LINDSAY, GLENARM (April 14, 1998) - Fp president Robert Metz was once again invited to the Victoria-Haliburton area by local activist Jim McKee (see past issues, Freedom Flyer). Accompanied by Fp executive member Paul Blair, Metz's visit included both a community meeting to be held at McKee's home that evening, and a cablecast taping in Lindsay earlier in the afternoon.

The half-hour cablecast Dialogue featured Metz in debate with professor emeritus of history at Trent University, Bruce Hodgins. Active in the Peterborough community, Hodgins is also a card- carrying member of the NDP who ran for that party in the 1960s. The issue: Should property rights be entrenched in Canada's constitution?

Metz began with a description of why property rights are necessary in a free society: "Property rights give the average citizen some sort of guarantee that he cannot be deprived of his property in a whimsical or arbitrary way. It is a proper function of government to PROTECT property rights."

HODGINS: "I don't dissent at all, but profoundly disagree that such rights are absolute or that such rights need entrenchment. If it isn't broken, don't repair it. If you absolutely entrench such powers, you don't protect the individual or the community, but I think you frequently protect the large interests of international banks, the multinational corporations, etc. I don't think it's a good idea.

"As a relative right, these property (rights) are safe, safe under the Canadian version of English common law, and that we don't need, nor should we have, such rights. In fact, I would even argue that they're too strong for my liking. They can be, of course, restricted by the power of expropriation for general societal need. The important thing is that the person receive due market value compensation, and that they have the right to appeal in the courts. "To constitutionally entrench such rights would violate the Canadian tradition, a very important one. It would be very American, and very much tied into concepts of the late 18th century and the period of the American revolution and American constitution. Our tradition is a royal one, or a 'red Tory' one if you prefer, that emphasizes --- land in particular --- of originally being part of a crown domain. We receive property, which is not an absolute grant, through a patent. We receive property through a crown grant; the only profound expression of that is aboriginal, and treaty rights for aboriginal people.

"It would go against all the traditions of Canada, the United Kingdom, northwestern Europe, and all the countries of the Commonwealth that I can think of, to move to that next stage to argue that this should be some kind of ABSOLUTE RIGHT. As a social democrat, I would argue that there are many cases where community rights are more important than personal rights; the question is to make sure that the individual is not harmed and that they have due compensation. I don't think there's a remotest chance that such a thing could pass, given the nature of the Canadian political system."

Ironically, Metz agreed that the process of entrenching property rights in the Constitution is not in the Canadian tradition, but insisted that such rights still had to be recognized as absolute.

METZ: "The Charter enshrines nothing; the Charter has an overriding clause which would make entrenchment of property rights in the Charter rather a moot point."

HODGINS: "No rights are absolute, except for the right to life."

METZ: "But that's where property rights come from, from the absolute right to your life."

Metz challenged Hodgins on the validity of limited and conditional property rights as they apply to Quebec's language laws, Ontario's laws against Sunday shopping, and the government monopoly prohibiting the private sale of liquor.

HODGINS: "I keep emphasizing RELATIVE rights. I don't want absolute rights in any case. All rights come in conflict with other rights that are also desirable, and frequently they are all relative terms, not absolute terms."

METZ: "By definition, there is no such thing as a competing right. (But) there ARE competing interests. That's why we need property rights."

HODGINS: "(Entrenching property rights) cannot be achieved under our political process. We'd have to have every province and the federal government all ruled by either the Freedom Party or the Reform Party."

To which we say: "Amen!"

Calling the half-hour taping of his Dialogue program "a sustained and intelligent debate," host Rae Fleming essentially described the tone of both the cablecast taping and the evening debate (hosted by Doug Hindson) held at McKee's home. (Thanks again for your hospitality Jim!) Anyone interested in getting a dubbed copy of the cablecast debate is invited to contact Fp for details.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002