Debates of Oct. 30th, 2007

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

Vote #5

Business of Supply

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Federal Spending Power

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, October 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Papineau relating to the business of supply.

The question is as follows: The hon. member for Papineau, seconded by the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, moved—

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The motion reads as follows:

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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

Vote #6

Business of Supply

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion lost.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion I originally tabled on April 23 of this year, Motion No. 315, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians.

Protecting property rights in Canada's Constitution is an issue that has been highlighted during previous federal election campaigns and has been discussed in the House many times before. It is an important issue for all Canadians and many residents of my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook, particularly landowners in large rural areas.

The conception of property rights has material and intellectual connotations. The term “property” is complicated and open to interpretation. Consequently, the entrenchment of property rights in the charter could do more than simply protect those who own real property from expropriation without compensation. Every Canadian, therefore, could benefit from this motion.

Sir John A. Macdonald and the Fathers of Confederation clearly understood the importance of absolute property ownership for all Canadians. They wished to entrench in the institution of a self-governing Canada the primacy of property ownership.

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker established the Canadian Bill of Rights, which, for the first time, included: “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof--”.

Motion No. 315 urges the government to recognize the need to enshrine property rights into the charter. The proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is contained in this motion recommends that section 7 extend property rights to Canadians, with the intention of giving individual property owners the right to fair compensation for their property and ensures compensation within a reasonable period of time.

The motion speaks specifically to the need to strengthen the protection of property rights. Every person has the right to the enjoyment of his or her property and the right not to be deprived of that property unless the person is: first, accorded a fair hearing; second, is paid fair compensation; third, the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially; and fourth, the compensation is paid within a reasonable amount of time.

At present, our Constitution lacks any provision that protects the property rights of Canadian citizens. There is an undeniable tension between the fact that on one end property rights appear in the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960, an accepted piece of federal legislation and the charter's predecessor, and on the other hand they are left out of the charter itself. The tension arises in that property rights are included in the Bill of Rights, but our courts emphasize the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This emphasis severely circumscribes the rights of Canadians.

Despite important legal precedents, property rights were deliberately omitted from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Professor Peter Hogg wrote about this serious omission in his book Constitutional Law of Canada, fourth edition. He stated:

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 a fair procedure for the taking of property by 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.

Some of us may agree that the absence of the right to own and use property from the charter needs to be corrected. Others may doubt this. To those I advance the following.

First, the right to own property, to enjoy one's property, and not to be unfairly deprived of one's own property is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. Property rights are essential to the Canadian way of life, to political freedom, and to the well functioning economy. These protections in themselves are not enough, but if property rights are essential for the well-being of our economy and our way of life, do they not need to have greater protection than the charter currently affords?

Second, for centuries the right to own and use property has been the necessary prerequisite to political freedom. Indeed, it has long been at the centre of the human rights movement. As John Locke has argued, if the state was to have legitimacy in the eyes of the people, it had to secure these rights.

Finally, earlier drafts of the charter included the protection of property rights. The Canadian charter we have today therefore appears incomplete and it is the charter's silence on property rights that demands to be corrected.

For a country that prides itself on being the champion of human and individual rights, we have shown remarkable tolerance of governments that infringe on property rights of landowners.

Governments at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal too often display a blatant scorn for landowners, especially rural landowners. Whether through zoning laws, heritage regulations and conservation designations, governments can impose restrictions on the rights of property owners.

The idea that the government can rip away one's property is not merely hypothetical. It is not mere hyperbole or speculation. It is a reality and there are abundant examples in different ridings. Our constituents, and every Canadian, deserve better.

Canadian history is regrettably rife with examples of what happens with property rights that are not entrenched in the charter. Absent entrenched property rights in 1999 led to a Manitoba farmer being denied the right to sell his grain to an American customer because the Manitoba court of appeal found that “the right to 'enjoyment of property' is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society”.

Because of the absence of entrenched property rights 3,200 farm families found themselves displaced in Quebec when a former Liberal federal government decided to expropriate 97,000 acres of Quebec's best farmland to make way for Mirabel Airport. Of those 97,000 acres, only 5,000 were ever used.

With the absence of entrenched property rights the previous Liberal government moved forward with Bill C-68 and was free to ban over 500,000 legally owned, registered firearms and severely restricted the legal ownership of firearms by law-abiding Canadians.

