Leon Benoit

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the partisan use of time. If that was not just as partisan a statement as we could find, I would like to see the other one that comes close to matching it.

The day he calls the removal of interprovincial trade barriers a partisan issue it is a sad day in this House. It is an issue that affects

all Canadians. As I explained before, 200,000 jobs are lost because action has not been taken, six billion to ten billion dollars lost, $3,500 per family. In family week I would expect this member to acknowledge that and to accept that and to say yes, this is an important issue.

This agreement is an important agreement as well. We are supporting it. We are doing everything we can to push it along, so what he said is nonsense.

On the relative importance of this agreement, which involves $.5 billion in trade, to the agreement to internal trade, which involves $146 billion in trade, the comparison is pretty lopsided. The importance of removing the barriers through internal trade cannot be overstated. It is not a partisan issue. This member should not have presented it as that.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-61, the bill which implements the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.

This agreement should benefit many Canadian businesses and many Canadians. It means job creation which must be a top priority for anybody in this House. This agreement applies especially to the areas of agriculture and grain products, high tech communications, natural resources and the manufacturing sector. It is important for Canada to promote more open and fair trade with all countries around the world. We would not find much argument in this House with regard to that statement.

My concern lies in the fact that it seems like too much of this government's energy on balance goes to seeking out trade with other countries and too little energy goes to seeking free trade within Canada.

Canada's international trade amounts to about $160 billion a year. It is a large part of the Canadian economy, so it is important. I want to make it clear that it is important to encourage free trade with other countries. Since the Canada-U.S. trade deals have been put in place, our trade surplus with the United States has increased dramatically. It has been good for Canadians. Deals like the Canada-Israeli agreement, though much smaller, are still important.

My concern is the lack of balance in the government's policy. While foreign trade amounts to about $160 billion a year, trade between provinces amounts to $146 billion a year. How often have we heard this government or the official opposition talk about the importance of removing the barriers to interprovincial trade? The balance is not there.

Our Prime Minister goes on world tours to places like China, Chile and so on. He makes a big show of signing contracts in other countries. When he does this it probably plays well to the folks back home. I acknowledge it is important for the Prime Minister to perform this function but again, where is the balance?

The Liberals in this government, in throne speeches, in budget speeches, in reports from committees-I could mention many different key documents which this government has presented in the House and outside of the House-have stated that it is a top priority to deal with the problem of internal trade barriers, barriers in trade between provinces.

Last year the finance committee released a prebudget report on interprovincial trade which stated: "Trade in Canada must be placed on an equal footing with Canada-U.S. trade in terms of the free flow of goods and services". I am sure the committee would have expanded this statement to include deals between Israel and Canada. Government members acknowledge that interprovincial trade should at least be placed on an equal footing with international trade. Unfortunately, their words do not coincide with their actions.

There was only one action the government did take. In 1994 it signed the agreement on internal trade. It was a start but many different sections of that agreement were to be completed later by set dates in the future. Not one of these targets has been met.

While this government deals with agreements such as this to some extent, it has completely failed to do anything substantial to remove the barriers to interprovincial trade. Yet interprovincial trade amounts to almost as much as international trade. Where is the balance? It is important that that balance is restored.

The government, rather than follow the recommendations of its own throne speeches, its own budget speeches, has not treated with interprovincial trade with the kind of importance that it should have. As a result, some very unsettling situations are building in this country. We have, for example, the problem between Quebec and Newfoundland with the Churchill Falls hydro deal.

If the section on energy in the agreement on internal trade had been completed as was promised by the government, while it would not deal with the current Churchill Falls hydro contract, it certainly would allow the new lower Churchill Falls project, which is critical to the future development of Labrador and Newfoundland, to go through. I am not talking about renegotiating a current contract, I am talking about allowing the development of the lower Churchill Falls project, a brand new hydro contract, which would really help in the development of Newfoundland. It would provide much needed jobs not just from the development project itself but from the development of Voisey's Bay, for example, and other developments in Newfoundland down the road.

