Peter MacKay

[Point Of Order, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am afraid the impression that has been left with the House by the intervention of the House leader of the Reform Party is that we as a party are not willing or do not wish to sit tomorrow.

I would ask that you put the motion to the House for unanimous consent for us to sit tomorrow. We are ready, willing and able to be here tomorrow to sit in this Parliament. I would ask that the motion be put to the House.

[Point Of Order, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the passion and emotion that was in the last point of order, I do not want to dwell on this point.

We have been discussing, in the context of this last point of order, the House leaders and the integrity of the House leaders. On behalf of my party I take great exception to the reference that has been made to my personally misleading other House leaders at this meeting with respect to the national council meeting that will be taking place in Ottawa this weekend. This is a national council meeting that will involve over 500 people coming from all parts of the country to participate.

The point I would like to make is that this item was put on the agenda by the government House leader, not by the House leader of the Conservative Party. I would appreciate the support of the government House leader in this matter. I am surprised that he did not respond appropriately when he rose in response to the Leader of the Opposition.

The point to be made here is that this weekend we agreed unanimously at the House leaders' meeting that this Friday would not be deemed a sitting day of the House. However, in light of the allegation that has been made, I am ready on behalf of my party to suggest that we move a motion and sit tomorrow.

I would expect when the House leaders for the other parties, including the House leader of the official opposition, want to have their national council meetings that once again they would be prepared to put up or shut up.

This brings into question my integrity and the integrity of my party. This was a malicious, politically motivated point of order, and it is a new low.

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of this Parliament we are using a 35 second time limit for questions and answers. But as a result of prolonged applause or heckling at times, I am experiencing that members of our party and I suggest other members of the House are often cut off because they do not have time to get their questions out.

I am sure the Speaker is cognizant of this but I would ask your indulgence at times when a person does not have the ability to put the question forward.

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the arrangements for the debate this afternoon which will begin later on.

The standing orders of the House were drafted to accommodate three parties in this House. The electorate has of course sent five.

I am seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion to alter the arrangements for the putting of amendments and subamendments to the budget debate. This would have the effect of keeping the Reform amendment before the House until the final day of the budget debate.

It would also permit the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party to put subamendments to the House for a vote as well.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion No. 269 put forward by my colleague for Saskatoon—Humboldt. I indicate at the outset that we are in support of this motion for reasons I will outline.

Right away I state uncategorically that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has always supported the principles of individuals' unencumbered rights to own property. The best guarantors of prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are found in the freedom of individuals to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy. That goes further to say that the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour and to the greatest extent possible to have property lies within that right.

There is currently no provision in the charter of rights and freedoms that prevents the government from taking away a person's property, something that is owned rightfully by them. There is nothing there to restrict the government in any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment or further the reduction of the value of property owned by an individual. That is very frightening thing to think that those violations could occur without the protection of our charter of rights and freedoms.

I want to highlight the fact that the provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms require that the government provide fair and timely compensation. That again is drawn into question without the entrenchment of property rights within our Constitution. Surely we do not want any restriction on the use and enjoyment of property or the government's ability to interfere with the value of a person's property.

It is trite and perhaps goes without saying that it is a fundamental human right to own and use property in the way which a person deems appropriate, with the stipulation that as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

Property rights are natural and fundamental and are based on hundreds of years of common law. One might suggest that common law in itself is sufficient protection. I disagree. For that reason among others it is necessary that we have these rights entrenched in our Constitution.

I suggest the government may have intentionally left property rights out of the Constitution in 1982 for fear that there would be some detriment to Canadians' democratic rights and economic freedoms. This motion is a step in the right direction. It is a step toward bringing about a change, a much needed and necessary change to our charter of rights and freedoms.

Presently the only legal protection that does exist in federal law rests in the Canadian Bill of Rights which was introduced by Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights states specifically: “The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law”.

