John Maloney

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill today. This bill concerns controlling drugs and substances and addresses one of the most compelling issues with which society is faced today, the issue of drug abuse. Constituents in Erie riding have demanded action and this government has responded.

As each member of the House is only too aware, drug abuse and the untold suffering it causes knows no geography, no socioeconomic class, no social graces. The problem is widespread. It strikes hard and with devastation. It destroys families, careers and lives. We must stop this waste.

According to a United Nations survey, trade in illegal drugs is second only to world trade in arms. This is a very sobering fact. The incidence of drug abuse rises considerably among teenagers and young adults who are school drop outs, unemployed, or homeless. Do not be fooled. This disease, this cancer is in our schools as well. Ask your children. Ask your grandchildren. It is truly frightening.

While recognizing that there is a need to emphasize demand reduction, it is important that the Government of Canada complement these efforts with drug law enforcement and crime prevention.

This bill is intended to consolidate, modernize, enhance and streamline the government's drug control policy underlying two current acts of Parliament and to fulfil Canada's obligations under three international conventions.

In 1961 the government of the day enacted the Narcotic Control Act as a follow-up to the single convention on narcotic drugs. In anticipation of the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances, in 1961 and 1969, Parliament passed parts III and IV respectively of the Food and Drug Act. In essence, much of our existing legislation framework is now more than 30 years old and must be reviewed. It is for this reason among others that this legislation is necessary.

Furthermore, as a signatory to three international agreements on the illegal drug trade, Canada is obligated to the terms of the single convention on narcotic drugs of 1961, the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances and the relevant parts of the 1988 United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychoactive substances.

Consequently, the controlled drugs and substances bill is designed to achieve three prime objectives. First is to provide the government with the flexibility required to better control the import, production, export, distribution and use of controlled substances. Second is to provide the mechanisms needed to implement our obligations under international agreements. This relates to the restricted production or trade of internationally regulated substances destined for medical, scientific and/or industrial purposes. Third is to enhance the ability of the police and the courts to enforce our laws.

The bill provides for the seizure and forfeiture of property used in offences involving controlled substances. It also allows for the restraint and forfeiture of fortified drug houses. The use of fortified drug houses for the purposes of drug trafficking is an increasing problem.

The houses are generally family dwellings that have been modified for use as centres for drug trafficking. They are veritable fortresses of crime. The houses are fortified by adding steel doors, boarding up windows and adding cement walls. In some instances, trap doors are used to exchange money and drugs so that there is no contact between the trafficker and the purchaser. The purpose for building such houses is to delay or prevent entry by police. During the extra time it takes the police to gain entry, any evidence of drug dealing is destroyed.

The existing Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act do not effectively deal with emerging trends in drug abuse. We must be able to adapt to rapidly changing criminal activity. These trends see the appearance of new illicit or new designer drugs which can escape effective control under current law. Their methods, their tactics and their products are forever undergoing change. We must respond and quickly. We need flexible legislation which

allows those on the front lines of enforcement to adapt quickly to these new developments as they occur.

For example, one of the more recent developments in the drug underworld is the production and illicit sale of so-called designer drugs. Designer drugs are potent substances with chemical structures slightly different from substances presently controlled by the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, substances such as stimulants, tranquillizers and pain killers. Yet these drugs affect abusers in similar ways and can lead to the same health and social problems produced by more conventional drugs. Much harm can result from the abuse of these drugs. Primary targets are often school age children.

The manufacture and sale of the designer drugs can be a very profitable business. Under the current Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act drugs must first be listed on a schedule to the act. This regulates the conditions for the sale of that particular substance in Canada.

Only once a given substance is listed can it become an offence to sell it. To correct this deficiency the controlled drugs and substances bill proposes the inclusion of analogues to cover these substances. Analogues are non-listed substances that have highly similar chemical structures to those of listed substances. Under the proposed act new illicit drugs appearing on the street which fit this description will be covered automatically.

The bill also permits the control of precursors. Precursors are chemical substances used to produce controlled substances. New provisions contained in the bill will enable authorities to regulate the import and export of these substances.

Other sources of drugs sold on the street are substances intended for medical or scientific use. They may be stolen from a hospital, obtained through illegal prescriptions, secured by obtaining numerous prescriptions from different doctors for the same ailment or via a forged prescription.

People who deal in diverted pharmaceutical drugs are collecting very large profits. This bill enhances present controls that deal with this issue. Under this bill the monitoring of the distribution of drugs will continue.

We know there exists a criminal element which is using more and more sophisticated networks to illegally produce, sell, export and import controlled substances in Canada. These people buy property and consumer goods to further their criminal activities and bolster their personal wealth. As I see it such people should be prevented from retaining illegally obtained capital and goods.

The bill before us today in tandem with the proceeds of crime legislation strikes at the heart of criminal enterprises. Together the legislation will enable the courts to strip criminals of profits and property illegally amassed through drug dealing. Traffickers will no longer be able to flaunt their Rolex watches, fancy cars and mansions, flashy boats and planes, and rightfully so.

