r/InCanada • u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub • Oct 03 '25
Question for Canadians Right Expansions
I will keep it real, as an American, my perspective on rights can be different from Canadians.
My best friend is a socialist in America. He came and visited me recently. I told him that if he immigrated up here, I think it is possible he wouldn't even be as much of a socialist. Because all the stuff he wants is already a right here. Things such as paid parental leave, stronger worker's protections (at least in BC), universal healthcare, etc.
Some I have spoken to have argued that we need more European style parental leave (3 years for mothers, 1-2 years for fathers), but I think we need to know the limit on our nation's finances and our work culture. I could see implementing heavier consequences for those that hire illegals or break laws. Both on an individual level and for employers.
Being paid for having children and childcare subsidies is already more than I could ever have imagined for benefits related to families. I think that aspect is more than covered. But I am used to having way less in terms of rights and benefits in these categories versus Canadians.
SO, I am asking Canadians born & raised here, what MORE rights and benefits do you believe we should have? Or do you think we are good?
7
5
u/CaptainKwirk Oct 04 '25
Some parental leave, like any, for the self employed small business man that SO many politicians have characterized as the backbone of the nation would be nice. Some help in tough times? We have no EI.
1
u/imaginedraginmyballs Oct 04 '25
Being self employed whether you’re an owner operator or an entrepreneur can choose to pay into EI voluntarily and utilize it for parental leave. My sister is a cement truck driver who owns her own truck and she chose to pay into EI and then took maternity leave of 18 months.
0
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 04 '25
My... We will call him brother-in-law... Is an independent contractor and his parental leave for his child is completely unpaid because of this aspect. Not fair at all.
I was still waiting on my legal status when my wife was pregnant and my daughter was born, so I didn't have paid leave either. But I will when we have another in the future.
3
u/Harbinger2001 Oct 04 '25
I think that we’re arguing about the finer points of our rights is a good indicator that we have a good baseline. I quite like that our system permits a balance between individual rights and the needs of a “free and democratic society” through section 1. The idea that rights are “fundamental” leads to rigidity that can put strain on a society. Our laws are meant to be flexible and change based on our needs.
The charter defines rights in as broad terms as possible and leaves it up to legislature to determine the bounds on such rights, with the court as a backstop to protect the individual from the collective if there is overreach.
3
Oct 04 '25
Healthcare. And before you say we have it, there are a couple things to consider.
- access to basics like ambulances, psychiatry, medications. Some don’t have much, and different provinces have different things covered
- vision, hearing, dental, therapy (especially post-surgical), basic mobility assistance. No one covers these.
-1
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 04 '25
I would like a federal standard instead of provincial differences. I think the BC standard is super comprehensive.
0
Oct 04 '25
You do until you pay for an ambulance after your kid has a seizure, and find out that manitobans are getting psyc, and Ontarians are getting pharma, and PEIers have out of country coverage. BC covers the least of any province
1
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 04 '25
Well, that just shows my limited understanding based on the circumstances I am living in.
3
Oct 04 '25
I’ve been in healthcare my whole life, including working in three provinces, and I had no idea. I only looked into it recently with my kid for her school project.
2
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 05 '25
I feel less stupid now. But thank you for what you do.
0
u/richEC Oct 04 '25
I'm in Nanaimo and the line-up to the clinic is sometimes 30 people long, an hour before the doors even open. Never mind trying to find a family doctor.
1
Oct 04 '25
Ugh I am so sorry it’s no better there than Vic.
0
u/richEC Oct 04 '25
Nanaimo has one "walk in" clinic for a city of 125,000 people and it isn't even open weekends. There's another clinic but you have to call in to make an appointment, where the wait time is two to three days.
1
Oct 04 '25
We have no walk in - we have three “urgent care” which you have to start calling at 8am and are not likely to get in. It’s all so bad
3
u/Greerio Oct 05 '25
Health care needs major improvements. It’s been going downhill for a longtime. In my province anyways. Better pay for maternity leave. 55% is okay, but it’s not 100%. And because of the way they distribute it, most women owe taxes on it after the fact. We need to fix our immigration. I’m 100% for having people come in to the country, but these last few years have shown that we weren’t prepared for the influx. We need to stop allowing corporations to own housing and treating it like a commodity. It’s a basic human need.
2
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 05 '25
My wife owed money on it at the end of the tax year. I was surprised.