The absence of entrenched property rights in 2002 found mentally disabled Canadian war veterans denied millions of dollars in interest on pension benefits after the Supreme Court ruled that:

Parliament has the right to expropriate property, even without compensation, if it has made its intention clear and, in s. 5.1(4), Parliament’s expropriative intent is clear and unambiguous.

Unfortunately, for the people of Canada these cases are not unique. Examples are abundant on how the current Canadian charter fails to protect one of the most fundamental human rights.

Do such cases comport with the logic of fair practices? No, they do not. However, they are consistent with the law as it currently stands.

If the charter is not amended to strengthen property rights in federal law then the government can continue to take lawfully owned and enjoyed property away from Canadians without due process, and without full and fair compensation.

Farmers and landowners are beginning to conclude that governments conflate private property with public privilege, and that government behaviour and the lack of property rights are the cause of this confusion. Listening to the numerous cases where law ostensibly violates logic, governments at all levels have overstepped the boundaries of reason.

Every Canadian should be protected against arbitrary government intrusions. If it is demonstrated that a government restriction or regulation is indeed for the greater public good, then the landowners should be fairly and appropriately compensated for their loss.

It is time that we entrench property rights in the charter. Canadians deserve a law that will be applied evenly and consistently, not a law that is whimsical and variable.

In my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook, most residents are property and home owners. Some are new property owners, some have raised their children, and some have called it home for generations. In many cases their land is their livelihood. But as Canadians we only enjoy this land on borrowed time.

Whether it is zoning laws that dictate land use or environmental protection laws that can eliminate property value in an instant, Canadians can find their land taken without any requirement to fair compensation.

Often government restrictions are wrapped in the snow white cloak of the greater social good and so they often enjoy widespread public support. But governments pass laws which affect land use for environmental reasons, social benefit or to contain urban sprawl. However, only recently are landowners stopping to say that the action may have a significant impact on their properties.

The majority of Canadians are mindful of the fact that they are all part of a larger social group. We realize that sometimes the interests of the social group will differ from individual interests. In spite of this and as much as because of this we give governments the power to legislate for the good of all Canadians.

However, when legislation contravenes individuals' interests, the government should mitigate against negative implications, such as jeopardizing property ownership and personal land use.

When the Government of Ontario adopted provincial greenbelt legislation, after modest public consultation, the result was a freeze on future land use. Property owners in my riding saw the value of their land plummet in some cases by approximately half.

These families have survived the challenges of harsh winters, dry summers, tough economies, but a single piece of provincial legislation put at risk the potential of their land, and the future of these landowners and their children.

Do we need property rights to be entrenched in the charter? Clearly, the continued absence of property rights is an assault on Canadian families. At present, these families have no options. They have no recourse in place. Indeed, no Canadian enjoys perfect protection vis-à-vis future legislation that may negatively affect their property values and future financial security.

As parliamentarians, we can help to ensure that every Canadian is provided fair and timely compensation when government legislation negatively affects its citizens. Fair compensation is one means by which property ownership can serve and work together for the greater social good.

Fair compensation recognizes the pride that Canadians take in land ownership and recognizes that property ownership is often the main way that Canadians plan for their future and retirement. Fair compensation would establish the balance necessary to ensure all levels of government respect property ownership.

I do not know how many times a day people call my office and essentially begin a conversation with something such as, “The government should provide better funding for--” and we can all fill in the blanks. They proceed to list their list of pet interests.

Increasingly I am hearing not what government should provide but what it should not be able to take away. They are also becoming concerned that the government has forgotten rural Canadians to the benefit of the environment. Indeed, a petition to amend section 7 garnered substantial signatures from numerous residents in Niagara West—Glanbrook and from across the country.

To press for the entrenchment of property rights in our charter is to press for what so many other countries already recognize. Indeed, the exclusion of property rights from the charter violates the convention. This convention is captured by the 1960 Bill of Rights. The convention is captured in common law. The convention is captured in provincial statute and the convention is captured in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 17 of the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reads:

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Although Canada ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights over 50 years ago, Canadians continue to be deprived arbitrarily of their property and we have willfully remained out of step with most other signatories.

While Canada is a world leader on so many fronts, it pains me to say that we are far behind other democracies when it comes to the issue of property rights. Other democracies have long taken a lead in property rights legislation, including the United States, Germany, Italy and Finland. Great Britain first introduced property rights in the Magna Carta of 1215. Even Communist China has put forward property rights in its constitution. So why not Canada?

