# The Charter at 30



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2012)

Part 1 of 2

The thirtieth anniversary of the Charter is at hand and below are a few article about it, all reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/the-charter-proves-to-be-canadas-gift-to-world/article2403254/


> The Charter proves to be Canada’s gift to world
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-this-year-could-prove-to-be-the-charters-most-controversial/article2403185/


> Why this year could prove to be the Charter’s most controversial
> 
> KIRK MAKIN — JUSTICE REPORTER
> 
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2012)

Part 2 of 2

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/how-the-charter-helped-define-canada/article2401331/


> How the Charter helped define Canada
> 
> LOUISE ARBOUR
> 
> ...




I think it will not come as much of a surprise to anyone that a) I don't like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and b) I don't much like the Canadian Constitution, either.

My distaste for the Charter stems from the fact - and I believe it is a fact - that it is unnecessary. We, Canadians, had every single right enumerated in or, later, read into the Charter, in 1981. We didn't need to write them down and defining rights limits them - the Charter, like the British Bill of Rights (1689) and the US Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (1789)), requires formal, legislative and judicial processes to keep rights abreast with society. The Charter did not _create_ rights, it just defined them in 1980s language - which might not, I dare say will not be suitable in 2080 or 2180.

The Canadian Charter is a very _European_, _statist_ and _*illiberal*_ document that endangers rather than protects rights; the notwithstanding clause is an abomination, but a necessary one in a federal state. The _European_, _statist_ and _*illiberal*_ nature of the Charter is not surprising because it was crafted, largely, by small minded people who do not comprehend the beauty and power of the common law and the British Constitution.

The Canadian Constitution is also a problem for me.

Why?

Because it is written down and, therefore, _static_. In 1867 everyone thought a written constitution was both necessary for a new federal state (the very _nature_ of the state and divisions of responsibility must be defined) and desirable (the US Constitution was, and still is, regarded as an _Enlightenment_ masterpiece). In 1982 I, too, thought a written Constitution was necessary. Looking at is after 30 years of study, I have changed my mind. Had Pierre Trudeau been anywhere near as smart as many people think he was he would have asked the UK to repeal the BNA Act (1867); that would have, neatly and finally, solved the problem of Canada's Constitution being in foreign hands. There would have been a need for a couple of acts of the Canadian Parliament: 

1. A division of responsibilities act - federal/provincial; and

2. An _appointments_ act - to deal with e.g. the Governor General, Lieutenant Governors, judges, etc.

The remainder would be in need of a few court challenges, with which the _supremes_, depending on the common law and the British Constitution, would deal and through which they would confirm our _nature_ of government and the limits of the sovereign, parliament and the courts.

Re: the 30th anniverasry of the Charter: much ado about nothing.


Edit: typo


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2012)

One big thing missing in the CCR is an Individual's Right to Property.

The government, or any of it's entities, can arbitrarily seize something you own, without compensation.

Simply, everything item you have in your possession belongs to the State. You're just borrowing it and holding it at their whim.

That needs to be corrected.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> One big thing missing in the CCR is an Individual's Right to Property.
> 
> The government, or any of it's entities, can arbitrarily seize something you own, without compensation.
> 
> ...




With the increased likelihood of Wildrose gaining Alberta, you will see property rights come to the fore. It may provide the catalyst for the feds to do something on this front. The challenge will be to do so without opening the Constitution to amendment. Of course expect the NDP etc to be opposed to this in principle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2012)

Property rights are anathema to the _governing class_ in and around Ottawa ~ my guess is that 75% of the senior civil servants (director through to DM) (and 99% of _Francophones_ educated in Québec) believe that property rights run counter to the good, Canadian, *L*iberal values they hold. It is important to remember that most Canadians between the ages of 40 and 65 received an essentially Marxist view of economics in university between 1960 and 1985, to the extent that they learned any economics at all. The years 1968 to 84 were disastrous for Canada: we adopted a national "culture of entitlement" which is very, very seductive and which is diametrically opposed to property rights.

