Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank all of the members who have participated in the debate. I appreciate it very much. I have listened carefully to their comments.
I would like to reply briefly to some of the comments. I do not know if it will do much good to argue this because people have already decided that they will not vote on it. However, to Canadians it is a very important issue. They are out there listening and they are going to make the final decision on who is right with regard to all this.
I would like to make a few comments in reply to the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. He was in error when he said that the federal government cannot override property rights because it is an area of provincial jurisdiction.
I would like to point out one area in which the government did it and I will tell the House how it did it. Again, I have been battling Bill C-68, the useless gun registration legislation which was brought down. How did the government override the rights of law-abiding gun owners to own their property? It completely devalued a lot of property by outlawing certain firearms. How did the government do that? By putting the legislation into the Criminal Code of Canada it overrode the rights of the provinces to regulate it. Otherwise this legislation would have been thrown out by the courts. So it has found a way to circumvent the rights of the provinces to regulate private property by entrenching it in the Criminal Code of Canada. I am hoping the courts will see what it has done.
Let us look at the Pearson airport deal. How did the government manage to do that? It is the same thing.
I would also like to point out to my hon. Bloc colleague that this legislation only affects the federal government. It does not interfere in matters that he was describing within the province of Quebec.
The member for Prince Albert said that they value property rights, that they are ingrained. That is false and I gave three examples of how they have been completely disregarded. When he said we do not need further protection, that was also false.
All the lawyers who have analysed it have said and have agreed that this is needed. Listen to what the bar association or the chambers of commerce and other organizations have said.
The member said there is a hierarchy of rights in the Canadian bill of rights. I explained that it has to be put in the Canadian bill of rights because it is not in the charter. He never explained why it has never been in included in the charter of rights and freedoms, a very critical omission.
The member also never answered why his government protects foreigners better than it protects Canadians. That is a very key issue which has never been addressed. He said that it may prevent socially useful legislation. What is he referring to, the Pearson airport deal, Bill C-68?
I wonder if the member agrees that it was right to completely devalue all the property. I wonder if he was listening when I explained the supermajority provision that my bill provided and that it cannot be easily overblown.
In conclusion, when we build a strong house we need a strong foundation. In order to build a strong society we have to have strong foundations. If we do not have property rights, we do not have that strong foundation. It is a very key thing. We as legislators and parliamentarians have to look at the big picture and build that type of society so people can have the protection they need to build strong foundations.
Big government can abuse its position and the citizens of Canada need protection from their own government. That is why I am saying we need property rights strengthened in Canada.