CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 065 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, February 23, 1998 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 4243 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, February 23, 1998 The House met at 11 a.m. themselves from liability. In short they tried to confiscate property and then place themselves above the law. _______________ However, pressure from the Senate, threatened lawsuits and Prayers questions concerning the constitutionality of the bill led to its collapse. All the while the former justice minister, now our health _______________ minister, insisted that everything was above board and that Bill C-22 was totally conventional. This gives some insight into the mentality of Liberals and their position on the rights of Canadian PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS citizens. Although the Liberals backed down on Bill C-22, they went on to D (1105) introduce Bill C-65. This bill dealt with endangered species in [English] Canada. Serious concerns were raised about the effect this legisla- tion would have on the property rights of landowners. Specifically PROPERTY RIGHTS some landowners were afraid that the government would confiscate their property in an attempt to protect endangered species. Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved: That, in the opinion of this House, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be Again the Liberals downplayed the legitimate concerns of amended to recognize the right of every person to own, use and enjoy property; and landowners and treated those questioning excessive government to not be deprived of that right without full, just and timely compensation and the powers in Bill C-65 as environmental terrorists. Thankfully Bill due process of law. C-65 died on the Order Paper as a result of the 1997 election, He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to lead off debate on however it is still waiting in the wings and there is little doubt that Motion No. 269. the government will reintroduce the bill in the near future. Before it does so, our debate here today gives all opposition parties the The motion seeks to amend the charter of rights and freedoms to opportunity to go on the record as to where they stand on the include property rights. At present there is no mention of property property rights of landowners. rights and therefore no protection from confiscation of personal property by the government. There is no requirement for the Unfortunately the Liberals’ legislative assault on property rights government to provide compensation to an individual if Ottawa did not end with Bill C-65. They went much further with the confiscates their property. introduction of Bill C-68. More than any other initiative, the Liberals’ misguided gun control legislation has sparked a national This Liberal government has become a master at violating the discussion on property rights. property rights of Canadians. Whether it is gun control, the Canadian Wheat Board, endangered species legislation or direct to Armed with the provisions contained in Bill C-68, the justice home satellite systems, this government has demonstrated a blatant minister is able to pass order in council regulations and confiscate disregard for the property of Canadians. All Canadians should be the rightful property of Canadian firearms owners. I am speaking concerned that the Liberal government so easily and so quickly of property which has been duly acquired. The owner has paid tramples on their rights in order to achieve certain specific policy taxes on the firearm and complied with all other regulations. goals. Regardless of this, along come the Liberals who say to law-abid- It is clear from the actions of this government that it has no ing gun owners ‘‘We are going to take your property because we regard for the property rights of Canadians. As a result I have know what is best for you. We are socially re-engineering Canada introduced Motion No. 269. into a gentler, kinder society’’. That is what the Liberals say. Red flags surrounding this issue were first raised during the 35th D (1110) Parliament when the Liberals introduced Bill C-22. This bill dealt with the cancellation of the Pearson airport development contract. It is ironic that these same Liberals have created a justice system The Liberals attempted to annul binding contracts and then exempt where rapists walk out of courtrooms because of conditional 4244 COMMONS DEBATES February 23, 1998 Private Members’ Business sentencing. Young offenders who kill are sentenced to a few Without the strong protection of property rights, the social months at youth internment centres. Serial killers are given the engineers have the upper hand. It is in their power to decree what is tools through section 745 of the Criminal Code to revictimize their acceptable and what is not, what is safe and what is not and what victims’ families. That is the record of this government when it we should do and what we should not do. Property rights are not comes to engineering a kinder society. Criminals are given the gold just about firearms or land or satellite dishes; property rights are mine while law-abiding gun owners get the shaft. about freedom. But do not take my word for it. Listen to the comments made by Members of the House will know that C-68 is being challenged our present Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa. In in the courts with respect to its infringement on provincial jurisdic- 1985 he delivered a speech in Edmonton where he said ‘‘I believe tion in the area of property rights. Four provinces and the territories we must entrench the right to property in our Constitution. The had the good sense to stand against this bill and its attack on the right to hold and enjoy property provides one of the checks and fundamental rights and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians. balances against undue concentration of power in government at any level’’. Treating ordinary Canadians worse than violent criminals is nothing new to this government. David Bryan, a Saskatchewan Even the creator of big government, Prime Minister Pierre farmer who tried to sell his grain outside the Canadian Wheat Trudeau, was an advocate of property rights during the repatriation Board has been led around courtrooms in shackles. His heinous of the Constitution. However, property rights did not make it into crime: trying to sell his own crop, his own property without the the final draft of the charter. permission of the Canadian Wheat Board. In the eyes of the Canadian Wheat Board, David Bryan does not own his grain, Members should be interested to know that property rights are Ottawa does. entrenched in the United States constitution. Article 5 of amend- ments to the U.S. constitution reads in part ‘‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor Russ Larson who attended Mr. Bryan’s trial said ‘‘It is like we shall private property be taken for public use without just com- are peasants who are supposed to grow grain, turn it over to them pensation’’. and shut up’’. In other words, you work for the Canadian Wheat Board not for yourself. The grain is the property of the government, Opponents of my motion may argue that property rights are not the producer. already guaranteed under John Diefenbaker’s bill of rights but that is not true. The bill of rights is simply a statute which can be overridden by any government legislation. Incidentally, only farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manito- ba are subject to the violation of their property rights. Farmers in other provinces can market their crops however they see fit. That is The Library of Parliament concluded that ‘‘there is no require- why farmers on the prairies are increasingly referring to the wheat ment in Canadian constitutional law that compulsory taking of property be effected by a fair procedure or that it be accompanied board as the OWB, the Ottawa wheat board, because it is run by by fair compensation to the owner’’. bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians in Ottawa instead of by western farmers. D (1115) Motion No. 269 allows all parties in this House an opportunity to rise and defend the property rights of farmers. I also challenge In a March 1995 paper on property rights the Library of members of this House to rise and defend the rights of Canadians Parliament determined that ‘‘in Canada there is no constitutional guarantee for compensation and that the power of the government who choose to watch what they want on television. in this area is unlimited’’. Motion No. 269 seeks to place limits on the government and Ottawa’s ability to simply strip Canadians of Direct to home satellite owners have been compared to drug their personal property. pushers by the industry minister simply because they are using American hardware and services. Direct to home satellite owners This is not the first time property rights have been discussed in have been threatened that their equipment may be confiscated by the House, and I know it will not be the last. My hon. colleague the RCMP. Customs officials have seized direct to home satellite from Yorkton—Melville led the charge on this issue in the 35th equipment that is being imported from the United States of Parliament. I am pleased to help advance the cause of property America, equipment on which all duties have been paid and which rights in this parliamentary session. rightfully belongs to the Canadian retailer or wholesaler.