My guess is that we need another full generation to rinse the after effects of of the 1970s out of our politics and out of our culture.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Property rights are anathema to the _governing class_ in and around Ottawa ~ my guess is that 75% of the senior civil servants (director through to DM) (and 99% of _Francophones_ educated in Québec) believe that property rights run counter to the good, Canadian, *L*iberal values they hold. It is important to remember that most Canadians between the ages of 40 and 65 received an essentially Marxist view of economics in university between 1960 and 1985, to the extent that they learned any economics at all. The years 1968 to 84 were disastrous for Canada: we adopted a national "culture of entitlement" which is very, very seductive and which is diametrically opposed to property rights.
> 
> My guess is that we need another full generation to rinse the after effects of of the 1970s out of our politics and out of our culture.



It will take longer than a generation to clean out Osgoode Hall, and as long as we confuse the legal profession with any idea of justice, their inane views will hold.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Property rights are anathema to the _governing class_ in and around Ottawa ~ my guess is that 75% of the senior civil servants (director through to DM) (and 99% of _Francophones_ educated in Québec) believe that property rights run counter to the good, Canadian, *L*iberal values they hold.



Until you try to take their property away and it then somehow becomes a Charter issue.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It will take longer than a generation to clean out Osgoode Hall, and *as long as we confuse the legal profession with any idea of justice, their inane views will hold.*



AMEN!

The judiciary is a group of elitists who have their own interpretation of things.  They are accountable to nobody, and the very fact that they are needed only emphasises that we are NOT a true democracy in that a very small group of people (who are as infallible as any other group of people) dictate things based on their own personal biased interpretation of a piece of paper written by other infallible people.

Junk.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> AMEN!
> 
> The judiciary is a group of elitists who have their own interpretation of things.  They are accountable to nobody, and the very fact that they are needed only emphasises that we are NOT a true democracy in that a very small group of people (who are as infallible as any other group of people) dictate things based on their own personal biased interpretation of a piece of paper written by other infallible people.
> 
> Junk.




The judiciary are _accountable_ to and through their own professional associations which have pretty significant disciplinary powers. It is in the nature of professions, including the military, that they each have a unique body of knowledge, professional standards and a disciplinary system. I don't want lawyers and judges "held to account" my bricklayers and office workers any more than I want truck drivers and security guards holding medical doctors or infantry officers to account for their _professional_ conduct.


----------



## Jed (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The judiciary are _accountable_ to and through their own professional associations which have pretty significant disciplinary powers. It is in the nature of professions, including the military, that they each have a unique body of knowledge, professional standards and a disciplinary system. I don't want lawyers and judges "held to account" my bricklayers and office workers any more than I want truck drivers and security guards holding medical doctors or infantry officers to account for their _professional_ conduct.



The difference is that the judiciary profession ?? tends to hold all other professions to account through force of law.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The judiciary are _accountable_ to and through their own professional associations which have pretty significant disciplinary powers. It is in the nature of professions, including the military, that they each have a unique body of knowledge, professional standards and a disciplinary system. I don't want lawyers and judges "held to account" my bricklayers and office workers any more than I want truck drivers and security guards holding medical doctors or infantry officers to account for their _professional_ conduct.


I disagree.  The judiciary are held to account through their own association comprised of...other judges.  A giant self-licking ice cream cone.  Yes, the military is accountable to the military, but in the end, is held to account by...bricklayers, office workers and every other group of Canadians through their government.  (EG: The military is subject to the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act, both products of the government, which in turn is accountable to the populace.)
The judiciary, however, although their personal conduct is subject to the Criminal Code, should just sit down and shut up and interpret laws and how they apply (or not) to specific situations.  People are infallible, and because of this, every person ought to be accountable to...the people.  