The neglect of this agreement has led to that kind of disaster. Quebecers are fair people. They are people of integrity. When they think of holding back Labrador and Newfoundland's development, the people of Quebec would not feel kindly about that. They want the best for Labrador and Newfoundland. That is just one of the areas that has been neglected. The balance is not there between internal trade and foreign trade.

Second is the dispute that has arisen between New Brunswick and British Columbia with the United Parcel Service workers moving to New Brunswick. If the agreement on internal trade had been completed on schedule and if the proper degree of importance had been placed on that deal, then this dispute would never have arisen.

If this dispute or another one had come up and a proper dispute settlement mechanism had been put in place then this dispute settlement mechanism could have dealt with this very serious problem, which actually threatens to take British Columbia out of the internal trade agreement altogether. That would be a very sad day for this country and for British Columbia.

The third major problem that has resulted from the lack of action on the part of the government in removing internal trade barriers is the dispute between Quebec and Ontario on moving labour and contracting back and forth between the two provinces. This dispute has been brewing and getting bigger and more threatening over the last few months. We saw sand, manure, other things dumped on bridges between Ontario and Quebec. Today, as I speak, a rally is being planned by the construction workers in Ottawa at the Delta Hotel-I am not sure about the location-and construction workers are not going to let this issue die. Ontario construction workers are concerned because while Quebec workers and contractors are allowed to freely come to Ontario, Ontario workers and contractors

are not allowed the same access to Quebec. I think it is very important for Quebecers to think about this situation.

The government of Ontario is threatening very serious trade action which would restrict the movement of Quebec workers and contractors into the Ontario market. The Ontario legislature is seriously moving in the direction of putting up a wall so that trade will not go freely either way. That means Quebecers, many of whom are now working in Ontario, will be denied access to Ontario jobs.

Why has this very serious situation arisen? It is because of the lack of action on the part of the government to finish the agreement on internal trade and remove the barriers to interprovincial trade. There is no leadership from the government in this area.

What does this lack of leadership cost Canadians? According to the Fraser Institute and other think tanks, it costs Canadians between $6 billion and $10 billion a year in lost income. This is very serious. According to the Fraser Institute it costs the average Canadian family about $3,500 a year in lost income, all because the government has not put the priority on interprovincial trade that it has put on foreign trade.

Bills such as this one today are important. I acknowledge that. But why on earth not have a bill tomorrow which will deal with the barriers between provinces in a serious and substantial way? This is very important. It is so important that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce came out with a substantial report on this issue. It estimated that a 10 per cent increase in interprovincial trade would add 200,000 new jobs in Canada.

Instead of moving in that direction, within a couple of blocks of the House of Commons a rally is being planned by construction workers who are frustrated because the government has not taken the action it should have to remove barriers to free labour movement and to be able to conduct business openly and freely between provinces. This is a serious situation.

It really surprises me that the industry minister who is in charge of the agreement on internal trade has been completely silent while right in his own constituency in Ottawa, Ontario workers are being denied access to jobs across the river in Hull and Gatineau because of the barriers thrown up by Quebec. It is a sad situation.

There are Liberal members in the government who represent people in Hull and Gatineau. Why are they not speaking out on this issue? If they do not act very quickly and very soon, the Ontario government will close the border, build a wall and there will be no free movement of labour or business between Ontario and Quebec at all. It has come to the point where that decision could be made very soon. Where is the government in dealing with the problem right in its own backyard?

The government should be ashamed. It has to focus on this. It has to look at the balance and the importance between interprovincial trade and international trade. It has to realize its importance to the Canadian economy are very similar, speak out on this issue, solve the problem that is being demonstrated very clearly right here in this city and finish the agreement on internal trade. It has to put in place a dispute settlement mechanism and at least give Canadians the same kind of freedom in doing business with another province as it has between Canada and other countries.

