Canadian History - Economic Inequalities?

[Sean Hayward]

It would be helpful Hyru, if you defined what specificly you mean by an "economic right". Yes you are right that it isnt in the charter, but what exactly is it?

Economic rights in this context would be rights to basic needs, like food, shelter, water and other things like that. But the problem is how would you enforce these rights, and what level(s) of government would be responsible for providing them?

Someone mentioned Section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This section is not enforceable as it specifically states that it does not restrict the powers of Parliament or any legislature, or their rights with respect to the use of those powers.

Can we please not turn this thread into a generic "bash Trudeau" thread, or should I just give up on it now?

[Alta4ever]

Wrong. The most hated person in Alberta is anyone with anything to do with Ottawa. Albertans have a hard time being real Canadians and instead would have preferred being in a dictatorship with them at the top. And I suppose that every once and a while they need to be reminded that they are all immigrants in one form or fashion.

We don't dislike all that are in office in Ottawa, just the socialist twits, that think they know more about Alberta then Alberta does.

[Alta4ever]

Economic rights in this context would be rights to basic needs, like food, shelter, water and other things like that. But the problem is how would you enforce these rights, and what level(s) of government would be responsible for providing them?

Someone mentioned Section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This section is not enforceable as it specifically states that it does not restrict the powers of Parliament or any legislature, or their rights with respect to the use of those powers.

Can we please not turn this thread into a generic "bash Trudeau" thread, or should I just give up on it now?

Sorry I just had to corrent charter it seems he thought that sect 36 was in the original BNA document, and did not know where this amendment came from.

[Renegade]

Economic rights in this context would be rights to basic needs, like food, shelter, water and other things like that.

I fail to see why anyone has the "right" to have their basic needs such such as food, shelter, and water provided for by another. I think it makes sense that they have the right provide to those basic needs themselves, and only when the government takes away the ability to provide for onself is the government obligated to provide for one's basic needs. (For example during imprisonment). I believe existing rights are sufficient to ensure that government doesn't intefere with our opportunities for providing for ourselves.

If by "economic rights" you are referring to the right to welfare. I don't believe anyone has such a right. Welfare is provided at the discretion of society and it not a "right" that anyone is entitled to.

But the problem is how would you enforce these rights, and what level(s) of government would be responsible for providing them?

Any "right" is enforcable by courts if it is written into the Charter. The division of responsibility between governments is pretty clear. I think most of what you describe falls to provincial responsiblity with some of it delegated municipally.

[Sean Hayward]

Ultimately, it would be the responsibility of the individuals to provide these things for themselves, but I see economic rights as a means of ensuring that the government provides a decent level of access to them. For example, a right to water would force the government to provide affordable, clean water to the people. The people would still have to pay for it themselves. However, this brings up the problem of enforcement. How would a court interpret a text such as "Everyone has a right to water"? They might interpret it as meaning that the government should give everyone unlimited amounts of free water. This would obviously cause problems.

I know that Charter rights are enforced by the courts. That's not what I meant. The problem is: how would the courts interpret economic rights (as discussed above), and how can we design the text to ensure that the courts enforce them as they were originally intended? Yes, I believe most of what would be considered economic rights would be under provincial jursdiction. I suppose you could leave it up to the discretion of the courts to decide which level of government is responsible for each specific right, but that might cause problems as well.

[eyeball]

Ultimately, it would be the responsibility of the individuals to provide these things (food, shelter, water) for themselves, but I see economic rights as a means of ensuring that the government provides a decent level of access to them.

In the case of the basics that means access to natural resources. So what constitutes a decent level? What are people to do if the governments that regulate access to these in the name of managing them sustainably allow them to be over-exploited or privatize the ownership of these resources? This forces people to access their needs by purchasing them from their owner instead of providing for them themselves.

The so-called tragedy of the commons is being replaced by the tragedy of enclosure which, in a word, is what privatization truly is.

I think economic rights are a communal right that can only be expressed by recognizing an adjacency principle that ensures local people are given a greater say in the management of the natural resources that surround them than people from outside the region are given. Globalization is destroying economic rights by turning natural resources into a wholly privatized commodities that need to be purchased instead of harvested.

Edited April 5, 2008 by eyeball

[Regulus de Leo]

Hey all, my first post here. Great site!

