PROPERTY RIGHTS: THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM
By Garry Breitkreuz, MP – Saturday, May 6, 2006

GARRY’S TOPIC: Why Property Rights Should be Constitutionally Protected in Canada

Good morning. It is a much greater challenge to face this discerning group of intellectuals that the entire House of Commons full of Liberals.

I don’t know how many times a day; people call my office and essentially begin the conversation with something like: “The government should…”

And they generally go on to explain how money should be spent on a certain project that follows along with their interests.

Invariably, they are stepping on the toes of those who don’t call me. Those who lobby me – don’t see themselves as asking their neighbours to fork over bundles of cash to them but rather see government as a faceless, lifeless soul that disperses an endless amount of goodies to those that are best at extracting largess from it.

The citizens of this country have been so conditioned to think this way over the years that very few even question the ethics of what is happening in the managing of tax dollars today.

I was once tossed out of a union negotiating strategy meeting for questioning whether we as teachers should be asking for a pay raise that would extract more taxes from farmers (i.e. property owners) that were my neighbours. I suggested we should focus more on doing a really good job so that they would willingly raise our pay. I was told that that kind of thinking was not helpful to the cause of education. Better paid teachers would do better work I was told.

My greatest battle and the most difficult part of the job is for those in politics to convince the public and some of my colleagues that property rights are beneficial – and a foundation for conservativism. And that they are not some arbitrary choice we make when we choose whether we are liberal or conservative but rather they are at the heart of what makes for a vibrant, healthy society.

My main opponent in my constituency of Yorkton-Melville, Saskatchewan is the NDP. All they have to do in their campaign against me is say, “That guy has more than I do and I deserve some of it and I want you to get it for me.”

I believe property rights are at the very core of the political debate in a democratic society – especially in Canada.

The right to own and enjoy property is what – I believe – differentiates the left from the right in their view of the role of government. The more respect one has for property rights – the further right on the political spectrum you would be.

Manny, many editorial writers rip politicians at one time or another for doing what they do – succumb to public sentiment on issues. Why? Because the public has so little knowledge of what makes society work. Many believe property rights hurt a society.

Very few commentators in the national media seem to defend property rights adequately which makes a politician’s life in our system of democracy very difficult.

That is why we need to constitutionally protect property rights in Canada and renew the debate over their importance.

Just to show you the division in politics, let me give you two quotes.

On January 9, 2006 during the first Leaders; debate the Leader of the Conservative Party fired a shot across the podiums of his opponents that none of them expected and few understood. The soon-to-be Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared [quote]: “I think our Charter provides a balance and that's why I support the present construction of the Charter," he said, adding that “property rights should be included in it.”

To show the Liberal’s contempt for property rights the soon-not-to-be Prime Minster Paul Martin responded [quote]: “Stephen Harper has proposed to introduce property rights into the charter -- the very kind of rights that in the U.S. were used to take away child labour laws, workplace safety rules.”

SAY WHAT?

Even Communist China has put property rights in their constitution – Why not Canada?

The Conservative Property Rights Policy states:

i) A Conservative Government will seek the agreement of the provinces to amend the Constitution to include this right, as well as guarantee that no person shall be deprived of their just right without the due process of law and full, just, and timely compensation.
ii) A Conservative Government will enact legislation to ensure that full, just and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.

Now to answer the question: So Why Property Rights Should be Constitutionally Protected in Canada?

As Lorne Gunter stated in a great speech on February 1, 2003 entitled: PROPERTY RIGHTS: The Key to Freedom, Prosperity AND Equality [quote]: “The right to own and enjoy property is the most basic human right. Being free to own property doesn't mean much if you aren't also free to enjoy it - to use it - pretty much as you see fit. The right to own and enjoy property is the fulcrum on which all other rights balance. First, it is your right to own property, not just your ownership of property that makes you free. Frankly, the notion that only those who already own property benefit from property rights is Marxist. Merely in order to preserve your right to own property at some point in the future, government must restrain itself in the present. The right to own property is as much about potential ownership as actual ownership. Second, our socialist age has far too narrow an understanding of property. You likely already own far more property than you know. Property is not just land and buildings. It's your ideas, your body, even your ability to earn a living using your ideas and your labour - all of them are your property.”

And, as Murdoch Davis wrote in a Southam News Editorial on January 10, 2002 [quote]: “The right to acquire, use, enjoy and transfer property -- land, buildings, vehicles, intellectual property and more -- is fundamental to liberty. And Canadians are naive to rely on governments to respect ownership rights without a constitutional guarantee, considering the patchy record of those governments. Private property rights serve two purposes. They have economic utility, and they help guarantee political liberty. Private property keeps power diffuse. It strengthens individual autonomy from government. Property rights and the protection of contracts form the legal foundation of the free-enterprise system. They create incentives by rewarding owners for wise stewardship and maximizing the productive use of resources.”