The sad reality for many business people in certain parts of the country is that they actually have easier and more open access to the United States than they do to other provinces. That is sad and action must be taken on this. It is very urgent right now because of the serious situations building across the country.

Pitting one province against another certainly does nothing to help national unity. Pitting Ontario against Quebec does nothing to help national unity. Pitting British Columbia against New Brunswick does nothing to help national unity. Pitting Quebec against Newfoundland and Labrador does nothing to help national unity.

Why has this issue of removing interprovincial trade barrier not been given the importance that it should be given? It is important to people in every single province in this country. It could mean a 10 per cent increase in interprovincial trade. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce it could mean 200,000 jobs or more, $3,500 added to each family household income, a $6 billion to $10 billion increase in income to Canadians. All of this could be achieved if the same importance were given to interprovincial trade as has been given to international trade and if these barriers are removed as quickly as possible.

I would like to more than encourage the government, I would like to push it, in particular the industry minister, to deal with the issue and allow the free movement of people, goods and services between provinces, and allow those 200,000 jobs to be added in Canada.

[Co-Operatives, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the Reform Party to pay tribute and to recognize people involved in the co-operative movements.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and compliment the pioneers of the co-op movement. I know that many of us in the Reform caucus, at least 15 involved in a farming operation right now in western Canada and others who are just one generation away from the farm, actually know some of the pioneers who started and developed the co-op movement. This movement has truly been an important part of western Canadian history as it has been for the history of Quebec, Ontario and right across the country.

Co-operatives are a vital economic component of many communities and there are many examples of co-operatives that are leaders in their field. Co-operatives have achieved success in large part because their members and executives are active in the business that the co-operative is involved in. For this reason the boards of directors, so often usually made up of people involved in that particular business, know the business well and make good decisions because of that.

Agriculture co-operatives are as old as the west. I believe because of the farmers directing the co-operative movement and their co-operatives, they will always make the best decisions for the industry. I wish the minister of agriculture would take note of that.

In the presentation the parliamentary secretary did comment on the very positive role of co-operatives, and that role has been particularly positive in agriculture. I wish the minister of agriculture would take his words to heart and apply that belief in the value of a co-operative to the way he deals with the Canadian Wheat Board.

If the Canadian Wheat Board were run much more like a co-operative it would truly represent what farmers want much better. In other words, it would be run by directors who are elected by farmers themselves and the organization would become accountable to farmers. That is really what farmers want with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board more than anything else. Make it more like a co-operative.

Co-ops and credit unions must be congratulated for helping communities develop and improve. They must also be recognized as a player in our economy that has proved competition and has given people another choice, something that makes democracy work very well.

It is with gratitude that on behalf of the Reform Party I acknowledge the accomplishments of co-ops and credit unions. I know all Canadians will encourage them to continue their innovative example of leadership in their own particular business.

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his presentation on this issue.

I have a question. We heard a little earlier today from a member of the governing party bragging about the number of justice bills that the government has brought before the House. In this area of reforming the Divorce Act what we were looking for was some substantial, comprehensive legislation which dealt with a wide range of issues. All we have had is piecemeal legislation which deals with only one aspect. I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on that.

As well, the member for Halifax was suggesting that the divorce rate should be higher than it probably is, if more people would give up on marriages which they should give up on. Then we had the member from Mississauga saying that there should be much more substantial change in this area. Yet those members are all from the governing side.

The government has the power to make the changes that are being recommended and not just to tinker with so many different bills which really do so little. I would like the hon. member to comment on that also.

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as we resume debate on Bill C-41, I will explain a bit about the bill. It is an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

The purpose of Bill C-41 is first, to establish federal guidelines for child support; second, to open Revenue Canada databases to searches in cases of payment default; third, to deny passports and certain licences to individuals whose support payments are in persistent arrears; fourth, to provide for the garnishment and attachment of federal public service pensions and wages of individuals working at sea.

