Daryl Kramp

[Project Red Ribbon, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, impaired driving is a crime that is 100% preventable. That is why on November 13 volunteers for Mothers Against Drunk Driving from my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings launched their 2007 red ribbon campaign.

Last year this Conservative government introduced Bill C-32, which provided police with the tools to detect drug impaired driving. This bill, now part of Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, whose legislative committee I am proud to be a part of, authorizes police officers to conduct a series of tests to determine if a driver is impaired by a drug or a combination of alcohol and drugs.

There is general agreement in this House and in this country that drug impaired driving represents a serious criminal justice, health and traffic safety issue in Canada. Drug users are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents and impaired driving is still the number one criminal cause of death in Canada.

This Christmas season and throughout the year, I urge all Canadians to display a red ribbon in an effort to stop impaired driving.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his comments. I recognize that he was not in the House when consultations regarding the Canada-South Korea agreement commenced. Of course those consultations commenced under the previous Liberal government in early 2004. I think at that particular time the Liberal Party and his government were appraising the move forward. Then of course his party, while still in government, started the actual negotiations with South Korea. That was fine at that particular point.

We subsequently formed the government. Now because the Conservatives are in government and involved in ongoing negotiations with South Korea and trying to see if there is a mutual benefit to be gained from this, all of a sudden it is improper. Does the member not find that to be straining the realm of hypocrisy?

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, October 30th, 2007]

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.

[The Economy, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years of Liberal dithering and a leaderless economic vision that saw Canada's continued decline in competitiveness and productivity, this government, led by our Prime Minister, has put Canada back on track and punching above its weight. Unlike the party opposite of a thousand or more priorities that just did not get it done, this government has got it done.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry please describe to this House some of the successes in Canada's economy and jobs?

[Correctional Service Canada, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, Canadians were shocked to learn that the Auditor General had uncovered serious mismanagement of funds by the former correctional investigator. They were not as shocked to learn that this abuse of taxpayer dollars took place, sadly, under the watch of the previous Liberal government.

Could the Minister of Public Safety today update us on the actions of this Conservative government to ensure that these hard-earned tax dollars are recovered?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me say for the hon. member for Egmont regarding his notification that he will not be running next time that I express certainly on behalf of most of the colleagues in the House the belief that he has had a most honourable stay here. His values, principles and beliefs are well respected throughout the House. Though I and others may occasionally differ with him on an ideological point, I do not think anybody could second-guess his commitment and passion for Canada. I thank him. We thank him.

I was at the NATO conference in Iceland, which the member mentioned, and it honestly was quite rewarding to hear the accolades that Canada was given from all of the participants. As a matter of fact, Canada was singled out by Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer for our efforts and in acknowledgement of the difficult and trying times Canada is going through.

I might also add, however, that the hon. member mentioned in his comments that he felt final deliberations should come back to the House for input and evaluation as far as the continuity of our mission is concerned. I believe the Prime Minister is on record as saying that this is exactly what will happen. Does the member recall the Prime Minister speaking in the House and making that commitment?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues in the House, and I know certainly the colleagues on this side of the House, we are delighted to welcome the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. We have a couple of things in common. I was a pitcher and he was a catcher, and it is great to work together on the same team.

I am particularly interested as well that we have both shared a number of experiences on municipal council. How does he believe rebalancing the federation in the way the Conservative government is going to will be of benefit?

[Justice, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, nothing is a greater responsibility for any parliamentarian than to provide for the health and safety of our citizens. Sadly, under the former Liberal policy of denial, delay and tough talk but no action, today's crime problems fly in the face of our own constitutional promises of peace, order and good government.

Residents in my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, and I believe all Canadians, want a government that is tough on crime and reliable on national security.

Clearly, it is past time to protect victims and to focus on criminals. I am proud to be part of a government that stands behind our police officers and our prosecutors as they stand at the front line of Canadian justice every day.

So I say to my opposition colleagues in this House that if they are truly serious about cracking down on crime, then show it by swiftly and unanimously passing Bill C-2, our much-needed, comprehensive violent crime act.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening I heard the hon. member for Thornhill state that it was just a billion dollars or so and if that saved the life of one or two of our officers, the whole thing would be worth it.

As a former officer who has looked down the barrel of a gun I can assure members that that is an insult to the commitment, the integrity and the passion that these officers, men and women in uniform commit to this country.

This money, this billion dollars or so, would that not be better spent potentially to help in many ways, whether it is prevention, enforcement, deterrence and yet why has the Liberal opposition opposed every measure that we have taken in that vein?

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a law is a good law only if it accomplishes what it sets out to do. If the gun registry would save lives, I do not think there is a police officer or a member of Parliament who would not say fine, let us do it, but quite frankly, it is the criminal misuse of illegal weapons that is the problem. These weapons are not, have not been and will not be registered, and they are the problem.

Why does the member opposite not recognize that? Why have she and her colleagues voted against every measure that has been taken in this House to protect the safety of citizens in regard to the use of illegal firearms?