House of Commons Hansard #152 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.

Topics

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

An hon. member

You're a bunch of liars.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. I realize that we are having a lively debate, but to set things straight, I will ask the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans to withdraw the word chihuahua.

Then, I will ask the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry to withdraw the word liar.

The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, I remind you that this issue was already discussed in the House, because I once called the member for Bourassa a chihuahua. I am referring to what was said at the time.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Still, at this point, as the one in the Chair, I deem that expression to be unparliamentary. Therefore, I am asking the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans to withdraw his words.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my words.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. I will ask the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry to withdraw the term liar.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Serge Marcil Liberal Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that term.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst, his predecessor, Doug Young, was a typical example of a chihuahua's behaviour. Doug Young was a typical chihuahua.

A chihuahua is a little dog that barks a lot but does not bite. That was the case with Doug Young. He barked about everything, but his bark was worse than his bite, as they say, like the chihuahua.

Since I must get back to the crux of the matter, and the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry knows what I think of him, I would like to say that Bill C-49, particularly in connection with air travel, will penalize the regions.

The present Minister of Transport, an MP for the Toronto area, has the good fortune to work in Ottawa, which is served by RapidAir. There are Ottawa-Toronto and Toronto-Ottawa flights hourly. In peak periods, there is one every half hour. Can the Minister of Transport not understand how the regions, and the human beings living in the regions, can be penalized by his acceptance of this surtax, when he works in an area where airlines are not in a position to meet the demand?

Can the job done by the Minister of Transport. as far as air travel is concerned, be considered to have been effective? We need only think of the bankruptcies of InterCanadian, Royal Aviation, Region Air and Air Alma.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

RootsAir.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

My colleague from Calgary is suggesting RootsAir. This is the record of the Minister of Transport.

Does the Minister of Transport find that things are going well for regional air travel? It is a monumental failure. The result of this tax will be to impose once again a surcharge on the regions.

People who live in the regions have no choice but to go to the major centres. For instance, in Quebec the people in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, in Abitibi, in the Gaspé or on the north shore need to go to Montreal or Quebec City for specialized services. Our population is aging. I am thinking about my mother-in-law, who is 94 and lives in the Gaspé. There is no way she is going to take a bus or train to go to Quebec City for medical tests. This is utterly ridiculous and the government should think about it.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I would like to let the member for Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans know that he will have approximately five minutes remaining when we resume debate on this bill.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:30 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it has not been possible to reach an agreement under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) therefore, I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:30 p.m.

An hon. member

Shame.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Am I to understand it is the convention of the House for the government House leader, under the standing order in question, to be able to give notice of time allocation after two hours of debate at report stage? Is this the convention of this place, sir? Because if it is, it is outrageous.

Question No.100—Government Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I regret that this is not a point of order. What the government has chosen to do at this time is well within the rules of the House and so we will now proceed with other business.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Property RightsPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights fully examine the effectiveness of property rights protection for Canadian citizens as provided in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and report back to the House whether or not the federal laws protecting property rights need to be amended in order to comply with the international agreements Canada has entered into, including Article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states: “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.”.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time since 1997 that I have brought forth legislative proposals in an attempt to strengthen property rights in Canadian law.

On each of the four occasions my private member's bill and now my private member's motion have been declared non-votable. This is a regrettable situation. It is a serious infringement of our democratic rights and a violation of my rights as a member of parliament.

On three previous occasions I introduced well-researched, expertly drafted private member's bills to strengthen property rights in federal law. It is somewhat understandable for the government to be reluctant about passing legislation. Today's motion is simply asking the justice committee to fully examine the issue. Where is the risk in that?

I refer members to my motion again. It states:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights fully examine the effectiveness of property rights protection for Canadian citizens as provided in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and report back to the House whether or not the federal laws protecting property rights need to be amended in order to comply with the international agreements Canada has entered into, including Article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states: “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.”.

I am asking that we refer this to the committee to see whether this needs further strengthening in Canadian law.

I start today's debate by reading a Southam editorial by Murdock Davis that was published in many papers on January 10, 2001. I believe this puts the whole discussion into perspective. It states:

The right to acquire, use, enjoy and transfer property--land, buildings, vehicles, intellectual property and more--is fundamental to liberty. And Canadians are naive to rely on governments to respect ownership rights without a constitutional guarantee, considering the patchy record of those governments.