My  :2c:

(FWIW: I believe that any society that is liberal-democratic is going to implode at one time or another, given that the individual is deemed more important than the very society to which that individual belongs.  If anything, the family as a building block of a larger society ought to be the minimum in any "reductio", IMHO)


----------



## dapaterson (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The judiciary are _accountable_ to and through their own professional associations which have pretty significant disciplinary powers. It is in the nature of professions, including the military, that they each have a unique body of knowledge, professional standards and a disciplinary system. I don't want lawyers and judges "held to account" my bricklayers and office workers any more than I want truck drivers and security guards holding medical doctors or infantry officers to account for their _professional_ conduct.



I must respectfully disagree.  Professional self-regulation does not work.  The incestuous reality of Canada's "professional" classes results in the profession being protected above the public.

In Toronto, for example, a family doctor declared herself a plastic surgeon and through her incompetence took actions that resulted in the death of a patient.  The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario feel that an appropriate sanction for manslaughter is a two year suspension of her license.  I would much rather a bricklayer pipe up with the common sense observation that this individual is unfit to ever practice medicine again, in any capacity.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I must respectfully disagree.  Professional self-regulation does not work.  The incestuous reality of Canada's "professional" classes results in the profession being protected above the public.
> 
> In Toronto, for example, a family doctor declared herself a plastic surgeon and through her incompetence took actions that resulted in the death of a patient.  The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario feel that an appropriate sanction for manslaughter is a two year suspension of her license.  I would much rather a bricklayer pipe up with the common sense observation that this individual is unfit to ever practice medicine again, in any capacity.



You said better what I was trying to say.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I disagree.  The judiciary are held to account through their own association comprised of...other judges.  A giant self-licking ice cream cone.  Yes, the military is accountable to the military, but in the end, is held to account by...bricklayers, office workers and every other group of Canadians through their government.  (EG: The military is subject to the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act, both products of the government, which in turn is accountable to the populace.)
> The judiciary, however, although their professional conduct is subject to the Criminal Code, should just sit down and shut up and interpret law and how they apply (or not) to specific situations.  People are infallible, and because of this, every person ought to be accountable to...the people.
> 
> My  :2c:
> ...




You're mixing apples and oranges. The bricklayers and secretaries hold the military to account through our political masters; to some degrees lawyers and doctors and other professionals must and do also respond to politics. But the military's _professional_ standards are the military's business; and if we want lawyers, for example, to lose their professional standing then we will, absolutely surely, loose ours and that would be a bad thing. Bricklayers and secretaries and politicians are bad at managing professions - we don't want to let them do it. I don't care if people don't like the decisions lawyers and judges make; if they really care they than go to law school and then, and only then will they be qualified to do something other than bitch. Keep politicians away from the law.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Keep politicians away from the law.



But aren't politicians the very people we charge with making the law?  I believe we agree that the British system is based on pragmatism.  The law is that which society accepts at any given point in time. As the common outlook changes over time then so must the law - which I believe is what you allude to when you point to the inability of Constitutions to adjust with the times.

I take your point on the independence of the judiciary.  Agreed.
I also take your point on "trusting" professions to administer on the trivia of practices and procedures.
But I still have difficulty with the notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in Canada and that they are held only to account by their brethren who rely upon them for recommendation.

Parliament must and should be supreme.  

The Court's judgements must be reviewable by Parliament.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Apr 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Until you try to take their property away and it then somehow becomes a Charter issue.



As I understand it, to amend the Charter, requires the agreement of seven out of ten provinces, who collectively make up 75% of the countries population. What are the chances of that happening?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But aren't politicians the very people we charge with making the law?  I believe we agree that the British system is based on pragmatism.  The law is that which society accepts at any given point in time. As the common outlook changes over time then so must the law - which I believe is what you allude to when you point to the inability of Constitutions to adjust with the times.
> 
> I take your point on the independence of the judiciary.  Agreed.
> I also take your point on "trusting" professions to administer on the trivia of practices and procedures.
> ...




