Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am responding to private member's motion M-205 which seeks to provide further protection for property rights pursuant to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Canadian Bill of Rights is part of this country's long and strong commitment to protecting human rights. With the coming of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which duplicated many of the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights, it is important to understand how the bill of rights enacted in 1960 fits into the larger scheme of human rights' protections in Canada.
The Canadian Bill of Rights remains in force, but it is substantially different from the charter as it does not apply to provincial legislation or actions. It operates as a federal statute which is applicable to federal laws and actions. The charter expressly overrides any act that is inconsistent with it, while the Canadian Bill of Rights does not have an express provision which permits it to override other federal statutes.
A noticeable difference between the bill and the charter is that the bill does not have a limitation clause as provided by section 1 of the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What does the lack of a limitation clause mean for the protection of property rights?
It is important to understand that no rights are absolute. It is often necessary to limit rights to protect the widely shared values of the larger community.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, in seeking to provide greater measures for the protection of property rights, has recognized that we cannot provide absolute protection for individual property rights.
Many laws also recognize that others may have a legitimate interest in the property rights of another individual, including family law and environmental protection. Even provincial builders' lien acts recognize and impose limits on the individual's right to dispose of property.
The bill of rights already contains a due process provision to protect property rights. The bill states:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) 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 the law-While there have not been many cases interpreting what this provision means, Walter Tarnopolsky, the noted scholar, in his commentary on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms finds that the bill undoubtedly imposed a requirement of fair procedure and may also have imposed a requirement of fair compensation.
The due process clause in the 14th amendment of the United States constitution, which protects life, liberty or property, has been held to impose a requirement of fair compensation for the loss of property. It can therefore be argued that the Canadian Bill of Rights continues to operate and provides sufficient protection for property.
It should also be mentioned that some provincial bills of rights include protection for property rights. The Alberta bill of rights, now the Alberta individual rights protection act, protects the enjoyment of property by a due process clause. The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms gives some protection to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his or her property to the deprivation of rights.
(1105)
Why is it necessary to protect property rights? In a liberal democracy such as Canada, the protection of property is fundamental to encourage growth and development. For this reason our society recognizes and protects property in a number of ways.
It is important to protect property. It is sufficiently protected through a host of common law statutes, including the bill of rights.
Our history is one of recognizing and protecting real and personal property. As Canadians, we also value other rights as important.
That is why I like the 14th amendment of the United States constitution which protects life, liberty or property. Section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms protects the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
Our primary concern is with protecting an individual's physical integrity. The issue of whether section 7 will be interpreted to include economic rights has not been determined. There can be no doubt that the drafters of the charter intended to protect the rights to life, liberty and security of the person as a primary right which is not to be deprived of, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
We need to celebrate and be proud of our strong history of protecting human rights, including the right to own and dispose of property. Property rights in Canada are adequately protected. From a practical perspective, it is hard to think of a situation where the state would confiscate someone's property without providing for fair compensation. This amendment, to put it quite simply, is not necessary. It will not add anything to the numerous statutes and common laws that already protect the property rights of Canada.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of M-205. I want to commend the work of my colleague from Comox-Alberni for bringing this motion forward and also to note the work done by the member for Yorkton-Melville who has brought in Bill C-284 which has a similar purpose to this motion.
This motion is designed to strengthen and protect the property rights of Canadians. I wholeheartedly support M-205 for many reasons, which I will elaborate on momentarily.
Let me review very quickly what this motion says. M-205 reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should 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 the 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.
2. 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''.It is my pleasure to speak today about this very important motion because I believe in the rights of Canadians, and specifically, the need to strengthen the protection of property rights.
The motion would amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding two sections. The first section would protect Canadians' rights with respect to property. In any case where this right were to be restricted, this motion would guarantee the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The second section gives individual property owners the right to fair compensation for their property and ensures compensation within a reasonable time period.
What I find most surprising in this debate is that it has taken so long for the House to make a clear expression of its support for the protection of property rights. The importance of protecting property rights has long been recognized in Canada and around the world. Property rights are included in the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a signatory. Other democratic countries have already taken the lead in property rights' legislation, including the United States, Germany, Italy and Finland. Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario have also initiated resolutions supporting stronger protection for property rights.