I was wondering what some of your views were on economic inequalities. I kmnow its been a reoccuring theme throughout Canadian history and was wondering what you guys thought were the most significant aspects?

Has much changed?

Inequality is the natural state of mankind. Nothing wrong with it.

[eyeball]

Hey all, my first post here. Great site!

I was wondering what some of your views were on economic inequalities. I kmnow its been a reoccuring theme throughout Canadian history and was wondering what you guys thought were the most significant aspects?

Has much changed?

The feeling is – and facts bear it out – that wealthy Canadians are getting richer at a rate much faster than those in the middle or at the bottom.

Link

The most significant aspect of economic inequality to me relates to how people are governed, and little has changed in the way Canada has been governed for decades. In my region after nearly 30 years of steady decline in salmon, a lifeblood of many coastal communities not so long ago, DFO has finally decided to look at what local people were saying for just as long. That fisheries management should be a collaborative effort driven by a bottom up community-based process. Its only taken the near extinction of some historically strong local runs and the prospect of no fishing period for anyone to bring DFO around. Not quite in the nick of time but I suppose its a start.

Its probably to late for me to ever feel very collaborative, I trust DFO in particular and the government in general about as far as I can spit. If we ever do get real self-government where I live I'll be one of the old curmugeonly elders in the back warning the young people to watch these regulators like hawks.

Edited April 5, 2008 by eyeball

[Sean Hayward]

Inequality is the natural state of mankind. Nothing wrong with it.

Couldn't agree with you more, but there should be a baseline quality of life provided to all members of society regardless of their ability to pay. That's what I think these economic rights are all about. By the way, if economic rights are ever entrenched in the Charter of Rights, I think property rights should be entrenched as well. This would create a need for balance in the interpretation of economic rights. Also, I think the wording could be done in a way that does not allow any confusion in interpretation. For example, instead of saying "Everyone has the right to water", a more effective text would be "Everyone has the right to have reasonable access to an adequate source of water". This still leaves open the question of which level of government should provide that. The most effective way might be to include a clause that directs the courts to decide which level of government should provide which economic rights, based on the division of powers.

[Renegade]

I see economic rights as a means of ensuring that the government provides a decent level of access to them.

Why is it the govenment's responsibility to do so? Your phrasing suggest that the government must take some action which implies a cost that must be borne by taxpayers. Why is is a "right" to be able to impose a cost on individuals who may or may not be willing to bear those costs.

For example, a right to water would force the government to provide affordable, clean water to the people. The people would still have to pay for it themselves.

I don't see this a s mandate of government. If someone lives in an area where there is no water and it is expensive to provide water, why is it an obligation of the rest of the citizens to subsidze the cost ot water to an "affordable" level. Why isn't it simply an obligation of that individual to move to an area where water is more affordable?

Couldn't agree with you more, but there should be a baseline quality of life provided to all members of society regardless of their ability to pay.

Why? As much as you think there shoudl be a obligation of government to provide baseline services, I think the obligation rest with individuals to provide for themselves.

For example, instead of saying "Everyone has the right to water", a more effective text would be "Everyone has the right to have reasonable access to an adequate source of water". This still leaves open the question of which level of government should provide that. The most effective way might be to include a clause that directs the courts to decide which level of government should provide which economic rights, based on the division of powers.

How about a clause which says that "no one has the right to intefere with the free exchange of water". The way you want phrase it, implies a proactive obligation by the government. I dont' believe government shoudl be under any such obligation. A government is under no obligaiton to provide anything execpt what it has agreed with its citizens at election time.

BTW, if what you are proposing is such a great idea, why stop at water. Why not obligate government to provide a house with a backyard, a car , and a flat-screen TV. I mean, why stop at necessities?

[Sean Hayward]

Yes, you have shown some of the many problems with entrenching economic rights. There are many issues that come into play here and that is why it is such a complicated proposal. Economic rights are "positive rights". That is, they require the government to do something for people, not just to refrain from doing something aka "negative rights" (as most rights currently in the Charter of Rights are).

All of the potential economic rights that I would propose are very basic things and would not impose any substantial cost beyond that which is currently assumed by government to provide these services. And I have already stated that the text of those rights should be written to make it clear that the individual would still, ultimately, have to provide it themselves and incur a cost in doing so.

