Debates of Dec. 6th, 1999

An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms

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

moved that Bill C-237, an act to amend an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time since I became a member of parliament that my property rights bill has been denied enough time for full debate. This is the third time that MPs have been denied the opportunity to vote for or against strengthening property rights in federal law. It is also three slaps in the face for each of the thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions supporting my bill. So far I have personally received 578 pages of petitions signed by 13,729 Canadians from all across Canada who support the bill.

It is also an insult to another major supporter of the legislation, the Canadian Real Estate Association, an association that represents more than 200 real estate boards in every province of the country.

I repeat for the third time in the House that it is time for us to make this bill, and all Private Members' Business that comes before the House, votable.

I will start the debate by asking a few questions. I know they will be difficult questions for many Liberals to answer and almost impossible for the socialists in the House to understand but I am going to ask them anyway.

What does anyone own that the Government of Canada cannot take away from them? The answer is nothing.

Does anyone think they have any right to own the satellite dish they bought, paid duties and taxes on, and enjoy the programs they pay for and watch on their TV? Does anyone think they have the right to own the gun that they legally bought to go target shooting or hunting with? Does anyone think they have the right to own the money they paid into their own government pension fund? Does anyone think they have the right to own and sell the crops they grow on their own land? Does anyone think they have any right in Canadian federal law to be compensated for any property that the government takes away from them, including their own land?

If anyone was thinking that as a Canadian citizen they had any of these rights or that somehow these rights were protected in Canadian law, I am sad to inform them that they are wrong. The federal government can take anything anyone owns, anytime it wants, and there is not a thing anyone can do about it. Only we in the House can do something about it.

Let us look at the government's track record at taking the property from Canadians. Over the years, an estimated 700,000 Canadians have purchased direct-to-home satellite equipment, services and programs from the United States because the equipment, services and programs were not available to them in Canada. This was a legal product that the Government of Canada collected both duty and taxes on. The government then unilaterally passed a law that declared the equipment, services and programming people watched using their own satellite dish, their own decoder and their own television illegal.

In May of this year, the RCMP announced a crackdown on these made in Ottawa criminals. My colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, made the directive public. The RCMP directive states:

Although any such device or equipment brought into Canada may have had duty and taxes paid, the provisions of the Radiocommunication Act remain in effect. The possession, use, sale, etc. of any such equipment is therefore illegal.

Watching television illegally in Canada can result in a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 12 months in prison. So much for the right to own and enjoy property in Canada.

In 1994 a farmer with a firearms licence issued by the federal government went out and bought a gopher gun, a firearm commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes, from a government licensed firearms dealer. In 1995 the government passed Bill C-68 giving it the absolute power to prohibit any firearms if, in the opinion of the governor in council, really the Minister of Justice, he or she does not think the firearm should or could be used for hunting and sporting purposes.

I can hear by the noise in the background that the Liberals do not like this, but I think it is time they paid attention. If the bureaucrats in the justice department think a gun looks dangerous and can convince the justice minister that it is dangerous, the minister can ban the gun by order in council. Section 117.15(2) of the criminal code gives the government such sweeping authority that it can ban any gopher gun without producing a shred of evidence that the firearm it is banning is dangerous. The government can ban any gopher gun even while ignoring factual evidence that the firearm is “commonly used for hunting and sporting” purposes.

The government can ban any gopher gun without any debate in parliament. Nor is there any means of getting the prohibition reconsidered by parliament. The government can ban any gopher gun without any statutory right of appeal for individual owners of these firearms because the criminal code does not contain any such rights of appeal.

The government can ban any gopher gun and declare the owners do not have any right to be compensated for the loss in value resulting from the government's arbitrary prohibition order and no right to be compensated even if the government confiscates the firearm from its lawful owner.

Finally, not even the Supreme Court of Canada could overturn the arbitrary prohibition order because it would be virtually impossible for any court to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the governor in council. In fact, lawyers from the Library of Parliament confirmed this when they wrote, “courts would be loathe to find the governor in council acted in bad faith”.

The punishment for possession of a prohibited firearm is imprisonment for up to five years. So much for the right to own and enjoy property in Canada.

For years, 670,000 federal public servants paid too much of their own salaries into their own government administered pension plans. In May of this year, the government passed Bill C-78 which declared that the surplus money these employees paid into their own pension plan was not theirs any more. It was the government's. The money the government stole was the property of its own employees.

Do employees not have the right to own the portion of money they pay into their own pension fund? Not if they work for the federal government. If these contributions individuals made to their own public service pensions are not safe from the plundering by the federal government, what makes anyone think that the contributions they make to their RRSPs are safe? So much for property rights in Canada.

A Saskatchewan farmer, David Bryan, grew a crop of wheat on his own land. He got into trouble when he tried to sell his wheat for a better price than the Canadian Wheat Board would pay him. The federal government charged Mr. Bryan with exporting his own grain to the United States without getting an export licence from the monopolistic dictatorial wheat board.

