Lynn Myers

[Charitable Contributions, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Motion No. 318. I will begin by taking a few minutes to respond on behalf of the government to the motion put forward by the member for Fraser Valley.

Let us be clear. The government recognizes the motivation for the hon. member's motion and fully supports the principle of offering generous tax assistance to charitable giving. The purpose of the present tax regime with respect to charitable giving is to encourage larger donations. The current tax regime was put into place in consultation with the charity industry.

Through the work and assistance of the Standing Committee on Finance stemming over a period of four years of prebudget hearings, the tax treatment of charitable donations has evolved to the point where we are now beginning to see a stronger and more vibrant charity industry. That is a good thing.

In fact the government has provided additional incentives to charitable giving in four of the last five federal budgets. Measures have been included and adopted. The first is lowering the threshold for eligibility for the 29% level of the tax credit to $200 from $150. The second is raising the annual income limit for the use of charitable donations to most charities from 20% when the government took office to 75%. The third is reducing the income inclusion rate for capital gains arising from the donation of appreciated publicly traded securities to 37.5%.

These measures are very important. The hon. member should recognize that the differences in the treatment of political contributions and charitable donations reflect the different policy intentions of the two measures. The design of the federal political contributions tax credit reflects the desire to encourage greater grassroots involvement by all Canadians in the political process.

For this reason generous tax assistance is given to small political contributions. This tax assistance is reduced by incremental amounts to the point that federal tax assistance is eliminated for amounts contributed to federal political parties in excess of $1,150 per contributor per year.

In contrast, tax assistance for charitable donations is greater for amounts in excess of $200 in order to encourage larger donations to charities. This type of larger scale giving allows for a greater measure of stability and predictability for those charities.

Indeed in the case of very large donations tax credits may be claimed for donations up to 75% of the taxpayer's income in any given year. Tax credits then may be carried forward to future years should the 75% limit be exceeded.

Recently we have witnessed the important role the present tax regime has played in charitable giving. The charitable industry has reported seeing more large scale donations from individuals than ever before. In particular, it has witnessed this trend following the implementation of the 1997 budget which contained provisions allowing for reduced taxation of capital gains on publicly traded shares given to registered charities.

I was interested recently in reading in the Globe and Mail that they called this tax change, which effectively cut in half the capital gains tax that donors pay on such gifts, a bonanza for the charity industry. The University of Toronto, for example, has received more than 70 individual contributions of $1 million or greater during its current fundraising drive.

Gorden Floyd, director of public affairs at the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, recently stated that the charities have “all seen a real surge in major gifts or stock since the legislation change. It is important to see that take place.

Meg Beckel, executive director of the Royal Ontario Museum Foundation, has also noted an increase in tax driven gifts to charities, particularly from new beneficiaries. He states:

Since 1997 we have received gifts from individuals in the form of shares that we would not have otherwise received. It has made a real difference.

The incentives for large scale giving also have borne fruit in terms of a new community foundation movement which is a collection of endowment funds committed to local projects. A coalition of leaders heading up this movement recently announced in Calgary that its collective assets are now worth more than $1 billion. This announcement is clearly good news for communities. I think that is something with which all of us in the House can agree.

These foundations tend to fill a unique need in that they are funded locally in their base projects in the community and in the country in almost every province. Gifts to such foundations can be allocated in many ways including a general community fund or a specific cause.

A little more than a week ago members of a youth advisory committee from the Calgary Foundation announced a series of grants that they were being awarded including $1,000 to a high school program that helps with the integration of immigrants and $500 to a Hispanic youth centre.

This type of community action by these foundations is very encouraging, helping to reinforce in our collective notion the relevance and importance of community in an increased and ever globalized world.

We can see from these examples the tax regime that has been put into place has been working to maximize the benefits of charitable giving both for individuals and for charities in the important work that they carry out. Charities have mushroomed into an $88 billion affair spreading through 76,000 organizations ranging from hospitals to houses of worship, to social services. There are another 100,000 not for profit agencies as well.

By any measurement that we might choose this industry has been growing more important and stronger every year under the present tax structure. While we have seen that large scale giving has been greatly affected by tax incentives, we have also found that the donation of small amounts to charities has not been strongly motivated by the availability of tax assistance.

Consequently the greatest effect of this proposal before the House would be to increase the fiscal cost of tax assistance according to donations that would in all likelihood have been made in any case.

There is one further and important note: the level of tax assistance accorded most charitable donations results in a roughly 50:50 partnership between government and the private sector in support of charities. That is important to note.

This is consistent with the principle that although charities promote the public good they have direct control over their activities in these areas and their priorities will not generally be identical to those of government. Increasingly tax assistance for small donations would not have been in accordance with this principle.

The government cannot support the motion for the following central reason. The current design of the current charitable donations tax credit acts to encourage larger donations while recognizing the value of smaller donations. The greatest impact of the motion would be to increase tax assistance accorded to donations that would have been made in any case.

