Government ministry attempting to close Quebec clubs

Someone in the ministry recently bought a house near a site where model flying has been going on for 30 years or more perhaps?

Steve

>

You'd expect anything else from Quebecistan? :)

I sincerely hope that they're able to quash those asshats at CEPETQ.

If I was the property owner, not only would I tell 'em to see Figure 1, I'd install a blacktop runway for the club.

I don't understand where they get off thinking they can tell a private citizen what they can do with regard to recreational use of their property. I suppose it would be different if they were using the field as a toxic waste dump, or other credible environmental impact.

I wish them all the luck in their fight.

It seems to me that I recall that the land in Canada is not really owned by private citizens. Rather it is leased (long term) from the crown. Can anyone confirm or enlighten?

Harlan

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:46:09 -0500, "H Davis" wrote in :

It seems that it depends on the history of the piece of land in question:

I don't see the principle you mention in this 1991 article in favor of entrenching property rights in the Canadian constitution:

A number of arguments have been put forward in favour of the constitutional protection of property rights.

First of all, there is the historical precedent. Property rights have played a central role in the evolution of Canadian society and indeed are an essential part of British parliamentary democracy. These rights can be traced back to the year 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed. The right to own property was also included in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. In 1948, Canada signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of which reads:

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.

Property rights are also recognized in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights, which affirms the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. Clearly then, it is arguable that our Constitution should be brought into line with these historical documents.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Harrison v. Carswell,(3) commented upon property rights in Canadian law as follows:

Ango-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)

Section 26 of the Charter stipulates that:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada.

Case law has construed this section to mean that the common law protection of property rights is at least not threatened by the Charter.(5) Only the inclusion of property in the Charter, however, would enable an individual whose property rights had been infringed to have recourse to the enforcement section of the Charter. Subsection 24(1) states in part that "[a]nyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court ... to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."

It should be noted as well that the notion of property rights appears to enjoy public support. A poll commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate Board in 1987 found that 81% of Canadians considered it either "very" or "fairly" important that the Constitution be amended so as to include property rights. Various national organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Canadian Real Estate Association, have also stressed the need to include property rights in our Constitution.

In entrenching property rights, Canada would be following the lead of a number of other democratic countries, including the United States, West Germany, Italy and Finland. In the United States, as noted above, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed, stipulating that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. Thus, in the United States and in a number of other countries where property rights have received constitutional protection, their fundamental importance to the preservation of democracy is recognized.

Marty

Fine post, Marty!

Here in Oregon, after passage in 1973 of SB100, the land use legislation designed to protect farmers from being driven out by real estate developers, it was illegal to convert any farmland to anything non- agricultural. Modelers, with the support of farmers, obtained an exemption to that law, and several model clubs now operate legally on farmland, including my own. Perhaps the Oregon experience can lend support to our fellows in Québec.

Vive l'aeromodelisme Québecoise!

That's actually the basis of what is happening.

Please see the original thread for the latest updates.

BTW, you do not have to be a Canadian to register on the RCCanada website.