Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader is presently chairing a committee meeting and I will bring this submission to his attention at the first opportunity.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader is presently chairing a committee meeting and I will bring this submission to his attention at the first opportunity.
Questions On The Order Paper June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Motions For Papers June 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are committed to a clean environment in its many dimensions, knowing that a clean environment is one determinant of good health of the citizenry. That is why Canadians want strong and effective environmental laws to ensure a clean environment for Canada. That is why on March 12 the Minister of the Environment introduced Bill C-32 to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The bill represents a shift from expensive efforts to try to clean up pollution after the fact to preventing it from occurring in the first place.
In the bill all substances used in Canada will be screened for their effects on the environment and therefore human health. Strict deadlines for action will be in place. The government is committed to putting the most dangerous toxic substances on the path to virtual elimination. One of the innovative features of this bill is the authority to require pollution prevention plans for toxic substances, a first for Canada.
Pollution prevention is good for both environment and business. Companies that have voluntarily adopted a pollution prevention approach have found it improves the bottom line. At the same time, sound enforcement of the law is essential to creating a level playing field that supports environmental leaders while penalizing polluters.
The renewed act will improve enforcement by expanding inspector powers, including the authority to issue on the spot orders and ensuring that the financial and human resources needed are in place.
The new act is founded on the principle of partnership, not on devolution of federal powers to the provinces and territories but on close co-operative work with them. The federal government remains firmly committed to safeguarding the health of Canadians from the threat of pollution by strengthening environmental protection in Canada.
Motions For Papers June 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for his question. It reflects the commitment and concern he has for his constituents.
First let me state that in our increasingly global economy the need to knock down trade barriers assumes greater importance. That is why the North American Free Trade Agreement in addition to other international agreements are crucial to the government's agenda for creating jobs and growth.
NAFTA commits Canada to work together with our U.S. and Mexico partners to expand trade and investment and to facilitate the movement of legitimate business persons.
Success in the new economy increasingly relies not only on the ability to move products but also to move people across borders quickly and efficiently. This is not to say we are throwing the door open to all workers from the United States and Mexico. We are not. The categories of certain business persons permitted by the agreement from the three countries to have access to each other's countries to conduct certain types of business activities are strictly regulated.
Unfortunately, we may at times encounter those who try to bypass the regular system and attempt to abuse our programs as the member had raised. I want to make it clear that this government will not tolerate this type of behaviour.
In fact the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said on several occasions that anyone who has information regarding potential abuses of the provisions of NAFTA and/or the Immigration Act is encouraged to contact the department. Hence, on hearing the question on this issue let me assure the member that again this matter will be brought to the attention of the department so that the member may be posted as to developments to ensure that indeed the problem raised has been solved definitively.
Charitable Contributions June 1st, 1998
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to debate this motion. However, before we rush to adopt this motion, which on the surface would appear to give added tax benefits to charitable donors, let us first examine the present status of tax benefits for charitable donations and ask ourselves what would be the fiscal cost to government and, most importantly, what would be the consequence to charities themselves.
In fact, the immediate consequence to charitable contributors, were the legislation to be put in place as moved, would be a zero federal tax benefit for charitable donations in excess of $1,150 per donor per year. That is the present situation for federal tax credits on political contributions.
Why is the design for tax treatment different between political contributions and charitable donations?
The difference in design reflects the difference in the policy intent and goals of the two. A tax credit for political contributions is aimed at encouraging greater grassroots involvement by all Canadians in the political process, while at the same time preventing the overbearing influence of those who can afford a large donation. Hence, more generous tax assistance is given to smaller political contributions.
This tax assistance is reduced incrementally to the point of zero when political contributions exceed $1,150 per contributor per year.
In contrast, the tax credit for charitable donations is aimed not only at recognizing the value of all levels of donations, big or small, but also at encouraging larger donations to charities. Hence, tax assistance for charitable donations is greater for amounts in excess of $200, 29% or more versus 17% for the first $200, and the threshold for this eligibility was recently lowered from the original $250.
Moreover, tax credits may be claimed for very large donations up to 75%, raised from the previous 20%, of a taxpayer's income in any given year. The tax credit may be carried forward for the ensuing five years should the 75% limit be exceeded.
The income inclusion rate for capital gains arising from the donation of appreciated publicly traded securities was also reduced to 37.5%.