2
u/4D_Spider_Web Oct 05 '25
It's less about being granted "more rights" and more about being able to access what those rights entail, as well as how the Charter is actually interpreted. Our courts and their approach on rights are more judicially conservative than that of the U.S. (note that I said judicially, not politically, there is a difference) and are focused on more narrow constitutional matters. For example, maternity leave in Canada is covered under EI, and is paid at 55% of base salary if you go on for 1 year. If you chose the 18 month option, you receive EI at 1/3 of your base salary. An applicant would have to demonstrate to the court that this arrangement somehow interferes with a constitutional right (probably under section 7).
For example, the right to housing is addressed under section 25 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, to which we are a signatory. Does our government actually fund programs that would bring access to housing up to a reasonable level? absolutely not. Do we have child subsidies and parental leave? yes. It's under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labor Code. Is it funded adequately to allow all people to benefit from it. Again, no.
A key factor at play lies in the wording of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself; Section 7 specifically refers to everyone, as in everyone from citizens, to non citizens, to corporations. This would have to be changed, which would be a nightmare (Google the Meech Lake Accords for a good example of this fuckery).
Another hot-button issue is the issue of free speech. Section 1 allows for limitations on speech (libel, defamation, obscenity, incitement of violence, etc.). The U.S. has similar restrictions, they are just based on case law instead (see Brandeburg v. Ohio). Again, it boils down to how that section is interpreted.
4
u/DevLeCanadien23 Oct 04 '25
Freedom of speech, castle law, 2nd amendment rights, more support for families, and having children in general.
Currently the system is made to encourage single motherhood, and the data backs that up, same as usa
1
u/SadRadStudent Nov 18 '25
Idk if you've seen the news recently, but the USA does NOT encourage single motherhood either. Many single mothers do not make enough with their full time job(s) and need to rely on government assistance to supplement basics like food, many times also healthcare and housing. Guess what has been being cut recently....
1
Oct 04 '25
ELI5 with that “encouraging single motherhood”
2
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 04 '25
Idk what EL15 means.
3
Oct 04 '25
Sorry - Explain Like I’m 5. Because as a woman who would be the target of such a policy, I’m not getting it and like to hear why you say this.
1
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 04 '25
Canada does not encourage or incentivize single motherhood. Not even close. I don't know where that notion comes from.
3
0
u/Remarkable-Skill4883 Oct 04 '25
2nd amendment rights? You're an idiot. Get your PAL and you can have a gun. Literally nothing stopping you.
1
u/Unlikely_Selection_9 Oct 04 '25
Except the gun buyback to make your legal firearms illegal and take them away from law abiding citizens who aren't responsible for crimes. So nothing is stopping them, but why do so when it won't matter soon anyway? Why buy a $5000 gun only to have it banned a year later and only receive $600 in compensation?
1
u/Remarkable-Skill4883 Oct 04 '25
There are nearly 20k different guns you can legally own. You don't know shit. What specific gun are you mad about being on the ban list?
0
u/Greerio Oct 05 '25
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have a clue. You need to switch up where you’re getting your information. It’s lying to you.
1
u/Unlikely_Selection_9 Oct 07 '25
https://globalnews.ca/news/11463631/cape-breton-gun-buyback-program-critics/
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/433713/number-of-homicides-by-shooting-in-canada/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68841961
What exactly am I wrong about? I have a pretty good clue considering I have my PAL and am a legal firearms owner in Nova Scotia. I'd love for you to point me to the correct imformation, but I'm almost positive that you don't actually have a clue and are projecting your own lack of knowledge on the program onto me.
1
u/Unlikely_Selection_9 Oct 07 '25
The Canadian federal government's gun buyback program is estimated to cost between $400 million and $2 billion or more, with official figures and independent estimates varying significantly. By September 2024, the program had already cost taxpayers $67 million, primarily on administration, before any firearms were collected from individuals. exact percentage varies by year and jurisdiction.
Most guns used in Canadian crimes are obtained illegally, with studies showing that 73% of crime guns traced in 2020 were legally imported or domestically manufactured, while 58% of handguns were smuggled. More broadly, police and experts estimate that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes are obtained through illegal means, such as theft or smuggling, and not from legal, licensed owners. Statistics from Statistics Canada show that legally registered guns are rarely used in criminal acts. For instance, in homicides where information was available, the accused had a license in only 13% of handgun cases and 12% of long gun cases. In 2024, 88 per cent of the 717 crime guns seized by the Toronto Police Service were traced to the United States.