Trends in illegal production, distribution and use of controlled substances change frequently and quickly. This bill is designed to deal with current problems and to anticipate future needs. This bill proposes a significant strengthening of our current legislative framework.

Nonetheless I believe this bill merits the support of all members on all sides of the House. Given what is at stake, I submit Canadians expect no less of us.

[Canada Health Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the subject of a private member's bill, C-284, an act to amend the Canada Health Act.

Under the Canadian Constitution the responsibility for health care falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments. In other words, the provinces and the territories have a primary responsibility for the provision and delivery of health care services to the people of Canada.

This means that they act as planners, managers and administrators of their own health care systems. In practical terms, this includes negotiation of budgets with hospitals, approval of capital plans and the negotiation of fee agreements with medical associations. For its part the federal government by law is responsible for the promotion and preservation of the health of all Canadians. The Department of Health is responsible for bringing together parties on health issues of a national and interprovincial concern.

The federal government also assumes a responsibility for setting national policies and for providing health care services to specific groups such as treaty Indians as well as the Inuit.

It is appropriate when describing federal responsibilities in health care to note what the federal government cannot do. It cannot interfere in provincial and territorial responsibilities as defined under our Constitution. Nor can it be seen to be infringing on these responsibilities.

Bill C-284 attempts to require provincial and territorial health insurance plans to impose a responsibility on hospitals to disclose to emergency response employees whether a patient to whom they are providing service has an infectious or a contagious disease. I sympathize with the concerns of emergency response workers. They must be commended for accepting the fact that they are at

risk to exposure to diseases that may not be completely preventable in serving the public.

Indeed my wife and several members of my family are employed in the health care field as well as in the emergency response field. Therefore I understand and support the motives behind Bill C-284.

However, it is the provinces and territories that are responsible for all matters dealing with their hospitals. This represents what would be perceived as an intrusion on provincial and territorial responsibilities under our Constitution. It is not an easy solution as one would think. There is in this country a longstanding partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments with regard to health care.

The enactment of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of 1957 and the Medical Care Act, 1966-67 established a framework for this partnership between governments. At this time the federal government provides a sharing of the cost of medically necessary hospital and physician services in return for the adherence of the provincial and territorial health insurance plans through the principles of a national program.

Federal legislation, the the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act recognized the constitutional position of provincial and territorial governments and left each with the responsibility of administering its respective plans.

Concerns over hospital user fees and extra billing by physicians led to the passage of the Canadian Health Act in 1984. This was achieved with all-party support. The federal government's aim in passing the Canada Health Act was to reaffirm its commitment to the original guiding principles expressed in earlier legislation. It was also to provide a mechanism to promote the provinces' and territories' compliance with the act's criteria, conditions and extra billing and user charge provisions.

In short, the Canada Health Act was intended to encourage reasonable access to necessary health care services on a prepaid basis for every resident of Canada. The provinces and territories have retained their responsibility of administering their health insurance plans under the Canada Health Act. They continue to be responsible for negotiations with physicians and hospitals.

Since the introduction of government sponsored health insurance, physicians have been free of the administrative constraints of managed care found in the United States and this continues under the Canada Health Act. Hospitals retain the freedom to charge for semi-private or private rooms and for meals and accommodations for chronically ill patients who are more or less permanently resident in hospitals.

The Canada Health Act's criteria are known to most Canadians and regarded as the defining principles of medicare. The principles of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility are valued and cherished by Canadians who will not accept changes to them. The results of a recent poll indicate that support for these national principles remain at an all-time high.

Provincial and territorial ministers of health share this support. On many occasions the provincial and territorial ministers reaffirmed their support for the principles of the act and their agreement to continue co-operation in interpreting and applying its provisions.

The Canada Health Act's criteria relate to the organization and delivery of health care services at the level of provincial and territorial health insurance plans. Bill C-284 proposes to add disclosure of infectious or contagious diseases to the Canada Health Act's criteria. However this addition deals with a hospital requirement, while the Canada Health Act pertains to provincial and territorial health insurance plans.

If such legislation could be enacted we would be concerned that it may give false assurances to emergency workers and their families that if they are not informed they are not infected. Unfortunately some diseases may not be detectable, at least using current methods, until some time after the infection. Solutions must be sought to meet this problem.

Health Canada has been involved with the prevention of infectious diseases and the protection of emergency response personnel for a very long time. Let me give a few examples of our recent achievements in this area. In 1994 a national symposium on risk and prevention of infectious diseases for emergency response personnel was held to explore the risks emergency responders face and the preventive and protective activities presently available.

In June 1995 a consensus conference was held with the objective of establishing guidelines the provinces and territories could use to develop and implement an infectious disease notification protocol for emergency responders. These guidelines are a good example of how the provinces and territories look to the federal government to provide a leadership role in issues related to health protection.