(1110)
The debate about the protection of property rights is not new to the House either. In 1988 a motion to protect property rights received overwhelming support and was adopted as a resolution of the House. This was an example of cross-party support for the protection of property rights in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker of the House at another time and in another capacity expressed the view of the importance of property rights and his concern with the adequate safeguarding of these rights in Canada. In his words: ``We must entrench the right to property in our Constitution. The right to hold and enjoy property provides one of the checks and balances against undue concentration of power in government at any level''.
In fact, many members from the government side have in the past deemed there to be a need for stronger protection of property rights. In the early 1980s Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who had originally written against property rights and the current Prime Minister both expressed the strong desire to strengthen the protection of property rights, so much so that the current government party wanted to go beyond this motion and entrench property rights into the charter of rights and freedoms.
Back in 1980 the current Prime Minister said: ``In deciding which rights should be included in the charter, we have selected only those which we feel reflect the central values of our society. Each of the rights we have listed is an essential ingredient for the charter and all are rights which all Canadians should have regardless of where they live in our country''. This statement was made as part of his presentation to the provinces on the importance of strengthening the protection of property rights by entrenching them in the charter and they were included in his list.
At the time several Canadian provinces as well as the opposition parties at the time frustrated the inclusion of property rights in the charter.
While I am pleased to see that members of the government side, including their leader, have in the past recognized the need to better safeguard this important category of rights, entrenching them into the charter would require a constitutional amendment. This would be problematic, as we are all aware of the difficulty of amending the Constitution at the current time.
The beauty of this motion is that it does not require an amendment to the Constitution. Because this motion targets the bill of rights as opposed to the charter of rights and freedoms, it is easier to amend and well within the jurisdiction of the House.
Another advantage of M-205 is that the motion avoids concerns about encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction. In past debates on the issue concerns were raised about protecting property rights by including them in the charter. The objection was not about the importance of property rights, but rather about the encroachment of the federal government in areas of provincial jurisdiction through the charter.
My colleague, in designing this motion deliberately targeted the bill of rights as opposed to the charter of rights and freedoms. The reason for this is that the charter applies to the provinces as well as to the federal government while the bill of rights applies only to areas of federal jurisdiction. By targeting the bill of rights this motion avoids intruding into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
I would like to add my personal voice as a citizen. I do not believe any level of government should infringe on property rights in an unjust manner.
In the debate following the introduction of this particular motion on property rights, the government members who responded expressed their support for property rights. However, and there is always a but, they said they could not support the motion because they believed property rights already have adequate protection. I am pleased that the members opposite support property rights, but I would challenge them on their assertion that property rights are adequately safeguarded.
The bill of rights makes mention of the right of Canadians to enjoy property. However, this is simply not enough. Section 1(a) of the bill of rights states: ``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''.
Section 2(e) provides that no federal law ``deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights an obligations''.
While I think all members of the House would support the principles outlined in the bill of rights as they apply to property rights, there is a problem. Unfortunately, while the bill of rights mentions property rights, the guarantee of protection and compensation in cases where private property has been surrendered is not explicit. This weakens the level of protection for property rights. Because the bill of rights is a regular statute, it can be overridden by a new federal statute. Without the explicit mention of compensation, a new federal statute could rather easily restrict the right of Canadians to fair and prompt compensation. M-205 would correct this by making explicit the government's requirement to provide fair and prompt compensation in circumstances where it is necessary for an individual to surrender property.
I am quite surprised by the current government's opposition to this motion. While members of the government party previously advocated entrenching property rights in the Constitution, they now seem to believe the status quo is good enough. I fail to see what could have changed their minds.
(1115)
We have had in Parliament the Pearson airport bill which provides a precise example of why we need this kind of protection. While this bill ultimately died, had it been passed it would have cancelled agreements to privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2 of Toronto's international airport. Parts of the bill would have absolved the federal government of any liability associated with the cancellation of the agreements. As we know it would have gone further and even basically cancelled recourse to the courts. This is precisely the kind of example of why we need stronger protection of property rights in this country.