We are a country that stands up for human rights around the world. As parliamentarians we must stand up for the rights of our respective constituents and for all Canadians. Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario have also initiated resolutions that support stronger protection for property rights. Why should we not do the same? We should not stand by while Canadians suffer the effects of intrusive legislation and sometimes questionable public policy.

Rural property owners have organized themselves into very vocal and active lobby groups, a trend that is spreading across the country. Rural landowners are leading strong grassroots movements in defence of their property rights.

Indeed, just this morning, my office received calls from landowner groups from across the country. Their key message was that they are fed up with undue government interference and want their property rights respected and protected. This is what we hope to accomplish by entrenching property rights in the charter.

The right to own and enjoy property can be a divisive issue. But it does not need to be. Though the role of government in the context of private property is one factor that distinguishes us, the property rights are also at the heart of what makes for a vibrant and healthy society.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. First of all, I want to thank him for introducing the motion and for his comments.

I want to point out to the member across that I come from Prince Edward Island. It is a small province in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and because of the size of the province we do have legislation on our books that prohibits non-residents from owning in excess of 10 acres of land or in excess of 135 feet of shore frontage without executive council approval.

This legislation has been on the books for 25 years. I do believe it has the support of most residents of the province. It is my belief that this legislation would be struck down if this private member's motion were to pass. I would appreciate the member's comments on that particular situation.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on what would happen with provincial legislation per se, but I know this has been an issue that individuals from not only my riding but from across the country and across the province have been calling for.

Their concern, once again, is that, as they own their property, sometimes they are not able to do with it as they see fit, or they are worried about being compensated fairly in the event that government should ever restrict them in terms of what they are able to do with it, or maybe just in the case of expropriation.

I cannot comment on particular provincial issues but I know this is something that would go a long way to correcting the rights of individuals.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the member enlighten us any more on the property rights that he is putting forward.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do realize that this is a potentially contentious issue with some individuals but it is important to understand that this has been debated in the House many times and it is something that works in terms of treating people fairly.

As I mentioned, there were mentally disabled war veterans who were denied payments as a result of the federal government deciding that it would take them to court on some of these issues. We look at the issue of the gun registry and Bill C-68 in 1995 that confiscated guns from law-abiding gun owners.

It is very important, as we look at this motion here tonight, that we really do consider it. If we value other things that we have entrenched in the charter, why should property rights not also enjoy that same freedom in the charter?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want congratulate my colleague across the way for doing something his government has not done. He actually spoke about the importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As we know, this is the 25th anniversary of the charter which was enacted April 17, 1982.

Having said that, to me the charter is very much a living document, which I think my colleague across the way said as well, but it is a living document to protect human rights. I think there is a differentiation as to how we might regard what human rights are about.

If we look at section 7, it states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

It then lays out in the legal section of the charter as to how we protect those rights. We are talking about something that is very much an animate object, which is human beings. Whereas what the member is talking about when he talks about property rights is an inanimate object.

Property rights, to a large extent, are under provincial jurisdiction. They do not rise to the same level as do basic human rights. When one talks about security of the person, one is talking about the security of the individual to not be detained as Mr. Arar was detained and not to be sent to a place of torture the way Mr. Arar was sent to a place of torture.

When we talk about the issue of the security of the person, it is important to focus on all those areas where those rights are still being abused.

I can tell the member across the way what is important to me when we are talking about rights. Let us take something that has been before the House for the past 10 years.

An issue that has been before the House for the last 10 years is something very basic. It is called citizenship rights. Citizenship rights affect deeply each and every Canadian. It is an issue that the citizenship and immigration committee has studied for the last decade and actually beyond the last decade.

In the last Parliament, we tabled an important piece of work from the citizenship and immigration committee which was unanimously approved. It was about upgrading Canada's citizenship law because something as important as citizenship right now is not covered in law. It does not fall under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In spite of the fact that the Conservatives, when they were in opposition, were unanimous in support of putting citizenship laws under section 7 of the charter, when they became the government they ignored it. They ignored their own previous stance of a decade. What did they do? They decided, even though it is the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the 60th anniversary of the first Citizenship Act which was enacted in 1947 and the 30th anniversary of 1977 Citizenship Act which was enacted in 1977, they did not even see the importance of introducing legislation to update those laws.

The hon. member across the way mentioned a veteran in relationship I believe to the gun laws. We have a great deal of respect in the House for veterans, keeping in mind the soldiers who are now serving abroad, in Afghanistan in particular but in other places as well.