In conclusion, I want to simply say that tax assistance accorded charitable donations as we have seen by the growth of the industry is already very generous.

I thank the hon. member opposite for bringing forward the motion for debate. We are all reminded of the importance of charitable giving and the worthy causes that are pursued through such work. In that we all benefit.

[Water Exports, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Once again the Ontario government has been approached by the Nova Group to get a permit to export large volumes of water from the Great Lakes.

Will the minister assure this House that he will put a stop to this massive export of our water?

[Tobacco Act, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin in this House the second reading debate on Bill C-42.

Bill C-42 is a short bill. It is a simple bill. It proposes an amendment to the Tobacco Act and focuses on one aspect of the tobacco issue, and one issue alone, and that is the promotion of tobacco products through the sponsorship of events.

What the bill does is straightforward. It will toughen the existing Tobacco Act. It will take a piece of legislation that is already one of the strongest in the world and make it even stronger.

The bill would ban the promotion of tobacco sponsorships following a five year transition period. Although the bill is short, it is not an isolated action. It builds on the enormous step forward which our government took in proposing the Tobacco Act and which the last parliament took in passing the legislation.

That act, members will recall, takes aim squarely at the number one cause of preventable death and disease in Canadian society. Its goal is to protect and promote the health of all Canadians. It is aimed specifically at keeping children and young people from starting to smoke.

The health facts are clear. Last year more than 40,000 Canadians died of tobacco related illnesses. That means that each day, on average, more than 100 Canadians died with tobacco standing in the background. Many of those people died of heart disease. Others died of lung disease. Still others fell victim to cancer or some of the many other illnesses that have their roots in the use of tobacco products.

There are some worrisome trends that could add to that toll over time. The percentage of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 who smoke has actually risen in recent years. We need to take continued and effective action to reverse those trends.

However, we must approach this in a way that recognizes that tobacco is a unique product, yet we simply cannot ban it. Tobacco is addictive and over time it is often deadly. It has made its way throughout our culture and indeed cultures throughout the world.

The reality is that to combat something that pervasive, simplistic solutions simply do not work. For that reason the federal government's approach to tobacco control has included a variety of elements. Legislation, educational programs and taxation have all been part of this mix.

Increasingly we have taken steps to affect other aspects of the process that lead young people to smoke. An important focus of the Tobacco Act was to cut the exposure of young Canadians to tobacco promotion. Tobacco advertising had been prohibited for some time and the Tobacco Act continues restrictions in a manner that we believe reflects the charter of rights and freedoms.

However, as traditional advertising avenues were closed off to the tobacco industry they seized on the use of event sponsorships and promotions.

According to research, the people who market tobacco products are no different from those marketing any other product. They all seek to understand consumer behaviour, especially the behaviour of consumers who are likely to start using their product. We know they are studying the various factors involved in making the decision to smoke.

So who are they studying? Something like 90% of all smokers start before they are 20 years old, usually well before. In fact we can even say as young as 12. So they must logically be an important target.

Like all marketers, these tobacco people want potential customers to associate their brands with positive images. More than that they want to get their product names in front of as many people as possible. They want tobacco products to be linked to events and activities that people enjoy.

With less and less recourse to traditional advertising, association with sports, cultural and other community events has become very important. Events take on cigarette names. Posters and billboards advertising them are everywhere. Therefore people, especially young people, become familiar with the brands, the logos and the overall presence of tobacco in our society.

We might say in this regard that familiarity breeds contempt, not by itself and not in a simple, direct and crystal clear line, yet there it is. There are many factors that influence a 15 year old's decision to smoke. There are many steps between a first puff and a consistent pack a day addiction. But the research indicates that event promotion is a very significant factor in the overall smoking decision process of our young people. Tobacco brand names can seem to become innocuous, present everywhere, as if they were a normal consumer product.

In making these points about the health impacts of smoking or the importance of event marketing to the tobacco industry, I am simply restating some important points that were made during the debate on the Tobacco Act in the last parliament. Perhaps more important, I am simply restating points that were made on both sides of the House and in the other place in that debate.

This House has historically demonstrated its awareness that smoking kills. Historically it has demonstrated that its support for measures to cut tobacco use by young people are correct and necessary.

The same was true with the Tobacco Act. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you recall the outcome of that debate. Reformers, New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives stood with us on it. They stood with the 91% of Canadians who support efforts by government to discourage young people from becoming addicted to tobacco. They stood with the 73% of Canadians who support efforts to discourage smoking among people who already smoke.

It was only the Bloc that opposed the Tobacco Act, and that was largely because of concerns about the impact of sponsorship restrictions on events. Now that the Parti Quebecois government has moved in the same direction as we moved a year ago, I am confident that opposition will change there as well.