So we can see that in four of the last five federal budgets tax measures have been taken to ensure that donations to charities indeed are encouraged.
To date, the level of tax benefits accorded most charitable donations result in approximately a 50-50 partnership between the government and the private sector in the support of charities.
What the fiscal cost of the measure would be were we to implement the motion as moved would be approximately $125 million per year for the federal government and some $55 million for the provincial governments. The effect on the level of charitable donations likely would not be that much.
Small donations to charities are not strongly motivated by the availability of tax benefits. Thus, treating charitable donations in the same way as political contributions would not necessarily increase the total amount of donations from small donors. At the same time, larger donations from big donors may in fact diminish in number.
In a recent news item reported in the May 27, 1998 issue of the Ottawa Citizen , the increase in the number of large donations—in millions of dollars—to help the Canadian Red Cross, land mine survivors and cultural institutions was attributed to tax measures adopted in the last five federal budgets of this government.
The greatest effect of the proposal would be to increase the fiscal costs of tax assistance accorded to donations that would have been made in any case. Charities themselves would receive little benefit.
I share the principle of charitable giving. We share the belief as Canadians that charitable giving, which is a defining character of the Canadian nation, expresses the best in our people. We are people who take pride in helping the most vulnerable of our citizens and in advancing lofty causes such as scholarships, the performing arts, research, professional faculties, ethnic studies, finding cures for diseases, literacy, sports, international development projects and others.
In essence, we help to ensure that the Canadian citizenry is sound in mind and body. This goal is a chance we give as well to the people in developing nations. This spirit of helping fellow citizens, neighbours and strangers, is very much a part of the Canadian culture. Essentially, Canadians, particularly the small donors, give not because of tax incentives or any monetary inducement, but because they want to give.
Viewed in this light, Canadians will see the soundness of the current differential government policy with respect to the two types of donations and see the absence of need to treat them in the same way.
A political contribution is a contribution to help advance the cause of democracy. Charitable donations are more than a contribution. Charitable contributions are gifts to help advance the noble causes of the heart. We value and hold in esteem charitable donors for their gifts of the heart.
Conditional Sentencing May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health enjoys the full support and confidence of the government. His unwavering commitment and hard work to obtain financial assistance for victims of hepatitis C as a result of blood therapy is known to all and bore fruit when provincial and territorial governments collectively announced with the federal government the financial assistance package for those victims during the period from 1986 to 1990, a period clearly identified by Mr. Justice Krever as a time when those responsible for Canada's blood system could have and should have acted to prevent this type of infection but did not.
Achieving a consensus is never easy in a federal system but it is essential in sustaining the strength of the Canadian federation. It is therefore a tribute to the health minister that he was able to weave that consensus premised on the principle of governmental responsibility. We all know the events of the past couple of weeks necessitated revisiting this initial consensus but that does not detract from its desirability.
Following that meeting a working group of officials was created to review a number of possible options to address remaining questions on the issue. That they have agreed to this process indicates that all parties understand the importance of finding a pan-Canadian response. Members of this House have a duty to facilitate directly and indirectly the attainment of that pan-Canadian consensus. It serves the interests of all when we achieve it. It serves the interests of none if we fail.
Leadership is best tested during difficult times. I assure the House that at all times during this difficult process the federal Minister of Health has always enjoyed the full support and confidence of the Prime Minister, his cabinet colleagues and fellow government caucus members.
National Police Week May 15th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, National Police Week ends tomorrow. Canadians from coast to coast have been paying special tribute to those officers on the front line in the fight against crime. But police officers do much more than fight criminals.
This was recently displayed when two RCMP officers in Manitoba quickly stopped a wayward vehicle and administered CPR to the unconscious man at the wheel until the ambulance services arrived. The quick thinking and bold actions by Constables Claude Rochon and Marc Simard saved the life of that man who had suffered a heart attack while driving.
Let us salute Constables Rochon and Simard and all police officers in Canada during this special week. Their selfless dedication to protecting and serving our citizenry is testimony to our brave, capable and caring Canadian police officers who work hard to make our communities safer and who often do their job beyond their usual call of duty.
Criminal Code May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul in debating Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code on the subject of genetic manipulation. Of course the subject matter has a profound impact on our human race, on our very humanity.