Aboriginal Canadians on reserves live with the corruption and economic desperation that accompanies insecure rights to property. Citizens of Japanese descent saw their property confiscated and sold during the Second World War. Prairie farmers have been jailed for exporting grain grown on their own land, rather than using the Canadian Wheat Board.

Proposed federal endangered species legislation could mean vast tracts of land are made off-limits to ranchers, farmers, other landowners and resource users, with compensation at the discretion of politicians. It could allow the federal government to intrude into property rights, generally a provincial jurisdiction.

Legislation passed to combat international terrorism authorizes police to seize certain property without normal judicial review.

The Firearms Act compels law-abiding owners to surrender certain firearms, without compensation. (Those who support this because they disapprove of guns should consider: If you favour government authority over property that you don't like, it is harder to fend government off when it comes after yours.)

Private property rights serve two purposes. They have economic utility, and they help guarantee political liberty.

Private property keeps power diffuse. It strengthens individual autonomy from government. Property rights and the protection of contracts form the legal foundation of the free-enterprise system. They create incentives by rewarding owners for wise stewardship and maximizing the productive use of resources.

Nations with the strongest protections for private property have the highest levels of prosperity. Canada is considered to have strong property protections, but it will take vigilance to maintain them.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in part: “(No persons shall) be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Canada's Bill of Rights says Canadians have the right to “enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law“. But parliament can override that bill at will, just as it can subvert through statute centuries of common law on property rights. Neither is part of the Constitution.

Entrenching similar language in the Charter would place the right at a higher level. It would give Canadians recourse, through the judiciary. It would place an onus on any government seeking to impinge on such rights to prove it meets the constitutional test of reasonableness.

The provinces were vocal opponents of a property-rights provision when the Charter was drafted: Saskatchewan, to protect its expropriated mineral resources and Crown corporations; P.E.I., to preserve laws limiting non-resident land ownership; Quebec, to safeguard its unique income-security programs. As co-conspirators with the federal government, provincial premiers are hardly reliable guardians of your property.

These limits and some of the examples cited previously might well qualify under the “reasonable limits” provision of our Charter. They are not reasons to oppose Charter protection.

James Madison, a drafter of the U.S. Constitution, recognized that a charter could not totally protect citizens from legislative intrusions. In Canada this would be even truer, because of the “reasonable limits” clause.

But Madison's argument for enshrining such rights was “to establish public opinion in their favour, and arouse the attention of the whole community”.

The attention of Canadians most certainly needs arousing.

To enhance our democracy, Canadian governments should establish a constitutional remedy to the expropriation or undue restriction of property.

Today we are not debating that property rights be entrenched in the charter. I want to make that clear. We are only debating whether there is enough evidence to show that the issue needs to be fully examined by the justice committee.

I have researched this issue for years and I have followed recent court cases over the years. I have a pretty good idea what the conclusion of such a study might be.

The committee would likely conclude that the only property rights protection Canadian citizens have in federal law is the totally ineffective protection provided by the Canadian Bill of Rights, as Saskatchewan farmer David Bryan found out in 1999. Here is his sad story.

David Bryan grew a crop of wheat on his own land. He got into trouble when he tried to sell his wheat for a better price than what the Canadian Wheat Board would pay him. The federal government charged Mr. Bryan with exporting his own grain to the United States without getting an export licence from the monopolistic, dictatorial wheat board.

For violating this Soviet style decree Mr. Bryan spent a week in jail, was fined $9,000 and received a two year suspended sentence.

Mr. Bryan--

Property RightsPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Canadian Wheat Board is not dictatorial; it is elected by producers. It has nothing to do--

Property RightsPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. O'Reilly)

I do not consider that a point of order.

Property RightsPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will extend my time because that was simply an abuse of privilege.

Mr. Bryan, with the help of the National Citizens' Coalition, appealed his conviction on the grounds that it violated his property rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights passed by this parliament in 1960. On February 4, 1999, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled against David Bryan's right to sell his own grain that he grew on his land.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated on page 14 of its ruling and this is a key part of my argument to refer this to committee:

Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which protects property rights through a “due process” clause, was not replicated in the Charter, and the right to “enjoyment of property“ is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society.