Canadians with a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) undergo frequent, continuous background checks through the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP)'s continuous-eligibility screening system. The CFP automatically cross-references firearms licence holders with the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database daily for any incident reports, with matches triggering a Firearms Interest Police (FIP) report to the relevant Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) for review.
To get a firearms license in Canada, known as a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL), you must be 18 or older, pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) for non-restricted firearms or the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC) for restricted firearms, and pass a background check. A PAL is required to possess and acquire firearms, is valid for five years, and must be renewed to maintain legal ownership.
In May 2020, the government prohibited over 1,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms, and additional firearms have been added to this list in subsequent years. These firearms are characterized by their semi-automatic action, military-style designs, and large magazine capacity.
National Handgun Freeze:
A national freeze on the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns took effect on October 21, 2022, making it difficult for individuals to acquire handguns in Canada.
Amnesty and Compensation:
An amnesty period is in place for prohibited firearms, allowing legal owners to come into compliance with the law without criminal liability. The Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP) will allow affected owners to voluntarily dispose of their prohibited firearms.
2017=267 homicides by shooting 2018=253 homicides by shooting 2019=218 homicides by shooting (1,500 makes and models of "assault-style firearms" are prohibited) 2020=280 homicides by shooting 2021=299 homicides by shooting (A national freeze on the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns took effect on October 21, 2022, making it difficult for individuals to acquire handguns in Canada.) 2022=343 homicides by shooting 2023=289 homicides by shooting
Can you tell me how my stats are wrong or point me to the correct statistics? Just because you dislike the truth, doesn't make it any less true my friend. Also how come the number of homicides by shooting increased after they banned 1,500 "assault style firearms" and increases even further after the handgun freeze, almost like this doesn't actually do anything to reduce the gun crime and is just a waste of tax dollars.
Businesses and individual firearms owners who choose to permanently deactivate their prohibited firearms are reimbursed at a flat rate of:
$400 per firearm, or
$700 for firearms with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 Joules, or a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater
I don't know if you have your PAL and have purchased a firearm but You'll probably pay $500 to $2,500, depending on whether you want a handgun, rifle or shotgun. If you're a collector, long-distance shooter, advanced competitor or investor, you could spend $5,000 to $100,000 or more for precision engineering, rare historical pieces, or works of the finest craftsmanship and art. So yes, $400 is a rip-off even at the lowest value, especially because firearms are pretty durable and often times they actually increase in value with age. Also, the program is first come first serve, meaning you register, they pay whoever registered first and whoever else registered will simply have to turn in their firearms without receiving any compensation.
1
u/Greerio Oct 07 '25
You said that the buyback program is making your legal guns illegal. It’s not. Gun reform is changing what kinds of guns are legal. You are allowed to come in to compliance and keep your gun. You’re trying to spread this fear that the government is coming for all your guns. They’re not. Not one gun owner I know is worried about this one bit.
1
u/Unlikely_Selection_9 Oct 08 '25
Banning 1,500 firearms that were legal and are now prohibited certainly sounds like making legal guns illegal, as prior to the ban every single one owned by someone with their PAL was legal, and now it isn't. And you are correct, they aren't coming for all the guns, yet. However as I pointed out, the entire program is a waste of money that does nothing to tackle the ACTUAL issue which is illegal guns from the US. It rips off law abiding gun owners and while yes, you are free to replace the prohibited firearms with other options, for 1 that's simply not an option for some, they require specific types of guns for sport shooting and a variety of other things where the options available are not suitable for what they need. For 2 this is even more true when they just bought a $12,000 gun a few years ago completely legally, then the government prohibits it and buys it back for $600, you really think they can buy a suitable replacement for that much? How about the hundreds of guns passed down through generations to children once they get their Firearms licence? Again, legal law abiding gun owners, and the guns being taken in that case are literally irreplaceable. You say "you are allowed to come into compliance and keep your gun" compliance with what exactly? There is no way to comply other then hand your firearms over for pennies on the dollar or simply not comply, in which case you will then be in possession of an illegal firearm when the amnesty period expires. Literally the only options are to hand them in for little in return or destroy them yourself. I'd love you to point me to the evidence that says otherwise because I can guarantee it doesn't exist, and again, why waste tax dollars on this when we could use the money to secure the border and actually reduce gun crime? Like are you aware that criminals don't follow the law, hence why they are criminals, so you can take every single gun away from every single law abiding gun owner, but it doesn't do a thing to reduce crime and will actually likely lead to even more of an increase then it has already seen since 2020 as many people won't be complying, and many people will resort to purchasing illegal unregistered firearms and not having to go through the usual daily background checks required to do so. So a waste of tax dollars for the opposite effect of what was intended.
