Mr. Speaker, my first reaction on reading this motion is that it seems to be a solution looking for a problem to solve. One section of the Canadian Bill of Rights reads as follows:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) 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;—
I believe there are slight differences between property rights and enjoyment of property. However, when we look at these differences, I believe that we have to conclude that it is preferable to use this quasi-constitutional wording—the Canadian Bill of Rights falls somewhere between the constitution and ordinary rights—for reasons that we could examine a bit later.
Article 953 of the Civil Code of Québec reads as follows:
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.
In my opinion, this right is recognized subject to the fact that land can be expropriated for public utility. However, I think that all provinces have an expropriation commission. Quebec's administrative tribunal, which replaced the expropriation commission, hears appeals from people whose property has been expropriated and who are not pleased with how much they have been paid for it.
I would add that there is more to the Constitution than the charter. Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is very clear:
In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, ... 13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
These matters are therefore not under federal jurisdiction. However, given how this motion was introduced—and this is not the first time that it has been introduced in this House because it was under consideration in 1998 and in 2005—the arguments used to defend it inspire concern rather than support.
I would like to quote the Reform Party member who represented Yorkton—Melville at the time. He said:
I have only time to cover one arbitrary taking of property by the federal government. I will use the example I know best. ...chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada arbitrarily prohibited an estimated 553,000 registered handguns: 339,000 handguns that have a barrel equal to or less than 104 millimetres in length, about 4.14 inches, and 214,000 handguns that discharge 25 and 32 calibre bullets.
Back then, they did not want to abolish long gun registration. They were attacking the legislation that said that some firearms were dangerous and should no longer be used. These firearms were supposed to remain in collections only if they had been completely disabled. Given the choice between property rights and something that can endanger people's lives, I think that the government certainly had the right to prioritize whatever was putting people's lives at risk.
The same member also said:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that full, just and timely compensation be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property or suffer a loss in value of that property as a result of any government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.
In my view, it is inevitable that, at some point in community life, there is the need for development, and also the need to restore justice and equality of opportunity within the public. This requires us to challenge property rights to a certain extent, with compensation.
I also think that placing property rights on the same level as the most fundamental rights, such as the right to life and security of the person, in a way undermines the value of the basic protections set out in section 7.
Furthermore, it is strange to hear the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville talk to us again about the attitude of the government, which failed to pay some interest on money owing. It is even more strange that he is now part of a government that refuses to pay the guaranteed income supplement that was supposed to go to seniors, although they could not apply for it at the time, since the government did everything it could to ensure that most seniors who were entitled could not submit an application.
Although it now admits that it made a mistake, the government refuses to pay these people, not only the interest on the money they should have received, but also the capital itself. This attitude is really very telling. On the one hand, they refuse to compensate poor people; on the other hand, they are defending the rights of wealthy people.
To come back to property rights, it is inevitable that at a given moment, in many systems—we have seen this elsewhere—the rich become richer. Therefore, we must intervene to ensure social justice, to re-establish the conditions for peace with respect to property rights.
This is not the case in Canada. Nevertheless, in many countries, a few families own immense tracts of land. The poor people who work the land must endure a system that forces them to live in poverty forever. I cannot say that the governments that attempt to reform this type of ownership do not respect human rights. This practice became more widespread in the 20th century and continues today. In general, it is done with a view to providing equal opportunity.
I recognize that in our societies, ownership may be concentrated, primarily the ownership of the means of production. This is no longer individual ownership but corporate ownership. In fact, major companies always own the means of production.
On that topic, too, we could have debates that, in certain circumstances, are completely justifiable. We could ask ourselves, as we have, if the means of production belong equally to the workers who help create them, as well as to those who risk their capital.
I know that General de Gaulle, who was hardly a capitalist or a socialist—he used to say that he was neither on the left nor on the right, but above—did seek to reconcile the modern trends of the 20th century, even though he lost in that last referendum, and recognized that it was important for the workers in a company to be viewed as owners as well, just like the people who risked their capital.
I recognize that some land allocation may become necessary at times in some societies. I would hate to see the right to property be so inaccessible that this kind of social justice measure could not be taken.
Aboriginal rights are also an issue. We are told regularly by aboriginal people that we are in fact living on their land, land that was ceded in part to them under agreements and treaties that we are failing to abide by. This brings us to another aspect of this debate.
I also think that, generally speaking and unlike the right to life and security of the person and other fundamental rights, the right to property is unfortunately all too often the prerogative of the wealthy in our societies, the prerogative of those who can afford to build capital, buy when people have to divest themselves of assets and, thus, accumulate more and more wealth. Those are the ones who enjoy a high level of protection under existing laws.
As I indicated earlier, I believe that recognizing the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law, instead of simply establishing a right to property, is very important. I much prefer that concept, which is both broader and narrower. It is broader in the sense that it clearly defines the importance of property, making it a fundamental issue, but narrow enough to cover the enjoyment of one's property, but not the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others.