Of course, some people outside this parliament expressed concerns about sponsorship restrictions. Event organizers were concerned that they would not be able to line up new sponsors quickly enough. Some people in communities that look to these events for tourism dollars were concerned about the possible loss of those marquee events.

A particular area that drew some attention was the impact of the Tobacco Act on motor sports. If you have ever watched a race you will have noticed that every possible space is adorned with advertising: the cars, the racing suits, the facilities. They are all full of logos of sponsors. Those logos are often of tobacco brands that Canadians, Americans, Europeans and Asians use. Because of the concerns of event organizers it was agreed that the federal government would take another look at tobacco sponsorship and motor sports. But I must add that this should never have been seen as a carte blanche to water down our commitment to reduce tobacco use.

At that time we said that we would respect the charter of rights and freedoms, that we would respect international standards and that we would respect the health obligations and objectives of the Tobacco Act. As we consulted we heard from event organizers and we heard from health groups that were concerned with the potential influence of sponsorship on young people.

Through the process we remained determined to make this act even more solid than it was already. In the end we decided that we could not and would not create one set of rules for some motor sports events and another for everyone else. We recognized that we did and had to treat all currently sponsored events equally.

We also determined that we were being presented with an opportunity to really fine-tune the sponsorship provisions of the Tobacco Act, and the result is Bill C-42.

I will now turn to the regime the bill sets out.

At the core of this bill is a five year transition period. During that time we will move to a total ban on the display of tobacco brand elements in sponsorship promotions.

There are two types of events for the purpose of this bill. The first type includes events that were in existence and had tobacco company sponsors before April 25, 1997. If parliament agrees, these events would begin with a two year period under the status quo. Tobacco promotion would be able to continue for that two years and we would continue to allow off site and on site promotions.

The next phase for those grandfathered events would last three years. On site promotions involving tobacco product related brand elements would continue at those events, but these promotions could only be in place for the duration of the event. We would close off opportunities for off site promotion and we would impose a 90:10 rule that appears in the Tobacco Act on those that are permitted. That is to say, only the bottom 10% of the space in the promotional material can display tobacco brand elements.

Direct mailings to identified adults would be permitted, but banners with large tobacco logos on lampposts all over town would not be. Advertizing in publications with primarily adult readership would be permitted, but placement in corner stores of posters with cigarette names in bold, big type would end. Promotions such as tent cards in bars, which are legally off limits to young people, would be acceptable, but the same tent cards in regular restaurants would not be.

In short we would cut the tobacco marketers' off-site access to young people dramatically. That stage would end after three years, as I said. That brings us to five years from the date this amendment to the Tobacco Act would come into force. On that date, tobacco sponsorship promotions would end.

The second group of events are those in which sponsorships began on or after April 25, 1997. Those events will not be grandfathered. The restrictions currently in the Tobacco Act would apply to these events and after five years, the days of complacent sponsorship promotions will end.

Under the timetable that we hope parliament will allow us to pursue, in the latter part of the year 2003 there will be a total ban on tobacco sponsorship promotions whether on-site or off-site. There will be no legal ability to display tobacco related product brand elements on sponsorship promotions. Tobacco brand elements will not be associated with permanent arts and sports facilities.

That ban is more than even the Tobacco Act originally envisaged. That act would have simply brought in the 90-10 rule as a new status quo.

We have gone one step further in protecting the health of Canadians by cutting any ties between appealing and wholesome activities and tobacco consumption.

Some may ask why we have decided on a period of five years. The five year transition period provides event organizers with plenty of time and plenty of opportunities to seek alternative sponsors. In our consultations with those organizers, it was clear that if we were determined to eliminate the use of sponsorship as a promotional vehicle for tobacco products, and we are, then they wanted time to make alternative arrangements and they could. In fact I know that process has already begun.

For example, we as a government are very pleased that Air Canada will become the new title sponsor of the Formula One Canadian Grand Prix next year. We believe that the five year time frame will allow other event organizers to demonstrate to other potential sponsors how valuable an association with their event can be.

If this was all we were doing on tobacco control, it would be noteworthy enough. Yet we are actually doing far more and that is why Canada is recognized as a world leader in tobacco control. Indeed we keep track of the steps that other governments are taking on this issue. I want to tell my hon. colleagues on both sides of this chamber that our approach is consistent with evolving international standards. Let me offer some examples.

The European Union recently announced that it is moving in the same direction as we are. It intends to ban tobacco sponsored promotions by the year 2006. It intends to pursue a transitional strategy on the way to that ban.

Australia announced last week that it too will totally prohibit tobacco sponsored promotions by the year 2006.

The United States is moving ahead on actions that will limit the exposure of children to tobacco promotion in ways that are consistent with much that is already in our Tobacco Act.

Canada is on a course to beat them all. Our legislation is among the toughest and most far reaching in the world. The initiatives that the Tobacco Act enables us to take include the regulation of the product, its components and emissions, more comprehensive reporting requirements for tobacco companies and stricter regulations on sales of tobacco products to minors.

