Jack Frazer

[Property Rights, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak to Motion 301 by my colleague from Skeena.

At issue here is the case for including property rights in the Canadian Constitution. During the three years I worked in Tanzania I saw the transition from a government with a strong, ideological belief in socialism where everybody owns everything and nobody owns anything to a society which accepted that it is human nature for people to want a plot of land or a piece of equipment or a business to call their very own.

That desire had also been there but it had been subjugated by the government and it was only when the change was made that pride and productivity began to improve.

As Canadians we enjoy the right to property but at the moment this right is at the pleasure of our government. Our only property rights are to be found in common case law developed over centuries and recognized by our courts.

At present, federal or provincial courts can arbitrarily take these rights away, setting their own value and overriding the right of the individual to establish what he or she considers to be fair and equitable compensation.

The establishment of property right is long over due and both federal and provincial governments should take prompt action to entrench them.

Traditionally democracies have been based on four fundamental rights: life, liberty, security of the person and the right to have and hold property. Property rights go back to the Magna Carta. The United Nations universal declaration of human rights in 1948 included property rights.

Property rights were included in section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. The 1981 original draft of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms included property rights but they were deleted in political bargaining.

Perhaps particularly meaningful to my liberal colleagues across the floor, the Right Hon. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote in 1983: "I reiterate the full support of my government for the passage of a parliamentary resolution to entrench property rights in our Constitution".

At least 24 countries including the U.S., Australia, Italy, Germany, Sweden and Finland have protected property rights within their constitution.

No reasonable person would question the right of a government to appropriate property needed for the common good of society, but the rights of that person to be justly compensated for the deprivation should be clearly stated and protected. Entrenching property rights in the Constitution would obligate any authority expropriating property to be accountable to the citizens of our country. As a fundamental right, property should be afforded the same constitutional protection as our right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The government should provide this protection and when the necessities of the common good override this personal right, provisions should be made to ensure fundamental justice is assured.

Let us hope that there will be no lack of political will to provide this basic human right for our citizens.

[Petitions, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of 120 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.

The petitioners humbly pray and request that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

[Petitions, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions on behalf of 171 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands, specifically North and South Pender Islands.

The petitioners humbly pray and request that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes, and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

[Petitions, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of over 3,000 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to revise the Young Offenders Act as follows: when a youth 14 years of age and above commits any crime of violence, including but not limited to murder, manslaughter, aggravated and sexual assault and armed robbery, he or she will automatically be tried in adult court with criminal records and adult sentences, taking into consideration the maturity of the offender; and public identification of a convicted young dangerous offender.

[Former Yugoslavia, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one Canadian casualty resulting from this lack of support, I hope the minister will remember that.

Our forces in the former Yugoslavia have made do with outdated, unreliable equipment and have done well despite this handicap. Now, despite the situation becoming much more serious, headquarters' response is negative.

What will the Minister of National Defence do to provide our Canadian peacekeepers with all possible support to help them survive?

[Former Yugoslavia, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, our peacekeepers in Croatia are soon likely to face the most difficult tactical situation given a soldier: a withdrawal under fire. Yet two weeks ago it was announced that the Canadian forces surgical team is to be withdrawn.

Now national defence headquarters has reportedly again refused our peacekeepers' request for an armoured engineering vehicle to clear mines and to facilitate their withdrawal, should it become necessary.

Will the Minister of National Defence tell this House why our troops, who have been facing mines and gunfire for the last three years and are soon likely to face even greater danger, are being denied facilities and equipment which we have but refused to provide?

[Airborne Regiment, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians' sense of fair play was offended when the airborne regiment was ordered disbanded. They saw this action,

rather than being based on factual evidence, as an emotional overreaction to amateur videos.

A whole regiment laid low for the misbehaviour of a few. Humiliation for the several hundred remaining members of the airborne as well as every serving or retired member who ever saw duty with the regiment.

Families: wives, daughters, sons, who proudly associated themselves with the regiment now feel tarnished by this ignominious end to their unit. A professional, highly trained and motivated force which should be remembered for claiming the dominion of our north; for the deep respect earned while on duty in Europe and in the Middle East; and for the humanitarian relief provided across many continents. Government, attempting to appear decisive, has made an inappropriate decision.

A proud and capable regiment has been lost from the order of battle and the Canadian taxpayer burdened with a large and unnecessary expense.

[Canadian Armed Forces, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am still looking for information.

The Royal Kingston Curling Club hosted the Labatt Tankard competition over the weekend. For no apparent valid reason, a team of five Canadian forces video technicians spent three days on full pay and allowances filming the event. As a result, they were unable to film military activities for which they had been scheduled.

Can the minister explain to the House the rationale which has a military video team filming a civilian event at the expense of a valid military commitment?

[Canadian Armed Forces, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the news reports today that Lieutenant Colonel Alan Stephens, Commander of the Canadian Logistics Battalion in Croatia, was on Saturday relieved of his command for inappropriate conduct. Will the minister provide the House with the details of this incident as he knows them?

[Canadian Airborne Regiment, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows he could transfer everyone connected with those incidents and those in Somalia, but retain the regiment.

Has he considered that by disbanding the airborne he is unnecessarily inflicting upon the Canadian taxpayer millions of dollars in costs for relocating the personnel and their families, for dismantling the facility at Petawawa and for establishing a new facility for the new unit?