Unfortunately, in today's world, between 40 and 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Even more unfortunate is the fact that when a divorce occurs, children are often the last to be considered.

In spite of the fact that our courts and our laws use the phrase in the best interests of the child, all too often the outcome is actually what is in the best interests of the custodial parent. We need to change this situation to ensure that the outcome ends up being what is in the best interest of the child.

Many non-custodial parents either do not pay their child support payments or are in arrears. Since non-payment of support hurts the children and the families, this situation must be remedied by some type of penalty for the offender. Bill C-41 addresses this situation. The non-payment of fair child support should not be tolerated.

Last year the Reform caucus called for nationwide guidelines and for increased enforcement of maintenance orders. This bill addresses these two issues. However, like many other pieces of legislation introduced by the government, Bill C-41 only goes part way. The bill represents a piecemeal approach to amending the Divorce Act. Once more the Liberals have given Canadians only part of the loaf, not the whole loaf.

While the Liberal government has continually stressed the need for comprehensive family law reform, the bill once again only deals with one small part of this large problem. Canadians need a comprehensive approach which benefits the children of divorce.

I would like to speak briefly about what I believe a comprehensive approach to amending the Divorce Act would include. First, it would include compulsory mediation as a first step in the divorce process rather than going straight to the courts.

In a court battle, parents through their lawyers and often encouraged by their lawyers so often attack each other in adversarial combat over who gets the property and who gets the children. Eventually, neither parent wins the battle. Inevitably the lawyers are the only winners in these cases. In too many cases the children are the big losers. Mediation would lessen the bitterness of divorce as both sides attempt to compromise. Most parents truly want to do what is best for the children but emotions get in the way in adversarial combat such as we see through the court system.

With mediation, parents are encouraged to put bitterness aside to do what is in their children's best interest. The result is often a less hostile relationship between the parents. A good relationship between the parents is essential since children exist through and thrive on the relationship that exists between their father and their mother. Even after divorce, the well-being of a child is directly related to the continued shared responsibility of the two parents for their child.

This morning, some members opposite said that having two parents is idyllic. I am not talking about an ideal situation. I am talking about the best possible situation under a very difficult divorce procedure.

The second element that I believe should be included in comprehensive reform is the access of grandparents to grandchildren. Children need to know that they are loved by both sets of grandparents, regardless of the divorce.

One of my constituents sent me a copy of her letter to the Minister of Justice in which she stated: "I am a victim of your indifference to the rights of grandparents. Your rock solid image has been eroded by your unwillingness to uphold the very principles you pretend to stand for. You have shot down the inherent rights of innocent children to have and to know their immediate families. You have disregarded the voices of countless grandparents who have personally experienced the pain caused by the flaws in our present justice system".

That is from a constituent to whom I talked on several occasions and who, unfortunately, I could not assure that there would be something done in this place that would improve her situation.

What is said by the experts in this area? I quote Jim Gladstone, an associate professor of social work at McMaster University who has studied the relationship between grandmothers and grandchildren after divorce. He said: "A grandparent can offer a grandchild sanctuary from divorce materially and emotionally. The grandparent's role is especially important considering the child's parent is likely preoccupied with his or her own healing".

Not only my constituent but the so-called experts in this area stress the importance of grandparents having access to their grandchildren. Common sense also says that. Children whose parents are divorced are no less deserving of maintaining family ties. In fact, during these difficult times, children need even more to have these ties maintained.

A third factor to be considered in a comprehensive approach to amending the Divorce Act would also include access provisions that are enforceable. In talking about enforcing access, I would like to speak about a situation that happened to me over the last year and a half or so. It happened without one knowing what the other was doing. I had both the mother and the father in a divorce case come to me with their grievances which were quite different.

