Dean Allison

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on what would happen with provincial legislation per se, but I know this has been an issue that individuals from not only my riding but from across the country and across the province have been calling for.

Their concern, once again, is that, as they own their property, sometimes they are not able to do with it as they see fit, or they are worried about being compensated fairly in the event that government should ever restrict them in terms of what they are able to do with it, or maybe just in the case of expropriation.

I cannot comment on particular provincial issues but I know this is something that would go a long way to correcting the rights of individuals.

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, October 30th, 2007]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion I originally tabled on April 23 of this year, Motion No. 315, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians.

Protecting property rights in Canada's Constitution is an issue that has been highlighted during previous federal election campaigns and has been discussed in the House many times before. It is an important issue for all Canadians and many residents of my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook, particularly landowners in large rural areas.

The conception of property rights has material and intellectual connotations. The term “property” is complicated and open to interpretation. Consequently, the entrenchment of property rights in the charter could do more than simply protect those who own real property from expropriation without compensation. Every Canadian, therefore, could benefit from this motion.

Sir John A. Macdonald and the Fathers of Confederation clearly understood the importance of absolute property ownership for all Canadians. They wished to entrench in the institution of a self-governing Canada the primacy of property ownership.

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker established the Canadian Bill of Rights, which, for the first time, included: “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof--”.

Motion No. 315 urges the government to recognize the need to enshrine property rights into the charter. The proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is contained in this motion recommends that section 7 extend property rights to Canadians, with the intention of giving individual property owners the right to fair compensation for their property and ensures compensation within a reasonable period of time.

The motion speaks specifically to the need to strengthen the protection of property rights. Every person has the right to the enjoyment of his or her property and the right not to be deprived of that property unless the person is: first, accorded a fair hearing; second, is paid fair compensation; third, the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially; and fourth, the compensation is paid within a reasonable amount of time.

At present, our Constitution lacks any provision that protects the property rights of Canadian citizens. There is an undeniable tension between the fact that on one end property rights appear in the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960, an accepted piece of federal legislation and the charter's predecessor, and on the other hand they are left out of the charter itself. The tension arises in that property rights are included in the Bill of Rights, but our courts emphasize the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This emphasis severely circumscribes the rights of Canadians.

Despite important legal precedents, property rights were deliberately omitted from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Professor Peter Hogg wrote about this serious omission in his book Constitutional Law of Canada, fourth edition. He stated:

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

Some of us may agree that the absence of the right to own and use property from the charter needs to be corrected. Others may doubt this. To those I advance the following.

First, the right to own property, to enjoy one's property, and not to be unfairly deprived of one's own property is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. Property rights are essential to the Canadian way of life, to political freedom, and to the well functioning economy. These protections in themselves are not enough, but if property rights are essential for the well-being of our economy and our way of life, do they not need to have greater protection than the charter currently affords?

Second, for centuries the right to own and use property has been the necessary prerequisite to political freedom. Indeed, it has long been at the centre of the human rights movement. As John Locke has argued, if the state was to have legitimacy in the eyes of the people, it had to secure these rights.

Finally, earlier drafts of the charter included the protection of property rights. The Canadian charter we have today therefore appears incomplete and it is the charter's silence on property rights that demands to be corrected.

For a country that prides itself on being the champion of human and individual rights, we have shown remarkable tolerance of governments that infringe on property rights of landowners.

Governments at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal too often display a blatant scorn for landowners, especially rural landowners. Whether through zoning laws, heritage regulations and conservation designations, governments can impose restrictions on the rights of property owners.

The idea that the government can rip away one's property is not merely hypothetical. It is not mere hyperbole or speculation. It is a reality and there are abundant examples in different ridings. Our constituents, and every Canadian, deserve better.

Canadian history is regrettably rife with examples of what happens with property rights that are not entrenched in the charter. Absent entrenched property rights in 1999 led to a Manitoba farmer being denied the right to sell his grain to an American customer because the Manitoba court of appeal found that “the right to 'enjoyment of property' is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society”.