I also have confidence in the ability of emergency response workers themselves, as those who are admirably qualified to find solutions, to join with us to alleviate the risk of infection along with the provincial and territorial health departments, along with health professionals and experts in infectious diseases. Given the large burden for our health that emergency response workers carry, I am sure that provincial and territorial governments are sympathetic, supportive, and eager to co-operatively find solutions. I know I am.

The evolution of federal, provincial, and territorial relations in health care has maintained a distinction in federal, provincial, and territorial roles in health care, which is consistent with the Constitution's definition of jurisdiction. This is clearly stated in the preamble of the Canada Health Act:

that it is not the intention of the Government of Canada that any of the powers, rights, privileges or authorities vested in Canada or the Provinces under the provisions of The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act, 1867), or any amendments thereto, or otherwise, be by reason of this Act abrogated or derogated from or in any way impaired;

Some would argue that to pass Bill C-284 would disrupt this historical distinction and balance and for this reason it cannot be supported by the federal government.

I encourage all hon. members to participate in discussions about this important concern in their communities in order to find a way to protect the emergency response workers whose job it is to protect us all. Few would argue the fact that the problem is serious. It is incumbent on all levels of government to hammer out a solution. The time is now.

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak this morning on the agriculture and agri-food administration of monetary penalties act. It is good legislation in the circumstances.

Presently, when an inspector under the agri-food act determines that offences have been committed under the statute, he must proceed through the criminal justice system and the whole process gets rolling. An information is laid through the attorney general's office, appearances begin in court, adjournments are made, the cost and time of not only the court administration, the cost of defence counsel, the cost of prosecuting counsel and the time it takes from beginning to end could be months if not years, depending on what the situation is.

The alternative method proposed in Bill C-61 is to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties, so that an inspector when he determines that an offence has taken place under the agri-food act, can impose a fine on the offender immediately, rather than proceeding through the judicial system. I think that is a very good procedure to be following.

The objective is to create a system that allows the officials of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to issue monetary penalties for serious or repeated violations of the regulations. The monetary penalties vary from $15,000 for companies to $2,000 for individuals. The legislation also establishes an independent tribunal to hear appeals of the proposed monetary penalties. Safeguards are still built into the system.

The AMP, if I may refer to that acronym, adds to the enforcement options available to agri-food prosecutors. The system still provides the department with appropriate responses when dealing with the violations of regulations such as in the marketing of inedible food products or the inhumane transportation of animals.

The term administrative monetary penalty is used to differentiate the monetary penalties which are administrative in nature from fines which are imposed by the court system for convictions of regulatory offences.

I will speak to some of the motions involved, but I submit that this is good government. It still provides a framework wherein Canada's high standards for food safety are maintained. That is essential. We are also assisting Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

to enforce health and safety standards consistently, not only for imported foods but for domestic food products as well.

Further, we are regulating in a more efficient and cost effective way. In this time of restraint, cost effectiveness is a very important item. Therefore, we are going to require less time and money to pursue these offences than we would otherwise do through the provincial court system.

The maintenance of a safe food supply is essential and Bill C-61 allows for the issuance of monetary penalties and is necessary to encourage industries to adhere. We do not really want them punished if they do not comply but we do want compliance. It is necessary that they adhere to these regulations such as in the areas of pesticides and animal and plant health. On matters touching food, the food chain and public health standards of conduct, they must be extremely high and the reasons are obvious.

I would also like to refer to the competitiveness of Bill C-61. I suggest that it supports the competitiveness of the agricultural sector by responding to requests for more equitable enforcement of regulations for imported and domestic products. Our domestic industry has complained for years that the standards for safety and quality are more strictly applied to them than to their competitors, especially offshore competitors and that is not fair.

Our industry supports the system because it allows Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to respond quickly and effectively when importers or domestic industries market products that do not conform to our high standards in the area of food safety or in the safe use of pesticides. Equal enforcement of these standards for both imports and domestics enhances the competitiveness of the agricultural sectors.

Giving Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada the proper tools to effectively enforce these standards will help it to maintain Canada's fine reputation for healthy and safe food products. It is the reputation of our agri-food sector that suffers when exported products do not meet our health standards. They blame it on us, as a domestic supplier and that is not fair. Let us bring it all up to the same standards.

As an alternative to prosecution and with my background, I think this is a very key item in times of restraint. In the current climate of restraint, we need simple, efficient, cost effective ways for dealing with industries that do not comply with the regulations for food health and safety. Bill C-61 provides a fair but quick and expedient method for responding to regulatory violations.

The administrative procedure provided by Bill C-61 is an alternative to prosecuting regulatory offences in the provincial courts. It is faster and far less costly to both the department and the offender. We have to also remember the offender has to put up the cost of legal counsel and is away from the business, et cetera.

Administrative penalties are another step in the decriminalization of regulatory infractions. Unlike the situation where regulatory principles are prosecuted by the courts, Bill C-61 creates a decriminalized system. It does not provide for imprisonment or receiving a record of conviction of an offence. We do not want to make criminals out of these people, but we do want them to comply.