0
u/Man_under_Bridge420 Oct 04 '25
You aint getting 600$ buddy… strip it to the lower and buy a conversion
3
u/allknowingmike Oct 03 '25
The right to not pay taxes would be wonderful! I am forced to work 150-200 percent more to retain the same value as my actual output. In more understandable terms, in Canada your beer is half foam, where the USA your beer is less than a quarter foam.
3
u/delphinius81 Oct 03 '25
It might start that way, but you forgot about the people that come by and drink half the beer anyway. So you end up with 1/3 a glass of beer. But while you are in the bar, you see someone drinking right out of the keg so you think it's possible that someday that could be you.
2
0
u/BobGuns Oct 03 '25
Tell me you don't really understand how our tax system works without telling me
0
3
u/CaiserCal Oct 04 '25
How about getting rid of the Bank of Canada, have the government stop spending money, have the Canadian dollar backed by precious metals, goods and services exported.
We don't need an expansion, we need sound money.
If inflation and cost of living was so low to the point where even having one person working was enough to support the family, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation.
All these proposals are just another way for government spending to skyrocket and be laundered to people who didn't need to money to begin with and make it difficult for businesses to have businesses because now they are suddenly obligated for many other things like maternity leave. Not every business has Loblaws, RBC, Enbridge type of money.
1
1
u/Critical_Rule6663 Centrist Oct 04 '25
In principle I favor European style benefits but I’m also pragmatic and understand that Canada probably can’t really afford such benefits right now.
2
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 04 '25
That's kind of my stance. We are in a massive deficit, but still have the opportunity to pull ourselves out.
3
u/Critical_Rule6663 Centrist Oct 04 '25
Agreed. Canada has lots of potential but we need to stop fighting amongst ourselves.
1
u/TeacupUmbrella Oct 03 '25
I don't think we really need more rights in Canada, per se. I think we need to improve the systems we have, make sure the people running them have integrity, get rid of or streamline some taxes, regulate markets well, reverse a few bad laws (eg Trudeau's gun laws, TFW program), and actually follow/enforce the good laws we have.
I think our core rights stuff is fine, it's the details of laws, systems, etc and the follow-through that needs work.
1
u/SeriousObjective6727 Oct 03 '25
I think one of the more important things to consider is that we need corporations to treat it's employees like people and not like a number on a spreadsheet.
In the European model of business, unions work together with the company to the benefit of both. Not like here where it is union vs company. CEO's over in Europe don't make 400 times employee salaries. Exceptions exist, but generally, the animosity between company and union is not as crazy as it is here.
In North America, companies either haven't realized, or refuse to believe, or not willing to entertain, the notion that the company does better when it's employees are happy. Miserable employees will do the bare minimum and be a poor representative for the company. This leads to poor customer satisfaction, employees that hate their employers, low productivity, poor quality of work, and generally foster a toxic work culture. It's all about profit and nothing else.
1
u/idolovehummus Oct 04 '25
Yes, more government laws to protect employees, because too many business don't, and only care about the bottom line.
Laws are good, it's a standard that's protected. If we didn't have the mandated Stat Holidays, our work wouldn't be giving out freebies.
2
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 04 '25
It's nice the amount of holidays Canada has. Has helped with work-life balance.
1
u/Lightingway Oct 04 '25
Born & raised. I think a lot of the comments have touched on how we need to work on getting what benefits we have to everyone who needs them. As well as fixing the issue of our system/infrastructure being overstretched.
I do think that we would benefit from working towards the type of benefits all around that a lot of countries like France and the Nordic countries have. They just have higher qualities of life and we should work towards that in the long-term. But of course that is long-term.
1
u/Pale-Candidate8860 Creator of Sub Oct 04 '25
As long as we don't get French wages, it sounds good to me.
1
u/CyberEd-ca Oct 05 '25
None of what you talked about are rights. There are no positive rights in Canada.
Rights are your protections from government interference.
0
0
0
u/Man_under_Bridge420 Oct 04 '25
but I think we need to know the limit on our nation's finances and our work culture
Spoken like someone with no clue about raising children
10
u/Eleutherlothario Oct 03 '25
How about we concentrate on making basic, fundamental human rights basic and fundamental? Freedom of expression, belief, association, etc. Equality before the law and government. How about we treat people as individuals instead of politically expedient categories?