Because of the absence of entrenched property rights 3,200 farm families found themselves displaced in Quebec when a former Liberal federal government decided to expropriate 97,000 acres of Quebec's best farmland to make way for Mirabel Airport. Of those 97,000 acres, only 5,000 were ever used.

With the absence of entrenched property rights the previous Liberal government moved forward with Bill C-68 and was free to ban over 500,000 legally owned, registered firearms and severely restricted the legal ownership of firearms by law-abiding Canadians.

The absence of entrenched property rights in 2002 found mentally disabled Canadian war veterans denied millions of dollars in interest on pension benefits after the Supreme Court ruled that:

Parliament has the right to expropriate property, even without compensation, if it has made its intention clear and, in s. 5.1(4), Parliament’s expropriative intent is clear and unambiguous.

Unfortunately, for the people of Canada these cases are not unique. Examples are abundant on how the current Canadian charter fails to protect one of the most fundamental human rights.

Do such cases comport with the logic of fair practices? No, they do not. However, they are consistent with the law as it currently stands.

If the charter is not amended to strengthen property rights in federal law then the government can continue to take lawfully owned and enjoyed property away from Canadians without due process, and without full and fair compensation.

Farmers and landowners are beginning to conclude that governments conflate private property with public privilege, and that government behaviour and the lack of property rights are the cause of this confusion. Listening to the numerous cases where law ostensibly violates logic, governments at all levels have overstepped the boundaries of reason.

Every Canadian should be protected against arbitrary government intrusions. If it is demonstrated that a government restriction or regulation is indeed for the greater public good, then the landowners should be fairly and appropriately compensated for their loss.

It is time that we entrench property rights in the charter. Canadians deserve a law that will be applied evenly and consistently, not a law that is whimsical and variable.

In my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook, most residents are property and home owners. Some are new property owners, some have raised their children, and some have called it home for generations. In many cases their land is their livelihood. But as Canadians we only enjoy this land on borrowed time.

Whether it is zoning laws that dictate land use or environmental protection laws that can eliminate property value in an instant, Canadians can find their land taken without any requirement to fair compensation.

Often government restrictions are wrapped in the snow white cloak of the greater social good and so they often enjoy widespread public support. But governments pass laws which affect land use for environmental reasons, social benefit or to contain urban sprawl. However, only recently are landowners stopping to say that the action may have a significant impact on their properties.

The majority of Canadians are mindful of the fact that they are all part of a larger social group. We realize that sometimes the interests of the social group will differ from individual interests. In spite of this and as much as because of this we give governments the power to legislate for the good of all Canadians.

However, when legislation contravenes individuals' interests, the government should mitigate against negative implications, such as jeopardizing property ownership and personal land use.

When the Government of Ontario adopted provincial greenbelt legislation, after modest public consultation, the result was a freeze on future land use. Property owners in my riding saw the value of their land plummet in some cases by approximately half.

These families have survived the challenges of harsh winters, dry summers, tough economies, but a single piece of provincial legislation put at risk the potential of their land, and the future of these landowners and their children.

Do we need property rights to be entrenched in the charter? Clearly, the continued absence of property rights is an assault on Canadian families. At present, these families have no options. They have no recourse in place. Indeed, no Canadian enjoys perfect protection vis-à-vis future legislation that may negatively affect their property values and future financial security.

As parliamentarians, we can help to ensure that every Canadian is provided fair and timely compensation when government legislation negatively affects its citizens. Fair compensation is one means by which property ownership can serve and work together for the greater social good.

Fair compensation recognizes the pride that Canadians take in land ownership and recognizes that property ownership is often the main way that Canadians plan for their future and retirement. Fair compensation would establish the balance necessary to ensure all levels of government respect property ownership.

I do not know how many times a day people call my office and essentially begin a conversation with something such as, “The government should provide better funding for--” and we can all fill in the blanks. They proceed to list their list of pet interests.

Increasingly I am hearing not what government should provide but what it should not be able to take away. They are also becoming concerned that the government has forgotten rural Canadians to the benefit of the environment. Indeed, a petition to amend section 7 garnered substantial signatures from numerous residents in Niagara West—Glanbrook and from across the country.

