204 Shares
Shares

I would like to thank Cheryl Gallant for her efforts on this very important issue.

To continue, though, I am very happy that “property rights” are not in the Charter as that would leave them open to removal under Section 1 and Section 33 of the 1982 constitution. To support this statement, from my book:

The one lapse of Trudeau’s Charter is that he didn’t put “property rights” in, and from Black’s Law Dictionary, if the section of an act isn’t repealed by statute it still stands. There is also the statement from McGill University, which stated:

McGILL LAW JOURNAL
Property, Planning and the Charter
Robert G. Doumani*
Jane Matthews Glenn**

The authors examine the impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms upon the powers of municipalities to control the use of land. Despite the absence of specific entrenchment of property rights in the Charter, the authors contend that these rights are nevertheless significantly protected in pre-Charter constitutional and administrative law. Entrenchment of a protection-of property clause in the Charter would make little difference to the effective protection of property rights, particularly in light of the moderating effect of s. 1 of the Charter, the possibility of s. 33 overrides of Charter rights, and the pre-existing protection of property rights in other human rights instruments recognized in Canadian law. They argue, further, that existing provisions of the Charter do serve to enhance indirectly the protection of property rights insofar as property concerns may relate to life, liberty and security of the person (s. 7) and equality (s. 15). P. 1036

And

Canadian Bar Association in 1948:

“Therefore it becomes immediately apparent that if those freedoms and rights are inalienable it must be because they are already part of the constitution and cannot be conferred by legislative enactment. The moment it is conceded that they are within the power of gift by the legislature it must be conceded that they are vulnerable to further legislative action and can be withdrawn at any time.”

Therefore we should all be happy property rights are not in the Charter – and for those who say we do not have property rights in Canada…If not why is there (i) an Expropriations Act, and (ii) why are there Letters Patent/Crown Grants???

“The provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, so far as they are material to this appeal, are those which dealt with what is called “Homestead Entry.” By section 11 (1) British subjects or intending British subjects were empowered to make application for entry for a homestead; if the application were accepted on payment of the prescribed fee, the receipt given by the local agent of the Government was to be a “certificate of entry,” entitling the recipient to take, occupy, use and cultivate the land entered for, and to hold possession thereof to the exclusion of any other person, and to bring and maintain actions for trespass committed on the land. These rights, however, were subject to the proviso that occupancy, use and possession of land should by subject to the provisions of the Act or of any other Act affecting it, or of any regulations made thereunder (section 11 (2)). By section 11 (6) it was provided that any entry for a homestead should be for the sole us and benefit of the entrant, failing which the Minister should have a discretion to cancel the entry. An entrant was bound to perfect his entry by taking up possession of the land and beginning residence thereon within six months from the date of the certificate, failing which the entry was liable to be cancelled; it might also be cancelled if the entrant in any year failed to fulfil the requirements of the Act. The area for which entry was granted was one not exceeding 160 acres. At the end of three years, the entrant might be granted letters patent for the land, which thereupon vested in the entrant in fee simple. Before, however, letters patent could be issued the entrant was required to have fulfilled certain conditions, and in particular to have erected a habitable house on the plot and to have cultivated such an area of land in each years as to satisfy the Minister…But until the letters patent are granted the freehold is in the Crown;…” Privy Council Appeal No. 36 of 1934, The Attorney General of Manitoba and others v. The Attorney General of Canada.

Thank you again, Cheryl Gallant for this and for all you do for Canadians and your constituents.

Shares
204 Shares