Garry Breitkreuz

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the beginning you said there would be 15 minutes for petitions. I think if you seek it from all sides, you will find unanimous consent to extend the time for petitions for this morning only.

[Criminal Code, December 16th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-409, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that is not proven effective within five years of coming into force.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing this bill for the third time since I have become a member of parliament. I would like to thank the member for Lakeland for seconding my firearms law sunset act. I would also like to thank Canadians from coast to coast, right across Canada, who have supported this bill.

For the last 20 years government has established an unimpressive track record of passing costly, ineffective gun control laws. When its ineffective laws do not reduce the criminal use of firearms, it passes more ineffective gun control laws.

The firearms law sunset act which I am introducing today guarantees that scarce tax dollars will only be spent on gun control measures that actually work. My sunset law would require the automatic repeal of any gun control measure after five years from the date of implementation, unless it can pass the public safety test administered by the Auditor General of Canada which proves the measure is cost effective in achieving its stated objective.

I believe all laws that we pass in the House must be cost effective at achieving this goal. Sunset provisions are the only way of guaranteeing this.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Rcmp, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, through access to information I learned that the RCMP now employs 391 paper pushers on the government's fatally flawed gun registration scheme. In the meantime, the solicitor general leaves the RCMP desperately short of police on the street. In B.C., for example, there are 300 full time vacancies and 200 temporary vacancies.

Why is registering grampa's gopher gun a higher priority for the government than real law enforcement?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:

“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following:

“(5) When the Attorney General for Canada has been served notice under subsection (1) and has appeared and participated under subsection (3), the Attorney General for Canada shall lay before Parliament a report of such proceedings.”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 34 to 37 on page 2.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise again today. It is probably the lowest point in parliament so far.

We are talking about the Nisga'a agreement and the amendments to it at report stage. The NDP and the Liberals would like to muzzle Reform. They have said so previously in the debate. The Liberals used the phrase “the Canadian way” and it became obvious as we listened that it is really the Liberal way that they were talking about.

I cannot figure out why closure is being invoked on this bill. Is it because the public might raise concerns, or that the concerns with the bill might become more public and opposition to it would continue to grow across Canada, the same kind of opposition that is now present within B.C. among the majority of the people there?

All the people of B.C. have not had input. I have heard one of the members from Vancouver talk about all the consultation and meetings that have been held. The problem is the people of B.C. in their majority have not been allowed to address all of the concerns they have.

One of the Liberals who spoke said he voted but with an expressed caveat. He had reservations about this. What a joke. What a joke to say, “I am going to vote yes to this agreement”. Does that member think that the minister of Indian affairs will listen once the vote is over, that anybody will take into account any of the concerns he expressed? No, because once it is passed, it is a done deal. People will just laugh at him when he says, “I raised this and I voted yes, but I want to have it understood that I have these concerns”. Does that member think any court will listen to him after this is implemented because he made a speech here raising some of these concerns?

The Liberal member is playing pure politics if he is afraid to stand up now and be counted. It will be too late after this bill is implemented. Mark my words, this sets a precedent for which there will be no turning back. The courts will take this and run with it.

I just finished a speech a couple of hours ago on property rights. The Liberals claim that the charter will protect the aboriginal people and all Canadians. In my speech on a bill which the Liberals did not even allow to be votable, I said that there is no protection in the charter for property rights. The court has said so itself. Their appeal to the charter to protect aboriginal property rights is not based on any fact. As my colleague said, it is valueless. It is useless.

We have not had time to debate some of these things. I have raised this issue but it will not be dealt with here. Yet the Liberals claim that the charter will protect them. I have pointed out areas where the charter cannot protect them and the court has said so.

The process has been flawed from the beginning. The negotiations were secret for many years. When other Reformers and I became aware of this in 1994 and 1995 there was a refusal on the part of the government to even have any public disclosure as to what was happening. Any objections we raised were belittled. We were portrayed as being evil people. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are the only political party right now that is standing up and asking the serious questions about this treaty. None of the other opposition parties are doing that, nor are any of the backbench Liberals doing this in any serious way.

