Stan Keyes

[Charitable Contributions, October 1st, 1998]

He laughs because he does not understand. I can understand that. The Income Tax Act is a very complicated thing and the hon. member opposite is only going to look at this thing on the surface. All he wants to see is a tax credit for everybody, whether it is a political or a charitable donation, et cetera.

I ask members of this House to look a little deeper. Look a little deeper at exactly what this bill proposes and look at the ramifications it would have if it were to be implemented, not at the up to $250, $300 or $500 range that the hon. members opposite are proposing, but at the larger end where the Reform really wants the big money, tax credited, coming into their pockets.

[Charitable Contributions, October 1st, 1998]

The member opposite from the Reform Party says to make the tax credit the same. He just did not get it, did he?

Unlike the Reform Party, the government on this side of the House is trying to ensure that there is a balance.

[Charitable Contributions, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, at first blush my constituents are probably sitting in their living rooms right now saying “This is a heck of a good idea”. I was sitting in the lobby and thinking, at first blush, “This is a really good idea. Let us give those charitable donations more of a tax break than they currently get”.

Then I looked at the proposal. The proposal is being put forward by the member for Fraser Valley, a member of the Reform Party. The bells started going off. I began to think “What is it they want to do?” At first blush my constituents would say to me “What they want to do is make the tax credit for charitable donations at least as generous as the credit accorded political contributions. That is exactly what they want to do”.

Why do we not look at the mirror image of what they are proposing? The Reform Party's selective use of the facts in any particular issue is what any opposition party relies on. They rely on only telling so much. If they tell more it makes things very difficult and they do not get the support they need on a particular bill.

Let us look at the whole story, the whole situation when it comes to a tax credit, whether it is political or charitable. I will tell this to my constituents because it is important. Let us say that Stan Keyes received a $100,000 donation to his political campaign. That is very generous. I would appreciate it. But the only tax relief they would receive on that $100,000, to a maximum, would be $1,150. That is it.

That same constituent could say that it was not enough to give money to Stan, that they would also like to give $100,000 to the St. Joseph's Hospital Foundation in my riding. The Reform Party will not tell us that the tax credit they would receive on that donation would be far greater than they would receive giving the $100,000 to me. That is right. Even the members of the Reform Party are puzzled by this. It is true. A political donation of $100,000 gets a maximum tax credit of $1,150. A $100,000 donation to a charitable organization gets a far greater tax credit.

Why is that? It is because we encourage grassroots Canadians to donate money to their political parties on a much broader spectrum. Let us get more people donating to political parties and friends in smaller amounts. Let us ensure that people who are generous toward charitable organizations, like the St. Joseph's Hospital Foundation in my riding, are encouraged to give larger amounts so they also get a larger tax credit for doing that. Does that not make sense?

Now the alarm bells go off in my head. Why do we suppose that a party like Reform, which claims to be grassroots—and the Bloc can be lumped into this as well—said from the beginning that they wanted a lot of small donations? They want those $10, $20 and $30 donations from their grassroots supporters.

Now we have a motion from the Reform Party that proposes to make the tax credits for charitable donations as least as generous as political tax credits.

Let us look at that mirror image I spoke of. Now we see that the Reform Party is really after some equality with charitable donations in those bigger amounts of cash coming into its political coffers. Now we get the picture.

This is not talking about “Let us help out those people”. We are only talking about donations of up to $200. That is all they are talking about. That is suspicious.

What is the mirror effect of this? The mirror effect is, if they are looking to have equality and simplify the tax system, they are looking for, dare I say on behalf of the Reform, larger political donations. No, I would not want to say that, but let us have a look at exactly what this is all about.

The Minister of Finance has always been supportive of enhancing tax assistance to the charitable sector. He has always been there for them. Consequently, the assistance given to the charitable sector has been enhanced. I tell that to the hon. member from the Reform Party who has nothing better to do than stand in the House and yell at me. During his speech I was quiet, but he has chosen to be very agitated about this. I understand why.

If I were out there asking the public to increase the amount of money they were going to give to me, and for that they would get a bigger tax break at the end of the day, I would be kind of embarrassed too. I would be yelling at members opposite for pointing that out to my constituents who are watching tonight.

What has the minister done? The Minister of Finance has enhanced and assisted the charitable sector in every budget: in the 1994 budget, in the 1995 budget, right up until this year's budget in 1998. The relationship between government and the private sector in support of charities can be described as a 50:50 partnership, although the level for tax assistance to donations by individuals is generally somewhat larger than 50% for cash donations, again I say above $200.

Quite frankly, I think many taxpaying Canadians out there would say that is very generous support.