Can anyone who is listening to this debate or who reads the record of this debate believe these words came out of a Canadian court of law? I repeat “the right to 'enjoyment of property' is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society.” It is about time we listened to what this judge had to say. He is not the only one to state it.

This ruling was confirmed by constitutional expert Peter Hogg in 1992 in his book Constitutional Law of Canada , Third Edition. Citation 44.9 on page 1030 states:

The omission of property rights from section 7 [of the Charter] greatly reduces its scope. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or even a fair procedure for the taking of property by the government. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with power over purely economic interests of individuals or corporations.

Professor Hogg also wrote:

The product is a section 7 in which liberty must be interpreted as not including property, as not including freedom of contract, and, in short, as not including economic liberty.

Therefore, without protection of property rights and freedom of contract in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the court's recent ruling that the Canadian Bill of Rights does not provide any protection whatsoever from the federal government's arbitrary taking of property or infringing on our fundamental economic liberties, I decided it was time for parliament to do something about it.

Amending the charter is a hugely complicated task because it requires a resolution to be passed in the House of Commons and in seven provincial legislatures comprising more than 50% of the population. In past debates the government has argued rather poorly that there is no need to strengthen property rights in federal law, that the Canadian Bill of Rights provides adequate protection of property rights. The Bryan case proves that to be totally wrong on this count.

The bill of rights provides absolutely no protection of property rights and even if the government ignores the David Bryan judgment these rights can be overridden by just saying so in any piece of legislation passed by the House. Canada's foremost constitutional expert and the Manitoba Court of Appeal both agree there is no protection of property rights in federal law.

What is parliament to do? Does it just ignore it as we have been doing for the past decade? I do not think so. That is not an option and that is why I have introduced Motion No. 426.

In December,1948 member states of the United Nations general assembly, including Canada, adopted and proclaimed the universal declaration of human rights. As stated in my motion, among the rights proclaimed in the UN declaration and ratified by Canada was the “right to own property alone as well as in association with others” and not to be arbitrarily deprived thereof.

In 1992 Gudmunder Alfredsson had this to say about Article 17 in his book The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Commentary :

It applies to both the individual and collective forms of property ownership. The absence of the limitations proposed in the legislative debate [leading up to the final draft] is noteworthy; there are no references in the article to conformity with State laws, personal property or decent living. The right is not an absolute one, however, it is foreseen that persons can be deprived of their property under circumstances...The term “arbitrarily” would seem to prohibit unreasonable interferences by States and taking of property without compensation.

The evidence is clear. This is an issue that needs to be fully examined by the committee. I would like at this point, for those who have listened carefully to my arguments, to request that the House consent unanimously to make my motion votable.

I have clearly indicated why this is a violation of my rights. I have had four opportunities to bring this to the House. I think it is about time we had an opportunity to fully debate this issue and vote on the it. I am asking simply to refer it to committee.

Property RightsPrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the House give its unanimous consent?

Property RightsPrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Property RightsPrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Property RightsPrivate Members' Business

March 1st, 2002 / 1:45 p.m.

Northumberland Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville.

The Minister of Justice feels strongly about the important role of property rights in our society. Property rights represent one of the fundamental pillars of the legal system and our democratic society. Indeed our legal system is replete with protection for property rights.

However, the Minister of Justice cannot support the motion because it raises some important concerns.

The motion is merely the latest in a series of efforts aimed at amending the Canadian bill of rights and the Constitution Act, 1867 to increase property rights protections. Most recently the issue was raised in this Chamber in 1999 by the same member in the form of Bill C-237 and was afforded considerable debate at that time.

It is very important that before the House assigns additional tasks to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the full schedule and heavy workload currently facing the committee ought to be considered.

As the idea of increasing protection for property rights has been debated on numerous occasions in the past and has repeatedly been rejected, there is no need to use the precious time, energy and resources of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to revisit the issue.

During the discussions and debates preceding the introduction of the charter, a significant amount of time and consideration was given to the idea of including protection for property rights. The idea again surfaced during the lead up to the Charlottetown accord. However, in both cases the notion of entrenching property rights in the charter was strenuously resisted by the provinces as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction and as a restriction on their ability to legislate in areas involving property.