No one is suggesting there are never occasions where it may be necessary for individuals to surrender property. The motion recognizes this possibility. The difference between the status quo and the amendments this motion would bring about is that Motion M-205 would ensure that the property rights of Canadians could not be infringed upon without due process and fair compensation.
The existence of fundamental rights and the importance of fairness and justice are principles that Canadians have come to expect. If the government truly does support the property rights of
Canadians and the principles of fairness and justice, I am confident it should have no reservations about supporting Motion M-205.
Let me add in concluding that we cannot understate the importance of property rights in the maintenance of a free society. We all know that free society and freedom in human history have been a fleeting thing. Only under certain legal, cultural and economic conditions are we able to enjoy the benefits of a free and democratic society.
We had an example of another kind of society in this century in the Soviet Union. We all know that the Soviet Union had one of the most democratic constitutions in the world in terms of its symbolic recognition of rights. What the people of the Soviet Union ultimately lacked was the right to own property. Without the right to own property and without iron clad guarantees that cannot be taken from you except by legal and just processes, all other rights are meaningless. That is precisely what happened in that society. All the other human rights, all the democratic freedoms enunciated in that constitution were absolutely meaningless because there was no fundamental right to property without which there is not a free society.
There are numerous examples in this country of the unjust expropriation of property by governments, governments forcing people to sell land and other material without compensation, without alternatives or without recourse to the courts. I know in Calgary it happened in the establishment of a transportation corridor. There have been other examples. It is not true to say we have adequate protection of property. Until we ensure these rights to property in the bill of rights, the charter and many other pieces of legislation, our freedoms will always be in jeopardy.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Motion M-205 of my colleague from Comox-Alberni.
The defence of property rights is arguably one of the most worthy matters of debate in a democratic society. The weakness of property rights protection in Canada compels us to revisit this issue today.
The 1982 charter of rights and freedoms which protects Canadians' right to life, liberty and the security of the person makes no mention of property rights. For Canadians that protection lies only in the common law tradition and in the bill of rights which guarantees ``the right to enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process''.
Close inspection reveals the guarantees in the bill of rights are only marginal at best. Also, both of these protections which do exist can be overruled by any other statute law. Even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: ``Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property''.
Canadians need stronger guarantees on their right to own private property. Motion M-205 opens up the debate on this issue by highlighting the weaknesses of the present system. It guarantees a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It guarantees fair compensation within a reasonable amount of time. It allows for the protection of the rights of others by prescribing reasonable limits to property rights demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
(1120)
Historically, property rights have been fundamental in the interpretation of individual freedoms. Individuals and democratic nations have defended these rights through history and history has recorded not only the struggles but the consequences for those nations which choose to ignore these basic rights. Take for example, as my colleague has just mentioned, the record of the USSR where lack of property rights, due process and fair compensation left those citizens powerless in the face of an intrusive state.
In short, there are many compelling reasons to discuss property rights. The government has argued against this notion. One of its objections is that property rights should not be unlimited. However this proposed legislation does recognize the importance of establishing parameters as well as offering recourse within the definition of reasonable limits as outlined in the motion.
Thus the proposed legislation continues to protect society for instance against crime even if it is committed on one's own property. More fundamentally, it provides protection for individuals and families when competing interests arise, and it provides redress to ensure protection and consideration for all parties. This is important in a variety of situations including, as has been brought forth by other members, divorce property settlements and recourse in the case of neighbourhood disputes.
Within these parameters however it does offer hope for families with protection against devaluation and confiscation of their property. For example, let us say the government needs access across personal property for a new road or power line. While the motion allows for such action, if it directly affects the family's investment or its very security and future, it also ensures just remuneration in the law. There is no such guarantee in Canadian law today.
The fact that the Liberals have indicated they do not support such a fundamental principle of freedom is troublesome indeed, especially when considering their existing record of abuse of property rights. I can think immediately of Bill C-28 and Bill C-68. Bill C-28 of course revoked the former government's Pearson airport contract without providing due compensation to the contractual
partners. Bill C-68, the gun control bill, has dramatically devalued possibly millions of pieces of private property again without guaranteeing due compensation.