Parliament is not, and is not meant to be _supreme_ in all matters. The crown exists in three 'states:'  the Queen-in-Council, the Queen-in-Parliament, and the Queen on the Bench which are the executive, the legislature and the courts, respectively. Our checks and balances are every bit as carefully wrought as are those in the American constitution. The Queen in Parliament keeps a financial and regulatory check on the Queen in Council, the Queen in Council appoints the judges who, in their turn keep the Queen in Parliament in check.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> The Court's judgements must be reviewable by Parliament.




Then the gods must be begged to help us all ...

Look at Ontario, today; watch Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horwath swapping the province's future for one or two vote? Do you really want people like that reviewing the decisions which keep you safe from government? Henry II gave us our 'modern' judiciary and he, intentionally, made it his own, answerable to himself, only, for his laws, to keep the "king's peace." Over the centuries that system - a judiciary which does not answer to politicians nor to cabinet ministers - has served us well.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2012)

It may not be necessary to amend the Charter. Property rights in Canada are the purview of the provinces. However, given enough momentum it may provide the impetus for some form of ruling from the Supreme Court should personal rights be infringed by public action.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Then the gods must be begged to help us all ...
> 
> Look at Ontario, today; watch Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horwath swapping the province's future for one or two vote? Do you really want people like that reviewing the decisions which keep you safe from government? Henry II gave us our 'modern' judiciary and he, intentionally, made it his own, answerable to himself, only, for his laws, to keep the "king's peace." Over the centuries that system - a judiciary which does not answer to politicians nor to cabinet ministers - has served us well.



I'd rather that the person who is shaping the law(s) be accountable to me (eg: the people), rather than a small collection of justices who believe themselves to be philosopher kings, shaping the future according to their own biases and beliefs.  

In an earlier post, you mentioned the three portions of our government:


> the Queen-in-Council, the Queen-in-Parliament, and the Queen on the Bench



(I had to go find it).
Of those three branches, two are accountable to the people.  The third, the judiciary, is accountable to nobody (except themselves, but that was noted earlier).


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2012)

I noticed a little tidbit on the CTV "ticker" that runs along the bottom of Newsworld: the Young Dauphin complained that the government was "ignoring" the charter's 30th anniversary.

Now my objection to the Charter is it is poorly thought out and poorly written; if something is a "right" then it is an absolute and canot be qualified with weasel words, "notwithstanding" etc.



> 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.



This basically says that it is open to interpretation, and who knows what some judge or future Parliament might construe as "reasonably justified"

Section 15 is actually funny in a way, since subsection 2 essentially nullifies subsection one:



> 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
> Affirmative action programs
> 
> (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.(84)



And as noted, without property rights (the ownership and unfettered use of personal property) there is no legal economic expression of liberty.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Because it is written down and, therefore, _static_.



I don't have too many problems with the Charter itself, but I agree with you here.  Charter politics are basically viewed as political suicide so we are stuck in 1982, regardless of national/political desires to amend the Senate, etc, etc.

Perhaps a less stringent amendment system would make the Constitution more useful.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2012)

Both Prime Minister Harper and his arch enemy Lawrence Martin are wrong:

1. The PM says, _"In terms of this as an anniversary, I think it's an interesting and important step, but I would point out that the Charter remains inextricably linked to the patriation of the Constitution and the divisions around that matter, which as you know are still very real in some parts of the country;"_ and

2. Martin says, _"with its exclusion of Quebec, the patriation exercise set in motion a fracturing of the country’s unity."_ 

Now, while I am happy to admit that the "exclusion of Québec" and the "night of the long knives" (where the "gang of eight" stabbed René Lévesque and, by implication, Québec's legitimate, _national_ aspirations in the back) are well and deeply entrenched in Québec's mythology, they are, Constitutionally, irrelevant. Trudeau was clumsy in his dealings with Lévesque and he was seriously outmaneuvered but, mythology aside, it doesn't matter a damn if Québec's feelings were hurt; it is IN the Constitution as we can see by the fact that it uses it to achieve its own, parochial, provincial ends.

