| HOUSE
OF COMMONS The House met at 11 a.m. _______________ Prayers
[English] CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion. 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 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. |