Administrative monetary penalties are a much fairer way of enforcement for most regulatory infractions. When it hurts you in the pocketbook, it hurts. A record may be a stigma in perpetuity, but when you have to come up with some hard cash out of your pocket you often think twice, and deservedly so.

Another aspect is negotiated settlement possibilities. This allows for negotiated solutions to non-compliance. What we really want them to do is comply. Even the monetary penalties can be reduced to zero if they would use the money to buy corrective equipment. Immediate action to correct the situation is much better than money into the coffers of the judicial system.

I might address some of the motions that have been put forward. Dealing perhaps with Motion No. 3, to vary the maximum penalty between first and subsequent violations, the current maximum penalties are relatively modest when we look at them. The bill does not make any distinction between first and subsequent violations for the purposes of setting a maximum penalty that could be assessed. However, the regulations will determine a base penalty in the range amount and circumstances under which the penalties may be increased or reduced.

Compliance history is one of the factors we set out in the regulations. Penalties will be reduced for violators with no previous history of non-compliance and increased for those who commit subsequent offences, as they deservedly should. Under subclause 4(3) of Bill C-61, penalty amounts may be increased or decreased based on the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation, the amount of harm done by the violation, and the compliance history of the person who committed the offence.

Perhaps I could address Motion No. 4. The purpose is to have a notice of violation identify the designated person serving the notice. Service is an essential point of any court proceeding, and sometimes technicalities arise on service that result in the offender walking from the situation.

I suggest that the bill allows that a notice may be served by various means. That is progression. The server of the notice may not necessarily be the designated person. By definition, the desig-

nated person is the person who issues the notice. Service of the notice is a procedural matter and is best addressed by maintaining a degree of flexibility. We want to be flexible.

The bill allows that the matter of service of all documents, including notices, will be addressed by regulations. For example, the regulation will make provision for service in person or by registered mail. We have these procedures in other court systems, in family law, et cetera. That is not unreasonable.

The purpose of Motion No. 5 is to legislate a minimum of 45 days within which a penalty may be paid. Again I suggest that this is a procedural matter which could be determined by the regulation. To put time frames such as this in legislation really is impractical. It makes it very difficult to make changes in the event that the penalty could not be paid within the time frame.

Procedural details are generally contained in regulations or in policy documents. That is where they belong. The regulation making process really is open and fair. The preparation and drafting of regulations includes consultation with industry and the prepublication of the regulations in The Canada Gazette to give everyone sufficient notice. The process will ensure that a reasonable time frame is put in regulations for the payment of a monetary penalty. They are not going to escape. We have to be reasonable. Forty-five days may not be, as the minister of agriculture has suggested.

Motion No. 18 seems acceptable to us. The object of the motion is to clarify that expenses recoverable by Her Majesty in respect of the disposal of forfeited goods are reasonable. We want to be reasonable and we accept this motion as certainly reasonable in that situation.

The purpose of Motion No. 19 is to enable a violator to rely on the defence of due diligence. Bill C-61 allows for the issuance of monetary penalties based on absolute liability. That situation happens when the department only needs to prove that the alleged violator committed an act that was in violation of the regulations. The bill does not allow for the defence of due diligence by which a violator can avoid liability for the offence by establishing that he or she was not negligent.

Under Bill C-61 there is no possibility of imprisonment. There is no record of conviction for an offence. Penalties are modest rather than punitive in nature. Because of these factors there is no constitutional or other legal impediment to proceeding on the basis of absolute liability.

From a policy perspective, the use of absolute liability is essential to encourage the food industry to exhibit a high standard of care. This is important for matters involving the food chain and is consistent with the approach of courts in civil matters. The concept of absolute liability is important to the effectiveness of the system as a preventive measure.

We had the situation of some children being allergic to peanut butter. There was a very important incident where a young lady reacted to peanut butter and died rather quickly.

I see that you are rising, Mr. Speaker.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have one brief question for my friend from Mississauga South who was an accountant in his former life.

The bill before us responds to the concerns of the artistic donor and custodial community with respect to review board procedures as well as to concerns that donations of cultural objects are sometimes made for the purpose of tax avoidance. In his experience as an accountant has he seen widespread use of the legislation for the purpose of tax avoidance?

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mississauga South put forward in a very clear and concise manner the benefits of the tax credit to the cultural industry, as opposed to the loss of taxes. The difference is minuscule.

When I bring my family to Ottawa there is nothing better than visiting the various museums. It is an interesting way to spend a day. Many people come to Ottawa to do that. They should be encouraged to do it, but not only in Ottawa. In my community of Erie there are small museums which are expanding. It certainly provides enjoyment for all people, not only in the riding of Erie but for the tourists who visit us.

The bill can only amplify and increase the benefits we must ensure our cultural community has, not only for ourselves but for future generations.