For violating this Soviet style decree, Mr. Bryan spent a week in jail, was fined $9,000 and received a two year suspended sentence. Mr. Bryan, with the help of the National Citizen's Coalition, appealed his conviction on the grounds that it violated his property right as guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights and passed by parliament in 1960.

On February 4, 1999, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled against David Bryan's right to sell his own grain that he grew on his own land. On page 14 of the ruling of the Manitoba Court of Appeal it states:

Section 1(a) 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.

Can anyone who is listening to this debate or who reads the record of this debate believe these words came out of the Canadian court of law?

This ruling confirmed what constitutional expert Peter Hogg wrote in his book Constitutional Law of Canada , Third Edition. It states:

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 the 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.

That is citation 44.9, page 1030. Professor Hogg also wrote:

The product is a s. 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.

That is citation 44.7(b), page 1028.

Therefore, without any protection of property rights and freedom of contract in the charter of rights and freedoms and with the courts ruling that the Canadian bill of rights does not provide any protection whatsoever from the federal government's arbitrary taking of property or infringing on our fundamental economic liberty, I decided it was time to do something about it.

Amending the charter is a hugely complicated task because it requires a resolution to be passed in the House of Commons and in seven provincial legislatures, comprising about 50% of the population. I decided to draft a bill to strengthen the protection of property rights in the Canadian bill of rights. Consequently, this would only strengthen the protection of property rights in federal law.

In past debates the government has argued poorly that there is no need to strengthen property rights in federal law, that the Canadian bill of rights provides adequate protection of property rights. The Bryan case proves that it is totally wrong on this count. The bill of rights provides absolutely no protection of property rights. Even if the government ignores the Bryan judgment, these rights can be overridden by just saying so in any piece of legislation passed by the House.

My bill proposes to make it more difficult to override the property rights of Canadian citizens by requiring a two-thirds majority of the House. My amendments would not tie the government's hands to legislate, but would send a clear signal that members of parliament think that adequate protection of property rights is so important that an override clause should pass a higher test in the House.

Even if the government agreed to abide by the so-called guarantees in the Canadian bill of rights, as currently worded, it would only protect three things: the right to the enjoyment of property, the right not to be deprived of property except by due process, and the right to a fair hearing. Unfortunately the bill of rights does not prevent the arbitrary taking of property by the federal government. The bill of rights does not provide any protection of our right to be paid any compensation, let alone fair compensation. The bill of rights does not provide any protection of our right to have compensation fixed impartially. The bill of rights does not provide any protection of our right to receive timely compensation. Finally, the bill of rights does not provide any protection of our right to apply to the courts to obtain justice.

Bill C-237, my property rights bill, would provide this protection. I offer the government this opportunity to take corrective action by voting to strengthen property rights in the Canadian bill of rights. When passed by the House we could then work toward amending the charter of rights and freedoms, which is a much more complex process.

I would like to mention a couple of things in summation. Why are property rights good? There are three key reasons for which property rights are good and necessary. First, they make society richer. Second, they protect the freedom of individuals. Third, they protect the environment. Theoretically the protection of property rights makes society richer because those rights spur, through creative effort, the improvement of one's circumstances. Second, property rights protect the freedom of individuals because they allow people to make their own decisions about how to best use their existing possessions, including labour. Finally, property rights protect the environment because the problem of pollution is not that people pollute their own surroundings but that they pollute other people's surroundings.

I would like to briefly talk about the Magna Carta and the English bill of rights; however, I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I will have to do that another time.

These property rights have been around for a long time. It is only recently that we have neglected them and failed to put them in our charter of rights and freedoms.

I respectfully request the unanimous consent of the House to make Bill C-237 a votable item. I have given all the arguments for it. I think there is much sympathy in the House for it. In fact, many years ago it was passed and I think it is time we did it again.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the bill be made a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill C-237, an act to amend an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

In brief terms this bill would amend the Canadian bill of rights. The Minister of Justice feels strongly about the important role of property rights in our society. Property rights represent one of the fundamental pillars of our legal system and our democratic society. Indeed, our legal system is replete with protection for property rights. However, the Minister of Justice cannot support the bill because it raises some very important concerns.

The Canadian bill of rights already contains provisions for property rights in paragraph 1(a). Bill C-237 would remove these provisions and would enact new and broader provisions dealing with property rights. These broader provisions would have untold implications for federal laws. For example, they could affect everything from federal laws dealing with pollution to shareholder rights to divorce laws making provision for the division of property.

One only has to look at the American experience with constitutional property rights to understand the implications of extending property rights. In the United States property rights have been extended in ways that no one could have anticipated. This has led to huge amounts of litigation and has complicated and burdened the process of lawmaking.