It is also backed up by our continuing efforts to promote and protect health through anti-tobacco initiatives. For example last June we announced $100 million in spending on the tobacco control initiative. We are proud of that. That money followed through on a commitment that our government made during last year's election. It was a commitment that we were proud to keep because it was really an investment in the health of Canadians.

The tobacco control initiative is co-ordinated and it is comprehensive. It pays particular attention to tobacco use among children and teens, groups vulnerable to taking up smoking.

Reducing the health damage caused by tobacco consumption is increasingly an issue, not only for the federal government but for our colleagues in the provincial governments as well.

A New Democratic government in British Columbia has taken legal steps against tobacco companies because of the costs their products place on the health care system. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois government has passed strong legislation that among other things restricts tobacco sales to minors and the promotion of tobacco products.

Both provincial strategies complement our own actions at the federal level. They complement our legislative and health promotion approaches. They demonstrate, just as the history of tobacco control legislation does here, that this is not a partisan issue. It is a health issue.

After all, that is the purpose of this bill, a short and straightforward piece of legislation that establishes a new and stricter framework for tobacco promotion through sponsorship and paves the way for the elimination of sponsorship by the year 2003.

It positions us to be heard and be ahead of the United States, most European states and Australia, all countries that have their own solid records on tobacco control.

The action that this bill proposes, together with the restrictions set out in the Tobacco Act as well as our tobacco control initiative are individual parts of a unified strategy.

We are continuing to work and invest significant resources to reduce smoking in Canada. We are taking action that we hope and believe will help reduce the percentage of young people who take up smoking.

This bill then is ultimately about the health of Canadians. It is about making a strong piece of legislation even stronger, all the while making it more realistic. It is a bill that I believe merits the support of all parties in this House.

[Criminal Records Act, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very important issue on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington. It is obvious the hon. member for Calgary Centre has worked very hard to bring this matter to the attention of the House as a votable item. His desire to improve the law, to redress the anomaly he perceives in the legislation and his suggestions for reform outlined in the bill before us today are examples of the impact private members can have in the Parliament of Canada.

The hon. member is doing the House and the government a service by identifying an area of the Criminal Records Act that affects the process of granting pardons and the subsequent treatment of both the pardoned records and the pardoned individual. He points out that the current provisions of the act could favour the pardoned individual to the possible detriment of society at large.

It follows therefore that the proposals put forward by the hon. member may adversely affect Canadians with criminal records even after they have successfully turned their lives around and been given the benefit of a pardon. Therefore by proposing solutions as he has done the member is contradicting the apparent intent of the legislation which at its inception was duly considered and approved by those who went before us and by the members of the other place.

While we might all benefit from his industrious example and emulate his thoughtful efforts, we must carefully consider what he is saying. He clearly believes that the reasoning applied in drafting our current Criminal Records Act and indeed the human rights act was somehow faulty. This is a level of intervention we must all take seriously. I find that my attention is immediately engaged when it becomes necessary to amend our human rights act to accomplish a legislative change that is otherwise put forward as a positive reform. Most often we discuss issues in terms of generalities or as they say now at the macro level.

However, in our jobs there can be insufficient time to respond fully to the concerns of individual constituents. This is particularly problematic when the issue concerns those citizens who do not have experience in dealing with the mechanism of government and who feel powerless in the face of bureaucratic rules. Also left out are those who do not have an organized or sophisticated proponent to speak loudly for their rights.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre has taken the time to be just such an advocate by responding to reports of harm done in a few individual cases. I am not saying for a moment that harm has not befallen Canadians or that individual tragedies are unimportant. They are. In particular I recognize the level of concern we must bring to bear on the protection of young Canadians from sexual predators. Nothing that may occupy our time in this place is more important than the safety of those least able to defend themselves.

Nonetheless, difficulties may arise from the pursuit of solutions based on specific experiences however distressing and tragic. I could offer as examples some of the most recent cases of deplorable, repeated and devastating child sexual abuse where the predators had no previous record to be found, pardoned or otherwise. In others, the organizations responsible for the offenders' involvement in positions of trust had not only made no effort to investigate the offenders' backgrounds but also had actively shielded them from complaints and possibility of investigations. In light of these examples, it is possible that the proposal put forth through Bill C-284 may be either incomplete or somewhat misdirected.

I believe that more and more the role of the private member may be to respond to the needs and aspirations of individual citizens. This is why I believe the effort of the member for Calgary Centre in identifying a possible source of inequity and harm and in proposing legislative solutions is so important. By sponsoring the initiative before us today, my honourable colleague has fulfilled his most important obligation as a private member.