I had a conversation with the German ambassador to Canada last week. I was asking him about the reunification of East and West Germany. He said that one of the concerns they have is bringing their art objects back from countries such as Russia, where they were carted away during the war.

Preservation of heritage and culture is important to all countries throughout the world. We must not let it happen in our country where we just cut it off as the Reform Party has suggested. It will flounder and die.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this morning on Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

The Cultural Property Export and Import Act came into force on September 6, 1977 together with certain complementary amendments to the Income Tax Act. The purpose was to preserve in Canada significant examples of Canadian heritage through the use of a system of export controls, tax incentives for private individuals who donate or sell cultural objects to public institutions, and assistance to institutions in purchasing cultural objects under certain circumstances. Bill C-93 would affect only the use of tax incentives. It is an amendment to the original act.

The legislation will establish an appeal of decisions of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board to the Tax Court of Canada. This bill is being sponsored by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and it is his responsibility through the Department of Canadian Heritage to develop, implement and promote cultural policies that will enable Canadian creators to flourish and Canadian consumers to enjoy and benefit from a wide variety of cultural products.

The federal government clearly has a role in the development of policies and programs designed to encourage the production and preservation of Canadian cultural materials.

In the area of heritage policies and programs the Department of Canadian Heritage provides support and assistance to museums across the country while at the same time ensuring that our national institutions, including the National Archives, the National Gallery, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Museum of Nature, the Museum of Science and Technology and the National Library, function in an environment conducive to giving Canadians maximum access to our cultural heritage.

Culture is fluid, always changing and must not be looked on as something rigid or something around which barriers or parameters can be built. Culture is diverse. Customs that may seem strange to one culture will often be part of the daily life of another.

It is for these reasons that it is important these cultures are reflected in the collections of our museums so that others will be exposed to them, will learn from them and will in turn understand them.

The Cultural Property Export and Import Act already serves as a vital instrument to protect Canada's diverse cultural heritage by building strong public collections. Bill C-93 will serve to strengthen this legislation and will help to ensure the history of all Canadians is preserved for future generations.

The amendments contained in Bill C-93 should not be reviewed in isolation but rather as part of a comprehensive policy for preserving our heritage. Historic sites, parks, museums, monuments and historic buildings are all symbols of what makes us unique as Canadians. Their preservation is essential as both reminders of the past and sign posts for where we are going in the future.

Part of the greatness of our history and our heritage rests with not only the deeds of past generations but with national treasures, the artefacts, works of art and personal objects they created. By preserving and displaying these objects in museums the past can continue to live in the present.

The influence of American television, movies and printed materials can blur the distinction between Canadians and Americans and cause us to forget the great achievements of previous generations of Canadians. The preservation of our cultural property and museums, archives and libraries ensures the continuation of a distinct Canadian identity.

According to the Canadian Museums Association there are over 2,000 museums in Canada. These museums range from small, seasonal, one person operations to medium size facilities, as we have in several communities in my riding of Erie, to great urban museums such as the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Glenbow Museum and the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts.

All of these museums enjoy national and international reputations because of one reason, their collections. Great collections do not occur by accident but instead develop from careful nurturing and the generosity of donors and benefactors who believe in the importance of preserving Canada's patrimony for future generations.

Critics of Bill C-93 like to say tax incentives for donations of cultural property are tax loopholes for the rich. In saying that they are ignoring the rigorous standards museums, archives and libraries apply to get at these acquisitions. Our cultural institutions do not frivolously accept people's junk and offer them tax incentives. If that were the case the contents of my garage would make me a rich man. On the contrary, they make conscientious professional judgment about what objects or collections are worthy of certification because they are, in the words of the act, of outstanding significance and national importance.

I mentioned earlier that there are over 2,000 museums in Canada. To be eligible to apply to have objects certified as cultural property and therefore made eligible for a tax credit, a gift must be made to an institution that has been designated under the act. But not just any organization that operates a museum or calls itself a museum is eligible to be designated. I am informed that there are

only approximately 300 designated institutions in all of Canada. Only a fraction of those 2,000 museums in Canada are even eligible to apply to receive the tax benefits offered by the legislation. That small number of designated institutions is an indication of one of the safeguards that was built into the original legislation and is further enhanced in the bill now before the House.

To be designated a museum, archive or library, it must be a non-profit corporation and have as its principal activity the acquisition and preservation of cultural property. It must also have a collection that interprets and displays to the public. It must have a professional staff and it must be open to the public on a regular basis. This means that before an institution is even able to apply to obtain a tax credit for an object that it wishes to bring into its collection, the institution must demonstrate that it has the ability to preserve that object in perpetuity. The institution must then apply to have the object certified as a cultural property by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.

Again, the tax credit is not automatic just because a museum or other institution is designated and wishes to add an object to its collection. It must be demonstrated that the object is of outstanding significance and national importance and that it fits within the acquisition mandate of the institution. After that, arm's length appraisals for the fair market value of the object must be obtained. These are provided by evaluation experts who have no association with either the recipient institution or the person donating the object. Again there is a safeguard in the system.