First the mother came. She was the custodial parent. Her concern was that she was having an extremely difficult time in paying what was necessary to raise her children. Part of the reason was that the non-custodial parent, the father, was not making child support payments. As I listened to her, I could see the difficulty, the stress that she was under. I could see also the less than friendly way that she talked about the non-custodial parent and the fact that he was not paying support. My heart went out to her. She was in a very difficult situation and in fact it was very difficult even for me to hear what was happening. I could not understand how the non-custodial parent, the father, would withhold child support payments.

Then it happened. I do not believe the father had any idea that the mother had been to see me. Some time later the father came to me with his concerns. He was torn apart because he had been denied access to his children even though the court had granted access. The mother, the custodial parent, had denied access even though the court had said that it was a requirement of the divorce settlement. I heard the other side. This father, who so desperately wanted to be in touch with his children, had withheld support payments because he so desperately wanted the access that he was being denied.

It is clear that the government, dealing with legislation on child support, should not only look at one part of this issue. It is critical that it also consider the issue of access. It has been completely ignored in this legislation. Once again, it is piecemeal legislation when comprehensive legislation is needed. That really makes this legislation of very little value.

The issue of access by the non-custodial parent is crucial, as the example which I used pointed out. As I said before, children exist through and thrive on the relationship that exists between a father and a mother. I would like to add that children also thrive on the relationship that they have with each parent individually. These relationships need to be continually strengthened as the child grows and matures. This is every bit as important in a situation where the parents are separated by divorce and where both parents do not have continual access to the children.

The relationship between the children and both parents is the fundamental building block of our society. It is how values and culture are protected and transferred from one generation to the next. The maintenance of these ties is crucial not only to the child's development but to the social stability of our society. It is that fundamental.

Family ties have a profound impact on our economy, culture and social structure. I do not think we can overstate the importance of these family ties.

It is therefore just as important that children whose parents are divorced continue to have access to both parents unless the courts have determined that there is some substantial particular reason that one or both parents should be denied access.

Unfortunately Bill C-41 does not deal with the problem of the lack of fairness in enforcing maintenance orders. I am getting back to maintenance orders and away from access. One of the major flaws with the bill is that Bill C-41 does not deal with the problem of the lack of fairness in enforcing maintenance orders.

On April 5, 1995 the Reform caucus approved an issue statement on child support, payment and taxation. It called for nationwide guidelines and for increased enforcement of maintenance orders. As I previously mentioned, this bill provides for both these points to some extent. However, the Reform Party stressed that provisions must be fair. The child support issue is not simply a woman's issue. It is a family issue.

While Bill C-41 imposes and enforces support obligations on non-custodial parents, it does nothing to ensure that custodial parents meet their obligations for example on visitation rights. That is unacceptable.

Many non-custodial parents who do not make payments refuse to do so because they are denied access to their children. It is not uncommon. This denial of access produces anger and weakens the ties between the non-custodial parents and their children. I know that with improved access many more non-custodial parents would

meet their obligations in full. This in fact has been verified by people with considerable experience in tracking down non-custodial parents for non-payment of child support. My colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, this morning documented that very well. It is clear that most parents do want to do what is best for their children.

Besides these issues, there are other issues which were ignored by the legislation which I will not go into in detail.

The process of putting the legislation in place through order in council is typical of the government. It happens all the time. It is a non-democratic process which I have spoken of before so I will not get into it at length now.

Another concern about the legislation is that it could invade the privacy of the non-custodial parent. The bill makes data banks at Revenue Canada available to be searched for information regarding addresses and possible payment sources but does not provide protection for other information in Revenue Canada files. That is a concern under the present system and it will be even more of a concern when this legislation passes.

There is the issue of revoking passports. Bill C-41 contains clauses which allow for the revocation of a passport of a person who is in default in their child support payments. The revocation places such a person in jeopardy if he or she must travel outside Canada with their employment. How can a person earn money and meet child support payments if they are being denied access to their place of employment?

A constituent of mine spoke of the problems which he had and how much more serious the problems would be because of this bill. He went to work outside the country. He could not get a job in Canada and could not afford to make the payments but he could with the job outside Canada. He was concerned that the legislation would completely cut off child support payments.