Early on in the history of the United States important social reforms were struck down by the courts in the name of property rights. I am not saying that this kind of unfortunate judicial intervention would necessarily happen here, but to date no proper consideration has been given to this possibility. One has to think very carefully before importing this kind of law into the Canadian context.

The protection of property rights is, of course, an important principle in Canadian society. No one in this Chamber would dispute that. While agreeing with the principle of protecting property rights, we must be careful to have a clear understanding of the impact that the kind of legislation being proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville will have.

In any event, as I have indicated, I think it is very important to remember that our legal system presently and appropriately acknowledges property rights. The concept of property rights is fundamental to our legal system. It is the basis of the operation of our economy. This is reflected in the legal framework that governs our economy. Every day property rights guide our actions in the way we do business. Contract law, real property law, personal property law and so on are built on the concept of property rights.

Our legal system could not function without it. As such, our legal system provides, as a matter of the common law that has been built over hundreds of years through court decisions, basic protections for property owners. Hundreds of years of jurisprudence must not be lightly disregarded.

The common law provides basic protections for individuals regarding state action that affects their property, and statute law is also filled with protections for property rights. Whether we are looking at shareholder laws, banking laws, criminal laws or otherwise, these laws contain a wide variety of provisions that are designed to ensure fair dealing with property.

Let us not forget that the Canadian bill of rights already provides protection for property rights. As the member has pointed out, section 1(a) of the Canadian bill of rights provides for “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”.

The hon. member's bill would also amend the Canadian bill of rights in a way that is not consistent with the treatment of other rights in the Canadian bill of rights. The bill would add charter-like provisions to the Canadian bill of rights that would be applicable only to property rights and not to the other human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Canadian bill of rights. This would include new provisions dealing with imposing limits on rights, overriding rights, and obtaining judicial remedies.

I am not certain why property rights are treated differently. I am not certain what the logic or rationale, if any, is for this. It seems to me that the bill is so focused on one issue that it does not recognize that the Canadian bill of rights contains other rights and freedoms, that the proposed changes do not fit in and that they do not treat all rights and freedoms on a consistent basis.

My reaction is that when we are dealing with something as fundamental as basic Canadian legal instruments for the protection of human rights, we need to examine all of the implications. Let me be clear, property rights are fundamental to our legal system and society. We will continue to support property rights and to promote respect for these and all rights of Canadians, but we cannot support a bill that unwittingly would put into jeopardy social and economic laws and policies that are important to the people of Canada.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speeches of my colleagues on this private member's bill today and I found their arguments to be interesting.

I appreciate that there are two points of view on this issue, but I want to add another voice to the discussion this morning regarding property rights, which refers quite directly to the recent talks of the World Trade Organization in Seattle.

It seems to me that we have gone out of our way in providing property rights to certain kinds of corporations. Under the NAFTA and the provisions of the WTO, in the future more rights will be given to corporations to overrule the decisions of duly elected representatives of parliaments and legislatures.

At the top of the list is the present initiative of Sun Belt Water Inc. of California, which wants to export fresh water from Canada to California. Because the provincial government of British Columbia passed legislation which prohibited that particular initiative from proceeding, Sun Belt is suing the federal government, on behalf of the British Columbian government, under the provisions of the NAFTA for what it says could be as much as $10 billion in lost profits.

This is the ultimate in property rights being represented. A company is saying that because elected Canadians, in their wisdom, chose legislation, in their judgment, to protect the welfare of future generations and the health of Canadians, it has property rights and it will sue for lost revenues that it would accrue in the future. This is the ultimate in handing over rights to private corporations which will clearly, in many cases, go against the decisions of duly elected representatives of the people of Canada.

Let us be more specific. I could mention the legislation that we were driven into to protect patent rights for multinational drug companies. We were under incredible pressure to regulate and to legislate in favour of multinational drug companies to give them a 20 year monopoly on any new drug. We could debate whether 20 years is reasonable or whether it should be 2, 10, 50 or whatever, but there was absolutely no choice that the intellectual property rights of international drug companies required us to pass legislation guaranteeing them monopoly rights on new drugs for 20 years. One has to admit that is a very good deal.

I think you will remember those days, Mr. Speaker. The feeling was that we had no choice. We were driven into legislating in favour of protecting intellectual property rights that would benefit multinational drug companies against the best interests of the consuming public. When there is a monopoly drug situation, obviously there is not going to be any competition in the marketplace and people will be gouged. I do not think the evidence has ever been refuted. It is clear that because of the lack of competition by generic drug companies the prices for our drugs in this country are significantly higher than they normally would be or than they need be, which causes incredible pressure on our health care system, to say nothing of the consuming public in general.

When we talk about property rights, particularly as they focus on the corporate sector, this is getting close to Mecca. This is as close to corporate heaven as one could possibly get. I could read all sorts of examples other than all the national drug companies that have been handed this incredible property right.

