These days, the Liberal Party isn’t exactly known for pro-freedom policies. We live in a world where group rights and identity politics seem to be winning the day. And we could be forgiven for believing the Liberal Party of Canada falls on the wrong side of the battle for hearts and minds.
But it seems that some Liberal MPs have put serious thought into why freedom is bad.
Justin Trudeau promoted an MP who doesn’t believe in private property.
David Lametti, MP for the Quebec riding of LaSalle-Émard-Verdun (formerly held by Paul Martin), got his PhD in law from Oxford University. He wrote his thesis on the “ethics and obligations” of private property ownership.
He says that “private property is controversial.”
The big problem?
That it “confers a great deal of autonomy to the individual.”
In his worldview, it seems that individual autonomy (also known as “freedom”) is bad.
Trudeau promoted him to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation, Science, and Economic Development.
Meanwhile, Filomena Tassi, a Liberal MP for Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, wrote in her book, Opening the Door, that “[w]e need to be … regulated in daily life by government laws. Without these guides our lives become confused, chaotic and destructive.”
This is not the Liberal Party of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said, “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality.”
Sure, Trudeau probably didn’t know David Lametti’s radical views on private property when he promoted him. But do you think Lametti will be fired from the role if the public catches on?
Lametti believes “in theory and practice, private property cannot be justified or explained in rights-based terms.”
This is a man who believes that you don’t have the right to own property.
He wrote that “private property, resources, and social wealth generally exist to serve a greater good. When private property cannot best serve this purpose, it may be expropriated and replaced with a different conception of property.”
In other words, if you aren’t using what you own for the greater good, the government should just take it away. Who decides the greater good? Government, of course.
He called inheritance a “very controversial exchange privilege.”
This guy is not just a Member of Parliament. As a Parliamentary Secretary, he has more authority. And more influence. What guarantees do we have that his radical worldview won’t end up in government policy?
The ministry he’s a part of used to be called Industry Canada. It oversees the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Corporations Canada, the Copyright Board of Canada, and all the regional development agencies that give tax dollars to pet projects in the areas of Canada hooked on government handouts.
You don’t have to pass new laws to change the regulations in some of these Crown agencies. That means the media might not even catch on as changes are made. There’s no public oversight. No scrutiny.
This matters to the day-to-day life of Canadians, and what we can or can’t do with our property. Tassi thinks we need the government to protect us from ourselves so we don’t get confused. Lametti says if we don’t use our property properly, the government should take it and make it communally owned.
These are opinions that voters should know about. Hopefully it means enough to affect the way they vote.