On July 17, 2003, the Supreme Court reminded all Canadians that they have no rights whatsoever when the Federal government decides to take their property. In the Supreme Court’s judgment in the class-action suit Authorson v. Canada, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government and against the property rights of mentally disabled war veterans. The government had amended the Veteran Affairs Act to avoid paying hundreds of millions in interest on pension benefits the government had held in trust for about 30,000 veterans. The Supreme Court ruled [quote]: “Parliament has the right to expropriate property, even without compensation, if it has made its intention clear and, in section 5.1(4), Parliament's expropriative intent is clear and unambiguous.”

It may be clear but it’s hardly right! Until we can amend the charter, property rights need to be strengthened in federal law. If not, the government will continue to take lawfully-owned and enjoyed property away from Canadians without due process and without full and fair compensation.

Just like the federal government did when they expropriated 97,000 acres of Quebec’s best farmland to make way for the Mirabel Airport. Despite the fact that 3,200 farm families were displaced only 5,000 acres were ever used for airport operations.

Just like the federal government did when they passed the Species at Risk Act without a guarantee that property owners will get fair market value for their land taken out of production.

Just like the federal government does every year when they force thousands of western grain farmers to sell their wheat to the government at a lower price than they can get on the open market.

Just like the federal government did when they proposed Animal Cruelty legislation that would affect billions of dollars worth of property without providing any legal means for those affected to receive fair, just and timely compensation or fair treatment by the courts for the manner in which their operations would be affected by this legislation and by the regulations that implement it.

Just like the federal government did when they banned 568,000 legally-owned, registered firearms and severely restricted the legal ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens with the passage of Bill C-68 in 1995 while at the same time refusing to provide fair, just and timely compensation for the drop in value or outright confiscation of this private property owned and safely stored by these law-abiding citizens.

Just like the federal government’s 2005 proposal to ban millions and millions of dollars of privately-owned lead fishing lures and sinkers based on a single bogus scientific study.

In 2005, Pollara Research conducted a telephone survey 1,260 Canadian adults and an Internet survey of 8,000 consumers on behalf of the Canadian Real Estate Association.

Question 1 asked: “How important is it to you the government fairly compensates a property owner if their property is expropriated?"

Question 2 asked: “How important is it to you the government fairly compensates a property owner if restrictions are imposed on how their property is used?”

Clearly the people are one our side when you draw their attention to a specific issue.

In 1948, the United Nations ratified the Declaration of Human Rights, including Canada I might add. Article 17 of the Declaration reads: “(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others; and (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

In 1960, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker passed his Canadian Bill of Rights into law. The first fundamental human right and freedom protected by that landmark piece of legislation is: 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.

Despite important legal precedents, property rights were deliberately omitted from the Charter of Rights. Professor Peter Hogg wrote about this serious omission in his book, Constitutional Law of Canada – Third Edition [quote]: “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 the government. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with power over purely economic interests of individuals or corporations.”

Professor Hogg also wrote, “The product is a section 7 in which liberty must be interpreted as not including property, as not including freedom of contract, and, in short, as not including economic liberty.”

Rather than try to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, my Private Members Bill C-223 proposes to provide adequate protection of property rights in federal law by strengthening the property rights provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Canadian Bill of Rights as it currently is worded, protects only three things; the right to the enjoyment of property, the right not to be deprived of property except by due process, and finally the right to a fair hearing. Unfortunately the Bill of Rights does not prevent the arbitrary taking of property, and that is a very serious matter.

My Property Rights Bill would amend the Bill of Rights to provide these added protections for Canadian citizens from the arbitrary decisions made by the federal government to take their property – either directly or indirectly – by outright expropriation or by regulation.

My bill would ensure that every person’s property rights would be guaranteed in every law in Canada unless it is expressly declared that the Act shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights. An adoption of a declaration of notwithstanding would require the votes of at least two-thirds of the sitting Members of the House of Commons. That’s two-thirds of 308 MPs! That’s 206 MPs would have to vote against protecting our property rights!

This is not tying the hands of the federal government but it’s making the knot a lot tougher to untie.

My greatest battle is to convince the public in general that property rights are beneficial. I have never been lobbied as hard in the past dozen years as I have in the past 100 days.

The size of government, the complexity of the laws is a result of the disrespect for property rights. If only we could start over again – don’t murder, don’t tell lies, honor your father and mother, don’t commit adultery and DON’T STEAL!

Copies of my bill are available at the front.

Thank you and I would be happy to take your questions.