Debates of Nov. 5th, 1996

Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the official opposition will vote yes.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party caucus members present will vote yes on this matter.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting nay.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in accordance with the government's position on this matter.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I declare the amendment lost.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move immediately to the taking of the third reading vote of this bill at this time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the third reading vote at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

There is not unanimous consent.

It being 6.57 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from September 30 consideration of the motion.

Canadian Bill Of Rights

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when I last addressed this topic I explained why property rights need to be strengthened in Canada. I made the point that property rights make society richer, that they protect freedom and democracy and that they protect the environment.

Today I would like to go on to explain that we each have seven fundamental property rights. The bill of rights only provides rather feeble protection for three of these seven. First, it provides protection or the right to the enjoyment of property. Second, in the bill of rights there is the provision for the right not to be deprived of property except by due process. Third is the right to a fair hearing.

Even these rights can simply be overridden by saying so in the legislation, just like the Liberal government did in Bill C-22 which cancelled the Pearson airport contract.

The Canadian bill of rights does not provide protection of the following property rights. Out of the seven there are four that are not included. First is the right to be paid fair compensation. Second, it is not included that it should be a right to have the compensation fixed impartially. Third is the right to receive timely compensation. Fourth is the right to apply to courts to obtain justice if they feel any aspect of their property rights have been denied or infringed upon.

This is why we need to improve the bill of rights. This is why we need to strengthen the protection of property rights in federal law by supporting Motion No. 205.

I would like to examine and refute the objections put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when he spoke in opposition to this motion on June 10 of this year.

Here is a brief list of the Liberal government's opposition to strengthening property rights as explained by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River in my home province of Saskatchewan.

The Liberals say this, first, that there is already more than adequate protection for property rights. They also said laws already provide fair procedures and fair compensation. They said common law already provides presumption of compensation. They said much of the responsibility for regulating property is provincial.

They said this would establish a hierarchy of rights in the bill of rights. Last, they said it may prevent socially useful legislation.

Those were the arguments that my Liberal colleagues used in saying we do not need this. These are pitiful excuses at best. They can be easily refuted and I want to do that one by one.

If there already is adequate protection for property rights, why did Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau fight so hard to include protection for property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and denied that? He said we need to have that, but it was opposed.

If there is such adequate protection for property rights why during the 1980s did the House of Commons and the provincial legislatures of British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario each pass resolutions calling for property rights to be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

How can the parliamentary secretary stand in the House and read exactly what the bureaucrats write for him when there is such overwhelming evidence against his position? It is obvious to everyone but him that there is not adequate protection for property rights.

If federal laws already provide for fair procedures and fair compensation, how can the parliamentary secretary the explain that his government tried to expropriate the investments made by individuals and companies that participated in the Pearson airport contract?

How can the parliamentary secretary explain that his Liberal government included a section in that legislation which would have denied these property owners the right to a fair hearing and fair compensation?

How can the parliamentary secretary explain to the Canadian people that American and Mexican citizens have better protection of their investments in Canada through the NAFTA than Canadian citizens have in their own country? That is not right. And that is why all people, all members listening to this, should support my colleague's motion with regard to this.

If much of the responsibility for regulating property is provincial, can the parliamentary secretary explain why he is objecting to this motion which only proposes to strengthen property rights with respect to the laws, activities and operations of the federal government, not the provincial governments?

The parliamentary secretary is concerned that passage of Motion No. 205 would establish a hierarchy of rights in the bill of rights. There is already a hierarchy of rights.

All the other fundamental rights and freedoms have been strengthened by their inclusion in the Constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms. Property rights were left out of the charter.

How can the Liberals honestly explain their refusal to strengthen property rights with respect to federal laws as this motion proposes? It should be put in the charter, but let us begin by putting it in the bill of rights.

Finally, the parliamentary secretary is concerned that property rights may prevent socially useful legislation. This, for everyone listening, is the real reason why the Liberals of the 1990s and the party of big government are opposed to the Reform motion to better protect property.

The parliamentary secretary made it clear in the speech he read in this House, the speech the justice department bureaucrats wrote for him, the speech the Minister of Justice had him read, that Motion No. 205 might prevent the Liberals from re-engineering society.

The truth is that property rights are the only way average citizens have to fight the arbitrary intrusion of big government.

Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to expropriate property arbitrarily like it wanted to do with the Pearson airport contract.

Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to confiscate over half a million legally owned handguns it banned in the passage of Bill C-68.

Motion No. 205 might interfere with the Liberal government's plans to expand its monopoly powers over property, such as produce and products grown by farmers in the west.

Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to expropriate private property by passing any number of the following laws, and I am quoting from the parliamentary secretary's speech, environmental laws, land use laws, laws provided for establishment and operation of corporations and ownership and disposition of shares, laws on banking, laws on bankruptcy and copyright laws.

The excuses given by the Liberals are completely without substance. They are empty. They are void and they have just been destroyed.

There is so much more to say. Suffice it to say that if members of this House support Motion No. 205 the measures will not prevent the Liberal government or any future governments from passing laws that take property away from Canadian citizens.

Motion No. 205 will give Canadian citizens a bit of added protection of their property rights which, based on the words and deeds of the Liberal government, would seem more than justified.

I urge all members to vote their constituents' wishes on this motion. Over 70 per cent of Canadians support greater protection of property rights. It is time we moved on this.