Since the Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statue which can be overridden by any other federal statue, mainly the charter, this protection is not enough. Why does this omission exist? Why is there an omission of property rights within our charter of rights and freedoms? It is a significant omission. Aside from the poor guarantee of the bill of rights, there is no requirement in Canadian constitutional law that compulsory taking of property can be effected by a fair procedure or that it can be accompanied by a fair compensation for the owner.

On that point I quote a well known professor of constitutional law, Professor Peter Hogg: “The omission of property rights from section 7 of the charter greatly reduces its scope. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or even a fair procedure for the taking of property by government”.

This again is a frightening situation when it happens to any Canadian who rightfully owns property. As has been suggested throughout some of the remarks, an individual who may have inherited property that was passed down through generations, that a family has saved for and done without, is suddenly faced with this type of confiscation of property. There is a real need to ensure this does not happen.

If we did not have a Constitution the protection of property rights would then revert to what I spoke of earlier, the common law. But since we have a Constitution with entrenched rights within our country it only makes sense to broaden the net to include specifically the property rights of all Canadians.

Property rights are recognized from time immemorial in common law but with our Constitution in this country this omission is something that has to be remedied.

To not make sure the law protects property rights would leave it upon the courts to address this situation when it arises. Again, I suggest that it is incumbent upon this House and members of Parliament and this procedure to address this inequity.

Many other Canadians and I have waited long enough for this to happen. All members of the House appear for the most part to be in support of this. But what are the exact property rights that we are talking about? Property rights mean freedom from arbitrary interference by one's government. They mean a guarantee that one's rights will not be deprived, that one's property will not be taken away or restricted in any way by undue government interference.

It also sets out three very limited conditions where a government might infringe on that right in this piece of legislation. The taking of property must be for public use. There are instances that we are all familiar with where there may be an expropriation of property for a throughway, a pipeline, a power line or some legitimate use. In those cases there are easements available and the law can address it in that way.

Another instance where government might deprive an individual of a property right would be the taking of the property through due process of law, that is, a confiscation based on a bill that is owing, an outstanding debt that has to be addressed.

Third, the taking of property must be done with just and timely compensation. That is, an arbitrary seizure of property without compensation or done so in an unfair and arbitrary way would be outside the rule of law.

With respect to this issue 81% of Canadians consider either very or fairly important the right to include property rights in our charter of rights and freedoms, and 81% of Canadians are not wrong in this. The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canada Real Estate Association as well as many other organizations support the inclusion of property rights within our Constitution.

Including property rights also follows the fine example of many other countries around the world. Some of those countries, the United States, Germany, Italy, Finland, have seen the need and have done so within their charters.

Property rights are an issue that transcend any partisan politics. They have widespread application and appeal and are something that all members of this House should consider very seriously before casting their vote against.

The following prominent Canadians have voted in favour in the past on property rights being included in our Constitution: John Diefenbaker, Lester B. Pearson, Paul Martin Sr., Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and many others.

Again I would suggest there is a tradition to be followed. There is an opportunity now for this House to put these rights in place to ensure that inequities as they arise from ownership of property are going to be addressed and addressed in the proper forum, which is this House. For these reasons and many others, I support this motion as do the members of my party. I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

[Pay Equity, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of public servants across Canada did not enjoy a happy Valentine's Day last weekend thanks to the government's so-called refusal to honour pay equity.

While the Treasury Board president ponders salary increases for his former colleagues among the senior management class of the federal public service, he continues to provide steerage class treatment for lower paid public servants.

This is yet another example of the government's misplaced sense of priorities. The Liberal government spends billions of taxpayer dollars to suit its own political agenda such as Doug Young's highway robbery, Nova Scotia toll highway capers, helicopter fiascos and the Pearson airport debacle, not to mention the ill founded Airbus investigation. The recent reckless supreme court reference is another.

I urge the Liberal government to instead make the right choice for public spending and negotiate a pay equity settlement that is fair for long suffering public service employees.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is the third time that I have requested an answer. I am looking for something a little more specific than “We will get back to you”.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is with respect to a question that was brought forward on October 2, 1997. I have risen twice to ask when we would receive an answer. It appears on the Order Paper as Question No. 21.

