by Garry Breitkreuz, MP – Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Article 17 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reads: "(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

Despite the fact that Canada ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights more than fifty years ago, Canadians are still being arbitrarily deprived of their property by the federal government.

Professor Peter Hogg wrote in his book, Constitutional Law of Canada – Third Edition, "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." (Citation 44.9 – page 1030)

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." (Citation 44.7(b) – page 1028)

On February 4^th, 1999 the Manitoba Court of Appeal concurred with Professor Hogg when they ruled against David Bryan’s right to sell his own grain that he grows on his own land. On page 14 of the ruling the Manitoba Court of Appeal stated, "Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which protects property rights through a ‘due process’ clause, was not replicated in the Charter, and the right to ‘enjoyment of property’ is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society."

Unfortunately, Canadians don’t find out about this lack of protection for property rights until the federal government arbitrarily takes their property (most often without compensation of any kind) as is happening today with legally purchased satellite dishes, legally-owned firearms and soon to be farm land forced out of production under the government’s new Endangered Species Act.

Canadians need to be reassured that the federal government has enough respect for their fundamental right to enjoy property to provide a minimum of protection for those rights in federal statutes. My bill would provide Canadian citizens with the level of protection they need without unduly interfering with the government’s ability to do its job. .

Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau argued long and hard for better protection of property rights first in his 1968 paper titled, "A Canadian Charter of Human Rights" tabled when he was Minister of Justice. Secondly in his 1969 paper "The Constitution of the People of Canada" and once again in 1978 when he introduced Bill C-60, "The Constitutional Amendment Bill." Mr. Trudeau tried to get property rights included in the Charter in July of 1980 and again in January of 1981. Finally, in April of 1983 he said in the House of Commons, "I would say that if we can have the agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce and amendment on property rights and to pass it in 24 hours."

Rather than try to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Mr. Trudeau proposed, my Private Members Bill (C-237) proposes to provide a minimum of protection of property rights in federal law by strengthening the property rights provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

My bill would specifically guarantee that every person has:

1. the right to enjoyment of their property,
2. the right not to be deprived of their property unless they are given a fair hearing, paid fair, timely and impartially-fixed compensation, and
3. the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon.

So far, I have received impressive public support. I have received 578 pages of petitions signed by 13,729 Canadians from all across Canada who support this bill.

I have also received the support of The Canadian Real Estate Association that represents more than 200 real estate boards in every province of the country.

This is a very important issue that needs three hours of debate in the House. This bill meets all the criteria for the selection of votable items.