Mr. Deputy Speaker:

It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to enter into this debate on property rights and their future entrenchment in our Constitution. I do not think any one issue has bothered me more, nor have I received more letters on any issue than I have on this one. Almost all of my constituents would like to see property rights entrenched in our Constitution. It amazes them that they are not.

It is a well acknowledged, intrinsic human desire to own property, and one would think that to have ownership protected legally could almost be taken for granted in a democracy such as ours. However, we must not forget that it was not a simple oversight that left property rights out of our Constitution.

The Conservative Party proposed that this fundamental right be included in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1981 during the original drafting of the Charter. For a time, this worthy proposal was accepted by the then Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). However, due to political pressures from

the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Government quickly reversed itself and withdrew the property rights amendment.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party is quoted in Hansard of April 29, 1983 at page 25001, as having said in 1981 the following:

There's no way we can accept the constitutional resolution with that amendment in it.

The NDP fears the amendment could not only prevent provincial legislation restricting foreign owners-but could hinder Governments wishing to nationalize industries ...

The Conservative amendment flies in the face of what we're attempting to do in the resource sector-tightening up management control-

Prime Minister Trudeau and the then Liberal Government, by making a deal with the NDP, sacrificed Canadians' constitutional guarantee of this basic human right. Therefore, when the Constitution of Canada was patriated in 1982, only three of the four basic human rights were entrenched.

The terrible consequences of not adequately protecting our right to property in the Constitution have already been clearly demonstrated. Past Governments have repeatedly and needlessly seized land while offering little or no compensation. In recent years, the Liberals did that twice, with the shameless confiscation of the frontier lands for the National Energy Program and with the expropriation of land for Mirabel airport.

While the Liberals should be embarrassed by these violations of property rights, members of the NDP openly plot to violate these very same rights in order to realize their socialist ambitions. They oppose the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution because it would be a serious impediment to their policy of nationalization and economic intervention.

The American people recently celebrated the two-hundredth anniversary of their Constitution. What struck me about that event was the pride exhibited by the American people and their realization that a Constitution is a living document. It enunciates basic principles which are then, over time, further defined, added to and, most important, put into practice.

We do not want a Canadian Constitution that remains flawed, incomplete and so inextricably mired in the status quo that it loses its effectiveness and relevance. The majority of Canadians want property rights entrenched in our Constitution.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on April 15, 1987, indicated that with the Meech Lake Accord now under way we could begin to look at other constitutional issues such as property rights. He stated then that the successful resolution of the Quebec issue would unlock the constitutional process and allow us to turn our attention to other issues such as property rights in a second round of constitutional discussions.

I would remind Hon. Members that this Government was elected with a mandate for national reconciliation. The Prime Minister stated that a key element of such reconciliation was Quebec's signature on the Constitution. The provincial

April 29, 1988

premiers agreed, and at their Edmonton conference in 1986, stated that Quebec should be the paramount constitutional issue and that other issues, as important as they are, should be dealt with following the resolution of Quebec's concerns.

Given the important and pressing nature of those other constitutional issues such as Senate reform, fisheries, and of course property rights, this decision by the premiers reflected a truly national vision. It was in that spirit that First Ministers succeeded in reaching an agreement with Quebec through the Meech Lake Accord. In recognition of the other constitutional issues, the Accord includes the requirement for an annual conference of First Ministers to examine these matters.

I believe that for the House to proceed with the motion before us at this time would be inconsistent with the Premiers' declaration and the agreed upon process. We must recognize that for this amendment to be adopted consent of a number of provinces will be required, and we should not act in a manner that would make obtaining that support more difficult.

Accordingly I am proposing an amendment to the motion that will send a strong signal of support by the House of Commons for the principle of entrenched property rights but will leave formal adoption until the First Ministers have dealt with the issue. I believe that a demonstration of support for the principle by the House of Commons would provide a strong impetus to those discussions while respecting the process agreed upon by First Ministers.

