, etc providing there was a mechanism to determine that it was a necessity in the general public's or nations interest.  Private property should be in the Constitution to guarantee protection of property owners from such things as politicians negotiating away private property to settle native land claims because a handful of natives decide they want a share in some gold discovered or other natural resource on some farmer's field or in some small town.  There could be all kinds of scenarios where someone's property could be threatened.

We live in a society which has a Constitution  and Charter of Rights and countless laws and precedents that make it a field day for lawyers and special interest groups to make claims.  If there is one thing we have learned, it is that unless something is spelled out clearly and specifically, it is up for grabs by countless lawyers and special interest groups.

Another thing that should raise alarm bells with Canadians is the Calls to Action, a long document with incredibly demands on Canada, as a result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report.  People should read the demands for action.  If the government actually accepted all these demands, Canada would be totally bankrupt and the country would be turned over to the aboriginal people completely.   It is one major reason we need property rights because without it in the Constitution, Canadians who own property could be under threat in the future.

Considering some of the Supreme Court Rulings in recent years and the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Report:   Calls to Action ,  there are good reasons for Canadians to raise alarm bells about the right to private property in Canada. 

Calls to Action is full of demands that should be of major concern.  For example,

Quote 47. 

          We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and
        municipal governments to repudiate concepts used to
       justify European sovereignty over Indigenous peoples
     and lands, such as the Doctrine of Discovery ... unquote
 
 
Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely also in the USA if they need to tear down a person's house because they are going to build a motorway to run over it that person can not stop it by appealing to property-rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...