Let us examine in more detail another of the concerns submitted by the justice department. The parliamentary secretary said that environmental legislation must not be restricted by private property protection and alluded to problems in the U.S. over such concerns as protecting endangered species. But in the United States, despite the nation's strong record of private property protection, two pieces of environmental legislation, that is the 1972 Clean Water Act and the 1973 Endangered Species Act, bypassed the constitutional protection of property rights and did so with some scandalous results.
In one case a rancher made a lake on his own property; as a result it classifies as a wetland. Instead of encouraging this private initiative, the U.S. government warned him that he would be charged if he violated wetlands regulations. This included accessing his own property with his own truck.
In another case a land owner was sentenced to three years in prison and a $202,000 fine for violating the Clean Water Act by dumping landfill on his own property without a federal permit. A stream bed that was dry all year except when it backed up briefly during the rainy season justified the reclassification of his property as wetlands. The existence of skunk cabbage and sweet gum trees helped build the government's case which was originated by an unrelated complaint of a disgruntled neighbour who did not like the noise of the trucks driving past his house.
A vast amount of research in recent years has demonstrated the superiority of private property ownership over government regulations in resolving many environmental problems, not least the protection of animal species from extinction. A growing number of environmentalists are among those who are beginning to recognize this fact. Nevertheless, placing ideology before valid research, the environment minister refused to acknowledge competing evidence in a recent op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen.
(1125 )
The plight of the buffalo has been blamed on the tragedy of the commons: the fact that no one owned the buffalo or the land on which they roamed. If they had been privately owned, the owners would have had a vested interest in ensuring that this resource was not destroyed. The illustration of the buffalo is often contrasted with the survival of horses or cattle which have been bred as valuable resources for centuries.
Another illustration of this principle is the ivory trade. Most nations have argued for banning international trade in ivory while elephant numbers continue to decline due to poaching. However in Zimbabwe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government transferred elephant ownership rights to regional tribal councils. This privatization made game ranching possible with substantial profits accruing to the property owners. This financial incentive has guided the behaviour of property owners such that the elephant population in Zimbabwe increased while it declined in the rest of the continent.
Another example of the importance of property rights comes from western Canada. Here there is much debate over the large tree-cutting projects which largely exist on public lands. It is of interest to note that in Sweden not long after forest land was largely sold into private hands, the government had a forestation crisis, not a deforestation crisis, on its hands.
The simple fact is that private ownership is wedded to the reality of sustainability. Forests owned either by individuals or by the companies which harvest them have been shown to fare much better than land purchased from governments at below market value as is done in Canada.
The concept of property rights is evolving with new technologies. The Liberals argue that the protection of these rights should not be stricter so as to accommodate these new issues. One such area that has already been recognized as important and will continue to grow in its importance is intellectual property.
Here again though the government's position appears questionable when compared to the way it uses the existing flexibility in property rights against Canadians. Just this month the front page of Ottawa's leading business paper, the Ottawa Business Journal, featured a story which revealed Industry Canada's violation of business owners' property rights over intellectual property.
The study, which has been buried for a year, revealed that despite a Treasury Board policy that says intellectual property rights belong to the firms contracted by the government, bureaucrats have been claiming these rights for the government. According to testimony from some business owners, especially small business owners, these rights were often surrendered for fear that obstinacy would make it more difficult to win future contracts.
It is this very insecurity, the fear of law-abiding citizens that they cannot appeal to a justice system to protect their basic freedoms and the results of their often many years of hard labour, that is anathema to a free society. Canadians must be assured that their property is protected from the arbitrary hand of government by the guarantees such as those proposed in Motion M-205.
In conclusion, the principle of property rights is basic to the freedoms inherent in a democratic country. As the Liberals refuse to endorse the explicit protection of property rights in law, they perpetuate a troublesome trend of real and potential government
intervention in matters that I say belong not to the state but to the citizens of Canada.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): 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.
(1130 )
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.
2. 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.
(1135 )
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.
(1140)
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.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and support this motion brought forward by my hon. colleague for Comox-Alberni.
I believe he should be commended for his tenacious attitude with regard to this motion. The issue of property rights has been debated in this House of Commons numerous times over the last 30 years and unfortunately for Canadians they still do not enjoy adequate protection of their individual property rights.