There was a controversy over some of the big forest companies and their forest practices. People were saying that the legislation needed to be changed to stop the abuses of various forestry codes. The American companies said they would sue us for their lost profits if we imposed legislation to protect Canada's forests and stopped them from their cutting rights as they understood them.

Clearly, American corporations have great property rights, much greater than Canadian corporations. I could throw in Mexico as well. We have not been challenged by many Mexican companies but we have been by American companies.

Let me be more specific. In an article a little while back Time Canada Ltd. said that it would not have to make good on a threat to sue Canada for its pending magazine legislation. We can debate magazine legislation and cultural legislation, but the reality is we have been interested over the years in strengthening our cultural sector through legislation to give Canada's cultural industries a bit of a hand up and assistance to enable them to get under way to compete in the international markets. However, we have been reminded time and time again that if we assist our corporate sector particularly when it comes to culture, that they will sue. They have the right now under NAFTA to do just that, and they want to expand that to include all 134 countries under the WTO. So there is time.

I want to quote my friend Dalton Camp.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

I have lots of friends outside the realm of the New Democratic Party. He wrote a very interesting article in which he said: “Parliament approved Bill C-29. It was a lot like motherhood. MMT, a product of Ethyl Corporation of Virginia, has been banned in Europe and in California. Almost every major U.S. petroleum producer, the minister said, had indicated support for the decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to forbid MMT being marketed as a gasoline additive”. He went on to point out that one-third of the American market, because of acute air pollution problems, prohibits MMT in these particular areas.

In other words, Europe does it. The state of California does it. One-third of the American market does it. And so Canada said that we would also do the same thing, which we attempted to do in Bill C-29. However, along came Ethyl Corporation which launched a $347 million lawsuit against the Government of Canada.

These lawsuits by Sun Belt Inc. and Ethyl Corporation against the Government of Canada, were not against the Prime Minister and a handful of people sitting in some office. Actually, the Government of Canada is the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada. The Government of Canada is all of us, all 30 million people. We represent those people in this place. When Ethyl Corporation sues the Government of Canada, it is suing the people of Canada. Men, women and children from coast to coast to coast are being sued by Ethyl Corporation over the MMT issue.

We all know what happened. The government said to Ethyl Corporation that it was sorry, that it would back off and pull the legislation, that it would settle out of court for $20 million and that it would also provide a written letter of apology. That is what we did.

Talk about property rights. Talk about corporate property rights. One could not get a better provision than what we call chapter 11 under NAFTA which essentially guarantees the ultimate in corporate property rights.

I know my friend who sponsored this legislation has done it in the best interests of the constituents he represents as he sees it. I do not think it is the right course when it comes to property rights in our country. I am not a lawyer but lawyers have told me that about 90% of the cases in a law office are case law when it comes to property and that about 10% of cases refer to people. In terms of property being protected, the track record is very very good.

My colleagues elsewhere will articulate other reasons that this legislation ought not to proceed. I could talk about the provision of assets during divorce settlements as an initiative. If one of the spouses has property rights guaranteed and he or she owns 99% of the assets, how will that affect divorce proceedings in their settlements? These are all arguments we have heard many times before.

I want to throw in as part of today's discussion the fact that under chapter 11 of NAFTA we have legislated property rights to the largest and most powerful corporations in the country, particularly in the countries of the United States and Mexico. Now they want to expand that through the WTO into virtually all of the nations of the world that we trade with. That would be nothing short of catastrophic.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-237, which is an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Strengthening property rights is a sentiment that we in the Conservative Party embrace wholeheartedly. The party has a long history in this regard. This legislation would afford greater protection in the bill of rights for property rights for both individuals and corporations.

The bill was last before the House on October 1998. I congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing the issue of property rights back to the House of Commons. He has been very dogged in his pursuit of this issue and his perseverance is duly noted.

It is unfortunate in a way because if the bill of rights was properly respected to the letter, this type of amendment would not be necessary. Once again, it is to underscore or strengthen existing law to co-opt a good idea, so I think it is somewhat a statement of the obvious in some areas. The Progressive Conservative Party has always been a proponent of the rights of Canadians and in particular the rights to own and enjoy property. Fully and unconditionally we support this concept.

The Canadian bill of rights itself was enacted in 1960 by the Progressive Conservative prime minister of the day, John Diefenbaker. It extended protection for the right to enjoy property, the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process, and obviously the right to a fair hearing.

In my previous comments at second reading I noted that in 1995 the Progressive Conservative Party across Canada approved a new constitution which lists one of the four principles as the following:

A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and the well-being of the people of Canada are:

1. the freedom of the individual Canadian to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy;

2. the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent; and

3. the right to own property.

That is in the Conservative constitution.

The protection of property rights has long been recognized as a fundamental aspect of social and economic justice in this country. From the first settlers to those who faced the most overwhelming challenges of the size of this country, property was an immediate challenge. Yet there are inconsistencies within the laws concerning property rights today.