What I find mind-boggling, when we talk about section 7 of the charter, is that we do not respect the citizenship rights of the children of our veterans who fought for this country in the second world war.

When we talk about the whole issue of the charter, the access to justice, it is the government across the way that got rid of the court challenges program which gave people access to justice.

I will cite the example of Mr. Joe Taylor, but his case represents thousands like him. Mr. Joe Taylor is the son of a Canadian veteran who fought for this country in the second world war. Mr. Taylor wanted to assert his Canadian citizenship, which he was ordered to receive by an order in council. What happened is that the government denied Mr. Taylor his citizenship on two grounds: first, he was born out of wedlock; and second, because of an archaic section of the Citizenship Act, when he was 24 years old he did not know that he had to apply to retain his citizenship. Mr. Taylor won his case when Federal Court judge, Mr. Luc Martineau, ruled in September 2006 that the minister--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The member is under some obligation to relate the debate he is having about citizenship rights to the private members' bill, which is about property rights and the Constitution. If the member could come back to it and try to make a connection every once in a while that would be good.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after Mr. Taylor won his case, the government on the other side got rid of the court challenges program that allowed people access to justice. The government told Mr. Taylor that it was appealing the case to the Federal Court of Appeal and that if it lost in the Federal Court of Appeal, it would appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

That speaks to me about what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is about. That is a human right. As the charter states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

That is not property rights. I am talking about a basic human right, the right to one's citizenship, the right to be here and the right to be protected by the charter.

We will have competition of various rights if we ever put property rights into that section. If we put property rights into that section, what do we have? Do we trade off human rights for property rights? That is what it states under section 7 of the charter. I would ask my friends to read it again. What happens when those rights come into conflict?

The situation in Prince Edward Island was already mentioned by a previous member. Prince Edward Island restricts the ability of non-residents to own land in that province given that the land is under its jurisdiction.

When I was a municipal councillor there were times when the municipal council had to expropriate land for the common good of the community. In each and every case that we expropriated land, the property was assessed on highest and best use and the owner was paid accordingly.

The same thing applies to school boards. The same thing applies to the protection of wetlands where we tell individuals that they are the owners of a wetland that is very important to the ecosystem. In that case, if we were to include property rights in the charter, it would be detrimental to being able to protect environmentally sensitive lands. It is the same thing with native rights. It is through the courts and the charter that we have had some of those rights asserted.

The fact that the court challenges program was eliminated shows us that we are dealing with people who do not have the resources to take those cases to court. I submit that people who have property have many more resources than the individual who is trying to defend his or her individual human rights.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today of debating my colleague's motion, which proposes that the government amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians. Specifically, the motion wishes to strengthen the protection of property rights. My colleague stated that everyone has the right to enjoy their property and the right to not be deprived of their property without having the opportunity to be heard at an impartial hearing.

For all those listening, although this motion seems to meet a logical need, it is important to clarify something with regard to the protection of property rights. This is not the first time that such a motion has been put forward in the House and I think it necessary that all my fellow citizens have a proper understanding of why this motion is difficult to implement and has often been rejected.

In Canada's case, the federal government is governed by principles of common law which, among other things, prohibit expropriation without compensation, even though the criteria for compensation are not defined. However, in Quebec, the Civil Code clearly indicates that “no owner may be compelled to transfer his ownership except by expropriation according to law for public utility and in consideration of a just and prior indemnity”.

My colleague's motion proposes to amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to formally include property rights as a protected right. I maintain that this is a rather cumbersome process for various legal reasons.

My colleagues know that the Charter is an integral part of the Constitution. Consequently, it can only be amended or altered by a constitutional amendment. Based on this, a charter amendment that would permit section 7 to include a reference to property rights would have to be made in accordance with the general amending procedure established in section 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 that Quebec did not sign.

In layman's terms, for those who are not familiar with constitutional rules, the enshrinement of property rights in section 7, as moved in the motion by my colleague, would necessarily require the following conditions to be met: resolutions from the Senate and the House of Commons, and resolutions from the legislative assemblies of at least two thirds of the provinces, the latter representing at least 50% of the Canadian population.

The second condition means that either Ontario or Quebec would have to be one of the provinces supporting such an amendment, since, together, they represent more than 50% of the population of Canada.