What problem has my colleague identified and what solutions does he propose? The purpose of Bill C-284 is to amend the Criminal Records Act to provide for the automatic revelation of the pardoned criminal records of offences relating to the sexual exploitation of children should the offender thereafter seek a position as a caregiver, coach or in another role in which he or she might have power and influence over young people.

Bill C-284 is limited in focus to a single primary objective. It seeks to address concerns over the current act which requires that the records of those who are granted a pardon be sealed and set aside to be revealed only in a very particular circumstance and only on the approval of the Solicitor General of Canada. The proposal suggests a pardon that could be set aside in a much more casual way at the stroke of a bureaucratic pen. We must proceed very cautiously in this regard.

It should be noted that regardless of the disposition of a criminal record reference to the particulars of a case may exist in various locations and be under the control of various authorities. When the Criminal Records Act was passed the limited effect of pardons granted under its auspices was acknowledged.

As I am sure other hon. members will mention, only the release of federal records is directly constrained through the granting of a pardon.

There may be local court and police records that persist and certainly the original media coverage and local knowledge of the crimes in question remain unimpeded except by the passage of time. Such historical records are becoming more available through the search capabilities of our society's increasingly sophisticated electronic research tools. The benefits of a pardon are limited but the hon. member nonetheless seeks today to remove even this relief from certain pardoned offenders.

My colleague's proposal for the revelation of records in a narrow and specific fashion may prove difficult to implement. I reiterate that there is no single exclusive record keeping system in the country. Due to the federal nature of our political arrangements, records of criminal occurrences including records of arrest, trial, conviction and conditional release and supervision may exist in many places. As mentioned, media reports are more likely to exist in cases that may be of such a serious and shocking nature that they may lend themselves to media sensationalization. These are the records the hon. member seeks to remove from the protection of pardons under the Criminal Records Act.

A further complication is that the pardoned record sought in the interest of a children's safety offence may form part of a series of charges and dispositions. Should these more or less related convictions also come to light? I think not.

Perhaps the most significant flaw in the hon. member's bill is that it ignores that the Criminal Records Act already provides for disclosure and indeed revocation of pardoned records where necessary and appropriate.

Under section 6 of the act the solicitor general may at any time disclose a pardoned record to any person where the minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the interests of the administration of justice or for any purpose related to national or international safety or security. This is a very broad test if not an onerous standard to meet. Any person or organization may make an application for the unsealing and disclosure of an ex-offender's pardoned record.

Further, under section 7.2 of the act a pardon will be automatically revoked if the person is ever again convicted of an indictable federal offence. It does not end there. Under section 6.2 of the act there can be limited disclosure of the existence of a pardoned record to police forces under specified circumstances.

I mention all of this because the bill before us today seeks to provide corrective solutions to a factor that may not be as problematic as it first appears. Let us be clear that there are already a number of straightforward mechanisms for disclosing or revoking a pardoned record in appropriate circumstances. Many people have advocated more substantial reform during the past decade. Specific proposals have been developed which identify other provisions under the current act which would benefit from review and amendment.

Representatives of some provincial governments have made their views known, as has the voluntary sector active in the criminal justice system. These wider reforms are intended to address identified inconsistencies as well as important areas of possible improvement which have been put forward.

If the outcome of the member's work to date has been that the government is moving ahead to complete a review of outstanding issues focusing particularly on the areas to which my friend has drawn our attention, I suggest this has been an indication of the close collaboration between private members and the government. This would amount to proof of the effect that one member speaking for the rights of private citizens and constituents can have in changing the laws in Canada.

In wrapping up I return to a theme which I commented on earlier, the important role of private members' bills and the often unheralded accomplishments of those members who identify problems. I thank the hon. member for bringing that to our attention.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for the question. I certainly agree with his premise that this is a very complex issue and one that requires real balancing on the part of the government in this important area.

Sometimes it is very tricky to ensure the competing interests are balanced in a way that is fair and equitable, but I think in the great scheme of things we as a government have been able to do this.

In response to part of the hon. member's question, through my experience of 10 years with the Waterloo regional police I can say that the police of the country are great professionals who do a great job on behalf of all Canadians, wherever they may be. The police do the type of work that all of us should be proud of not only as parliamentarians but as people who live in this great land of ours, Canada.

It is absolutely crucial that we support the police whenever and however possible, knowing full well that they put their lives on the line for each and every one of us.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

In deciding whether to make an order in this instance the judge will consider the offender's criminal record, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission which are all relevant factors in identifying violent predators at a very early stage.

The data bank will capture penitentiary inmates who pose a high risk of future violent reoffending. Bill C-3 will authorize DNA samples to be taken retroactively from designated dangerous offenders, repeat sex offenders and serial murderers. The last group of offenders was added to Bill C-3 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in response to concerns that offenders like Clifford Olson should be captured by the data bank.