Article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Canada ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights over 50 years ago. It underscores again the importance of these rights.

Through the costly and discriminatory Firearms Act, the government is depriving law-abiding Canadian citizens of their property. Let us not beat around the bush, this is what is at the principle of this bill. I am referring specifically but not exclusively to rural Canadians who rely on the use of long guns for hunting, and farmers who use them for the protection of their livestock, for the elimination of predators. It is viewed more as a tool and a farm implement.

It is incumbent upon me at this point to say that on the 10th anniversary of the Montreal massacre it is perhaps ill-timed that we find ourselves debating this issue. Anyone on either side of this gun registration debate I think would agree that we should be focusing on mourning the loss of the 14 bright young future leaders of our country who were gunned down in Montreal. Yet the debate is here, it is before the House.

It must be noted that even with the current Firearms Act, nothing could have been done to prevent the psychopathic killer Marc Lépine from engaging in his shooting rampage. Criminals simply do not register guns. The Liberals' gun registry will do nothing to prevent gun related crime, but will impose increasingly expensive and discriminatory regulations upon law-abiding citizens. Criminals will not participate in any form of legitimate gun registry. The Conservative Party would repeal that element of the gun registry system. This is a narrowly focused law. Other existing safety provisions introduced by the Conservative Party would be left in place, but the gun registry system would be gone.

Bill C-237 is not of great concern to many Liberals because most of their support comes from urban Canada. Only approximately 10% of the Canadian population would be immediately affected by this law. Most Canadians do not register their firearms. They do not have firearms to register. The perpetual costs and inconvenience of this law is affecting mostly rural gun owning Canadians who live outside of city centres.

Issues like gun registry are a concern everywhere. Guns are property. Law-abiding gun owners in rural Canada have a right to have guns.

The recent amendments to the Firearms Act unleash a discriminatory system on law-abiding property owners. The act was designed to put pressure on legitimate gun owners who have consistently demonstrated until now that they favour reasonable gun control and desire to live within the law. It targets the wrong group. The criminal code is being used to run roughshod over property rights in this regard.

Gun registry has been a complete failure, facing massive non-compliance by the over three million gun owners in Canada with seven million guns yet to be registered. Provincial challenges at the supreme court level are indicative of broad disagreement about the approach the government has taken.

With the costs now spiralling into the area of $300 million, one has to question the priorities of the government with respect to crime in Canada. As an example, $206 million has been set aside for the new youth criminal justice act over the next three years. This particular initiative has already cost Canadian taxpayers close to $300 million with very little impact, if any, on crime.

Even if registration could be processed on time, the cost is unreasonable to keep a farmer or a hunter from engaging in a very legitimate, legal exercise. Because the process has failed, many people will not register. The government will be confiscating property which legally belongs to the person in question without compensation. Many may face arrest as a result of this criminal code amendment.

To recap, big brother can take our property without compensation and then throw us in jail. This will commence an unchecked growth in illegal gun sales around the country, encouraging sales on the black market. A panel of Liberal experts told the justice minister this would happen but she did not listen to that advice.

The bill denies and drives more legitimate owners into selling their guns or giving them up. This will put more guns, illegal and otherwise, on the black market.

We know that our prison system is suffering problems from funding and overcrowding. We know that our police agencies are breaking down as a result of underfunding. But the government is spending millions of dollars seizing law-abiding citizens' property.

Will the government spend more money on organized crime? Not likely. Will it set a greater priority for where the money should actually be spent? It does not appear so. There is a lack of consistency on the part of the government. It is refusing to act on constitutional grounds with respect to this bill. It, among other groups, will oppose it. But the Progressive Conservative Party is going to support this bill for the reasons I have referred to.

The Liberals rejected a truly effective DNA data bank system for similar reasons. They said they were afraid of the legal consequences. Yet they are going to keep a law that barely survived the Alberta Court of Appeal and is now going before the Supreme Court of Canada which we hope will succeed.

Governments have a duty to taxpayers to wait until the supreme court settles issues of constitutionality. They should not be deterred or afraid by it. The government suffers perpetually from charter constipation. It has already spent close to $300 million and counting. This will be followed by confiscation and lengthy court battles as a result.

The government argues that property rights are already adequately protected under the Canadian bill of rights. If it cannot continue, this will violate article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights by arbitrarily taking property from Canadian citizens.

The PC Party does not want to limit the government's ability to legislate. It needs to be constantly reminded that its powers to override property rights go against individual rights in this country. There is a delicate balance that must be respected.

The issue of property rights in our constitution is also very problematic. The omission of property rights from section 7 of the charter greatly reduces the scope of the charter in this regard. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or a fair procedure for the taking of property by the government. It also means that section 7 affords no guarantee of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with powers over purely economic interests of individuals or corporations.