The fact that my colleague has been diligent enough on behalf of Canadians to correct this alarming oversight by hammering away at this issue once again shows his dedication and the dedication of the Reform Party to fight for equity and justice.
This issue reminds me of another battle that has been carried out on the floor of the House of Commons throughout the past 20 years. Like property rights, capital punishment has maintained overwhelming support by Canadians. The reinstatement of capital punishment has been favoured by 70 per cent of Canadians since it was abolished 20 years ago. Throughout that time MPs such as me have introduced legislation to fulfil the wishes of the majority.
Unfortunately too many MPs forget that it is their constituents they represent first and foremost. They forget that they are not in Ottawa to conform to the wishes of their political masters or to satisfy their own conscience. They are here to debate and vote on behalf of the people in their constituencies. Instead, as in the case of capital punishment, many have ignored this fact and so it is left to a few select members of this House to hammer away and reintroduce legislation until hopefully someday we will succeed and therefore ultimately Canadians will succeed.
In the matter of property rights we are faced with a similar situation. A poll commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate Association in 1992 showed that 87 per cent of respondents considered the right to own and enjoy property of all kinds a fundamental right.
Another poll by the Canadian Real Estate Board in 1987 found that 81 per cent of Canadians considered it either very or fairly important that the Constitution be amended to include property rights. A 1987 Gallup poll demonstrated that 87 per cent of Canadians supported increased property rights protection.
Needless to say, this all indicates significant and overwhelming support and reflects Canadians' concern that their property rights can too easily be infringed upon. But still there is no guarantee in this country that private property will not be removed for public use and there is no provision that government must provide for fair compensation when it expropriates property for public use.
This is despite numerous attempts by Canadian legislators to protect property rights. As has been mentioned, these legislators include John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau enjoyed excellent support from his justice minister at that time, the current Prime Minister.
(1145)
Unfortunately, these efforts have been impeded by, among other issues, constitutional concerns and protests from provincial governments worried that their jurisdictions were being invaded. For example, during constitutional debates in 1992, the province of Prince Edward Island strongly protested the inclusion of property rights in any constitutional proposals. The premier of P.E.I. at the time went so far as to inappropriately state: ``If we cannot control the destiny of land in Prince Edward Island, we will soon no longer be a province''.
As we in the House are aware, the general sentiment among the majority of Canadians is that they are reluctant to see the constitutional can of worms opened at this time and it is easy to understand why. Fortunately, the motion recognizes this sentiment as well as the misguided fears of certain provinces. It strengthens property rights without constitutional change or the need for provincial consent. It applies only to federal law and the operations of the federal government.
It dictates that the federal government uphold a reasonable standard of fair and just compensation in exchange for personal property. While it does not involve the provinces, it sets a standard to follow and a precedent for individual property rights in the eyes of the law. Regardless of jurisdiction, it will strengthen and respect the rights of Canadians who believe their private property cannot and should not be arbitrarily taken from them by the federal government without compensation.
This is a simple and logical solution that does not infringe on the provinces and shows that the federal government is concentrating on cleaning up its own backyard.
It also rises above partisan politics. As I mentioned earlier, former prime ministers from both the Liberal and Conservative parties have seen fit to support property rights and the current Prime Minister once spoke very strongly of securing them for Canadians.
The Prime Minister's attempts at protecting property rights were unsuccessful. I hope he seizes this opportunity to support the motion which, as I have mentioned, accomplishes the task at a federal level in a relatively simple manner through the Canadian Bill of Rights.
While reviewing the motion and the debate on it, I became concerned that some members were confused about its intended results. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate to all members that this motion does not involve constitutional amendments. I repeat the statement that my colleagues and I have already made today because in past debate the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead in Quebec expressed worry that the motion would limit the ability of a provincial government to legislate in the environmental sector if property rights were enshrined in the Constitution. This motion will affect neither the provinces nor the Constitution.
