House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Supply November 25th, 2004
That may be so. But I am talking about the need for property rights so that things like Mirabel or Pickering, there are 20,000 acres of dead acres sitting north of Pickering, do not happen. Future governments must take into account individual rights.
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what this has to do with my speech. However, I am--
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I cannot give all the specific criteria for the right of government to expropriate. If individuals have property rights within our Constitution, it would mean that governments, when they pass any legislation that affects property rights, would have to take into consideration the effect on individuals. It may be justified for example in an environmental case to protect some endangered species, some animal or some bird. It may be justified because these species are facing extinction.
However, say someone owns a plot of land and on that land is some acreage of trees. In one of these trees is an endangered bird and the government passes legislation which says that endangered bird has to be protected. The government can do that, but the property owner should not be restricted so that he or she has to pay tax on the land which cannot be used. If property owner cannot sell the land, that property is devaluated. Therefore, the property owner has to be compensated
What I am saying is, in future if we have property rights, when governments at all levels pass regulations that affect property owners, they have to work out the consequences.
As to arbitration, I imagine that if we had property rights, within the legislation that would flow from those property rights would be a mechanism to deal with disputes.
Supply November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, for 35 years Mirabel Airport has stood as a symbolic reminder of the power of government to impose its will on landowners, even if it means dislocating families, destroying livelihoods and shattering communities. Based on some grandiose but flawed vision for Montreal, the Liberal government undertook the expropriation of 97,000 acres of land to build an airport in Mirabel.
The airport was intended to service the burgeoning city of Montreal, an hour away, and contribute to the explosive population and economic growth. Then Prime Minister Trudeau called it a project for the 21st century.
Of the 97,000 acres expropriated, only 5,000 were used for the airport. The Mirabel area at that time consisted of prime agricultural land with farming the mainstay of the local economy. The farmers whose lands were expropriated found out about the project over the radio.
The government ignored their protests. Some 3,200 families were dislocated, many from homesteads which had been in their families for decades. Houses were torn down and businesses were closed. Those who were fortunate enough to stay on their land had to pay rent to the government and try to farm, in spite of restrictions placed on how they could modify the land.
Now 35 years later, the full failure of the Mirabel vision is clear. What has not changed is the anger of the farmers who owned the land then and want it back now.
While most of the unused land was returned to farmers by the Mulroney government, almost 11,000 acres continue to be held by the federal government. The farmers want to buy this land back, but in its typically arrogant and meanspirited fashion, the Liberal government is saying no.
The Mirabel story is about far more than flawed visions and government mismanagement. It is about the right of farmers to own land, to enjoy the fruits of their labour on their land and to dispose of their property when, if and how they see fit. Mirabel should never have been allowed to happen. Government, any government, should never the right to exploit landowners by taking away their land without their consent and without fair compensation.
Mirabel is a symbol of this country's failure to protect the property rights of landowners, a failure that gives far too much power to governments and far too little regard for the right of individual property owners.
For a country that prides itself on being the champion of human and individual rights, we have displayed an appalling tolerance of governments that infringe on the property rights of landowners.
Governments at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal, too often display a blatant scorn for landowners, especially rural landowners. Examples are legion. A striking recent case is Premier Dalton McGuinty's proposal to ban development on 1.8 million acres of private land in southern Ontario in order to preserve a greenbelt. Premier McGuinty's plan is to impose this plan, without providing any compensation for the devaluation and loss to the landowner. If this project has so much widespread public benefit, then the Ontario government must be prepared to compensate the landowners at a fair market value.
Expropriation is just one way the government exploits landowners. In recent years governments have increasingly been placing unreasonable restrictions on regulations on landowners that diminish property values and infringe on their ability to use their property as they see fit. Zoning laws, heritage regulations and conservation designations are just some of the ways in which governments impose restrictions on the rights of property owners.
My constituents in Carleton—Mississippi Mills are no strangers to the effects of intrusive legislation and bad public policy. However, landowners are beginning to fight back. In my riding, rural property owners have organized themselves into very vocal and active lobby groups. The rural landowners are spearheading a massive grassroots movement in defence of their rights as property owners. Their key message is they are fed up with government interference and want their property rights respected and protected.