The appraisals are reviewed by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board and it determines the fair market value for income tax purposes. The review board is composed of experts in all aspects of cultural property: museum personnel who are knowledgeable about its significance and the means to preserve it and dealers and collectors who are active in the marketplace and know the prices at which objects regularly sell.

Establishing the fair market value of cultural property or any other commodity is more of an art than a science, and it is inevitable that disagreements will occur. In 1987 in the Ontario high court a judge wrote in his ruling that fair market value was a notional or hypothetical concept, an opinion arrived at by evidence, assumptions, calculations and judgment in the absence of an actual transaction. In such a situation it is obvious why there may be disagreement about the fair market value of a particular object.

Responsibility of the review board to determine fair market value can at times be very onerous, particularly when dealing with unique objects and donations to a wide range of institutions. The experts on the review board recognize this. That is why they fully support the two appeal processes established by the bill. They

understand that it is important for donors of cultural property and recipient institutions to be able to request a thorough review of their decisions through the redetermination process and, if necessary, through an appeal to the tax courts of Canada.

The present law enables the review board to redetermine the fair market value of an object if additional information becomes available. To date this system has worked well, but there have also been cases when donors have felt that further consideration of the information that had been provided was required or that additional emphasis on salient facts was needed. This was not possible if a redetermination could only take place when additional information had been provided.

Bill C-93 removes the requirement that additional information be provided before a redetermination takes place. This means that the review board will be able to revisit its decision at the request of a donor or recipient institution with or without the provision of additional information.

We believe it will be difficult to design a first level of appeal that is fairer or more equitable than this one.

If after a redetermination the differences between a donor and the review board still have not been solved, the donor must complete the gift, if he has not already done so, and may then appeal the determination of fair market value to the Tax Court of Canada. This is an important point, because at the time the appeal is made to the Tax Court of Canada the donor will have made an irrevocable gift to the museum, archive or library. He will no longer be the owner of the object. The cultural heritage of Canada will therefore have been enriched regardless of the tax court decision about the object's value.

What will be at issue in an appeal to the tax court will be the fair market value of the object for income tax purposes. The question of outstanding significance and national importance will have been resolved, and the donor will have made the gift in the knowledge that the fair market value of the donation remains an issue.

Again, those concerned about fairness in the tax system and whether rich people are benefiting from a tax loophole will appreciate that the process, by its very nature, guarantees that the tax system is fair and that it will not be abused.

If donors are prepared to make a gift with the full knowledge that they may receive a tax credit for less than they believe an object is actually worth, they are clearly not being motivated by money or profit when they make a donation. If that is their only concern they can withdraw the gift, sell it on the open market, and no tax credit will be given. This system is a win for all involved.

The amendments in Bill C-93 not only reinstate a previous right of appeal but improve on it by establishing two processes that will permit an open dialogue about the fair market value of an object. We believe the ability to discuss fair market value, a concept that involves evidence, assumptions, knowledge and the exercise of judgment, will lead to better appraisals provided to the review board when it makes its initial determinations. This in turn will lead to a limited number of requests for redeterminations and in all likelihood to only a few appeals to the tax court.

Bill C-93 is being strongly supported by museums, archives and libraries, by collectors and donors of cultural property, by dealers and appraisers, and by the review board. I urge all members of the House to support the bill. The amendments are technical in nature and respond to strong concerns expressed by the heritage community. Their passage into law should be seen as part of the ongoing commitment of the Government of Canada to ensure the preservation of Canada's cultural heritage. This will benefit the culture and heritage of my riding of Erie. This will benefit the culture and heritage of the finest country in the world, Canada.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in the House to speak in support of Bill C-64, the employment equity act.

The fourth United Nations world conference of women concluded recently. An event like that one has many benefits for Canada. One is that it gives us an international context to assess how well Canada has done and how far we have to go.

During my remarks today I want to place Bill C-64 in that same international context and to look at our international obligations and how Bill C-64 will help us to meet them. I want to consider some relevant international experiences with employment equity. I want to show that the bill puts teeth in our commitment to equality and shows the kind of leadership that is badly needed around the world.

Let me begin by discussing a recent landmark in understanding the issue. On August 17 the United Nations development program released its sixth human development report. In addition to its overall assessment the report focuses on the situation facing women around the world.

I am certain that every member of the House took pride when once again Canada earned the highest ranking on the human development index. It told the world what Canadians already knew so well, that this country offers a quality of life that is second to none.

However I am certain that each of us knows that Canada placed ninth on the gender related development index. Our track record on the place of women in society is not good enough. One might ask why it is that low. One factor is the economic gap between women and men. Money talks and in Canada right now that means men shout while women whisper.