In this regard it should be remembered that section 92(13) of the Constitution Act assigns much of the responsibility for regulating property to the provinces. This is not to say that the federal government cannot legislate in ways that affect property, but its jurisdiction is limited in these respects.

At the federal level for example, we have environmental laws, land use laws, laws providing for the establishment and operation of corporations and the ownership and disposition of shares, laws on banking, laws on bankruptcy and copyright laws. Each of these laws touches in some way on the ownership and use of property. Each of these laws serves an important public purpose. Each of these laws also contains provisions to ensure that people are treated fairly.

Property rights are a fundamental part of our legal system and the law provides in many ways for their recognition. Canadian law contains innumerable protections for property rights, whether in the common law or by statute.

More specifically, the protection afforded to property rights contained in paragraph 1(a) of the Canadian bill of rights is one such expression. The section recognizes the right of an individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.

Further, numerous federal statutes contain provisions to ensure fair dealing when property rights are affected, by providing for fair procedures and for fair compensation, that is in shareholder laws, banking laws, criminal laws.

Our common law tradition as well offers significant protection for property rights by virtue of the common law presumption of compensation when someone is deprived of property. This notion forms a fundamental part of our legal system.

On the whole, people in Canada enjoy a very high degree of protection for their property rights under the statutes and common law applicable at the federal level, including the provisions of the Canadian bill of rights. Property rights are ingrained in our laws, whether legislated or judge made.

The ample protection afforded to property rights reflects the value that Canadians place on property rights. The right to own and dispose of property is a basic component to our way of life.

As important as property rights are, as Canadians, we have also recognized that these are not unlimited rights. We have many laws that regulate the ownership and use of property in Canadian society. Municipal laws, environmental laws, laws regulating incorporation and the operation of limited companies, laws regulating the division of family property, succession and estate planning laws and personal property security laws are just some of the myriad of laws that place socially necessary limits on either the ownership or the use of property.

It is difficult to think of laws that do not affect or touch on property in one way or another. When we realize this it becomes incumbent upon us to ensure that protection for property rights is kept in balance with the other values of our society that are reflected in our laws and socially important legislation.

Increasing property rights protections under the bill of rights or the charter would have serious implications for the federal government's ability to legislate and regulate in a wide variety of areas and would have untold implications for federal laws. For example, it could affect everything from federal laws dealing with pollution to shareholder rights to divorce laws making provision for the division of property.

One only has to look at the American experience with constitutional property rights to understand the implications of extending property rights. In the United States property rights have been extended in ways that no one could have anticipated. This has led to huge amounts of litigation and has complicated and burdened the process of law making.

Early on in the history of the United States, important social reforms were struck down by the courts in the name of property rights. I am not saying that this kind of unfortunate judicial intervention would necessarily happen here, but we should be conscious of that possibility.

The protection of property rights is of course an important principle in Canadian society. No one in this Chamber would dispute that. While agreeing with the principle of protecting property rights, we must be cognizant of the impact that an increase in property rights protection would have.

In any event, as I have already indicated, it is very important to remember that our legal system presently and appropriately acknowledges property rights. The concept of property rights is fundamental to our legal system. It is the basis of the operation of our economy. This is reflected in the legal framework that governs our economy. Every day property rights guide our actions in the way we do business.

Contract law, real property law, personal property law and so on are built on the concept of property rights. Indeed our legal system could not function without it. As such, our legal system provides, as a matter of common law that has been built over hundreds of years through court decisions, basic protections for property owners. Hundreds of years of jurisprudence must not be lightly disregarded.

The common law provides basic protections for individuals regarding state action that affects their property. Statute law is also filled with protections for property rights. Whether we are looking at shareholder laws, banking laws, criminal laws or otherwise, these laws contain a wide variety of provisions that are designed to ensure fair dealings with property.

The hon. member's motion would have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine whether our current federal laws are in compliance with our international human rights obligations and in particular, whether they comply with article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

  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.

In this regard, it is important to note that the protection for property rights already provided by section 1(a) of the Canadian bill of rights guarantees “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of person and the enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law”.

We will continue to support property rights to promote respect for these and all rights of Canadians. However, we cannot support a motion that could result in reopening the question of increased property rights protections that would disrupt the current democratic balance of property rights and other rights, thereby putting into jeopardy social and economic laws and policies that are important to the people of Canada.