NEWS RELEASE November 6, 1996 For Immediate Release AMERICANS AND MEXICANS HAVE MORE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CANADA THAN CANADIANS! "Liberals now oppose property rights even though Trudeau wanted them entrenched in the Charter." Ottawa - Last night in the House of Commons, Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville, continued his fight for better protection of property rights in federal laws. Speaking in support of Motion M- 205 introduced by Bill Gilmour, Reform MP for Comox-Alberni (British Columbia) Breitkreuz exposed the complete reversal of the Liberal Party stand on property rights. "In the sixties, seventies and eighties, the Liberal Party and the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau fought long and hard to have property rights included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party of the nineties under Prime Minister Jean Chretien opposes all attempts to strengthen property rights." "Instead of trying to entrench property rights in the Charter, the Liberals are saying the feeble protection offered in the Canadian Bill of Rights is enough. The Liberals fail to point out that the government can override property rights anytime they want simply by saying so in the legislation. The Liberals did exactly this when they tried to pass Bill C-22 which would have killed the Pearson Airport deal. It's only thanks to Saskatchewan Senator Herb Sparrow that this anti-property rights, anti-freedom of contract bill did not become law," explained Breitkreuz. Even if the Liberal government had any respect for the Canadian Bill of Rights - which it doesn't - the Bill of Rights still does not provide any protection of the following fundamental property rights if the government deprives you of your property: (1) the right to be paid fair compensation; (2) the right to have that compensation fixed impartially; (3) the right to receive timely compensation; and (4) the right to apply to the courts to obtain justice if they feel any aspect of their property rights has been denied or infringed upon. Breitkreuz' research revealed another sad fact: Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) American and Mexican citizens enjoy better protection of their property rights in Canada than do Canadian citizens. Conversely, NAFTA provides Canadian investors with better protection of their property rights in the U.S. and Mexico than our Canadian laws do. This conclusion became obvious after reading an impressive legal analysis submitted by Mr. James McIlroy to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during the Senate hearings into the Pearson International Airport Agreements Act (Bill C-22). "It's disgusting when you think about it. Why are Canadians second class citizens in their own country?" asked Breitkreuz. "If we can't entrench property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the least we should do is improve the protection of each citizen's property rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights." -30- For more information please call: Yorkton: (306) 782-3309 Ottawa: (613) 992-4394 QUESTION AND ANSWERS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS by Garry Breitkreuz, MP Q1 Why do you say that Americans and Mexicans have more property rights in Canada than Canadians do? Answer: On June 22, 1995, Mr. James McIlroy, President of McIlroy & McIlroy, Counsel on Public Policy made in impressive presentation to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during the Senate hearings of the Pearson International Airport Agreements Act (Bill C- 22). Mr. McIlroy concluded, "In sum, Bill C-22 may run counter to Canada's international trade treaty obligations and the foreign investment interests of Canadian investors. In a global economy, Parliament cannot enact expropriation legislation without carefully considering all of its international ramifications. Under FTA and NAFTA, American investors may have broader rights to due process of law and to compensation that the rights Bill C-22 envisions for Canadian investors." Property Rights Under NAFTA Article 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, is entitled "Expropriation and Compensation" and states: "No Party [U.S., Canada or Mexico] shall directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation of such an investment ("expropriation") except: (a) for a public purpose; (b) on a non-discriminatory basis; (c) in accordance with due process of law and Article 1105(1); and (d) upon payment of compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2 through 6." Article 1110(2) states: "Compensation shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment immediately before the expropriation took place and shall not reflect any change in value occurring because the intended expropriation had become known earlier. Valuation criteria shall include going concern value, asset value including declared tax value of tangible property, and other criteria, as appropriate to determine fair market value." Property Rights Under Canadian Bill of Rights We each have seven fundamental property rights. The Bill of Rights only provides rather feeble protection for three of the seven: (1) the right to enjoyment of property, (2) the right not to be deprived of property except by due process, (3) the right to a fair hearing. And even these rights can simply be over-ridden by saying so in the legislation, just like the Liberal government did in Bill C-22 which cancelled the Pearson Airport contract. The Canadian Bill of Rights DOES NOT provide protection of the following property rights: (1) the right to be paid fair compensation (2) the right to have that compensation fixed impartially (3) the right to receive timely compensation, and (4) the right to apply to courts to obtain justice if they feel any aspect of their property rights have been denied or infringed upon.