By targeting offenders already in custody the data bank will offer the hope of solving long outstanding crimes where police have no leads. It will make the most dangerous offenders think twice about committing a violent offence again because their genetic imprints will be in the data bank for future and quick identification.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied Bill C-3 in depth and supported it. Members of the House have closely examined it and have had an opportunity to study the expert legal opinions concerning its constitutionality. The legal experts have advised us that Bill C-3 in its current form is consistent with Canada's Constitution. However some members continue to discount this fact. They insist on delaying passage of the bill by repeatedly arguing that it can be easily amended. In so doing they are forgetting about the supreme court and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Amending the bill to permit the taking of DNA samples at the time of arrest or charge is a radical proposal that disregards the basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Any accused person in Canada has the right to be presumed innocent and protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Bill C-3 reflects a clear statement from our highest court that the taking of DNA samples constitutes a search and seizure which requires prior judicial authorization. Before the police can search anyone's home or business premises they must first obtain judicial authorization to do so.

A search of a person's bodily substances is much more serious than searching a home or business because it interferes with bodily integrity and undermines human dignity. Therefore the taking of a DNA sample for law enforcement purposes demands high standards of justification. Taking a sample on the off chance that it might help the police crack an old and cold case simply does not meet those standards.

I emphasize that the requirement for prior judicial authorization before DNA samples can be seized following conviction is one of the key features of Bill C-3. It ensures that the charter rights of all Canadians are protected. We must not overlook the fact that the police already have authority to take a DNA sample from a person for investigative purposes at the time of arrest or charge, or at any other time, as long as they first obtain a warrant allowing them to do so.

The DNA warrant legislation has been commended by the Supreme Court of Canada and has survived all constitutional challenges to date. The most important reason the scheme has survived is that it provides for judicial oversight of the collection of DNA samples.

We must be mindful that the police have never had an automatic right to search and seize in Canada. This is because we have placed a high premium on our reasonable expectation of privacy, on the security and the dignity of the person, and on the right to be free from unnecessary state interference with those rights. It is these basic rights that make Canada one of the best countries in which to live.

Bill C-3 builds on the solid foundation of the DNA warrant scheme and provides the police with the added capacity to compare DNA samples obtained from crime scenes with DNA samples from convicted offenders.

Last week, for example, we heard the misguided suggestion that taking samples upon charge would be constitutionally defensible. It is not. On the contrary, the legal experts have clearly and emphatically stated that this is not true.

Last May the government publicly released independent legal opinions on this issue from three of the most experienced legal minds in the country: former Justice Martin Taylor of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, former Chief Justice Charles Dubin of the Ontario Court of Appeal and former Chief Justice Claude Bisson of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

These opinions are comprehensive and fully consistent with the views of the Canadian Bar Association and representatives of the Ontario attorney general, the New Brunswick attorney general, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the federal Department of Justice.

I would now like to turn to what these eminent judges had to say about the proposal being put forth by the police community. I quote the hon. Martin Taylor when he said:

—I am of the opinion that legislative extension of police authority under Bill C-3 to sanction the taking of DNA samples without judicial warrant in the case of persons charged or arrested but not tried and convicted would be held contrary to the guarantees contained in one or more of ss. 7, 8 and 11(d) of the charter, would not be saved by s. 1 of the charter, and would therefore be found unconstitutional and of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act.

The hon. Claude Bisson said the following in his legal opinion:

An enactment authorizing—the taking of bodily sample without a prior judicial authorization will not be, under the charter, a reasonable exercise of the power of parliament.

Therefore, the guaranteed rights of a person by the charter having been infringed, the legislation would be invalidated because section 1 of the charter would not save such legislation—.There is no equation to be made between the—taking of fingerprints upon arrest and the taking—also upon arrest and without judicial authorization—of bodily samples.

Fingerprinting is not a search and seizure; the taking of bodily substances and samples is and, as such, should not be performed without the greatest safeguards, the first of it being a judicial intervention.

Finally, this is what the hon. Charles Dubin concluded: “the proposal to allow automatic seizure of bodily samples for DNA analysis upon arrest appears to me to serve little social purpose”.

The fingerprinting and DNA warrant provisions that already exist allow proper identification of arrested persons and provide police with the ability to obtain samples for DNA analysis from an individual who they reasonably believe is a party to a designated offence.

The only additional purpose of automatic seizure of bodily samples on arrest would appear to be to increase a pool of contributors to the DNA data bank.

However the significance of this law and the enforcement interest, based on the chance of a match between a person arrested and an unsolved crime, pales when compared with the intrusive nature of a seizure of bodily samples and does not outweigh the need for prior judicial authorization.

As parliamentarians we cannot dismiss these legal opinions as being overly cautious, paranoid or even out of touch with the frontline police objective to better protect the public.

Let me conclude by saying we all share the goal of better public protection for all Canadians. We also recognize the need to implement the DNA data bank quickly to prevent violent crime. Through the comprehensive review of Bill C-3 by the standing committee, our review of the legal opinions of the eminent judges and the extensive debate in the House the government has listened to all sides of the debate. In the end the government has carefully balanced the competing views we have heard to develop proposals that will uphold the Constitution.