To press for the entrenchment of property rights in our charter is to press for what so many other countries already recognize. Indeed, the exclusion of property rights from the charter violates the convention. This convention is captured by the 1960 Bill of Rights. The convention is captured in common law. The convention is captured in provincial statute and the convention is captured in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 17 of the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 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.

Although Canada ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights over 50 years ago, Canadians continue to be deprived arbitrarily of their property and we have willfully remained out of step with most other signatories.

While Canada is a world leader on so many fronts, it pains me to say that we are far behind other democracies when it comes to the issue of property rights. Other democracies have long taken a lead in property rights legislation, including the United States, Germany, Italy and Finland. Great Britain first introduced property rights in the Magna Carta of 1215. Even Communist China has put forward property rights in its constitution. So why not Canada?

We are a country that stands up for human rights around the world. As parliamentarians we must stand up for the rights of our respective constituents and for all Canadians. Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario have also initiated resolutions that support stronger protection for property rights. Why should we not do the same? We should not stand by while Canadians suffer the effects of intrusive legislation and sometimes questionable public policy.

Rural property owners have organized themselves into very vocal and active lobby groups, a trend that is spreading across the country. Rural landowners are leading strong grassroots movements in defence of their property rights.

Indeed, just this morning, my office received calls from landowner groups from across the country. Their key message was that they are fed up with undue government interference and want their property rights respected and protected. This is what we hope to accomplish by entrenching property rights in the charter.

The right to own and enjoy property can be a divisive issue. But it does not need to be. Though the role of government in the context of private property is one factor that distinguishes us, the property rights are also at the heart of what makes for a vibrant and healthy society.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to speak today to Bill C-284. I look forward to the opportunity to speak about our government's record, especially when it comes to education and students. Over the past 20 short months, our government has stood up for post-secondary education and for all Canadian students. What we have done is really worth talking about.

Before I do that though, I offer my congratulations to the member for Halifax West. I know this issue has been very important for him. It is something he has been interested in over the years.

I also appreciate what the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had to say on how our committee works. It is not without any issues. All committees struggle a little with a minority government and how we can move things forward.

From what the member for Winnipeg Centre had to say, unfortunately he has not had a chance to participate in any of our committees. I know we have talked about the anarchist handbook and all these kind of crazy things that go on. We do have a lot of things going on in committee.

We had been working on the employability study, which has been very important. We had to put that on the sideline because of a lot of private members' business and work came to the House, which I understand takes priority. When we start back with committees in the next week or so, I am hopeful we will have an opportunity to continue on with that employability study, which, once again, touches on education. It also touches on a lot of other areas, such as how we can become more productive as Canadians as we deal with this vast geography.

While I would say there has been no such thing as the anarchist handbook for committees, I suggest to my NDP member that he look at the committees for dummies book. Maybe that would be more preferable in terms of how he could figure out the way committees work. We have said that not all committees work as easy as they can because of a minority government, but our committee has been able to get some good work done.

As my colleague from Blackstrap mentioned a few moments ago, the government has brought forward a plan called “Advantage Canada” under the Minister of Finance. That is an important plan. As we move forward on the issues of education, it is important to move forward with a master plan that will address all issues and that will take Canada in the right direction.

I think it is fair to say, and we should say it for the record, that there were many years of Liberal cuts and inaction on this file. I believe an ad hoc proposal and really no cohesive vision for post-secondary education presents a challenge when we have a strategic plan that will help us get where we are heading.

The government has had a record of which to be proud. We support parents and students. The government is supporting the provinces and also post-secondary education. This is why we have provided direct support to Canadian students and to parents. It is why we have committed substantial tax relief to help students and parents with the cost of textbooks. It is why we have exempted scholarships and bursaries from income tax. It is why we have committed over $35 million over two years to expand the Canada graduate scholarship program, a program that will help an additional thousand students every year move on to graduate studies.