By opposing the bill, the Reform Party is not supporting people who do not pay child support. Clearly that is not our intent. The problem is that Bill C-41 lacks meaningful substance and in particular it lacks fairness.

What Canadians need is a comprehensive approach which focuses on change which benefits the children of divorce. By opposing the bill the Reform Party is attempting to force the government to adopt a comprehensive reform of the Divorce Act so that matters such as compulsory arbitration and access are also included. With respect to child support, as in all government decisions, Reform believes that the well-being of the family should be the top priority.

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in her presentation the hon. member referred to the best interests of the child and the fact that this legislation in her opinion would fulfil the best interests or look out for the concerns of the child.

The most important thing a child can have is two loving parents. Could she comment on the fact that this legislation does nothing to deal with the access of the non-custodial parent? Could this be a huge gap in the legislation?

The Divorce Act is rarely opened. It should be dealt with in a much more thorough way than this. Could the hon. member comment?

[Churchill Falls Hydro Project, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is a noteworthy answer.

The Prime Minister is fully aware that the energy section of the agreement on internal trade is literally a blank page. The type of urgency the Liberals talked about in the red book really demonstrates how ineffective this government is.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been denied the jobs and prosperity that a new Churchill Falls hydro development would bring. The Quebec government will not allow the transmission of electricity across its territory.

Will the Prime Minister address this issue urgently by committing himself to the elimination of this interprovincial trade barrier and establish a power corridor through Quebec so that Newfoundlanders can finally reap the benefits of any new project at Churchill Falls?

[Churchill Falls Hydro Project, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, page 22 of the Liberal red book reads as follows: "A Liberal government will be committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers within Canada and will address this issue urgently".

The Churchill Falls conflict is an issue of one province controlling the resources of another province. Does the Prime Minister recognize that Newfoundland's inability to access U.S. markets obstructs its ability to utilize its own resources?

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today to support the member for Comox-Alberni on the motion he has brought before the House.

This issue was probably one of the most important ones in terms of drawing Reformers from western Canada into the Reform Party in the first place. People recognized from one example after another of what had happened in their area that this was necessary and that property rights in fact should be enshrined in the Constitution. That is of course a Reform policy although it is not fully what we are dealing with here today.

I will start by repeating what this motion is about for those watching or listening or for those who may read this in the future:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government provide a greater measure of protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights to read:

"1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's personal and real property and the right not to be deprived thereof unless that person

(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and

(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property, and the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount of time after the person is deprived of their property.

1. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances".

That is what we are debating today. I will talk a bit about the importance of having property rights clearly defined.

Property rights are really the cornerstone of human freedom, as some of my colleagues have expressed. These rights mean freedom from arbitrary interference in one's life by government. Property rights depend on the notion that you own yourself and your labour.

In 1690 John Locke wrote:

The great and chief end of men-putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

In 1790 Edmund Burke wrote:

The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself. It makes our weakness subservient to our virtue; it grafts benevolence even upon avarice.

Burke recognized clearly the importance of property rights.

A property rights guarantee ensures that government can only take your property under three very limiting conditions. First, the taking of your property must be for public use. Second, the taking of your property must be through due process of the law. Third, the taking of your property must be with just and timely compensation.

Various polls and surveys have demonstrated clearly that Canadians support a property rights guarantee. A poll commissioned by the Canadian real estate board in 1987 found that 81 per cent of Canadians considered property rights very or fairly important and that the Constitution should be amended to include property rights.

In 1992 a Gallup poll demonstrated that 87 per cent of respondents characterized the fundamental right to own property as either very important or important, and 87 per cent said that it should be in the charter of rights and freedoms.

To make this point stronger, a higher percentage of Quebecers supported a constitutional guarantee of property rights than supported a constitutional guarantee of distinct society. This issue is certainly important to Quebecers.