We have a responsibility to give the police a tool they can work with, but we also have the responsibility to put forward a balanced piece of legislation that will not be thrown out after the first constitutional challenge. Bill C-3 strikes this proper balance.

I would encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting Bill C-3 so we can move forward in implementing an effective DNA data bank for all Canadians.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour.

I have been closely following both sides of this debate and I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-3. As the former chairman of the Waterloo regional police I have a keen interest in this area and in this debate.

We have heard from several hon. members that a DNA bank will increase public protection for all Canadians. The police community has told us that a data bank will help law enforcement agencies identify suspects where they have no leads, that it will assist in identifying offenders who commit serious crimes across all police jurisdictions in Canada, and that it will help prevent future violent crime.

To ensure the police have the most effective tool possible Bill C-3 has been drafted in accordance with the Constitution. Bill C-3 will authorize the courts to order persons convicted of designated offences to provide DNA samples for inclusion in the data bank. Upon conviction for a primary designated offence or a serious violent offence the court will issue an order requiring the offender to provide a DNA sample for the data bank, except in the most exceptional circumstances.

In the case of a conviction for a secondary designated offence which includes robbery and break and enter, offences that Clifford Olson for example was convicted of in his early criminal career, the court upon application by the crown may issue an order for the DNA sample to be taken for data banking purposes.

[Canadian Student Loans, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington I am very pleased to speak on this motion.

While I share the member's concern for students and their ability to finance higher education, I do not see how the proposals presented here in this motion would produce a better system than the one we now have.

For example, the motion calls on the government to reverse the privatization of the Canada student loans program. The implication is that we have changed from a publicly funded program to a private one, and yet the Canada student loans program has always been based on private capital. That has not changed so there is nothing to reverse.

The student loans program has been financed by private capital since it was first introduced in 1964. There were some changes made to the program in 1995 but the objective was not to privatize the plan. These changes were made in order to broaden risk sharing and to put more decision making into the hands of the private lenders. The changes were designed to improve the way the plan operated, not to privatize it.

When the plan was first introduced in 1964 the federal government provided guarantees to private sector lenders who in turn financed and dispersed loans, but this system gave little incentive to private lenders to maintain their loans in good standing, to prevent defaults or to form a close service relationship with the borrower. If the loans failed, the lender simply called in the guarantee from the Government of Canada.

This resulted in significant extra costs for the federal government under the original program design. In fact, by 1995 when changes were made the Government of Canada held over $1 billion in defaulted loans for which it had reimbursed lenders under the guarantee provisions of the plan.

Under the new risk sharing arrangement private lenders assume responsibility for both servicing and collecting the loans as well as dispersing them. As its contribution to the risk sharing approach, the federal government pays private lenders a premium of 5% of the face value of the loans when they go into repayment.

The government estimates that this risk sharing approach will significantly reduce the cost of the student loan program without reducing the money available to students from private lenders. Thus we have brought the federal government and private lenders more closely together in a public-private sector risk sharing approach to achieve a reasonable balance between costs to the federal government and loan availability.

The second part of the motion asks us to reject proposals for income contingent loan repayment plans. While it is true that the question of income contingent repayment plans was discussed with varying degrees of interest by other parties, including the provinces, discussions were broken off, and that is unfortunate.

The Government of Canada was alone with the Government of Ontario among the provinces in advocating this approach. The lenders and Ontario did not come to an agreement.

The motion proposes the implementation of a federal student grant program. The Canada millennium fund will go a long way toward providing financial assistance to improve access to education and these scholarships are to be based on need and on merit.

This $2.5 billion program will provide scholarships averaging $3,000 each to cover over 100,000 low and middle income students each year. Eligible individuals will be able to receive up to $15,000 over a maximum of four years toward undergraduate degrees, diplomas or certificates.

The budget also recognized the changing demographics of our student population as more and more of them who have been in the workforce return to their studies to upgrade their skills.

The budget introduced a new Canada study grant for students with children or other dependants. These grants came into effect August 1, 1998 and are expected to help over 25,000 students over the next year.

There is also the Canada education savings grant to help families save for their education, and the Government of Canada will give a grant of 20% on the first $2,000 invested in a registered education savings plan.

The motion proposes the establishment of accessibility as a new standard for post-secondary education. Accessibility can mean many things. In terms of program funding accessibility has been a fundamental principle of the Canada student loans program since it was introduced in 1964, and it remains so.

If the motion refers to accessibility to education we must remember there is a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments on matters related to higher education. Traditionally the operations of an education system are seen as outside the federal area of responsibility.

Any proposal to establish national standards for access to education would have to be considered within the wider and broad context of shared responsibility between the federal government and our provincial and territorial partners. It could not be unilaterally imposed by the federal government.