In B.C. the debate was cut off even before half of the treaty was debated. The consultation is not just with four or five chiefs. I have heard the government say that there were three parties involved in the agreement, but they were all the tops. It was a top heavy thing. The rank and file people have basically been shut out of this whole process and that is really a concern. Opposition parties should express the concern of all Canadians and only Reform is doing that.

This is a change in the social contract. We are not focusing upon the cost. We realize the cost could be unbelievable. Some estimates run as high as $30 billion or $40 billion. We have to look at how this is going to change the dynamics within Canada. The democratic rights of all B.C. are being thumbed by not having it fully debated and a referendum held.

One of the points that has been raised is that we do not hold referendums on this kind of thing because there is no precedent. How ridiculous an argument can one have? If it is this important and if it is going to involve a change that is this fundamental, we have to have input by all people.

What about the Charlottetown accord? The people spoke very clearly on the relationship of aboriginals to the rest of the country. We are ignoring that and we are going ahead with this without having another referendum.

I do not know what excuse one could come up with for not having a process that includes everybody. The government ministers talk about listening to all sides but they have created the sides in this. They have created the divisions that will get even wider as we continue along. If it is so good, as the government claims it is, why not put it to all the people of B.C.?

One person has asked, is there any place on reserve where the conditions are as good as off reserve? The government has not answered that question. People have said that they want to get out from under the Indian Act. With this thing they are ending up with the very same thing. They are not getting out from under the oppression that they are feeling at this time.

Canadians are concerned that the courts are going to be dictating this legislation. Do the courts have the right to tell members of parliament how they should speak? That is what one Liberal asked. I would like to ask that question.

With respect to aboriginals before the law, a former minister of justice stated clearly “We have one law for all, but it is flexible in its application”. Only a Liberal could come up with that forked tongue type of speaking.

One hon. member said there are no legitimate concerns being voiced by grassroots people in B.C. I would beg to differ. There are major concerns being voiced by grassroots people.

It has been said that this is a template for scores of other treaties. Does this not warrant more careful scrutiny? Unfortunately, we are standing alone in asking for this.

Quite some time ago when the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples brought in its report I made a speech. In the context of the Nisga'a agreement, I would like to bring up some of the key points that were raised at that time, which are still valid today.

At that point an editorial in the Globe and Mail stated that if those recommendations were to be implemented, and they are being implemented today, they would lead to separation, both political and economic.

We have said that we need to move toward equality. Here are some of the key, crucial steps that we need to take to move toward the goal of equality. The Indian Act must be repealed and replaced with legislation that will move closer to true equality. This bill does not do that.

We need to agree on a definition of self-government. I believe that the majority of Canadians, including grassroots Indian people, would support aboriginal self-government as long as the federal government's relationship with Indian reserves was similar to that of the relationship between provinces and municipalities.

Most of Canada's aboriginal people, and there are about 500,000, already live in municipalities under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government retains responsibility for about 350,000 people.

For self-government to work, Canadian law, including the charter of rights and freedoms, must apply equally to all aboriginal people. Local Indian governments will never be truly democratic or financially accountable until and unless a normal local government to taxpayer relationship is established. The federal government must make treaty entitlements payable, in part at least, directly to individual treaty Indians living on reserve. I emphasize that. They should have the same rights as the rest of us. They will not get that through this agreement and they should have that. We need to move toward equality that will be of benefit to all.

Every treaty Indian is entitled to compensation benefits or services promised by the treaty and they should have a choice of receiving those benefits directly from the federal government or through their local Indian government. They should be able to exercise that option at any time.

Land claims settlements should be negotiated publicly, not behind closed doors, and they should outline all of these things.

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 6th, 1999]

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.

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 6th, 1999]

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.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 1 with the following:

“meaningful social and economic importance to”