The government recognizes that not all families can afford to help their children with the high cost of a post-secondary education, a cost that has doubled and even tripled under previous governments. This is why we have cut the amount that parents are expected to contribute to their children's education before they are eligible for student loans.

We believe that all students who want to attend university and who have shown they will work hard, study and do well deserve the chance to go, regardless of how much money their parents make.

It is no great secret that the previous Liberal government cut more than $25 billion from the Canadian social transfer to the provinces and the territories, which pay for things such as post-secondary education. Now the Liberals claim to realize that education is important in Canada, that they know how to assist students with their education and that now they suddenly have found answers they did not have before.

I think Canadians do know better. Canadians know the Conservative government has been working to restore the funding that the previous government cut. Canadians know the government is making meaningful investments in post-secondary education by investing more than $8.4 billion this fiscal year through transfers, direct spending and tax measures. The government has invested over $800 million more per year for post-secondary education through transfers to the provinces. This represents a 40% increase in a single year.

We are also providing $1 billion to provincial and territorial governments through the infrastructure trust fund to rebuild and renovate campuses across the country. It is important to note that for many years there has been crumbling infrastructure around the country. The $1 billion will go a long way to providing what is necessary for spaces and infrastructure on college and university campuses.

Under the previous Liberal government, tuition skyrocketed, attendance stagnated and infrastructure crumbled. We are working to fix these problems. That is why the government announced a long overdue review of the student loan regime in budget 2007. The review will be completed shortly and the results will be announced in budget 2008. As my friend from Blackstrap stated earlier, it is important that the minister and the House have time to examine this review before changes are made to such an important program.

Unfortunately, the bill does not help the government achieve the goals of a stronger, more accessible post-secondary education system. That is why I will vote against it.

As all members in the House know, it is the responsibility of the provinces and territories, which want to take part in the program, to do the ground work, and I believe my Bloc colleague mentioned that, and to implement the program and deliver it to students. Yet, one of the challenges with the bill is the lack of consultation with the provinces and the ability for them to get on side to support this initiative.

During the committee process, not a single province came forward to support the bill, not that provinces would not be supportive of more money if they did not have to be accountable for how it was spent. However, they were not ready to implement the bill for several years. The provinces have been asked and, at this point in time, their responses have been that they are not in support of the bill.

One thing we have been doing as a government is talking to provinces, trying to work through proposals as we look at different areas in which we would like to participate, areas that we would like to help out. Probably a better way to look at how we can work with the provinces on these issues is to consult and work forward. Any proposals we would bring forward to the House would have the support of the provinces. It is especially important, as the Bloc member mentioned earlier, because it is a responsibility of the provinces to implement such programs. With good consultations, we can work forward as we have been doing.

The provinces should be consulted and they were not on this bill. We will not impose the will of the federal government on the provinces, especially in areas that are not our own jurisdiction.

During the committee review process, it also came to light that the bill would strip millions of dollars from the provinces and territories, moneys that the provinces could use to pay for universities and colleges. I think that is where our Bloc colleagues said that they could not support the bill. They realized that this would take money out of particular programs at which they were already looking. The bill could be perfect in other aspects, but we cannot support it because of this oversight.

The government has also made it clear that we will not support any initiatives that takes money out of the provincial pockets. Once again, we do not want to take money out of existing programs to pay for this, especially when that money is used for post-secondary education.

I appreciate that private members' bills cannot be expected to be perfect in every sense, but we do not want to look at taking money out provinces, such as Quebec and the territories, to pay for the program, a program of which every province has indicated to us they are not in support.

These are not the only problems with the bill, but adopting these proposals will severely limit the flexibility of the government to make timely changes to the programs when the need arises. It is important that we look at a framework, as we have with the Minister of Finance and “Advantage Canada”, that we look at it holistically and that we look at how we can move forward and be more productive as Canadians. We realize education is important. Certainly the future of Canadian students is very important. This is why we need to ensure that all the money and the tools are available to them.

The government cannot support the program, which takes money from the provinces and territories. We cannot support the program as a result of a lack of consultation with the provinces. Therefore, we will not support the bill.