In addition to these complications, there is subsection 38(3), which permits the legislative assembly of a province to opt out by passing a resolution of dissent to an amendment of the kind described in section 38(2) “prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates.” A maximum of three provinces could opt out of such an amendment by passing resolutions of dissent. If there were more than three dissenting provinces, the amendment would not have the required support of two-thirds of the provinces and would therefore be defeated.

I want to come back to subsection 38(1), whereby once the authority for an amendment has been provided by the requisite number of resolutions of assent, the formal act of amendment is accomplished by a “proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada”. Under section 39, the proclamation is not to be issued until a full year has elapsed from the adoption of “the resolution initiating the amendment procedure,” unless before that time all provinces have adopted resolutions of assent or dissent.

The intent here is to allow the legislative assembly of each province sufficient time to consider the proposal. Under section 39(2), the proclamation is not to be issued if three years have elapsed from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure.

As you can see by this brief explanation of procedure, the road to passing the motion is long and unpredictable. However, it is not just the legal aspect that poses a problem.

I would like to remind my colleagues and all of my fellow citizens that past attempts to change property rights often failed at the provincial approval stage. Let us not forget that during the first ministers' conference in 1980, before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal government introduced a proposal to guarantee property rights. Some provinces vehemently opposed the proposal. In 1978, Bill C-60, which would have guaranteed the right to own property and not to be deprived of it except in accordance with the law, met with similar opposition.

In 1983, after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Liberal government tried to reach an agreement with the opposition parties to introduce a resolution to enshrine property rights in article 7. Once again, the attempt failed.

The next significant development occurred in 1987, when the following motion was adopted: “That in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982 should be amended in order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process”.

Now, let us leave aside the legal and historical facts and examine the logic underlying this motion.

Obviously, my colleagues and I agree that property rights are important, particularly because they provide security and predictability. As I said earlier, Quebec already has a framework for property rights and the deprivation thereof because it has a unique civil law system that balances property rights and the needs of the community, all without constitutional entrenchment. This indicates that Quebec does not really need the Canadian Constitution to provide a framework for property rights. In fact, Quebec has still not ratified the 1982 Constitution.

The question is what is behind this motion. This is not the first time Conservative or Alliance or even Reform members have introduced such a proposal.

Setting aside partisan or ideological considerations, let us imagine for a moment that this motion is adopted. What will become of municipal zoning by-laws, aboriginal land claims, environmental regulations and spousal property rights in case of marriage breakdown? The list goes on and on.

These are just some of the current rules that would have to be reviewed if property rights were included in the Charter. We can assume that these rights might impede the application of laws that create social cohesion and protect important social interests. We have only to think of the legislation governing land use planning, ownership of real property, the environment, and health and safety.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois is willing to do its part and suggests that the federal government introduce rules, as Quebec has done in the Civil Code, on fair compensation for people who have been deprived of their property rights on the grounds of public convenience. Simple and accessible, the principle of full, fair, fast compensation likely could have changed many things and avoided any problems without requiring that these rights be entrenched in the Constitution. My colleagues will no doubt remember the whole saga around the expropriation of farmland in Mirabel to build the airport.

I will conclude by saying that for all the legal, historical and practical reasons I have mentioned, the Bloc Québécois will vote against my colleague's motion. This motion could have too many unforeseen consequences.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is a private member's motion, there will be a free vote in the House. However, I can indicate, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, that our traditional position on these motions or private member's bills has been to oppose them. I know I will vote against the motion and I expect all members of my caucus will as well.

There are a number of reasons for that. Only having 10 minutes this evening, I doubt I will get through all of them.

Let me deal with the one that I believe, in the context of the Canadian constitutional framework, is the most significant one. It is one that was advocated very strongly back in the late seventies, early eighties as the federal government moved to repatriate the Constitution to Canada, letting us take full control of that. It is the role and the mandate we have between the federal government and the provincial governments.

It is very clear, going back to 1867 when the British North America Act was passed, that property and civil rights were a provincial responsibility, and that never changed. In 1982, when we repatriated the Constitution to Canada so we were completely in control of that as a completely independent sovereign nation, we retained that relationship. This power over property and civil rights remained at the provincial level as it does to today.

For the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, it is a very fundamental relationship that he in effect is proposing to tinker with, one that is really going down the wrong road.

It was interesting that in 1982 the provinces were very adamant. It was not only the province of Quebec, which does have a somewhat different history with regard to how it treats property rights than what we have in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. All provinces and territories told the federal government “absolutely not”. They said we were treading into their area if we incorporated a property right into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That message was very clear from all provinces and territories.