Another problem is the question of where do you draw the line. I think that is something that society will just have to decide, if and when economic rights are ever to be entrenched. Personally I would never propose an economic right to anything above the most basic necessities for living, such as food, water, shelter, etc.

[Renegade]

Yes, you have shown some of the many problems with entrenching economic rights. There are many issues that come into play here and that is why it is such a complicated proposal. Economic rights are "positive rights". That is, they require the government to do something for people, not just to refrain from doing something aka "negative rights" (as most rights currently in the Charter of Rights are).

No one has even shown that anyone is entitled to the "positive rights" which you speak of.

All of the potential economic rights that I would propose are very basic things and would not impose any substantial cost beyond that which is currently assumed by government to provide these services. And I have already stated that the text of those rights should be written to make it clear that the individual would still, ultimately, have to provide it themselves and incur a cost in doing so.

The issue is beyond the level it would cost to provide those services. It is whether those services should be forced as on obligation or is it at the discresion of the government.

Moreover, no one can guarantee that the cost would not be substantial. If water suddenly becomes in short supply, the cost could indeed be substantial.

Another problem is the question of where do you draw the line. I think that is something that society will just have to decide, if and when economic rights are ever to be entrenched. Personally I would never propose an economic right to anything above the most basic necessities for living, such as food, water, shelter, etc.

Even the line you draw is murky. The level of what is a "basic necessity" is subject to change. I would submit that a common definition of what is a "basic necessity" is very different today then it was 2000 years ago.

[charter.rights]

No one has even shown that anyone is entitled to the "positive rights" which you speak of.

The issue is beyond the level it would cost to provide those services. It is whether those services should be forced as on obligation or is it at the discresion of the government.

Moreover, no one can guarantee that the cost would not be substantial. If water suddenly becomes in short supply, the cost could indeed be substantial.

Even the line you draw is murky. The level of what is a "basic necessity" is subject to change. I would submit that a common definition of what is a "basic necessity" is very different today then it was 2000 years ago.

Cost has no bearing on the protection of rights. Regardless, rights protected under the Charter come before all other considerations EXCEPT where the protection of one right may interfere with another's equally protected right.

[Renegade]

Cost has no bearing on the protection of rights. Regardless, rights protected under the Charter come before all other considerations EXCEPT where the protection of one right may interfere with another's equally protected right.

Unlike economic rights, rights defined under the charter do not imply a specific cost obligation by the government. For example, your right of freedom of speech does not imply that the government must pay for a billboard so you can publish your ideas.

IMV, no right should imply a cost obligation on the government, it should simply govern the restrictions which government can put on us or we can put on each other.

[Sean Hayward]

"Positive rights" and "negative rights" are philosophical concepts and the idea that rights can forced a government to do something, just as they can force a government not to do something, is well-established.

The issue is one of access. What I am saying is that the government should be forced to make certain basic necesities available to everyone. I am not saying that the government should have to "spoon feed" things to people.

In response to the fact that what constitutes a "basic necessity" is bound to change, I would say that the rights must be basic enough so as to remain constant. Sure certain things in life are bound to change, such as cars and electronics, but I think the basic necessities I am talking about remain fairly constant. Even 2000 years ago, water, food and shelter were considered basic necessities just as they are today.

[Renegade]

"Positive rights" and "negative rights" are philosophical concepts and the idea that rights can forced a government to do something, just as they can force a government not to do something, is well-established.

By well-established do you also mean well-accepted or only well discussed?

Have a look at this article:Rights vs. Wishes

At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from?

The issue is one of access. What I am saying is that the government should be forced to make certain basic necesities available to everyone. I am not saying that the government should have to "spoon feed" things to people.

Yes I understand that you feel that, but you have presented no justitication that economic rights are rights in the same manner as other rights.

Even in the absence of government individuals still have the other rights (eg does it take the presence of government for me to have religious freedom?). The reason the other rights are established as rights is simply because government has the power to intefere with those right via the laws it makes. In the absense of government who would uphold an individual's "economic rights". If the answer is nobody, then it would indicate that such a "right" is no right at all but is in fact a service provided by government.

In response to the fact that what constitutes a "basic necessity" is bound to change, I would say that the rights must be basic enough so as to remain constant. Sure certain things in life are bound to change, such as cars and electronics, but I think the basic necessities I am talking about remain fairly constant. Even 2000 years ago, water, food and shelter were considered basic necessities just as they are today.