I understand the motivation of our colleague who entered the bill, and I believe those were noble. However, we will have to look at another way to make this happen.

[Handling Specialty, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Handling Specialty, a manufacturing company headquartered in my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook.

Handling Specialty continues to be a profitable, forward thinking company in times of rapid change in the manufacturing sector. It has built a solid reputation for providing unique, custom engineered products in many sectors, including automotive, aerospace, entertainment, transportation and metal processing industries.

A notable example of Handling Specialty's technical prowess is in the Bellagio Theater's underwater stage lift system, which has achieved world record standing. The company also supplies wing assembly platforms for the F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.

On the heels of Small Business Week in Canada, I commend the Grimsby based company for its accomplishments. Its successes recently garnered it national media attention as a role model in Canadian manufacturing.

I congratulate Handling Specialty on its achievements in manufacturing and on the media recognition it has received.

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today in the Senate the Minister of Justice will be introducing legislation to reinstate important anti-terrorism provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act.

It is important that we have at our disposal all the tools we need to ensure the security of Canadians.

Can the minister tell the House why he has chosen to introduce the bill in the Senate as opposed to this House?

[Committees of the House, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

[Property Rights, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have seen, and that is a great example, is the restricted uses of property. I come from a rural area that has been designated greenbelt. There is not much in the member's particular example where individuals are required to do something. It may be more about what they are not allowed to do. That is one of the challenges our farmers face.

Farming has become increasingly difficult over the years. We know there is always a challenge in terms of what we ask from farmers in terms of environmental regulations, what they are allowed to grow or when they are allowed to grow it. One thing this would provide would be some certainty, as farmers move forward, with their property rights and rights to their land. Maybe there could be some compensation given for environmental restrictions.

More important, this would provide some security for our farmers as we move forward. In some of our rural areas it has become more difficult over time to suit the original purposes for which the land was intended.

[Property Rights, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I realize his party from time to time has been accused of not supporting the charter. Here is a great opportunity not only to support the charter, but to enhance the it.

There has been all party support given at various times throughout the century of what that means. With the ability to enshrine property rights, this would go a long way to making the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even stronger.

I encourage all hon. members on the other side of the House to help me and support this motion.

[Property Rights, May 17th, 2007]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion that I tabled on April 23. Motion No. 315 states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians.

Let me begin by saying that this is not a new concept. I know that there have been many members before me who have worked on this, either through private members' legislation or additional motions. I know that the member for Yorkton—Melville has done much work in this area and I am grateful to him.

Sir John A. Macdonald and the Fathers of Confederation clearly understood the importance of absolute property ownership for all Canadians. They wished to entrench in the institution of a self-governing Canada the primacy of property ownership.

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker established the Canadian Bill of Rights, which for the first time included “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof”.

As justice minister, Pierre Trudeau proposed the passage of a charter that would give constitutional protection to certain rights, including the enjoyment of property. As Prime Minister he again proposed entrenchment of the Charter of Rights, which would have guaranteed the right of an individual to use and to enjoy property. While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became a reality, the inclusion of property rights did not make the final cut.

I am particularly happy to be able to move this important motion during the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As Canadians, we celebrate the charter. The charter, which is embodied in the Constitution of Canada, enshrines our rights and freedoms. We value these freedoms. We value the political rights guaranteed in the charter. We value the civil rights ensured by the charter.

It is for these reasons that we rightfully celebrate the charter, as it marks the progress we have made as a country, but as we celebrate this milestone for the charter and reflect on its meaning for Canadians, both collectively and individually, we should also ask whether there are areas that we can enhance to strengthen this living document.

To be certain, the charter guarantees specific political and civil rights of Canadians from policies or actions of all levels of government. It nobly seeks to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody these rights. But in seeking to unify Canadians, the drafters of the charter also glossed over those fundamental rights that were excluded, rights of Canadians that also deserve to be guaranteed and protected.

The absence of property rights in the charter is one area where we as parliamentarians may wish to focus our attention when thinking of whether there are ways that we can enhance this document.