If I recall my history, I believe the Conservative Party at the time, under pressure from the provinces, similarly did not push to incorporate a property right clause into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that is historically accurate, but I could be corrected. However, we remain in that relationship now. If we go to the provinces today, they will say no. If there is going to be a dealing with property rights in Canada, those are going to be dealt with at the provincial level, not at the federal level, not in the Constitution.

The reason why I believe the New Democrats have traditionally been opposed to this type of motion or bill is it sets up a clash between the Constitution, whose property rights and civil rights are provincial responsibilities and powers, and the charter. It is hard to forecast what the outcome would be. This has happened rarely. In fact, I am not sure if it has ever happened since 1982, where we had that clash between the fundamental rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the powers in the old BNA Act and now the Constitution.

I suggest for my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook that he needs to appreciate that fact. We are exposing ourselves to a clash between those two documents. I believe we should not go down that road because of the risks it poses to the relationship between those two documents in our constitutional framework and the structure of our country. It is way too dangerous.

The third point that I would make is that when we actually look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I believe my Liberal colleague was making this point but I want to emphasize it, section 2 deals with fundamental freedoms. What are those? They are the freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association.

Section 3 deals with democratic rights, the right to citizenship, the right to vote. In section 6 we have mobility rights. In section 7, which is where the hon. member is proposing to put this, we have legal rights. If we look at that section and the ones that follow from it, it really is about “the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. Section 8 is the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Section 9 is the right to be not arbitrarily detained, the right not to be arrested or detained in a draconian manner. In section 15 we have equality rights.

When we look at the rights I have listed, fundamental rights, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights and language rights, they are all human rights; the point being made, and I want to repeat, is rights to the person. None of them is economic rights. That is really what the member is trying to incorporate for the first time into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is not what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was designed to do from its inception, nor has it incorporated any of those types of attempts in the last 25 years of its existence. It is the wrong document, the wrong tool to be moving in this direction.

I want to make one final point with regard to the charter and that is section 25.

The member for Niagara West—Glanbrook talked about the role property rights have played historically. That is a somewhat limited perspective on property and how it is treated by various societies. Our first nations did not have the concept of property rights, which the Europeans brought to North America as they occupied it. That has never changed for our first nations. Section 25 of our charter recognizes that. It says that we cannot abrogate those rights that the first nations have had from time immemorial.

I believe strongly that the incorporation of property rights into the charter in fact would clash with section 25, because the first nations in this country continue to this day to look at property rights in a much more collective approach than the individual property rights that Europeans incorporate and which quite frankly are not found in a lot of other jurisdictions in the world. Collective rights with regard to property are seen in a number of other jurisdictions right around the globe. Africa and Asia have not incorporated the European concept of individual property rights. I believe that is what the member is attempting to do. Again, it would clash with section 25.

I want to make one final point and maybe a recommendation to my colleague. He pointed out, and rightfully so, some of the abuses that have gone on, both at the federal and the provincial levels with regard to expropriation of property rights, and they are valid points. I have a hard time with the gun registry, but I will leave that for a moment.

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

That is a good point.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will argue that one another day with my friend sitting next to me.

With regard to land, let me deal with that and expropriation generally. If the hon. member really wants to deal with it, that is where we deal with it. He should look at our expropriation legislation and other provincial and federal legislation. We should clean that up and make it clearer. I am not denying there are economic rights there; I just do not see them as fundamental ones that should be in the charter. There are rights there that need to be protected, but the way to do it is in our expropriation legislation or similar legislation, not by tinkering with our constitutional framework, because that is simply too dangerous.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I congratulate the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook for bringing this long overdue motion to the House. The motion seeks the support of this House to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians, so tonight I gladly rise to support this motion.

The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a part of the Constitution, guarantees those rights and freedoms that define Canada as a free and democratic society. The charter guarantees freedom of religion, expression, assembly, association, the right to vote, the right of mobility, the right to equality before the law, the right to fair treatment in the legal system, language rights and education rights. Elsewhere in the Constitution are aboriginal and treaty rights and commitments to promote equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians.

These rights and freedoms paint a picture of the kind of society we all enjoy and want to live in, a society that really is the envy of most of the other jurisdictions in the world, but the picture is just not complete. The right to own property, to enjoy one's property, and the right not to be unfairly deprived of one's property are also fundamental to a free and democratic society.

Property rights are essential to our well-being, our economy and our way of life. Canadians across this country own land, possessions and ideas. These are the building blocks of personal autonomy and a thriving economy.

