What’s yours is ours: Why Canada’s Charter ignores property rights and what that means for everything you own
By Peter Shawn Taylor, published by C2C Journal
Read the original article at the publisher’s website here.
Summarized by Rights Probe
C2C editor Peter Shawn Taylor highlights the alarming lack of constitutional protection for property rights in Canada, which sets it apart from most modern democracies. Taylor argues the absence of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which replaced Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s 1960 Bill of Rights, has led to a gradual erosion of individual property rights. He notes that Canada and New Zealand are the only two OECD countries without explicit constitutional protection for property, a situation that undermines the fundamental principles of Western liberal democracy.
He cites Bruce Pardy, executive director of Rights Probe and law professor at Queen’s University, who states that without security of property, individuals “don’t have much.” Prof. Pardy warns that the absence of explicit constitutional protections allows governments to seize land without compensation, a practice increasingly seen across Canada, particularly through civil forfeiture laws that enable property seizure based on mere suspicion of criminal activity.
Recent events, such as the freezing of bank accounts during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests, highlight the government’s alarming capacity to infringe on property rights without due process. Prof. Pardy also criticizes current housing policies that undermine property ownership, including rent control and restrictions on landlords, which he argues reflect a growing trend towards socialism in Canada.
“We are doubling down on a dumb idea: that restricting property rights is the best way to get more housing built,” said Pardy. “[But] as soon as you start interfering with those rights, you no longer have a real market.”
The absence of voter pushback against government intrusions, Prof. Pardy continues, indicates that a constitutional guarantee of property rights may be less effective than expected. He believes Canadians have relinquished control over these rights to the judiciary, which has led to negative outcomes. Pardy notes that progressive judges often view private property as a means to be appropriated or a barrier to public interest, rather than as a fundamental right that should be safeguarded.
Ireland is held up as an example for comparison, where the Constitution explicitly protects property rights, resulting in a more cautious approach to government intervention in housing and land ownership.
Meanwhile, in Canada, the current political climate may serve as a catalyst for change. The chaos surrounding the Cowichan ruling in Richmond, B.C., could mobilize Canadians to advocate for stronger protections, making this a pivotal moment for property rights in the country.
Related Reading
Virtue-Signalling Devotion to Reconciliation Will Not End Well
Property Rights Fallout from Aboriginal Title Rulings Extends Beyond B.C.
Courts and Governments Caused B.C.’s Property Crisis. They’re Not About to Fix It
Eby Bringing B.C. To Its Knees with Aboriginal Land Deals
Aboriginal Rights Now More Constitutionally Powerful than Any Charter Right
B.C. Aboriginal Agreements Empower Soft Tyranny of Legal Incoherence
Canadians’ Legal Rights Should Not Depend on Lineage — Indigenous or Otherwise
In an Independent Alberta, Aboriginal Rights Should Not Exist
Contact us to book Bruce Pardy for an interview or appearance, or to subscribe to our newsletter: rightsprobe@protonmail.com.