The Prime Minister also supports a property rights guarantee. One of my colleagues brought this up and it is worth mentioning again. During a presentation to the provinces on including property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms he stated: "In deciding which rights should be included in this charter, we have selected only those which we feel reflect the central values of our society. Each of these rights we have listed"-and that includes property rights-"is an essential ingredient for the charter and all are rights which all Canadians should have regardless of wherever they live in our country".

That was spoken by the Prime Minister a few years ago. It is interesting that now his government seems to be holding back on its support and is speaking against a first step toward providing for property rights in a meaningful way.

There are other countries which have enshrined property rights in their constitutions. Canada is in the good company of the United States, Germany, Italy and Finland. The fifth amendment of the United States constitution limits federal powers and expressly provides for a right to compensation. The fifth amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without due compensation.

The 14th amendment of the American constitution stipulates that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law.

Property rights were not included in our charter mainly because of the objections of the provinces of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The reason is important to note. These provinces felt that it was an attempt by the federal government to intrude into provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights granted to them by section 92(13) of the British North America Act.

The Canadian Bill of Rights does include property rights, but the guarantee of protection is minimal at best. There is no requirement in Canadian constitutional law that removal of private property be covered by a fair procedure to deal with compensation to the owner and there is no guarantee of fair treatment by the courts, tribunals or officials who have the power over individuals or corporations. Without the rights of due process and fair compensation individual property rights are meaningless.

The power of government in this area is unlimited. Any valid statute can expressly state that no compensation is payable when property is expropriated. That is the very thing which Canadians do not want.

How would Motion No. 205, presented by my colleague from Comox-Alberni, improve the current situation? Motion No. 205 proposes to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding two new sections. The first section would allow citizens the right to their property unless the person receives a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The second section gives the individual property owner the right to fair compensation for the property within a reasonable amount of time.

Since the Canadian Bill of Rights applies only to federal law and operations, this motion would avoid the provincial concerns raised during the debate on including property rights in the charter. However, since this legislation applies only to federal jurisdiction, clearly similar protection is needed at the provincial level. I would strongly support the provinces making similar changes in their legislation to protect property rights.

I would like to give a couple of examples of things that have gone wrong because there is not proper protection of property rights. The first example would not be protected if the bill is passed, but I would like to mention it anyway. This is something which happened in Calgary. I have had this story related to me on a couple of different occasions, so I believe it is worth mentioning. It affected the people who mentioned it to me in a very negative way.

Calgary had a green zone around the city which was protected by law. When this happened there was no compensation as a result of the damage to land prices. There was no expropriation on the part of government. It just declares that this zone would be a green zone and that caused property values to drop dramatically. People who had property within that zone in many cases, people who had talked to me, lost much of their life savings. It was clearly unfair and I think it is important that we have legislation that would protect against this.

The second very important example has been demonstrated already and explained by some of our members, although I think it would be worth repeating, and it has to do with the rights under Bill C-68 to take guns from people without any compensation.

From the gun collectors I have talked to, in a couple of cases gun collectors had tied their life savings up in their collection. This law has destroyed the value of that collection with no compensation. These examples point out the need for this to pass the House. I ask all members in the House to support my colleague and to vote in favour of this private member's motion.

[Trade, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are concerned that we are being culturally and economically Americanized. Why is this? Could it be because there are fewer obstacles to doing business with the United States than with other Canadian provinces?

This government has talked a lot about its commitment to removing internal trade barriers. That is good. However, its actions have been weak and ineffective. This government's complacency has led to recent conflicts between provinces. New Brunswick and B.C. are fighting over job poachers, Ontario and Quebec over construction jobs, and Quebec and Newfoundland over Churchill Falls.

These disputes which could have been settled with a strong agreement on internal trade are instead pitting province against province and harming national unity.

This government's ineffectiveness in removing internal trade barriers is eroding our national identity and is tearing our country apart.