Thus we cannot support the motion for a number of reasons. First, the system has not been privatized as the motion implies. We have moved to a system of sharing the risks of the Canada student loans program with the private sector but we have not privatized the program. Any moves to change a risk sharing arrangement would cause potential extra costs to the Government of Canada and would upset the existing program.

Second, the Government of Canada has already committed $2.5 billion to the Canada millennium scholarship fund which will provide students with financial support. We do not believe it is prudent to add further to our grant programs at this time.

Third, accessibility is already a fundamental principle of the Canada student loans program and will remain so. Issues of accessibility to education in the operational sense are matters for discussion at the provincial and territorial government levels. The Government of Canada believes in a partnership approach to policy development and has no intention of formulating and

or imposing any national accessibility standards in this regard.

We do not believe the proposals presented in the motion are necessary, nor would they improve the existing system in support of Canadian students. While the government is always willing to listen as always to constructive advice and to make helpful changes, we are not persuaded in this instance that the actions proposed in this private member's motion will provide the kind of result needed. It is for these reasons that I ask that we oppose the motion.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the former chairman of the Waterloo regional police I have a very keen and strong interest in this area of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-258 proposes the repeal of section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, a provision which provides for judicial review of the parole ineligibility period for persons convicted of murder and high treason.

I want to re-emphasize the position of the government. We believe that section 745.6 should be retained for exceptional and deserving cases and as such Bill C-258 is in direct conflict with government policy and therefore certainly I do not and the government does not support it.

Section 745.6 was enacted in 1976 when the death penalty was abolished in Canada. That section was necessary as a source of hope for the rehabilitation of convicted murderers and as a protection for prison guards.

I believe the reasons that justified its addition to the Criminal Code then are still valid today. An offender must satisfy a jury of 12 citizens drawn from the community that the parole ineligibility period should be reduced. At that hearing after evidence called by the applicant and by the crown including any information the victims of the crime may wish to bring to the attention of the jury it is the jury which decides whether to reduce that parole ineligibility period.

I want to emphasize a point that is crucial to an accurate understanding of the issue. However, it is not always understood by others and perhaps some in the public that the life sentence imposed on a person convicted of murder or high treason continues literally for the offender's entire life. Accordingly in those cases where such an offender is released on parole the offender continues to be subject to the sentence and can be reincarcerated at any time should he or she breach a condition of release imposed by the parole board.

Section 745.6 sets out an extremely rigorous procedure. If we look at the facts the vast majority of those eligible to apply simply never do.

There is a great deal of public concern about section 745.6. I share that and the residents of Waterloo-Wellington and all Canadians share that. The government certainly shares that concern as well and that is why the government amended section 745.6 in the last parliament. We recognized the concerns that were raised and we moved to deal with them.

As many members of the House will know, Bill C-45 brought three key changes to section 745.6. The first eliminated judicial review for all multiple murders committed in the future whether the murders are committed at the same time or not. This would include serial murders. The proposed amendment is consistent with the notion long found in the Criminal Code that the repetition of the offence should be treated more harshly by the law in a single offence.

The second created a screening mechanism whereby a judge of a superior court would conduct a paper review of the application to determine if there is reasonable chance of success before the application is allowed to proceed to a full hearing before a jury.

The third provided that the parole ineligibility period may only be reduced by a unanimous vote of the community jury, whereas previously only two-thirds of the jury were required. As a result of this provision an application for reduction of the parole ineligibility period will be denied whenever the jury cannot reach a unanimous conclusion to reduce the period.

There is a lot more we as a government are doing for victims and their families. It is much more than simply focusing in on single minded or simplistic views such as the repeal of section 745.6. The government believes, as many Canadians and certainly residents in my area do, that people who are guilty of a terrible act should be given a chance to come to terms with their crime and rehabilitate themselves. In the government's view it is important that our justice system include a mechanism which gives some people a chance in exceptional circumstances to turn around their lives.

[The Late Dave Nicholson, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Constable Dave Nicholson, a 32 year old member of the Waterloo Regional Police Service who lived in Heidelberg, Ontario, recently drowned while trying to retrieve the body of a 12 year old Cambridge boy, Mark Gage.

Constable Nicholson's funeral was held in Kitchener on August 19, 1998. Thousands of police, peace officers and firefighters joined family and friends at the solemn occasion.

Constable Dave Nicholson was an outstanding police officer, a devout family man, a loving father, a wonderful husband and an exceptional citizen of our great Canada. He will be sadly missed by all who knew him, who worked with him and who had contact with him.

The death of Constable Nicholson underscores the courage and bravery of those whose job it is to protect Canadians wherever they may be.

I ask the House to join with me in remembering Constable Dave Nicholson. He was a man of great faith and conviction. He will be greatly missed. He is now in the hands of God.