They have it right. We need this fundamental protection of property in this country. It is totally inappropriate that Americans and Mexicans, through the NAFTA, have more property rights in Canada than we, ourselves, have. That ought to send a signal here that we have a huge problem.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before about property rights in this House. I might add it is the topic of conversation among many people in this country. It is not surprising that many real estate people are very adamant about property rights. I had a meeting with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board and this was indeed an issue it wanted addressed in the House of Commons.

Motion No. 205 is merely asking that we provide a greater measurement of protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights. I have a difficult time understanding why there would be even any reluctance on this issue from this government.

I want to indicate some of the basic fundamental principles on property rights of the Reform Party. Reform principle No. 10 enshrined in the constitution of the Reform Party states:

We believe that the creation of wealth and productive jobs for Canadians is best achieved through the operations of a responsible, broadly-based, free enterprise economy in which private property, freedom of contract and the operations of free markets are encouraged and respected.

What does the Reform policy actually encompass? The Reform Party supports amending the charter of rights to recognize that in Canada there existed and shall continue to exist the right of every person to the ownership, use and enjoyment of property both, real and personal, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. Furthermore, it should recognize that in Canada no person shall be deprived directly or indirectly by any law of Parliament or a provincial legislature of the ownership, use and enjoyment of property unless that law provides for just and timely compensation. That is exactly what my colleague just said so articulately.

Last June the Reform assembly passed the following resolution:

Resolved that the Reform Party go on record as being opposed to legislation that may be enacted by any of the three levels of government which would seek to diminish or deprive individuals of their property without adequate compensation, whether it be real property, intellectual property, or the opportunities associated therewith.

What are property rights? Property rights are the cornerstone of human freedom. Property rights mean freedom from arbitrary interference in one's life by government. Property rights depend on the notion that you own yourself and your labour and neither the government nor the community exercising its power through government may take your property except under three very limiting conditions. The taking of your property must be for public use; the taking of your property must be through due legal process of law; the taking of your property must be with just and timely compensation.

I have been involved in the appropriation of property for a school board which needed property for the purchasing and building of more schools. The process involved even from a local basis should really be enshrined in the bill of rights. It should be very common to all Canadians rather than a province by province or a local district by district implementing their own rules and their own laws.

Property rights guarantee your right not to be deprived of your property either by taking away ownership or by restricting your use, enjoyment or ability to transfer ownership to another person until or unless the three conditions outlined above are met.

Property rights also guarantee your right not to be deprived of the value of your own labour by being compelled to work under conditions not of your choosing or by being forbidden to work under conditions that are of your own choosing.

We have to go back to the issue of where did property rights come from. This is not just an issue that started in Canada. We can go back to Britain or to many countries. I would like to give some quotes. The following quote goes as far back as 1790 and is by Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France :

The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself. It makes our weakness subservient to our virtue; it grafts benevolence even upon avarice.

In 1937 Walter Lippmann said in the The Good Society : ``The only dependable foundation of personal liberty is the personal economic security of private property''.

These kinds of issues are not something that we have created here today; these have been talked about for years and years. It is like many other issues in the House of Commons; one has to stand here and wonder why it is such an issue. Why is this not just accepted by this government? Rather than it being made a political issue, why does it not just say that it makes common sense, that it is for the good of all people so let us do it? What is the hesitancy?

In 1756 Benjamin Franklin said: "Mine is better than ours". What a great quote. That is truly reflective of property rights.

We have to ask why these property rights need to be strengthened. It is one of our most important rights. If we did not have a written Constitution, the protection of property rights under common law which dates from time immemorial would suffice. However, since we do have a written Constitution that does

entrench certain rights, these rights merely protected by common law or federal statute are regulated to a subordinate status.

Every person's natural and fundamental right to property should be protected as our paramount right. If circumstances do not allow us to entrench property rights in the Constitution, then we should take the next best step and strengthen this right in federal law using the legislative mechanisms and constitutional powers available to the federal government.

One has to ask: What if? Why? How? I will say it again: This government has an obligation to act rationally and responsibly on all issues. Because this happens to be a motion brought up by my colleague on this side of the House does not mean that the government has to oppose it. It means that the government should listen to the motion, ask if it makes sense and proceed from there.

There are times in this House of Commons when politics have to be laid aside. There is nothing wrong with entrenching property rights in this House of Commons in the bill of rights and the charter of rights.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as it is my motion I wonder if I might be allowed a minute to make a brief summation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

A right of reply is certainly permissible. Since the hon. member is rising to speak I must advise the House that if he speaks now he will close the debate.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my Motion No. M-205 proposes to amend the Canadian bill of rights by adding two new sections. The first section would allow citizens the right to their property unless the person receives a fair hearing in accordance with principles of fundamental justice. The second section gives the individual property owner the right to fair compensation for the property within a reasonable amount of time.

At present the Canadian bill of rights includes property rights yet the guarantee of protection is minimal at best. At present there is no requirement in Canadian constitutional law that the removal of private property is covered by a fair procedure to deal with compensation to the owner and there is no guarantee of fair treatment by the courts, tribunals or officials who have the power over individuals or corporations.

Individual property rights is a fundamental freedom which must be protected. Motion No. M-205 considers giving Canadians security that their homes and possessions are theirs and theirs alone. This motion is about giving Canadians the right to the protection of their own property. I would hope there would be broad support within this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I thank the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.