Some in the House say there are very good reasons for this gap. They say we should just stand aside while the market works in its mysterious way. That is not what the authors of the United Nations human development report says. They point out that trickle down theories and laissez-faire approaches do not work particularly well to raise the economic status of women. I quote:

The free workings of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver equality of opportunity because of prevailing inequities in power structures. When such structural barriers exist, government intervention is necessary, both through comprehensive policy reforms and through a series of affirmative actions.

The government understands the need for real action. The bill will help address that need by making markets work better. It will help women enter occupations that traditionally have excluded them. It will help women make their way from lower wage occupational ghettos. It will help organizations remove the glass ceiling that restricts women in many workplaces. It will do the same for aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

Bill C-64 is consistent with our international obligations. For many years Canada has been a signatory to international agreements on discrimination, human rights, women's rights and labour force issues. Let me touch on a few of them.

The UN has a number of conventions that cover equality issues. The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women commits us to pursue the equality of the sexes. Article 24 reads:

State parties undertake to adopt all necessary measures at the national level aimed at achieving full realization of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

This includes modifying:

-the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customs and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.

To do that means taking real steps such as an active program of the type we have introduced in Bill C-64.

A similar commitment exists as a result of the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 7 touches on conditions of work. It reads that states that are party to the covenant recognize the right to:

Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence.

This bill is about finding and removing the barriers that prevent designated group members from realizing their legitimate aspirations in the workplace, the barriers that still prevent people in designated groups from competing fairly for promotions they want.

There are other similar conventions that our country has signed and ratified over time. I will just name a few: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; and a number of international labour organization conventions.

I would like to refer to the second article of ILO Convention No. 111 concerning discrimination in respect of employment and occupation which states:

Members undertake to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote equality of opportunity in respect of employment and occupation.

Article 3 of the same convention states:

-each member undertakes to enact such legislation as may be calculated to secure acceptance and observance of those policy.

Canada takes its international commitments seriously. We negotiate, sign and ratify these agreements with the intention of living up to them fully. That is certainly true with conventions on human rights and workplace issues such as these.

We can and do point with pride to Bill C-64 and the existing Employment Equity Act as its predecessor as an example of the government at work to make the equality of opportunity we all want a real goal. Canada is not alone in this process. Other countries have signed these conventions and many are dealing with many of the same issues in society and the economy as we are.

For example, Australia is a country with which we have much in common. We are both senior members of the Commonwealth. We share similar constitutional and legal traditions. We both have significant aboriginal and visible minority populations. Persons with disabilities have become prominent advocates for their own cause. Women are taking on leading positions in society. Like Canada, Australia has an employment equity act. Like us, it recognizes an obligation to break down barriers and it is doing so.

Another interesting case is that of the Netherlands. The celebration of the 50th anniversary of its liberation by Canadian soldiers has reminded us of our close ties. It reminds us of the many Dutch people who have made new homes here over the years.

When the Dutch government looked for a legislated approach to promote the full integration of its immigrants into the labour force and therefore society, where did it turn? Which country provided a model of effective and appropriate legislation? The answer is Canada.

Examples such as that show why Canada can attend international conferences with real pride. Regardless of the issue, we can point to initiatives we have taken at home, co-operation with other countries and a commitment to results. Certainly that is true on workplace issues and on human rights issues.

While we have much to do, Canada has consistently tried to do more to meet some minimum standard. We have been motivated by the caring and tolerance of a society to do better. We realize that equality of opportunity means much more than the absence of formal discrimination. It means building a climate that encourages everyone to participate in our society and our economy.

That is becoming a lesson to the world. Many countries are coming to grips with equality issues. They know we are leaders. Canada has a distinguished history in human rights in the international community. Countries that are looking for effective ways to improve human rights within their own borders are looking to Canada. Countries that want to recognize their growing multicultural nature are looking to Canada.

The Canadian approach to employment equity is a real contribution to the international community. It starts with the idea that all Canadians share a commitment to opportunity and the willingness to find solutions. It speaks to the finest qualities in our national spirit.

Passing this bill will send an important message to a world that needs more of this spirit.

[Oceans Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada. I welcome the opportunity to chat for a few minutes about why I support the bill before us.

I think it is clear to everyone at this point that there is a great need to move away from what the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology called the haphazard, ad hoc, and short term measures currently employed in the management of our ocean resources. The patchwork quilt strategy is ineffective and inefficient. The national advisory board called for Canada to develop a proactive oceans policy that allows for us to plan for the future instead of just responding to crises as they arise.

Our ocean resources are far too important in this country. We need a management process that works better and serves the interests of all of us in the long term. We cannot afford to continue to make decisions on the management of our fisheries or the management of our other marine resources in isolation from those having to do with shipping or those having to do with environmental protection, and vice versa. Decisions on one have an impact on all others.

We need to bring all these elements together under one roof. This legislation will accomplish that by asserting our national jurisdiction over a 12-mile contiguous zone in which all our national laws regarding fiscal, immigration, customs and environmental matters will apply, while at the same time creating an exclusive economic zone to assert our right to protect and manage all our resources out to a 200-mile limit, including all fish and also including all other resources.