My Motion No. 315 urges the government to recognize the need to entrench property rights in the charter. The motion would amend section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians, with the intention of giving individual property owners the right to a fair compensation for their property, and to ensure compensation within a reasonable time period.

I believe in the rights of Canadians and specifically the need to strengthen the protection of property rights. Every person has the right to enjoyment of their own property and the right not to be deprived of that property unless the person, first, is accorded a fair hearing, second, is paid fair compensation, third, the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially, and fourth, the compensation is paid within a reasonable time period.

Exclusion of property rights from our charter violates convention, convention as captured in the 1960 bill of rights, convention as captured in common law, convention as captured in provincial statute, and convention as captured in the United Nations declaration of human rights. The importance of protecting property rights has long been recognized in Canada and around the world.

I know that my Liberal and NDP colleagues share an understandable and healthy respect for the United Nations and hold it in high regard, so they might wish to recall that article 17 of the 1948 United Nations declaration on human rights 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.

Although Canada ratified the UN declaration of human rights over five decades ago, Canadians continue to be deprived arbitrarily of their property, and we have wilfully remained out of step with most other signatories.

Other democracies have taken a lead in property rights legislation, including the United States, Germany, Italy and Finland. Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, New Brunswick, and previously Ontario, also have at various times indicated resolutions that support stronger protection for property rights.

Great Britain first introduced property rights in the Magna Carta of 1215. I know that the opposition loves to try to chastise the government when it comes to questions of rights. If all my colleagues are firm in their commitment to the rights of Canadians, they should support and embrace this motion. No document more ardently seeks to defend Canadian rights than the Bill of Rights.

In 1960 Prime Minister John Diefenbaker brought in the Canadian Bill of Rights. Part I of the bill reads:

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;...

I know that all members of the House support such a principle as outlined in the Bill of Rights as it applies to property rights. There is, however, an arguable weakness in the bill. There is a flaw. While it mentions property rights, a guarantee of protection and compensation in those cases where private property has been expropriated is not explicit.

Such ambiguity dilutes the level of protection for property rights. Because it is a regular statute, it could be overridden by a new federal statute. Without the explicit mention of compensation, a new federal statute could rather easily restrict the right of Canadians to fair and prompt compensation.

Motion No. 315 would correct this by entitling Canadians to fair and prompt compensation in circumstances where it is necessary for an individual to surrender property to the government.

The Bill of Rights remains in place today, but our courts tend to refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While both have positively contributed to Canada and its people in the past, the emphasis on the charter severely circumscribes the rights of some Canadians.

Nowhere was this more clearly evident than in a ruling by the Manitoba Court of Appeal on February 4, 1999. The court ruled against a Manitoba resident's right to sell his own grain grown on his own land. The ruling stated that section 1 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.

No Canadian would become aware of this lack of protection for property rights, however, until it is too late, that is, until the government arbitrarily expropriates the property of a law-abiding, taxpaying Canadian without any compensatory measures.

This happens already with farmland, for example, where government may force farm families out of production for government purposes. For example, approximately 97,000 acres of Quebec's best farmland was expropriated. In spite of the fact that 3,200 farm families were displaced, only 5,000 acres were ever used for the airport operation.

The essence of this ruling is echoed by Professor Peter Hogg, a pre-eminent scholar of Canadian constitutional law. In Constitutional Law of Canada, Professor Hogg writes:

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

Further to this, he writes:

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.

My motion would provide Canadian citizens with the protection they require but would not interfere with government's ability to continue its work. Canadians deserve to be reassured that the federal government respects their fundamental rights to own and enjoy property.

This motion, therefore, is an effort to continue the crusade started by our forefathers and the drafters of the 1960 Bill of Rights.

Motion No. 315 is consistent with our government's clear and unwavering commitment to introduce measures to promote rights in this country. Whether working to correct historical injustices like the Chinese head tax or dealing with the aboriginal residential school legacy, whether working to protect the rights of women and children from acts of criminality or endeavouring to extend to Canadians the right to vote for the representatives of the Senate in Canada, this is what our Conservative government has been doing.