So if I understand you, the meaning of "basic necessitiy" is the minimial amount of nourishment and shelter requred to keep someone living?

Edited April 8, 2008 by Renegade

[charter.rights]

Unlike economic rights, rights defined under the charter do not imply a specific cost obligation by the government. For example, your right of freedom of speech does not imply that the government must pay for a billboard so you can publish your ideas.

IMV, no right should imply a cost obligation on the government, it should simply govern the restrictions which government can put on us or we can put on each other.

You missed the point. The government cannot limit rights because they cost to much. One cannot use cost as out from protecting or recognizing rights.

In example:

It has already been proven in Ontario that the cost renovating a building to provide barrier free access cannot be used as an excuse. If a company provides services to the public where it might be expected that someone with limited abilities might enter, the proprietor must provide accommodation, including access and mobility within his or her space, regardless if it is a new building or an existing one.

[Sean Hayward]

By well-established, I mean that the concept has been discussed extensively throughout history and has been explored via intellectual debate, and so it is not unheard of, in fact far from it, to have a right impose an obligation on government to do something. For example, the Charter of Rights guarantees the right to an interpreter if the accused does not understand the language in which the proceedings are to be conducted. Of course, this imposes an obligation on the government to provide an interpreter, presumably at some cost.

That quote is flawed in that it supposes that no traditional "negative rights" impose any obligation on anyone. The right to freedom of speech can impose obligations on others. What about policing costs required to protect controversial groups while protesting? An incidental cost, I grant you, but a cost nonetheless. I see no distinction between different types of costs required to protect different types of rights.

I do not follow the line of thinking on rights in your second paragraph. Are you saying that any right that presumes the existence of government should not exist? This is too simplistic a view of rights and freedoms.

Yes, I think your assessment of my definition of "basic necessities" is about right. Basic necessities are those things required to keep a person in a basic standard of living (not starving or dying of thirst or living on the streets, etc).

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Whether you speak of economic or human rights the government perpetuates the inequities of this nation. To prove the point you need only look as far as the First Nations. The have a right to not work and be paid by the government. The have the right to health care, education and housing. Those folks have the right to hunt and fish anytime and anywhere they want on crown land. The are entitled to mineral rights on land they are entitled to. The have freedom from taxation in some cases as well. They certainly have both economic and human rights, yet the rest of us most definitely do not.

The system we have was flawed to begin with, as of this moment in time it is more fouled up than it was when it began.

[Renegade]

By well-established, I mean that the concept has been discussed extensively throughout history and has been explored via intellectual debate, and so it is not unheard of, in fact far from it, to have a right impose an obligation on government to do something. For example, the Charter of Rights guarantees the right to an interpreter if the accused does not understand the language in which the proceedings are to be conducted. Of course, this imposes an obligation on the government to provide an interpreter, presumably at some cost.

It may have been extensively discussed however there is not any consensus that positive rights should be guaranteed in the same way negative rights are. IMV the Charter should not impose any rights which impose an obligation for the government. For example the right to an interpreter should not be a right which means that the government should have to pay to supply one, only that they have access to one at their own cost.

That quote is flawed in that it supposes that no traditional "negative rights" impose any obligation on anyone. The right to freedom of speech can impose obligations on others. What about policing costs required to protect controversial groups while protesting? An incidental cost, I grant you, but a cost nonetheless. I see no distinction between different types of costs required to protect different types of rights.

No. I don't believe there is an obligation to protect controversial groups while protesting. I belive that is done simply to preserve order and to maintain current laws. Do you have any cite or precedent that shows that the protection of controversial groups is a fundanmental obligation off the government to preserve freedom of speech?

I do not follow the line of thinking on rights in your second paragraph. Are you saying that any right that presumes the existence of government should not exist? This is too simplistic a view of rights and freedoms.

I'm saying that for a right to be a "right" it exists with or without government. Anything else is simply a service provided by government. It it fundamental to the question of "What is a right?"

[Sean Hayward]

I'm not saying there is a consensus on positive rights, I'm just saying that the concept has been explored in the past and is philosophically well-defined. Of course, it is a subject over which there is going to be some division of opinion, just like everything else. There are some who do not believe that there should be any constitutional rights at all and there are some that believe in widely expanded constitutional rights, and the vast majority of people are somewhere in the middle.

