An Ontario Declaration of Human Rights?

[Machjo]

We were discussing the addition of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in another thread.

"
Article 17.

• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. "

However, looking at the following Federal government website:

Property rights and the Constitution (BP-268E)

it would seem that many provinces oppose the addition of such a provision too.

So what about drafting an Ontario Declaration of Human Rights which would include that provision?

I realise that it would be mere provincial legislation removable by a simple majority vote in the Provincial Legislature, and so relatively far more toothless than including it in the Constitution requiring apporval from the Feds and provinces combined.

However, it would still be better than nothing in that at least politically it would be difficult for a provincial government to strike it down once passed without potential ramifications come next election, and so would still guarantee that right if not in a constitutional sense, then at least in a legal sense in the province of Ontario.

Besides, Quebec already has its Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, so why not Ontario. Just like Quebec's, it would be legally but not constitutionally binding on the province.

 

[oldrebel]

I think it would be a bad idea and a waste of MLAs time. I also think Quebec should get in line with the rest of the country and forget their 'special status' nonsense.
I think our Federal laws are good and should (in fact they do) supercede any other laws that are enacted by Provinces or municipalites.
What difference would it make if the right to own property was entrenched in the Constitution? As far as I know many millions of Canadians now own property and there is no problem. If the land was needed by the Province, it would be exproopriated regardless of the Constitutions anyway, so what would be the advantage?

 

[cranky]

In nova scotia, the right to have access to marijuana has led to the government buying the pot users some growing equipment.

So if a person is poor, will we be required to hand them their own piece of Canada?

 

[Machjo]

In nova scotia, the right to have access to marijuana has led to the government buying the pot users some growing equipment.

So if a person is poor, will we be required to hand them their own piece of Canada?

Not necessarily. But merely that one's property cannot be seized arbitrarily. Sure it can be sized, but only with good reason, reasonable compensation, consideration, etc.

 

[cranky]

then why don't we referr to the right to be protected from unjust search and/or seizure.