Motion No. 315 is also consistent with the earlier efforts of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. He was an ardent advocate for improved protection of property rights. He first argued this case in a 1968 paper entitled, “A Canadian Charter of Human Rights”, tabled when he was the minister of justice.

He reiterated the case in his 1969 paper, “The Constitution of the People of Canada”, and once again in 1978, when he introduced Bill C-60, the constitutional amendment bill. He attempted twice more to extend the scope of the charter to include property rights.

With such longstanding and diverse support, moving forward with such a motion as Motion No. 315 seems long overdue. Accordingly, I wish to urge the government and all of my colleagues to support the motion so that we can have measurable advancement on the promotion of Canadian rights.

Why would we seek to deny Canadians' intrinsic rights?

One concern that has been expressed about the inclusion of property rights in the charter is related to the complicated matter of the definition of the term “property rights”, but protecting property is not just a conservative or a liberal value but a Canadian value, a value that every party can support. Through time, the term “property”, not unlike the charter itself as a living document, has evolved to mean much more than simply real property.

However, the fact that the term will have to be interpreted by the courts, which may interpret it very broadly, is not a good reason for excluding property rights from the charter.

If property were interpreted by the courts more broadly than in the traditional sense, the entrenchment of property rights also could have positive effects for those persons who do not own real property at this point.

The entrenchment of property rights in the charter could do more than simply protect those who own real property from expropriation without compensation.

In other words, if we were to ask who benefits from this motion, the answer is clearly every Canadian.

Property is not just land and buildings. It may extend to all forms of personal material properly. Merely in order to preserve one's right to own property at some point in the future, government must restrain itself in the present. The right to own property is as much about potential ownership as actual ownership.

The best any government can do is work toward equality of opportunity. The right to own and enjoy property is pivotal to all other rights.

The idea captured in this motion embodies the principles of fairness and justice that Canadians hold dear. Our country was founded on these principles and values.

The prospect of new property in its various forms drew our ancestors to this country to settle land, in both the east and the west. They wanted to protect the property that they worked so hard to attain. Canadians are no different today. Our charter should reflect the right to own property and the right to not be deprived of it without due process of law and compensation that is both just and timely.

Whether it is the farmer who fears losing his or her livelihood due to greenbelt expansion, families who must be uprooted to accommodate a much needed mid-peninsula corridor in my riding, or the senior citizens who have worked hard and saved well to pay off their home only to be forced out because it is located near an endangered species habitat, every Canadian who owns and enjoys property should not be arbitrarily deprived of that property. That is precisely what this motion seeks to ensure by amending section 7 of the charter.

The 25th anniversary of the charter provides an opportunity to highlight all its merits and to see how we can improve the charter. I believe the inclusion of property rights is an important step in this direction.

All party support of this motion would demonstrate our commitment to enhancing the property rights of Canadians. The House has heard various debates over the protection of property rights. Indeed, the House has even witnessed widespread cross-party support for the enhancement and promotion of property rights on various occasions.

On one occasion, the Deputy Speaker of the House stated: “We must entrench the right to property in our Constitution. The right to hold and enjoy property provides one of the checks and balances against undue concentration of power in government at any level”.

We cannot emphasize enough the importance of property rights.

It is not hard to find examples in this country of the government unjustly expropriating property or forcing people to sell land and other material without compensation, without other options, and indeed, without any form of recourse to the courts. It is simply misleading to suggest that we have adequate protection of property.

Only when these rights to property are enshrined in the charter will our rights and freedoms no longer be in jeopardy. It is for this reason that I ask all members of the House from all parties to support the inclusion of property rights for Canadians in the charter.

To say yes to Motion No. 315 is to say yes to all Canadians.

[Canada-U.S. Border, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in December 2004 Canada and the United States announced their intention to establish a pre-clearance pilot project at the Peace Bridge at the Ontario-New York border. This would involve relocating American border operations onto Canadian soil. Recently, negotiations on the pilot project have broken down.

Can the Minister of Public Safety comment on why the government is no longer in talks with the United States on this issue?