I would also remind Hon. Members that there are ongoing federal-provincial discussions with respect to this issue. That work will continue and, I hope, will build a consensus for First Ministers to act. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey):

That Motion M-8 be amended by deleting all of the words after "amended", and substituting the following:

"In order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, after an assessment of the continuing federal-provincial work on entrenchment of property rights and a future discussion by First Ministers at the Constitutional Conference."

I would like to inform Hon. Members that this amendment is available in both official languages.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I will take the amendment under advisement for a few moments. In the meantime, the Chair has received notice of a question of privilege.

Privilege-Mr. Della Noce

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House, because yesterday, my colleague from Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) raised a question of privilege. I would like to put the record straight, since I am directly involved in this Committee, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-93. My colleague said that:

... I had occasion just over a month ago, on March 22, to raise a question of privilege relating to a denial of the Government, through the House leadership refusing to present a motion authorizing the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to visit the regions of Canada to hear from persons in the ethnocultural groups and multicultural organizations in response to the report of the committee.

Thursday morning, that is yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a very similar matter arose in the Legislative Committee which is dealing with the Multiculturalism Bill. I will not read Citation 16 of Beauchesne's again, but only emphasize that Members of Parliament who have responsibilities to deal with matters of public policy need to be aware of what the Canadian people think about these matters. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I personally suggested inviting five groups to appear before the Committee.

Naturally, since it did not come from him, my colleague was startled, he even left the meeting. Perhaps that is why he did not hear all the facts, those recorded on page 14937 of the House of Commons Debates for April 28, 1988, Mr. Speaker. It is totally false. What he says is not true!

He says, "Submissions from five of these six organizations will be denied." Mr. Speaker, I say that is totally false. I said that five of the six would be heard. That is not quite the same thing. I do not know why the NDP Members feel so persecuted now, but five of the six will be heard, because the sixth told us that they probably could not attend since they are from Vancouver. I had even suggested that the committee pay the expenses for these organizations coming from Toronto, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Regina and even Fredericton and Vancouver. 1 believe that this properly represents Canada's duality, but these groups wanted to be heard and I have no problem with doing so.

My colleague who left the meeting before the end ... I even amended my motion, Mr. Speaker, because five groups in two hours is really a bit rushed. But my amendment was very clear. In my amendment, I agreed that each group be given an hour, which is much more than the committees give, that is an hour for someone to read a brief and there is no more time for questions.

April 29, 1988

Property Rights

I say that the Speaker was still very fair and I agree with him when he says that it is a decision for the Committee, and not the Elouse, to make. But the Committee was clear and it is too bad that I have to restate the facts because we will not hear five group in two hours, but five groups in five hours.

Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) who rose yesterday afternoon on this question of privilege could not be in the House today. I am somewhat curious about your decision to allow this question of privilege to be entertained during Private Members' Business hour.

I should like to deal briefly with the issues raised by the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce). He argues for the fact that a small number of ethno cultural groups will be allowed to appear before the Legislative Committee dealing with Bill C-93. My friend the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon claimed yesterday in the House that his privileges as a Member had been denied by the Government majority which refused to allow an adequate number of sittings for community groups to express their views on this important legislation.

As my hon. friend emphasized, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council was the only non-governmental organization which has been heard so far. There are groups by the dozens which wanted to make representations, review the bill and suggest improvements, which will all be excluded. And to start with the Government refused the Legislative Committee permission to travel in order to hear the views Canadians would like to express on the Bill. Now, the Government has imposed a time limit whereby only five groups will have a chance to testify for a one hour period each.

Here is something totally inadequate, Mr. Speaker, and this is why the Hon. Member rose on a question of privilege, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will sustain every Member's right to a full and adequate consideration of a Bill as important as Bill C-93, instead of an inadequate consideration such as that put forward by Members of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I think it is neither necessary nor useful to hear other Members on this question.

The question was raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and it appears on page 14937 of the Official Record of the Debates.

I thank the Hon. Members for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for their representations today, but I do think that all Hon. Members will understand that the Speaker's decision stands.