The essence of our being was shaken when a little more than a half a century ago, in 1944 to be exact, research scientists in the United States observed for the first time a human egg being fertilized in a glass dish outside the womb of a mother. Thirty-four years following that scientific milestone the first live birth of a child, having its beginnings outside the human body, occurred in England.
It was international news at the time, but at once it raised many fundamental societal questions. I therefore understand that today we are debating 20 years later this issue in the Chamber in the bill before us.
I congratulate the member for Drummond on her initiative. I concur in principle with the thrust of the bill, its prohibitions on the cloning of the human embryo and of genetic manipulation that could allow the transmission of an altered genetic structure to a subsequent generation.
My intervention is in the nature of a friendly submission. I have a reservation. How will the single focus, enshrining in the Criminal Code one point of the very broad and complex reproductive technology issue, be seen?
In preparing for this debate I revisited the two volume report produced by the royal commission on new technologies that I may have the guidance of its work and its wisdom. The royal commission on new reproductive technology chaired by Patricia Baird issued its final report entitled “Proceed with care” on November 15, 1993. It contained 293 recommendations.
Before I proceed further allow me for greater clarity to define certain terms in the language of human biologists. First I go to the fertilized egg before implantation as it develops during the first 14 days. An embryo refers to a developing human organism after implantation in the uterus until about eights weeks after fertilization and a fetus refers to the human organism at the beginning of the ninth week after fertilization until the time of birth.
Why did I define these terms? The terms embryo donation, embryo transfer and embryo research are inaccurate since they all occur with zygotes and not with embryos in the language of human biologists. However the terms continue to be commonly used and we understand them in this context.
Embryo research since the milestones in 1944 and 1978 has raised questions about the ethical and legal status of the embryo and about how society's respect for human life should apply to the situation. Concerns have been expressed about the potential impact of embryo research on women and on society.
The royal commission was given the mandate to examine how new reproductive technologies should be handled in our country. Some 40,000 people were involved in the work on the report “Proceed with Care” from which I quote:
Commissioners have set out a blueprint for how Canada, with its unique institutions and social make-up, can deal with new reproductive technologies, regulate their use, and ensure that future developments or use are in the public interest.
It continues:
At the same time, it will ensure that only ethical and accountable use of technology is made, and demonstrate that Canadians have wisdom, humanity, and compassion in the way they choose to use technology.
The 293 recommendations were categorized into three general categories: first, recommendations regarding the need for criminal legislation to set boundaries around the use of new reproductive technologies in Canada; second, recommendations regarding the establishment and operation of a national reproductive technologies commission to manage new reproductive technologies within these boundaries; and, third, other recommendations addressed to existing federal departments and agencies.
With respect to criminal legislation and relevant to the bill before us, certain activities according to the commission “conflict so sharply with the values espoused by Canadians and by this commission, and are potentially harmful to the interests of individuals and of society, that they must be prohibited by the federal government under threat of criminal sanction”.
My problem with the bill in terms of a submission is that the actions defined by the commission include human zygote-embryo research related to ectogenesis; cloning; animal-human hybrids; transfer of zygotes to another species; maturation and fertilization of eggs from human fetuses; sale of human eggs, sperm, zygotes, fetuses and fetal tissues; and advertising for or acting as an intermediary to bring about a preconception arrangement.
What then will be the implication if out of this two volume report we pick one or two items and say we will criminally prohibit it at this point? Might it be implied wrongly that the others are sanctioned? I am worried about that. I submit that we ought to use an approach that is integrated and comprehensive.
The issue raised by the bill before us is of profound importance to all Canadians. How we deal with it, as suggested by all the speakers, is a reflection of our credo and faith as Canadians.
It is in this spirit that I say again I concur with the principle of the bill. It is also in this spirit that I offer my reservation and why I would prefer that the bill before us not proceed at this time but be taken into account as we await the government's more comprehensive response and integrated response to this very delicate human issue that transcends political partisanship and challenges us to a more thorough, careful but urgent look as we prepare our parliamentary response.
In conclusion, this response may not be limited only to criminal legislation but should encompass the totality of the recommendations contained in the two volumes of “Proceed with Care”, the full report of the royal commission.
Questions On The Order Paper May 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the commentary. That message will be conveyed to the parliamentary secretary to the House leader.
Questions On The Order Paper May 11th, 1998
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.