Of course, Canadian law provides some degree of protection for property rights. The common law, for example, presumes that the state will not expropriate property without giving compensation, but the common law presumption is just that. It presumes the state will give compensation when the state's intentions are unclear. It does not require compensation when the state prefers not to give it. In that sense, it hardly deserves to be called a protection at all.

The Expropriation Act also offers some protection for property rights. Under this legislation, if the government wants to expropriate an interest in land, it may have to give notice, hear from interested property owners, and of course, accordingly give compensation, but this is, once again, ordinary legislation. It is not part of the Constitution. Parliament can legislate around it.

It was the Progressive Conservative government under Prime Minister Diefenbaker that gave us Canada's first explicit Bill of Rights in 1960. In fact many of the charter's rights and freedoms were derived from this earlier statute. The Bill of Rights recognized that there has existed and will continue to exist 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.

By recognizing property along with life, liberty and the security of the person, the Bill of Rights leaves no doubt that property lies at the foundation, the very foundation, of our social order, but the Bill of Rights does not have constitutional status and therefore does not provide the same degree of protection from state intrusion and unfair expropriation. The Bill of Rights is a federal statute. It only applies to federal laws. It is not part of the Constitution of Canada.

These are our protections. What actually then do they really mean for Canadians? They mean that individuals can face expropriation without any compensation. That possibility does exist and that possibility cannot afford to be brought around to a probability.

One hundred years ago, an Ontario court said that the prohibition “Thou shalt not steal” has no legal force on lawmakers. The law has changed enormously over the past century. The law has evolved to recognize the importance of human dignity and to make the government even more accountable, yet still, property rights remain vulnerable to unfair interference and expropriation.

It is not enough to rely on the common law, ordinary legislation and the Bill of Rights. These are simply not constitutional in nature.

Of course, the state sometimes has to regulate property use. Sometimes the government has to expropriate private property for public works. None of us in this world lives in isolation. The public good sometimes does put limits on our freedoms. No one would want to make it impossible to regulate private property for the good of all. That would be untenable. What we do have to ensure is that individuals are treated fairly when the government inordinately steps into their lives.

What is fair treatment? The Bill of Rights requires due process. That is part of the story. Should that be all? Due process still allows Parliament to expropriate without compensation as long as it is done clearly. Surely property rights need more protection than this in a free and democratic society.

Fair treatment means that people should be compensated when the state takes their property. It is only fair that the public as a whole bears the cost when an individual's property is taken for public use. Should individuals sacrifice their land and the fruits of their labours whenever the state finds them useful?

Some people naturally would call this an overstatement. Some people might even ask why we need to protect property rights in the Constitution. Is there a pressing threat to property rights in Canada? Surely if Parliament takes property rights seriously, it will not pass laws to expropriate without fair compensation.

Canada is a large country. Individuals possibly may be overlooked. We have rights and freedoms to ensure that each person is treated fairly, not ignored or discarded or used as a means to an end. That is why we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It protects individuals from being overlooked in these rare circumstances. It ensures that basic rights and freedoms are respected. It tells Canadians that their rights, including property rights, matter.

As I said earlier, the charter guarantees our freedom of expression, our right to vote, our legal rights, and other rights and freedoms. Does it not stand to reason that it should protect our property? Yes, it should.

I really believe that enshrining property rights in the charter will remind Parliament to respect the dignity of every person. Property rights will act as a safeguard so that Canadians will not be mistreated when their government pursues its projects. In fact, this is why the charter was originally supposed to protect property rights.

Early drafts of the charter naturally included property rights. Property rights had already been recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and in the constitutions of other nations.

The Progressive Conservative Party at that time supported including property rights in the charter, but in that tumultuous time it was not possible to achieve consensus on everything. It was a difficult period of give and take. Some provinces opposed including property rights, and more discussions would have been necessary to arrive at a consensus. At that time property rights were left behind. The charter came into force on April 17, 1982. Property rights were simply left for another day.

Here we are today. It is time to retrieve property rights and place them where they have always belonged, in the Constitution of Canada, our supreme law.

The motion that we are debating today will not accomplish an amendment. It will not begin a formal amendment process, but it expresses the support of the House for filling a gap in the charter that has been left open for too long.

There are questions that would be asked and choices that would be made about the nature of the protection and the wording of the amendment. As the Prime Minister said in December, the government does not intend to reopen the Constitution unless the provinces and the public are ready to agree on the amendments.