Another point I would like to clarify with respect to that hon. member's statement from June 10, 1996 involves the importance of property rights to a person's identity. He does not seem to realize the fundamental importance that property rights hold for individuals. In the case of a home or a farm it often identifies who they are and who their ancestors were. It provides them with a heritage, a past, a sense of pride and a constant source of solace in times of difficulty. Certainly I can speak from experience about what has become known as the love of the land, being a farmer, and the pride that comes from the ownership of property.
In the early 1970s hundreds of families in rural communities near Pickering, Ontario were surprised when they began receiving form letters telling them their homes and farms were going to be expropriated to make way for a new international airport. No consultations were carried out with the residents or even with the local municipalities. People were forced to sell homes and land which some families had occupied for nearly 170 years. The federal government expropriated 7,527 hectares for an airport it never built.
Since they were expropriated the lands and homes of these Canadians have been mismanaged by Public Works Canada on behalf of the transport minister. The loving care that many owners put into their homesteads suffered vandalism and bulldozing. One of these homeowners, who is now in his seventies, said: ``I could not believe the government's arrogance. It made me absolutely livid''.
(1150)
After suffering through the tragedy of having their homes and farmland taken from them and witnessing its destruction, these people were enraged at the federal government's declaration two years ago that 2,000 of these hectares were now deemed surplus. How could anyone bear the indignity, frustration and heartache of having their homes taken from them, then hear that part of their heritage was being declared surplus?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Shame.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): That is right. Shame on government. With this motion, fiascos such as this would not be allowed to happen. The federal government would not be permitted to arrogantly, without consultation and fair process, expropriate a family's homestead for a project that would probably never happen.
In the matter of other property, to have it taken away, also leaves an individual feeling violated and helpless. I agree to a point that these are only material goods and pale in significance to the well-being of loved ones or to freedom or to the other fundamental rights.
Members have to keep in mind that we are talking about an individual's property being expropriated by the federal government. If that process is not done fairly and with due compensation, it can be traumatic and as consequential as losing a loved one, particularly in the case of a property that has been in a family for generations.
In the case of freedom, can it truly be said that Canadians enjoy freedom when an individual is free to possess property only until the government has need for it or decides to take it away for some supposedly higher public purpose.
As previously noted in the House by some of my colleagues, there is no doubt that the legitimate owner of a firearm does not feel he or she is a free citizen of Canada when the federal government can dictate whether he or she will be allowed to keep property.
This is a frightening concept in what is supposed to be one of the leading industrialized and free nations in the world. It makes me feel as though we really have not come very far since the internment and expropriation of property from 22,000 Japanese Canadians during the second world war. At that time, the federal government said a higher purpose should supersede an individual's property rights. The federal government has a responsibility to its citizens and a responsibility to govern by example.
This motion would not limit the federal government to never being able to expropriate land for public works projects. However it would ensure that owners are guaranteed that any expropriations would be carried out in a fair and reasonable way, consistent with the standard expected in a free and democratic society. It would also mean that there would have to be fair compensation for expropriation.
There have been many embarrassing incidents in Canadian history that involve the unjust seizure of property by the federal government. As members of the House will acknowledge, we continue to grapple with the fallout of these injustices to this day.
Motion No. 205 will ensure that future generations and MPs are not left to remedy any further violations the federal government might commit in the absence of property rights' protection. It is the least we can expect from a responsible government in a free and democratic society. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues on both side of the House to please support this motion.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, members of the House will know that I have used, from time to time, New Zealand examples to press home how important it was for us to get on top of our debt and deficit problems in order to create an investment climate that would create jobs. I have used these New Zealand examples not because New Zealand has done everything right but because we can learn from the experiences of other countries and choose the best things to implement here in Canada.
There are lessons to be learned from history and the experiences of others in connection with property rights as well. We can easily see that by taking a look at the enormous amount of historical material available to us.
We know the history of ancient Rome and Greece, China, Egypt and Mesopotamia. We know what happened in classical times, medieval times and in the industrial revolution right through to modern times. We know plenty about Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Russia, Cambodia, sub-Saharan Africa, you name it. By studying the historical records of those times and places we can quickly see that when governments do not respect property rights, the people eventually end up living in poverty and misery.