My constituents are saying the tax assistance provided through a federal tax credit of 17% on donations up to $200 and 29% on amounts in excess of $200 is generous. They are quite satisfied. The application of the credit reduces basic federal tax, which in turn reduces a donor's provincial tax liabilities.

When we look at the proposal being put forward by the member for Fraser Valley, I say it looks very level headed and it looks as though they really care.

I have heard some terrific speeches in the House tonight during Private Members' Business. Those members are absolutely correct. Those charitable organizations out there doing the good work in our communities are most valued. There is no question of that.

Everything this government can do to help those charitable donors it will do. We are going to give them every assistance that we can possibly give them.

[Financial Institutions, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Dr. Harold MacKay and members of the task force for successfully completing the challenging task of reporting on the future of Canadian financial institutions.

Congratulations to the Minister of Finance for insisting that public discussion and full debate take place on the task force's recommendations. Special hearings by the Standing Committee on Finance will allow Canadians from coast to coast to coast to share their views and their concerns on the two bank merger proposals.

This government has clearly demonstrated that it has the best interest of Canadians at heart.

Last September 10, Canadians learned that a merger between the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank would result in a boost in small business lending. With one eyebrow raised my constituents say “nice timing” and ask “Why put off until tomorrow what the banks should be doing today?”

[Division No. 203, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the evening I wonder if I could get unanimous consent of the House to allow our pages to go home if they so choose.

[Air Transportation, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport made it abundantly clear to the hon. member opposite when he said this government relies on a two airline policy in this country because a two airline policy fosters competition and competition is healthy for the air travelling public in this country.

[Commissioner For The Rights Of Victims Of Crime, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I consider it a privilege to speak to an issue of top priority to the Minister of Justice and the government, that is the role of victims within the justice system. I am encouraged that so many members in this place agree that much more needs to be done to improve the situation of the victim.

In addressing whether we should establish a federal commissioner for the rights of victims of crime, which is proposed by the hon. member's motion, we must consider a whole range of issues not least of which is the interaction of provincial and federal jurisdictions in this area.

In light of the commitment of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to deal fully with the issue of the role of victims in the justice system, I find it passing strange that we are debating this issue in the House today. Next week we are holding the victims forum in Ottawa to hear from those who have firsthand knowledge of what needs to be done and what role the federal government can play in ensuring these needs are met.

Much work has already been done in this field. I believe the experience of those who have undertaken pioneering work will benefit the members of the committee as they prepare their recommendations.

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough spoke to the issue last week during debate on the Reform Party's allotted day motion regarding the criminal justice system. As I recall, the hon. member noted that pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act the office of the correctional investigator had been established to ensure that incarcerated offenders within the federal corrections system had a mechanism to address their complaints and concerns. The hon. member is suggesting that there should be a parallel office or a commissioner—I also heard him use the term ombudsman—to look out for the interests of victims of crime.

Hon. members are aware that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently examining the role of the victim in the criminal justice system. This review is under way due in part to a motion made by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford in April 1996 calling on the government to ask the standing committee to explore a federal bill of rights for victims. The standing committee heard from several witnesses in April 1997 and concluded that a more detailed examination of this and other related issues was indeed necessary.

The standing committee will address a host of issues including the need for additional services for victims, the information needs of victims, how such services can be funded and whether additional Criminal Code amendments are necessary.

The Minister of Justice has already discussed several options with provincial attorneys general but has also noted that further information would be gathered by the standing committee. That consultation process would assist the minister in refining many of the options under consideration.

It would be appropriate that this motion to establish a commissioner be referred to the standing committee. The committee has an opportunity to hear from the real experts regarding what victims need and expect from the criminal justice system and what is currently being provided.

The committee has already received information about the range of services and legislation already in existence in the provinces and territories. With this background and context the committee is in the best position to assess the benefits and feasibility of establishing the position of commissioner.

The hon. member's proposal is not novel. The Minister of Justice has already indicated her interest in establishing a federal office for victims of crime. The minister has discussed the establishment of such an office with her provincial colleagues who have indicated their support for a complementary federal role and co-ordination mechanism to among other goals bring about improvements to the criminal justice system to benefit victims of crime and to ensure they receive the information they need. This option of the establishment of an office for victims may achieve many of the same objectives as the hon. member suggests regarding a commissioner.

Hon. members should also be aware that the Minister of Justice wrote to the chair of the standing committee expressing her interest in the review of the role of the victim in the criminal justice system and seeking its input on several specific options including the establishment of an office. I will quote from that letter:

In addition to Criminal Code amendments, I have been considering several non-legislative options including the establishment of an “Office” for Victims of Crime within the Department of Justice. I have discussed the establishment of such an Office with my provincial and territorial colleagues and have received their support for this initiative. An Office for Victims of Crime would be mandated to, among other things, ensure the victim's perspective is considered in the development of all criminal law policy and legislation. The Office would co-ordinate all federal victim initiatives and facilitate federal-provincial-territorial initiatives. In general, it would be a centre of expertise domestically and internationally and a point of contact for information about the role of victims of crime in the criminal justice system. The Standing Committee may wish to explore the benefits of such an Office for Victims of Crime.