It is not a fundamental obligation of the government to protect groups while protesting. However, I think it is necessary to protect people to allow them to exercise their rights. This is essential to the existence of rights. Perhaps you disagree. Following your line of logic, one could argue that the government has no obligations whatsoever, not even to uphold their own laws.

Without government, there would be no rights. That is the problem with your argument. The existence of rights requires a government to protect those rights against infringement by others. The people have rights guaranteed to them through the constitution, and it is the responsiblity of the government to ensure that those rights can be freely exercised.

[Renegade]

Following your line of logic, one could argue that the government has no obligations whatsoever, not even to uphold their own laws.

Yes. Who, or what obliges the government to uphold their own laws? In fact the decision to uphold a law is entirely at the descretion of the government's own employees (namely the police and prosecuters).

Without government, there would be no rights. That is the problem with your argument. The existence of rights requires a government to protect those rights against infringement by others.

Complelety disagree. The rights exist whether or not there is a government. The government simply acknowledges the rights we all already have and agrees to enforce our access to those rights.

If I had my own ability to enforce my right to free speech, would I still have the right to free speech?

The people have rights guaranteed to them through the constitution, and it is the responsiblity of the government to ensure that those rights can be freely exercised.

Agree with you here. It is part of the mandate of government to ensure that rights can be freely exercised, however for the most part since it is only government that has the ability to curtial an individual's rights, what this obligation means is simply that government must restrain itself so as it doesn't infringe and individual's rights.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Renegade

[Sean Hayward]

But shouldn't rights also be protected against infringement by other individuals, as well against infringement by government? The rule of law is a fundamental obligation of government. Without it, rights, constitutions, and democracy mean nothing.

If I had my own ability to enforce my right to free speech, would I still have the right to free speech? Of course, but how could your ability to freely exercise your rights be guaranteed? However, without government, there would be no authority to protect the free exercise of rights. Therefore, the rights would not exist in effect. You would, in theory, have absolute freedom without government, but others would also have absolute freedom, and they could use that absolute freedom to limit your ability to exercise your rights. Is that kind of society truly free? I don't believe it is. It would be the ultimate example of "might makes right".

[Renegade]

But shouldn't rights also be protected against infringement by other individuals, as well against infringement by government? The rule of law is a fundamental obligation of government. Without it, rights, constitutions, and democracy mean nothing.

Yes it should, and I agree that the rule of law is a fundamental obligation of government. However I think there are three separable concepts:

• 1. The rights themselves which exist with or without government.
  2. The enforcement of the rights (which for the most part we delegate to government).
  3. The government as the trangressor of individual rights.
  

Documents such at the Charter are primarily used to acknowledge the rights of individuals and to address the issue of government being trangressor of individual rights.

but how could your ability to freely exercise your rights be guaranteed? However, without government, there would be no authority to protect the free exercise of rights.

It is "guaranteed" the same way it is now. IOW, it is subject to the power of enforcement, regardless of if that power come from government or myself.

Therefore, the rights would not exist in effect. You would, in theory, have absolute freedom without government, but others would also have absolute freedom, and they could use that absolute freedom to limit your ability to exercise your rights. Is that kind of society truly free? I don't believe it is. It would be the ultimate example of "might makes right".

You seem to hold the position that rights do not exist unless the government grants and guarantees them. Let me ask, if the government of a country (say China) doesn't grant or guarantee a set of rights to its population, does that mean that its population doesn't have any rights? Should we have any recourse to protest that Chinese government is violating the rights of its people when by your position they don't have those rights to begin with as they were never granted by the government.

[Sean Hayward]

If there was no government, there would be no rights because there would be no authority to guarantee them. For example, if there was no government and you wanted to speak against a certain group, but members of that group would kill anyone who spoke against them and there was no government to protect you, would you have freedom of speech? With government, the "power of enforcement" protects everyone equally, but, without government, some, perhaps most, people would have little or no such power.

If the government does not guarantee any rights, or does guarantee rights in theory but does not respect the rule of law, then the people would indeed have no rights. They would be entirely subject to the discretion of the government, without limitation. I understand what you are saying about the people possessing inherent rights. To say that the people should have rights does not mean that they do have rights. In response to your example, the people of China should have rights, but they obviously have very few, if any, rights in actuality.