So we continue the debate with the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey).

Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place and support the motion placed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), calling for the inclusion of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, many groups and individual Canadians have lobbied for the entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian Charter, and many provincial bodies and Governments have also expressed to the federal Government their commitment to this goal.

Because the inclusion of property rights involves a constitutional amendment, we should not become discouraged over the complexities involved, but rather keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of Canadians favoured the inclusion of property rights in the Charter at the time of the initial debate. There are many precedents for property rights to be entrenched in the Charter, even going back as far back as 1215 when the Magna Carta referred to it. Many of us in the House have ancestors who came to this country because it was a land of opportunity, and with their own sweat and labour they conquered the wilderness and made Canada what it is today.

A few weeks ago in my riding I discussed this issue with my friend, Mr. Herb Parker, a member of the Political Action Committee of the Chatham-Kent Real Estate Board. He pointed out several local concerns. We generally concluded that it seems to boil down to an over-abundance of laws which restrict or remove property rights placed upon citizens in Ontario by the provincial Government, and many people are unaware of the restrictions.

Most of these laws are necessary and acceptable individually, and they are in place for many good reasons. But when one puts them all together and counts them up, it becomes a little scary. There are 223 public statutes, 61 private statutes, and 86 regulatory passages which allow entry on to your land and mine, Mr. Speaker, without warning.

As individuals we live in a co-operative society. In order to enhance that society and to protect our health, livelihood, well-

April 29, 1988

being, and lifestyles, certain individual rights may be removed or restricted. My friend, Herb Parker, has no argument with that, nor do I. However he argues that the sheer number of such laws, particularly the vast grey area of laws, which on the surface sound good and have excellent intentions, in all practical ways create excessive confusion and the possibility of jeopardizing basic rights.

Entrenchment is not a threat to provincial rights. It will not prevent necessary expropriations for government projects. It will not upset good and orderly government. However, it will stand as a visible and powerful symbol that Canada still represents freedom and will provide individuals with a fair and just hearing before the courts in the case of property right disputes.

I was not a Member of the House when the original Charter was drawn up. I have spent some time reading the speeches made by those who were here at that time. I must say that when I was finished researching this issue I was fairly confused. Reading the lines, and the between the lines, I saw that members of all Parties appeared to support the idea of property rights. However, after endless debate on the subject, we have reached the point at which we are today-going through the exercise again.

A few weeks ago, while sitting in this House, I heard the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) reflecting on the trade-off of issues to get the Charter in place. Yes, the original resolution was debated in this House almost endlessly. In fact, by the time it was all over, debate in the House and in committee had taken well over 150 days. The give and take process between the Government and the Opposition resulted in this very important subject being left out. According to the Hon. Member for York Centre, it was actually traded out in order to get NDP support in 1982. That is a very unfortunate situation.

The right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property is fundamental in a democracy such as Canada. I would like to quote the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on the subject. He said, in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), "Property rights are the most fundamental of individual rights. It is unfortunate that they were not included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a protected right. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce urges the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads: 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"'. The President went on to say that the chamber was encouraged by the Prime Minister's undertaking on April 15, 1987 to include this subject in round two of the constitutional discussions with the provinces.

Property Rights

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is not the only organization to support a property rights amendment. This was further indicated by the Canadian Real Estate Association in October of that same year when its President referred to the Gallup poll commissioned by the Association which indicated that 84 per cent of home owners and 74 per cent of renters support a property rights amendment.

The President of the Canadian Real Estate Association said, "The results are a powerful message to Members of Parliament and provincial politicians that Canadians take their property rights seriously and want them in the Constitution". The poll was released on the first day of National Private Property Week sponsored annually by the Association to remind Canadians of the rights and obligations of property ownership.