I would reiterate that this is an unnecessary delay. We are looking for a very simple answer with respect to the whereabouts of certain ministers at a specified time in Quebec.

[Criminal Code, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on November 17, 1997 I asked the government, in light of the millions of dollars and the forced apology of the Liberal government, who was responsible for the Airbus affair scandal. Scandal is the appropriate word.

I also asked the government when it would withdraw the bogus letter and accusations which were sent to the Swiss authorities. It appears that the Liberals, when faced with the reality that they have done something completely wrong and at a cost to Canadians—needless to say this is not the first time nor the last—they refuse to answer questions, and the word helicopters comes to mind.

Canadians know better. Canadians know that the Airbus affair was political revenge from the Liberals extracted upon a man from whom they had been stealing ideas and programs since they were elected in 1993. I mention free trade and GST as a few examples there.

Canadians deserve answers when the cost is millions of dollars from skulduggery. The former prime minister was recklessly and falsely described as a criminal in a Canadian document which was sent to a foreign state which obviously the CBC and the RCMP bought hook, line and sinker.

The government acted on the fictional prose of Stevie Cameron and the mysterious Mr. Pelossi. The Government of Canada admitted that there was no basis for the conclusions, apologized to Mr. Mulroney and paid his legal fees.

Yet, the letter falsely accusing him is still in circulation and the government refuses to withdraw it. On top of that, the RCMP say they are still investigating, incredibly and increasingly so I am told.

Is this truly in the criminal investigating tradition? Is there any likelihood of conviction? What are the reasonable and probable grounds that will even bring this to a charge?

Many journalists last November said that this was an astonishing expression of cruelty and personal attack on Mr. Mulroney by the government. Sadly enough, this is only part of the continuing scandal.

Corporal Mike Niedubek of the RCMP came out last November and said something that people already knew, that was that the whole thing was highly political and that the RCMP were being asked to cover up a government mistake.

Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald, the designated fall guy, has mysteriously disappeared from the scene, something that the former Minister of Justice said that he lamented.

Here we are again. The government is faced with a very important issue which relates directly to integrity and accountability. It is all talk and no action.

I would like to pose some very serious questions that need answering. Who among the cabinet knew and were responsible for this scandal? Why is the government fighting so hard at the supreme court level to retain the anonymous and arbitrary power to exercise search warrants against Canadians abroad without judicial review, something two courts have already ruled on?

When is the government going to withdraw the letter containing the false allegations which they admitted were false? Why is the RCMP still conducting this abortive, futile and ill-founded investigation for which there has been no basis?

Further, how many more resources—and I am talking about money and manpower—will be sunk into this farcical witch-hunt? Who speaks for Canadian taxpayers on this issue? When the investigation grinds to its inevitable halt and no conclusions are reached, who will be held accountable?

If they are really investigating, why has Mr. Mulroney never been questioned?

Will the government do the right thing, clear the air on this sordid affair and call a public inquiry into the Airbus scandal? If the Prime Minister and the present Minister of Health had no roles in this affair, surely there is nothing to hide. When this happens, Canadians will be allowed to finally see the truth.

I have to ask the question: What is the government afraid of? If the Prime Minister and his government really cared for this country and the reputation of fairness and democracy, they would themselves call for a public inquiry and present themselves as witnesses.

[National Unity, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today's convening of the supreme court hearings on the question of Quebec's unilateral declaration of independence proved once and for all that the Liberal government is void of positive solutions for Canada's unity problem.

The Liberal government, with the support of the Reform Party's legion of doom and gloom, has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to lay down the law on what is clearly a political question. Which difficult political question will the Liberals refer next to the supreme court, the fiscal dividend, employment, health care or Iraq?

This reckless referral to the supreme court gives separatists yet another weapon to hammer the cause of national unity. By abdicating their basic responsibility, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are simply parroting the divisive line of Reform. The government must instead display vision and necessary political steps to ensure that all Canadians are unified into the 21st century.