Mr. Speaker, members of this House will know that I often use New Zealand as an example in some of my speeches on economic affairs.
I do so not because I believe that everything that New Zealand has done is right but because I believe that we have a lot to learn from looking at the experience of others who have also faced similar problems.
There are lessons to be learned from history about property rights. We need to take a look at the experiences of others in assessing whether property rights should be in our charter.
We have plenty of recorded history at our disposal. For example, we know the histories of ancient Rome, Greece, China, Egypt and Mesopotamia. We know what happened in classical times, medieval times, the industrial revolution and even modern times. Everything is documented. We know plenty about Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, the United States and Cambodia. By studying the historical records of these places and times we can quickly see which government did not respect property rights and which did. We can see that those that did not respect property rights ended up with their people living in misery and poverty.
Perhaps it starts innocently enough. A government promises to regulate the economy for the common good, to redistribute the wealth more fairly, to make the rich pay their fair share and to close the loopholes. I have the feeling that I have heard these words before, a naive assumption that the government knows best and the average citizen needs to be protected from himself.
History is full of examples. Whether headed by a madman like Stalin or Hitler or by well meaning dreamers like Nehru and Nyerere, they always fail. Along the way they produce conflicts instead of peace, famine instead of plenty, poverty instead of prosperity. Instead of more and better rights than those we hold in a line from the Magna Carta, they deliver fewer and worse rights. Instead of delivering the gilded cage they deliver only the cage.
I challenge members to name one society that respected property rights where the people are not better off. I also challenge them to name one society where the government did not respect property rights where they are not worse off. The more protected the right to property, the better the living conditions and the better the societal order.
History also teaches us that when property rights are protected so are personal rights. Along with the loss of property rights comes the loss of personal rights, loss of freedom of speech and loss of decency in society. Property rights are the foundation of a decent society. They are the most important human right.
It amazes me that we have a Constitution and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantee the lengthy avoidance of deportation by known criminals who have come into Canada as bogus refugees but do not guarantee property rights to law-abiding citizens.
It amazes me that we have a Constitution and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that permit crimes to be committed under a defence of drunkenness but do not protect the property rights of law-abiding citizens. Canadians are supposed to feel good about their Constitution. No wonder they are disgusted with it.
The motion put forward by the Reform Party member for Skeena is an excellent one which the government would do well to acknowledge and act upon.
In addition to all of that, the Deputy Prime Minister said she would resign if the GST had not gone in one year and she still has not done it.