The Minister of Justice has recognized that the standing committee's review provides an opportunity to canvass a wide range of views regarding a wide range of victims issues. I would submit that consideration of the motion should also await that review process or even become part of it.

The minister's letter to the standing committee also acknowledged the work done by a joint federal-provincial-territorial committee that includes all the provincial and territorial directors of victims services. That group has gathered information about existing programs, services and legislation in Canada and meets regularly to address issues of concern and to propose necessary solutions.

That type of federal-provincial-territorial initiative and co-operation is essential when addressing the needs and concerns of victims within the criminal justice system because governments have to work together. This co-operation must be encouraged and formalized. The office proposed by the Minister of Justice would be a means to ensure ongoing federal-provincial-territorial collaboration, consultation and co-operation.

In the discussions of the Minister of Justice to date with victim advocates, service providers and many experts in their field a common theme emerges. Crime victims and witnesses need information and do not know where to turn for information when they get caught up in the criminal justice system.

They do not want to be told that their problem is somebody else's job or in some other jurisdiction. In addition, most believe it is the government's responsibility to assist them. There are already many valuable programs and services but there continue to be some gaps in making Canadians aware of those services.

Therefore there is a need to focus on how we as a government can develop a centre point of contact for victims and a network of information providers. The Minister of Justice has already launched a process to work closely with the provinces on this issue and does not intent to set up an expensive, cumbersome bureaucracy.

With respect to the issue of victims rights I have some reservations about the federal government role. We should not suggest to Canadians that a special charter and special legislation are needed depending on the situation they find themselves in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides us all with equal benefit and protection under the law. Moreover, criminal law and criminal procedure are properly set out in the Criminal Code.

Another concern relates to the jurisdictional responsibilities of the provinces, territories and federal government. The provinces and territories have enacted legislation to address a variety of so-called victims rights relating to the fair treatment of victims, the provision of information and services, and related issues.

Federal legislation can address only matters of federal jurisdiction. Another major consideration in developing rights legislation is how breach or violation of these rights can be effectively enforced. Most victims rights legislation provides no remedy. Real improvements require the willing participation of all players in the criminal justice system. Let us hear their views on what an effective role for the federal government might be.

Earlier I referred to the federal government's role in enacting criminal law. I do not need to remind the House of many of the Canadian Criminal Code amendments passed by the government which respond directly to the concerns of crime victims.

For example, there is the gun control legislation, Bill C-68; the crime prevention strategy; the national information system on child sex offenders; sentencing legislation; amendments to the Criminal Code to permit collection of bodily samples for DNA analysis, Bill C-104; the restriction of the defence of extreme intoxication; and Bill C-55 amendments regarding high risk offenders.

I could go on and on with the examples. The Minister of Justice also indicated that further Criminal Code amendments will be proposed following receipt and review of the standing committee's report to respond to recommendations made by victims advocates and by the federal-provincial-territorial working group on victims and crime.

[Dna Identification Act, June 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder first of all if the Speaker could rule if this point is indeed a point of order.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, maybe it would be helpful if the Speaker could explain to the hon. member that he does have the opportunity to deposit his petition at the clerk's table without having this show.

[Income Tax Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 27 the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health announced the strategy to deal with the hepatitis C infections from our blood system.

They have worked hard to put together a very substantial plan. Up to $1.1 billion will be used to address harms that might have been prevented had things been done differently between 1986 and 1990 in our blood system. This will provide for up to 22,000 people.

Our approach to this terrible situation is one that is not based purely on court cases, nor is it all about money. It is about finding the best way to resolve these issues without creating other problems in the process.

Canadian society has not yet discussed, never mind decided about no fault insurance for its health care system. We had to be careful not to embark on that road before these discussions could take place.

They also had to address the court actions against the federal government. They could have just allowed those to continue, but the federal health minister is on the record as having supported the idea of trying to steer these cases away from the courts before we started the process leading to the federal, provincial and territorial governments' announcement last month. Trying to avoid the courts was something they wanted to see happen and they are hoping their approach will lead to that as soon as possible.

The Minister of Health has answered questions about the rationale for hepatitis C assistance. He has explained the parameters that Canadian governments have established. He has explained the dangers of being careless in making this kind of public policy; that is, the dangers of being hasty and irresponsible.

To the hon. member opposite I say it is not a question of what is right or what is wrong, it is a question of what is the responsible thing to do on behalf of all Canadians.