The right to enjoy property is the only one of the fundamental freedoms that was left out of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights when it was proclaimed in 1982. In the spring of 1983 my Party, which was then the Official Opposition, introduced in Parliament a resolution to entrench property rights that was defeated because of the amendment procedures of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

During the last election campaign my Party again took the position that it supported the entrenchment of property rights in the Charter with due protection for the rights of women under family law regimes. I distinctly recall that subject coming up over and over again in my own campaign.

Canadians, most of whom are property owners, are in favour of property rights. This has been borne out countless times through surveys and polls. People are unable at the present time to challenge alleged infringements against their property rights in the courts on the basis of the Charter. The obvious solution now is an amendment to the Charter as my hon. friend has proposed. The required provincial consent should not pose an insurmountable problem, and some of the provinces have already acted in that regard.

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):

Mr. Speaker, this motion and its amendment, if I am allowed to address the amendment before you have approved it, is an absolutely essential requirement for society. Perhaps prior to the creation of a Constitution some years ago it was not as important as it is today, but in that Constitution we deprived this House and virtually all legislative bodies of the right to create laws within the guidelines of the power of government which was, of course, delineated by the Act of 1867 that created Canada in the first place. At that particular time it was hoped that in future law would be interpreted by the courts of the land as it had been interpreted, that there would be precedent which would prevail in the judgment, and that specific laws and interpretations, once made, would be respected.

We now find that when a case goes to the Supreme Court, if a defendant or a prosecutor presents to that court a precedent or a particular law which is relevant to the case but may not be

April 29, 1988

Property Rights

identical to the case, the court is inclined to question the legal representation by saying: "What has precedent to do with it; what has this or that to do with it?" As far as Canada is concerned, we have seen the legislative capability of the Supreme Court, particularly as it was expressed with respect to its decision on abortion.

We have resided in this land since the earliest settlers arrived here with the concept that we did in fact own land; that if we had bought and paid for it, it was our possession as much as the clothes on our backs were presumed to be our possession. However, under this Constitution, as I see it, we are now in the position where nothing is finite which is not in the Constitution itself and everything is subject to interpretation.

That was obvious to some of us when the Constitution was presented in the first place. However, it was impossible to get amendments, either to add the right to own land or to give a finite capability to the legislative bodies which exist in our dominion.

While there may have been some reservations about the ownership of land, we have reached a time when the philosophical types of decision we have seen in the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts demand that there be no opportunity for philosophical, sociological, or any other type of decision with respect to the ownership of land. That must be finite in the Constitution. We should not overlook that.

There are literally hundreds of municipal, provincial, and federal rights of passage, rights of access, et cetera, which are applied to land ownership and which do in fact override some of our rights. They are intended to override some of our rights of ownership because our ownership may not be in the best interest of the public domain. Nevertheless, there is the demand that, if the public requires the land or the building which we own, the owner be compensated for infringement, lack of possession, or demolition of the property.

I know that one of the reasons people came to this land initially was that where they had resided at an earlier date, whether in Europe or another place, they did not have clear ownership of land, they did not have private possession. They may have been serfs, share-croppers, or in some other capacity, but they did not own land. That was one of the very objectives of people leaving their homes, relatives, and friends to come to a foreign land, even a wilderness, to settle.

One must ask why we have not established the sacred right to property prior to this time. This question should not be left to the philosophical decision of a judge, but it should be absolutely established in law.

I do not believe this would interfere with the administration of government, whether at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. However, the exclusion of such rights can interfere with the security of the individual.

This question may not have been as significant when the Constitution was being introduced to the House in its broad terms. At that time the property rights proposal was subject to interpretation because it did not spell out its purposes. Now that we have seen the philosophical capability of a judge to make an interpretation which the judge believes is in the best interest of society, the time has come to provide for property rights.

I have always believed that property rights should be a fundamental aspect of our Constitution. To my knowledge, those provincial jurisdictions that oppose land ownership have never explained how this would interfere with the operation of government. When one considers the background of many Canadians, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would argue against the insertion of land ownership in our Constitution.

I believe this motion directs the Government to take the necessary steps to bring that about, and I compliment the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) for introducing it.