I agree with not "celebrating" the Charter but we should do that, do nothing, for the right reason: because the Charter is minor league.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2012)

A very interesting historical POV; the Iron Lady was also ambilalent about the Charter for many of the same reasons that people in Canada who are against the charter have stated:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/17/frederic-bastien-margaret-thatchers-problem-with-the-charter/



> *Frédéric Bastien: Margaret Thatcher’s problem with the Charter*
> Frédéric Bastien, National Post  Apr 17, 2012 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Apr 16, 2012 5:08 PM ET
> 
> Thirty years ago, on a warm spring day in April, the Constitution Act, 1982, was officially proclaimed and the Charter of Rights came into being. There was a grandiose ceremony on Parliament Hill, overshadowed only by the absence of René Lévesque and by a thunderstorm mixed with hail that struck in the middle of the festivities.
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Apr 2012)

In this Toronto Star editorial Roy Romanow lamenets that the Charter's emphasis on individual rights is not necessary a good thing. Re-produced under the usual provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Siddiqui: Is the Charter changing Canada for the worse?
> 
> April 17, 2012
> 
> ...



 Article Link 

I was going to write a big long spiel about how much Romanow is out of touch, how things have changed, people are more willing to stick-up for their rights, yada, yada, yada, but its been a long day and to put it simply in my view... Mr. Romanow is full of you know what.

And while speaking of individual rights, its my understanding that Romanow was the person responsible for convincing Trudeau to keep property rights out of the Charter.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2012)

I would take exactly the reverse view: there is too much emphasis on _collective_ or _communal_ rights in the Canadian charter. The whole business of rights is, fundamentally, about protecting _individuals_ from the whims of the _community_, most often represented by the sovereign (or president) and his (or her) 'servants' (armed and civil). The _community_ already has power, it doesn't need 'rights' to go with it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Apr 2012)

Celebrate the Charter at 30 - who are they kidding?  25 and 50 are traditional milestones.  Interpretation: "celebrate the Charter at the nearest number divisible by 5 because the existence of a Conservative majority government gets up our Liberal noses and we need a good round of wanking in the media."

Of course our Charter is bound to be popular among established governments who like their people to be free, but not too free: enumerated not-quite-inviolate rights for the people, and few to no limitations on the state.  The constituency for US-style constitutional law is among people living under the boot-heel of an oppressive government: they have different views regarding the rights to expression and to keep and bear arms, and strictly enumerated powers for the government.  Following a successful revolution and transition to fairly stable representative government, the history favours the US model.  It is too much to expect those obvious factors to dawn in the minds of the Liberal fart-catching community.

I am among those who doubt that our Charter added much to our freedom, while it added much to the expense of litigating and providing entitlements.

It is ironic that the centre-left and left deplore the "ungovernability" of the US and the respect accorded its constitutional law by its courts, while simultaneously deploring the "entirely too governability" of Parliament and look to the courts to create excuses to overturn and block legislation.  Of course it isn't ironic at all; it is mere hypocrisy: the underlying principle on the progressive wing is "rightward government should be mired in tar, leftward government should be unrestricted".


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Parliament is not, and is not meant to be _supreme_ in all matters. The crown exists in three 'states:'  the Queen-in-Council, the Queen-in-Parliament, and the Queen on the Bench which are the executive, the legislature and the courts, respectively. Our checks and balances are every bit as carefully wrought as are those in the American constitution. The Queen in Parliament keeps a financial and regulatory check on the Queen in Council, the Queen in Council appoints the judges who, in their turn keep the Queen in Parliament in check.



Sorry for taking so long to address this comment (I was having difficulty juggling work with my priorities).