Let me conclude by urging members of the House to support this motion. By supporting this motion, they will show Canadians that they sincerely and honestly do accord the proper respect for property rights and that they are committed to protecting their autonomy, the fruits of their labours, and their right to be simply treated with fairness and respect in the Canadian way.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me to also enter into this debate this evening. I have had a special interest in this topic since I was first elected 14 years ago.

Since 1983, property rights bills and motions have been debated in the House 10 times. Five of those bills and motions were ones that I have introduced over the past 14 years. That just indicates the interest that I have had in this as well as the importance of the debate.

I will not let go of this debate until it is resolved in the affirmative. That is why I appreciate that the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook again has given us an opportunity to engage in this very important debate.

I only have three minutes to speak, which is why I cannot deliver my speech, so I am going to comment on some of the objections that have been raised.

One of those objections is that property rights cannot work in Canada. Some have made it appear as if this is not anything that can be accommodated by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it would not work with our present political system. However, we are the only modern industrialized country that does not have property rights. How can one argue that they do not work if they work in every other modern industrialized country?

I would like to also point out that a couple of years ago even China saw the importance of this and China is a communist country. It saw the importance of property rights, but we in Canada still have not realized, at least not in this chamber, that this is a very important right.

Some have argued that it is all a matter of conflicting rights, but it flows out of the very fact that we have a right to life. If we follow that up, which I cannot do in two minutes, it follows that we have the right to our labour and the fruits of our labour and no one has the right deprive us of that. Those who want to argue against this would have a very hard time making a solid argument that it conflicts with our human rights, because it does not. I think that needs to be emphasized over and over.

One member argued that this is a right of the provincial government, that this is a responsibility according to our Constitution that follows from the way our Constitution--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps he can take some comfort in the fact that he has about seven minutes left whenever this comes back to the floor of the House.

In any event, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the game of deal or no deal continues to be played out with the people of Nova Scotia and this government. We have seen the photo opportunities in the newspaper when there was a deal made. We are hearing different things in the Senate. Truly, the uncertainty around this whole issue is cause for concern among the people of Nova Scotia.

We saw this play out here with the release of the budget last spring, and we heard the Minister of National Defence say that the new equalization formula in the budget was great for the people of Nova Scotia and if they did not believe him, they could see him in “court” and the government would prove it in court. The people of Nova Scotia did the math and saw that they were going to lose $12 billion.

Even the premier of Nova Scotia at the time encouraged the Conservative members to vote against the budget. Certainly the members on this side from Nova Scotia voted against the budget, because we supported the best interests of the people of Nova Scotia.

We saw the arm-twisting that went on. We heard the promise to the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley that he could vote his conscience and not be expelled from caucus. It was truly unfortunate when he did get heaved.

But the uncertainty continues. The Minister of Finance truly believed that he was honouring the accords. When he spoke in Halifax on June 9, he believed, he said, that the government “is honouring the Atlantic accords fully in its budget”. He said, “Nothing has changed...”. When asked about a deal that apparently the Minister of National Defence was working on, he stated:

Our government is not in the process of making any side deals for a few extra votes. You cannot run a country on side deals.

Yet just a couple of weeks ago, we saw the big photo op with the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's and the premier of Nova Scotia. We saw the glad-handing that went on with regard to this new deal.

They took the opportunity, in preparation for a supposed election, to announce this big deal, but we are still not sure if there is a deal. We know there was an exchange of letters. I personally requested, on behalf of all members in the House, to have a briefing by the Department of Finance. We still have not received that. Finance officials are talking about having one next Monday when we are in our constituencies, so they are going to fly 15 people to Ottawa, with no need for that, to present a briefing. We have not been able to get a briefing on this. We know there has been an exchange of letters, but we have not seen any deal.

What adds to the confusion is the Minister of National Defence saying that we have a new deal and there is going to be legislation coming forward, and then in the other chamber, the government's leader in the Senate, Senator LeBreton, saying that “I believe people are misinformed if they think this agreement was a new agreement or some side deal, which it was not”. She says there is no side deal.

In this House, there is a deal. There is going to be legislation coming forward. In the other chamber, there is no deal. So I think people can understand why we are concerned back in Nova Scotia as to whether it is a deal or no deal.

I know the parliamentary secretary is prepared to share with us the view of the government. I know he is a good member and I want to save him time. Is there a deal or no deal, yes or no?