These business owners, farmers and landowners have seen their property values and livelihood diminished by expropriation without just compensation, enforcement of urban property standards for rural lands and farms as a result of municipal amalgamation and the imposition of buffer zones.
The landowners believe that government has confused the right of private property with the public's privilege. Governments, they say, have overstepped their mandate and crossed the line from good government and into the private lives of citizens, and I agree that this too often is the case.
I also agree with landowners who are beginning to demand that property rights be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. It is an abysmal situation that what should be a fundamental right, the right to own, enjoy and dispose of private property, was deliberately left out of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms for political purposes. It is time to change this situation.
My colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, has been a strong champion of property rights. Last week he introduced a private member's bill that would amend the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights to provide greater protection for property rights. Specifically, the legislation is intended to ensure that no person will be deprived of the use or enjoyment of property without full, just and timely compensation. I applaud the member for this initiative and I am pleased to support it.
During the past election campaign, the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution was included as part of my platform. I believe strongly that landowners should be protected against arbitrary and unjustified intrusions by governments. If a government's restriction or regulation is shown to be for the public good, then landowners should be fairly and appropriately compensated for their loss.
Today's motion calls on the Liberal government to take the necessary steps to sell the 11,000 remaining acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose land was expropriated to build the Mirabel airport. It is time for the Liberal government to right a wrong. The farmers want and deserve to have their land back. Beyond this specific instance, I also want to push for measures to be introduced that will ensure that the Mirabel fiasco is never allowed to happen again, not anywhere in Canada.
It is time for Parliament to take steps to enshrine property rights in our Constitution.
National Defence November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, Canadians were told that all the boats had gone through an exhaustive process of engineering assessment, repair, overhaul and maintenance. For years it has been known that three layers of sealant are required on electrical wiring. Yesterday we learned that the HMCS Chicoutimi had only one layer of sealant on its wires when it sailed, not the required three.
Submariners have said it would be “absolutely criminal” not to thoroughly examine the changes needed to make the boats safe before they sail.
Why were the proper wiring upgrades not done on the Chicoutimi ?
National Defence November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, more questions have been raised about HMCS Chicoutimi . Because its crew had to repair an air vent, yet another technical problem, both hatches on the main tower were left wide open while it was on the surface in heavy wave conditions.
Given that there are other sources of air, leaving the tower completely open to the rough sea brings into question training and procedures followed by the navy. Will the minister confirm that five years of dithering by the Liberal government led to both the technical and the training problems that face the submarine service?
National Defence November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General reports there will not be enough pilots and technicians to support the CF-18 fleet. This means that $2 billion is being spent without the assurance that the forces will have the ability to fly the improved aircraft. It is hard for me to believe that there are not enough people in Canada who want to be fighter pilots or aircraft technicians.
Will the minister explain why he cannot solve the recruiting and training problem to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted?
National Defence November 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General reports that due to bureaucratic bungling in the defence department, the air crew training simulator for CF-18 fighter aircraft did not receive approval on time and is seriously behind schedule. This means that operational CF-18s have to be used as trainers, costing the forces tens of millions of dollars and reducing the life expectancy of the CF-18 fleet by two or three years.
Will the minister explain why large defence projects continue to be mismanaged in his department?
National Defence November 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers have paid a helicopter cancellation fee, a search and rescue replacement fee, and extraordinary costs for maintaining the Sea King helicopter fleet. These huge expenditures still have not provided us with a reliable maritime helicopter. Due to political and bureaucratic interference, the projected helicopter delivery dates keep slipping.
When will the contract be signed and will the Canadian Forces continue to contract out services?
National Defence November 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, our navy is forced to rent U.S. civilian helicopters to support our vessels at sea rather than use the 41-year-old Sea Kings. It has been 10 years since the Liberal government arbitrarily cancelled the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. Liberal Party electioneering put the safety of our air crews at risk and allowed the performance of our helicopters to decay.
Will the minister confirm that the Liberal government decision to cancel the Sea King replacement was high risk, irresponsible and expensive?