You mention the Queen in Parliament, the Queen on the Bench and the Queen in Council.  It seems to me that there is a common thread here: the Queen.  As much as we agree that she is a figurehead and that Bagehot had it right there is still a reality of a real personage on the throne binding all three entities.  There is still a real "decider" available to the system.

As you state, Henry Curtmantle and his shy and retiring wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, revised the rules of law and governance in the English part of their empire.  Eleanor, I believe, might have had something to do with the changes since she had a history of dabbling the law by introducing admiralty law to Aquitaine via the Rolls of Oleron and later extending it to England.

I would argue, however, that the monarch has always been bound by two competing interests: tradition - as encapsulated by the elders and then codified as judge made common law; and vox populi - the wishes of the people.  

The role of the monarch is to find the consensus between the two, or, if consensus is impossible and he is confronted by immovable object and irresistible force then he must decide.

Henry, in addition to the sage advice of his dear Eleanor, also had the advice of his Privy Council.

De jure we still have the same dynamics - all of the same institutions are still in place - and all just as valid and useful as they were 900 years ago but, de facto, the monarch has been sidelined, neutered.

We need a functional monarch (and if there was one rationale that this monarchist would accept for a Canadian President it would be that).

Unfortunately I am quite happy with a monarch that has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the bench every century or so to make a decision.  I would not be at all happy with a president that wants to take part in day to day governance (and that is the reason I can't accept a Canadian President).

As to Dalton - better Dalton, or Harper, on a 5 year leash than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada on a sinecure for life.

I don't need to remind you that while our nominal Head of State (GG acting in right of Her Majesty) is effectively neutered the Deputy GG is Beverly MacLaughlin.  In the absence of the GG she has all the signing authority of the GG, including that of CinC.  That plus the bully pulpit of the bench.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Property rights are anathema to the _governing class_ in and around Ottawa ~ my guess is that 75% of the senior civil servants (director through to DM) (and 99% of _Francophones_ educated in Québec) believe that property rights run counter to the good, Canadian, *L*iberal values they hold.



Be careful here E.R.C., the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms (adopted by the PQ before the repatriation) actually recognizes property rights as a fundamental right. Like all Provincial such Charter, it is given, in the province, a "quasi-constitutional" value - so its not perfect.  Remember that the Canadian Charter was adopted by the "Trudeauists" without the assent of the Quebec government of the day (a PQ government under Levesque, who had served WWII with the Americans and held their values in higher esteem that those of the Canadian Liberal party). Funny enough, at the time, the PQ government would have been in favour of the Charter, with some mods, when most other provinces (especially the Western Provinces) disagreed. It was on most of the other portions (read "language related" and ""Federal spending powers not curbed")  that  Quebec did (and still does -regardless of who is in power) disagree.

Interestingly enough, the points on which Quebec could not then agree were exactly the same that could no be supported (originally in any case)  by one other province: Alberta - but for different philosophical reasons. A little noticed fact of National politics in Canada is that  Alberta and Quebec, even if for completely opposite reasons, have very similar (near identical) views on the place and role of the Federal government in national affairs. It is also little understood outside of Quebec that any Quebec government would gladly renounce federal equalization transfer payments (yes!) in exchange for the Feds butting out of what is considered to be provincial jurisdictions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2012)

My recollection of 30 years ago is that the main opponent of property rights was Trudeau, himself, supported by Chrétien and, pretty much, the entire bureaucracy. The other principle antagonists, more important, ultimately, than René Lévesque, were Sterling Lyon of Manitoba and Blakeney of Saskatchewan who, essentially, wanted the same thing, parliamentary supremacy, for opposite reasons. No one, as far as I recall, argued, actively, FOR property rights.


----------



## Jed (19 Apr 2012)

I seem to recall that Blakeney was Premier of Saskatchewan when the province acquired numerous Potash mines from the private sector to set up the Potash Corporation, hence not exactly supporting property right principles.


----------