Thus section 7 “liberty must be interpreted as not including property, as not including freedom of contract, and, in short, as not including economic liberty”.

Bill C-237 will help enhance the protection that most people thought they already had under the constitution. It does not try to change or challenge the charter because this is a complicated process. Rather, it tries to strengthen property rights and provisions of the bill of rights.

Section 237 would also accord greater strength to the charter of rights and for Canadians to enjoy property. It would also enhance the right to be paid fair compensation, to have fixed compensation, to have timely compensation and to apply to the courts to obtain real justice.

Bill C-237 recognizes that the gun registry system has not been working. The protests and legal challenges continue to mount against the existing Firearms Act, but the Liberal government is not using its good discretion. It is abusing its authority. We need legislation such as Bill C-237 more than ever.

In conclusion, I want to send a message to those who do oppose gun registration. Today is the day to remember the 14 women who died at École Polytechnique. It is a day to remember that violence against women still exists. The PC Party feels that this particular bill is worthy of support. We want to send our condolences to those affected by this massacre.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join my hon. colleague for Yorkton—Melville who has led the way in the House on the issue of property rights.

It is exciting to be part of a debate in the House that gets right to the heart of important philosophical questions about the scope of government and the importance of individual freedom. I applaud my colleague for his integrity and his perseverance in the campaign to awaken Canadians to the frightening realization that property ownership is not a right in this country but a so-called privilege that the government grants and can take away at its whim.

What is so special about property rights? Nobel laureate Frederick Hayek wrote “Private property is the most important guarantee of freedom”. More than any other social or political institution, the institution of private property is the primary mechanism by which we separate those activities and those choices which properly belong to government and those activities and choices which should be left within the jurisdiction and control of private citizens.

We will never limit the size and scope of government without clearly defined private property rights. Even the NDP wants to limit the size and scope of government. Nobody wants to live in a country in which the government has no limits on its power to intrude into our lives. The solution to intrusive government should be simple, but Canadians have no legal right to own property. The institution of private property does not exist in Canada.

In case any member of the House is unaware of the lack of constitutional protection for private property, I will provide some statements to my colleagues of various expert opinions on property rights in Canada:

The arbitrary taking of private property by the government without compensation would not seem to be justified. However, the law clearly gives the government the right to pass legislation that takes private property without providing compensation, if the law so states. In Canada there is no constitutional guarantee for compensation and the power of the government in this area is unlimited.

This was written by Gerald Lafreniere, Law and Government Division, Research Branch, Library of Parliament.

Here is another quote:

Several things are clear. The Charter has never before and still does not protect economic liberty or property rights. A deliberate choice was made to exclude them from the document...Those who assert that the Charter guarantees Canadians freedom to deal with their own property as they wish are flying in the face of unvarnished truth that the Charter does not even contain a freedom from State confiscation of Canadians' property.

This statement was made by Justice F. C. Muldoon in the judgment in Archibald v the Canadian Wheat Board case of April 11, 1997.

Here is another quote:

The product is a s. 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.

This was written by Professor Hogg. I think it speaks to the essential connection between economic liberty and property.

I could go on. There are many more legal scholars who repeat the same fact that Canadians lack the constitutional protection against the violation of their right to own property.

I will give some examples of property rights violations or potential violations in the country. I want to give the House a taste of the scope of the problem.

In 1996, farmer Andy McMechan was shackled, strip searched and imprisoned for five months for selling his grain, his property, without the approval of the Canadian Wheat Board. He was allowed to go home for Christmas only after surrendering his tractor to Canada Customs.

After January 1, 2001, 555,000 short-barrelled handguns will forcibly be confiscated as a result of an arbitrary government prohibition of these firearms. Law-abiding gun owners have been told to turn in an estimated $280 million worth of property for destruction or disposal and will not be compensated.

I will also share a personal example on the issue of private property, which I have spoken about before in the House. My family came here as refugees, as millions of other Canadians who have been in similar circumstances. When we had to leave the country of Uganda our property was completely confiscated. My parents lost everything they had worked for.

Granted, when we come to this country there is a respect of law and order and that gives people a great sense of hope and belief in the country. Why not strengthen that element of property rights, as being proposed in this bill by my colleague for Yorkton—Melville? It would put the hearts and minds of people, who have been through the terrible experience, as was my family, of losing everything due to the lack of concern for property, at rest.

I have another example of an organization that has worked hard to promote the idea of property rights, which was given the runaround by the Department of Revenue's charities division with a complete runaround. I bring up the case because it relates directly to property rights and to the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute.

The National Post nominated the charities division of Revenue Canada as the slowest moving department in Ottawa. I wish to also nominate the bureaucrat in charge of the department, Mr. Neil Barclay, for the dubious honour of being the laziest civil servant in the federal government today.