One of the fundamental reasons why our forefathers came to this country was that they could either get a grant of land or purchase land. They were provided with an opportunity which they or their descendants would ever have in their new homeland.

I recall a conversation I had with an immigrant to this country. After an extended trip to his homeland, he talked of the difficulties he had in returning there and spoke of the difficulties facing his relatives. I asked him how he felt upon returning to Canada. He said that he felt just like the astronaut who, upon returning to earth, said he could kiss the ground. This immigrant came from a land where he could not own property. When he returned to Canada he wanted to kiss the ground because of the privileges we enjoy in this country. These principles of property rights should be enshrined in our Constitution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), the Chair will rule on the amendment which was proposed a few minutes ago.

After careful consideration the Chair must rule the amendment out of order on the grounds that the amendment sets forth a proposition dealing with a matter that is foreign to the proposition involving the main motion. Therefore it is not relevant and cannot be moved.

Debate continues with the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton.

Mr. McCain:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there any room for discussion or opinion of Members of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I doubt very much whether the Chair would change its mind. However, the Chair would entertain a comment from the Member.

April 29, 1988

Mr. Hawkes:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is a small problem with the motion. I believe it is being redrafted and may be re-introduced by another Member. However, I think we should let the debate continue while it is being worked on.

Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the sentiments expressed by many other colleagues respecting the motion by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). He brings forward a motion that is fundamentally important not only for Canadians but for people throughout the world.

I want to highlight the importance of land ownership and property rights by citing two graphic examples. The House will recall the classic film Gone with the Wind, a story about the civil war in the United States. I will never forget the closing scene when Scarlet returned to see that her house had been destroyed in the war. She told one of the men who worked on the farm that she was devastated because everything had been taken from her. He bent down, picked up some soil, and said to her: "This will endure forever". The message was that she still had the land.

It is the right of people to keep their land that we want to entrench in the Constitution. The right to ownership of land should belong to everyone, whether an individual or an organization, so that one cannot simply be bulldozed off the property when a transfer of land happens to occur. Someone should not be loosely expropriated from property that has belonged to a family for decades.

Another movie which appeared recently on television depicts the importance of ownership of land. This movie was entitled Stranger on my Land. It was about a man who returned from Vietnam where he remembered expropriating people from their lands and villages because they had been destroyed. The moment which depicted the importance of the right to property occurred in the scene in which an old South Vietnamese man was crying. He said: "I have nowhere else to go". When this soldier returned to the United States, the same thing happened to him with his land and his farm. The military wanted to take over his land in the western United States for use as a testing ground. He opposed it and was taken to court where he had to fight for his land. We do not want that to happen in our country.

I can think of things that have happened even in the National Capital Region. My family roots go back to King-smere. We all remember Mackenzie King who fantasized about running this country. The NCC expropriated land which had been in my family for generations and it expropriated land from farmers, although it gave a fair price. However land is something we cannot possible allow ourselves to lose.

In Third World countries people are shifted from points A to B without their permission. We cannot let that happen here. Why the importance of entrenching property rights in our

Property Rights

Constitution was not realized at the time of the changes to our Constitution I do not know. I was not in the House at the time and I have not read the Debates.

The basic fundamental philosophy of human beings is their land. Without guaranteed access to the land, farmers feel insecure, cottage dwellers feel insecure. This is something which has now become essential, and I hope we all agree on this. Because of my sincere belief in the fact that we must have guaranteed access to property, I am pleased to move:

That Motion M-8 be amended by deleting all of the words after "amended", and substituting the following:

"In order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process".

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The amendment is as follows. It is moved by Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton), seconded by Mr. Towers, that Motion M-8 be amended by deleting all of the words after "amended", and substituting the following: "In order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right of not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process".

The Chair finds the motion to be in order. Debate is on the amendment.

Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):

Mr. Speaker, I really find it passing strange that at the fifth hour of debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) we should find the Conservative Party changing its mind, the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) proposing an amendment which was declared out of order and another amendment being proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) which is almost meaningless.