(1155)
Perhaps it starts innocently enough. A government promises to regulate the economy for the common good, redistribute the wealth more fairly, make the rich pay their fair share, close the loopholes. I have a feeling I have heard this stuff somewhere before. It is a naive assumption that the government knows best and that the average citizen needs to be protected from himself.
History is full of examples. Whether they are headed by madmen like Stalin or Hitler or by well-meaning dreamers like Nehru or Nyerere, they always fail. Along the way they produce conflict instead of peace, famine instead of plenty. Instead of more and better rights than those we hold in the line that we receive from the
Magna Carta, they deliver fewer and lesser rights. They promise a gilded cage and they deliver only the cage.
I challenge members to name one society that respected property rights where the people were not happier and better off for it. I challenge them to name one society that did not have property rights where the people are not more miserable as a result of that. The more protected the right to property, the better the living conditions and the better the societal order.
History also teaches us that where property rights are not respected, neither are personal rights. Along with the loss of property rights comes loss of liberty, loss of freedom of speech, loss of decency in society.
In her speech earlier today, my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam mentioned the benefits of transferring ownership of forests into private hands, for example. She gave an example of how sustainability was ensured by transferring the property rights to private hands. This same benefit can be seen in New Zealand which has transferred part of its forests to the private sector. It raised $2.5 billion to pay off the final portion of its foreign debt by doing so. What results from that is we have private investors who have to protect that property in order to recover the $2.5 billion investment and to receive an ongoing income. It is the guarantee of sustainability, it is the guarantee of replanting of those forests and it means that the government now is only in a regulatory role, instead of interfering in the marketplace.
Similar experiments with ownership of lakes have shown that when a camp ground owns the lake it makes sure there is no pollution in that lake. It makes sure that fish are stocked in that lake. With private ownership comes the desire to protect the property.
Property rights are the foundation of a decent and responsible society. They are the most important human right. It amazes me that we have a Constitution and charter of rights that guarantees the lengthy avoidance of deportation by known criminals and bogus refugees, but it does not guarantee property rights to law-abiding citizens. It amazes me that we have a Constitution and charter of rights that permits crimes to be committed without penalty by people who are under the influence of drink or drugs, but it does not guarantee property rights to law-abiding citizens. Canadians are supposed to feel good about their Constitution and charter but for the most part they are frustrated by it and with it.
Motion 205 put forward by the Reform Party member for Comox-Alberni is an excellent one. I urge all members to support it for our own well-being.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the support I have received from my colleagues with regard to this motion. It is fundamental to freedom in our society and I think the point has been made adequately.
In summary, it must be pointed out to the government that property rights are not adequately protected in Canada. Things are happening today that are not acceptable in a free and democratic society and the examples given clearly demonstrated that. We have to ask the question: Why would a government not want to protect them more adequately so that all citizens could go about their business with the freedom to which they are entitled?
(1200)
In summary, there are three reasons property rights are good: they make a society richer; they protect the freedom of individuals; and they protect the environment. Those are the arguments we as Reformers have been trying to make.
Property rights make society richer in that they spur the creative effort of individuals to improve their own circumstances. Property rights are a guarantee that we get to keep what we own, we can dispose of what we own, enjoy the fruits of our labour and our property cannot be arbitrarily taken from us even by government. These rights are important to an economy such as ours. For societies to flourish and for things to be as they should, countries need to guarantee those property rights.
People should be free to make their own decisions about how to best use their possessions, including the fruits of their labour. For those not already enjoying material wealth, their labour is the most valuable thing they own. It is particularly important that everyone be guaranteed the right to improve their situation and benefit from the improvements they make. In the long run the right to make decisions about one's own life and work is the foundation of human dignity.
My last point is that property rights protect the environment. The problem of pollution is not that people pollute their own surroundings, but that they pollute the surroundings of others around them, including air and water. Without property rights, a distant government rather than the afflicted individual makes a judgment about how much pollution should be allowed. Governments weigh the political benefits of such pollution against the political costs and most often favour the polluter.
In conclusion, this debate highlights the fundamental difference between a Reformer and a Liberal. In order to maintain a free and democratic society, individual rights must be protected. This is something that must be fundamentally supported by every member in this House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.