In processing the application for charitable registration by the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute, Mr. Barclay received over 20 phone calls and letters from opposition and government parliamentarians alike. After two and a half years of broken promises and delays, CanPRRI has been denied its application.

While Mr. Barclay was busy approving the applications of various other groups, the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute has been ignored and mistreated by a bureaucrat with an ideological bone to pick.

I hope the revenue minister will address this problem in the charities division and will insist on a departmental review of this application for charitable status. We know how important property rights are in the country and we need to continue to promote institutions that are willing to fight for them.

I have spoken today about a number of cases. My colleague for Yorkton—Melville spoke about the importance of property rights. We have a chance to make a decision today and work toward strengthening private property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. I also call on my constituents and indeed all Canadians, who believe in the freedom of limited government, to demand that the government protect their fundamental rights to keep the products of their labour.

Property rights might seem abstract but the simple act of locking one's door at night is an exercise of private property.

Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the campaign to end slavery in the United States was based on the principle of self-ownership, an idea that was advanced centuries earlier by philosopher John Locke. John Locke believed that the right to self-ownership is a foundation of the right to material property. I stress this point to assure my colleagues that the private property debate is not just about land and wealthy landowners; it is a debate that affects us all.

Unfortunately, many Canadians take property rights for granted and do not understand that real individual rights begin with the right to own and to control private property.

The members of the House can do something that would strengthen the institution of private property and guarantee that Canada remains a free and prosperous nation. They can work together to demand that the charter of rights and freedoms no longer excludes the protection for the fundamental right to own, use and enjoy private property.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was home recently and the issue of property rights became a very important issue as I moved about my constituency and held five town hall meetings.

When I visited one of the farms, I was quite taken with a rifle that was hanging above the fireplace. The gentleman explained to me that this particular French rifle was now in his hands after five generations. He does not know if it works but it is a very precious commodity. Of all the things he could trace from his ancestors, who came from France to Quebec, later emigrating to Michigan and then to Saskatchewan, this was the family's pride. This was also the pride of my 10 year old grandson. However, because we do not have the right in this country to own property, potentially that family heirloom could be seized without any recourse in law at all.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Nonsense.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

No, it is not nonsense. It is absolutely true.

In my own area, I could drive on a back road and see four or five signs pointing out endangered species. Nobody protects endangered species like the people in rural Saskatchewan. Do members know what they genuinely fear? They fear that all of these signs could be taken down. If the government sees these endangered species signs, and the species the farmer is attempting to protect, it could, under new legislation coming and because there is no right to own property, confiscate any portion of that land. This is not just dreaming, this is actual fact.

Pierre Trudeau's name came over the radio last night because it seems that he will be named the parliamentarian or the politician of the century. Who was it who argued vigorously and repeatedly for the inclusion of property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms? He went to great lengths to guarantee Canadians the right to own property.

Resolutions were passed in the legislatures of British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick supporting inclusions of property rights in the charter but we do not have them.

Legal support is needed for the protection of property rights. The government knows this is a good bill. My colleague has taken it to the committee and has argued three times to have the bill become votable, but for no clear, enunciated reason, can anyone on that side of the House offer a reason why that cannot be done.

The way things are going in Canada, as we are moving from a democracy to a jurocracy, Canadians need to be worried. We in the Reform Party are worried about what is happening to the democratic principles in Canada. We are worried that more and more legal decisions and more and more legislations are being passed outside of these chambers.

I tell the hon. members opposite that the fear they have about giving Canadians the right to own property will come back to haunt them. By denying my colleague's bill, not once but three times, it will indeed come back to haunt them in the near future.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have to interrupt the hon. member to allow the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville to have his five minute opportunity for reply. I should advise the House that when the hon. member speaks, he will close the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all those members who spoke in support of my bill, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and my own Reform Party colleagues.

Bill C-237 would amend the bill of rights to provide added protection for Canadian citizens from the arbitrary decisions made by the federal government to take their property.

I listened to the arguments the Liberals put forward. They all stem from the fact that it would limit them in their ability to legislate and override the rights of citizens to own property. They fear that their power as government would be undermined. They point to the bill of rights as enough support. The courts have clearly demonstrated that it was because it was not included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it is not constitutionally protected.

The Liberals point out that there have been hundreds of years of jurisprudence to support property rights. However, in a few court decisions now, our courts in Canada have overridden all of that jurisprudence which stems back to 1215 and the Magna Carta. I think it is time we fixed that in the House.

I listened to the NDP members. They tried to spin my bill as protecting the corporations. Only corporations can challenge the legislation or can afford to challenge it I suppose. However from the speech by the hon. member of the NDP it became clear that corporations are better protected in Canada through NAFTA than are individuals. His arguments were really a support for what I am trying to do today and indicated the need for property rights within our Canadian context.

Article 17(2) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”. Voters in this country have to know that the federal government by its own legislation, legislation that government members have supported, condones the arbitrary taking of property in direct contravention of article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Let us be honest and up front and not be hypocritical in our debate today. Members of the Liberal government should hang their heads in shame rather than parade around the world claiming to be defenders of fundamental human rights. What a sham.

In 1903 Pope Pius X wrote to his bishops:

The right of private property, the fruit of labour or industry, or of concession or donation by others, is an incontrovertible natural right; and everybody can dispose reasonably of such property as he thinks fit.

Today we have heard the proof that our fundamental property rights are under attack. Are we just going to ignore it? Just because a bill is passed in parliament does not make the use and abuse of government force to violate fundamental property rights and freedom of contract of its citizens a good thing.

In her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal , Ayn Rand wrote:

The concept of a right pertains only to action—specifically to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by others. The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has not right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Czech President Vaclav Havel also hit the nail on the head when he said: “Human rights rank above state rights because people are the creation of God”.

Are the Liberals listening? My colleagues, property rights are our most important human right because they are fundamental to our right to life. This is a very serious matter that I fear many in the House, especially those on the government side, are taking far too lightly.

My bill strengthens property rights in federal law. It does not tie the hands of government.

I talked about the Magna Carta. It is a very important document. Since that time we have had hundreds of years of jurisprudence. Our Canadian courts have done away with that. It is time we sent the signal to them that this is not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard all the arguments. I think it needs to be studied further. I would like to respectfully request the House to do something else. I would like the unanimous consent of the House to refer Bill C-237 to the subcommittee on human rights for further study. I do not think anybody can reasonably deny that, so I would like to make that request at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to refer the bill for further study?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised by the House leader for the official opposition on Thursday, December 2, 1999 concerning the acceptability of report stage motions related to Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, which were refused.

The first motion that the hon. member submitted sought to append the Nisga'a Final Agreement and Appendices as a schedule to Bill C-9. The member was informed by the Journals Branch that his motion was not in order and could therefore not be placed, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(2), on the Notice Paper. A second motion seeking to add the Nisga'a Nation Taxation Agreement as a schedule was also refused for the same reasons. The member argued that the Speaker or the staff of the Journals Branch could have made the necessary corrections to ensure that his amendments were in order.

Before proceeding to the substantive issues raised, let me state that the onus has always been on members submitting amendments to ensure that they are in order. There were however, more substantive reasons for ruling these motions out of order.

The member for Langley—Abbotsford made reference in his presentation to a ruling delivered by Speaker Beaudoin on May 17, 1956 and found on pages 567-569 of the Journals . I have read the ruling and was struck by what was said by my predecessor. At that time, in dealing with an issue having some similarities to the present case, the Speaker stated:

—it was customary not to include agreements in bills providing for the carrying in to effect of these agreements.

He further drew members' attention to chapter 71 of the Statutes of 1948 in which are found an act to provide for carrying into effect treaties of peace between Canada and Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland, in which none of the agreements were included.

A more recent example of this practice can be found in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act, which was assented to on July 14, 1977. Members consulting that statute will find that the agreement that is referred to throughout the act has not been appended to it as a schedule.

Nonetheless, the member is quite right in stating that a schedule containing an agreement or treaty has often been included in bills. Where agreements or treaties have not been tabled in the House, this may be a convenient way of providing information for the use of parliament.

I would now like to turn to the citations in Beauchesne'sthat the opposition House leader made reference to in his arguments.

One of them—citation 704—makes it abundantly clear that the addition of a schedule of this type to a bill is not necessary.

In another section of Beauchesne's sixth edition, a criterion is provided under which the Speaker will not permit an amendment to be proceeded with. In particular, an amendment is not acceptable as stated in subsection 3 of citation 699 if it is deemed that it would have no effect or was unnecessary. This principle is found as well on page 526 of the 19th edition of Erskine May. One reason behind this rule is simply to prevent the House from voting needlessly.

At the same time, this particular question is not one with respect to which an established practice or clear procedure exists. In trying to address this point of order, I have looked back to my predecessors and I find that they have not had to directly address this specific issue. Despite what might be regarded as a principle precluding such proposed amendments in Beauchesne's citations 699 and 704, I am prepared to grant the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford in this instance. I am willing to allow the proposed motions to be considered by the House, albeit in a slightly altered form.

I stress that this is not a matter of technical detail. Since the agreements have previously been tabled in this House, the motions in amendment should refer specifically to the tabled documents. This will ensure that the text inserted in the bill pursuant to these motions is consistent with the documents already laid before the House. Accordingly, the form of the motions which will be proposed to the House will read as follows:

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10, Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-2, The Nisga'a Final Agreement and related Appendices , as Schedule 1.

And second:

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10, Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-3, The Nisga'a Nation Taxation agreement, as Schedule 2.

Accordingly, these new motions will be numbered 470 and 471, will be grouped for debate in Group No. 5 and voted on separately.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford for drawing this matter to the attention of the House.

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.