This bill will also extend our authority out over the continental shelf. Bill C-29, passed by the House last year, established our right to protect and manage the so-called straddling stocks of fish that move in and out of the current 200-mile limit. This legislation will reinforce that measure by exerting our authority over the continental shelf itself and the resources found on the shelf.

Canada has always been a world leader in matters to do with the wise management of our ocean resources. We were one of the primary movers urging the UN to focus on the importance of this issue. Successive governments have made the case to our international partners that ocean states can and should have the right to control and protect their coastal waters. We have 250,000 kilometres of coastline, more than anyone else in the world. As such, it has always been in our national interest to seek recognition of our rights in the waters immediately off our shores.

The second thing this legislation does is to put overall responsibility for the creation of oceans management strategy in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We can proceed in a more organized and cost efficient manner to deliver oceans programs in a more coherent manner. The goal is sustainable development of these vast stretches of our waters. We want to exploit the oceans for ourselves, but we also want to make sure that in doing so we do not damage them for future generations of Canadians or for current and future generations of people in other countries either.

Eight years ago the concept of sustainable development was first introduced in a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development chaired by the current Prime Minister of Norway, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland. The principles of the Brundtland report are supported in theory at least by almost every nation in the world.

The previous government agreed with the principles in the Brundtland report and in fact made a commitment to bring in a Canada oceans act. However, no such legislation was ever introduced by that government. I congratulate this government for doing so.

Under the terms of this legislation we have before us, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be responsible for the development and enforcement of a new oceans management strategy. It is going to be done with a different approach from that used in the past. It is the government's stated intention to work in partnership with oceans industries and the people in them, the various resource extraction industries and the people involved there, with environmental groups and indeed with anyone who has an interest to come up with the best plan possible.

An example given of this kind of partnership is the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council which brings together industry, educators and governments to advise on conservation in the Atlantic. The council has played an instrumental role in helping the government move to the fishery of the future. The government wants to expand this kind of partnership because it believes that these kinds of partnership approaches will bring the best results. That includes using the best scientific information from as many sources as possible.

It is not going to be a matter of the federal government determining everything itself. It is going to work with other levels of government, the private sector, educators, scientists, environmental groups and all interested parties to make sure that Canada remains on the cutting edge of research and knowledge in this critical area and more important, that Canada uses that knowledge to make the right decisions about how best to manage our ocean resources.

Hon. colleagues will also know that the government has already moved to integrate the coast guard into the department of fisheries. I think this move makes a lot of sense. Bringing together these two fleets of ships and aircraft will save the government money. This is always good news for taxpayers. It is very welcome news for my constituents in the riding of Erie. More than that, it also gives them the opportunity to use all their vessels and aircraft for both

purposes, that is fisheries and resource management as well as the traditional coast guard duties of search and rescue, ice breaking service, marine weather warnings, patrolling our coastal waters and so on.

In addition, the regional offices of both will be consolidated into an enlarged and improved service which means further savings and a much better co-ordination of all activities that have to do with our ocean waters.

Provision is also made in the act to allow the minister of fisheries to carry out scientific research in support of the ocean management strategy. It gives the minister the legal right to produce charts, reports and scientific data and to provide that information to those groups, organizations and individuals who have an interest in these issues. Also included is a new authority to provide guidelines under which foreign vessels can conduct scientific research in Canadian waters.

For the first time the act will give government, following discussions and advice from scientists and other interested parties, a new authority to create protected marine areas, to safeguard ocean biodiversity and to safeguard endangered species.

We all know that our oceans, particularly in our coastal communities, face a great deal of environmental stress as well as the depletion of the ocean resources through the destruction of habitats essential to the survival and growth of certain species. We need to protect these areas from further destruction. I welcome the inclusion of this provision in the act and encourage the minister to use it when scientific evidence demonstrates that it is necessary.

The point has been made by others that passing the legislation by itself does not guarantee that our oceans will be safe from all environmental damage or resource depletion for all time. If it were that simple, I am sure we would have passed a law against the common cold many years ago.

The bill puts a framework in place that will help us reach those goals. It also makes clear that we have to promote our own strategy with all the countries in the world that share oceans with us. In other words we have to make it clear that each of us is responsible for protecting them.

I urge the government and the minister to continue to make Canada's voice heard on issues such as ocean dumping, conservation of straddling stocks, the proper management of our coastal zones, circumpolar management and all other issues that have an impact on the oceans of the world.

The legislation gives us as a nation the opportunity to lead by example, to demonstrate to the world that Canadians care deeply about their ocean resources, that we want to preserve and protect them, and that we are willing to put our money where our mouth is by taking long term action to do so. The oceans act signals a renewal of Canada's leadership in ocean management. I am proud of this initiative asserting Canada's role as a world leader.

Before I conclude I should like to address one point raised by the previous Reform speaker on cost recovery. The oceans act authorizes the minister to fix fees, to recover the cost of services and activities provided for under the act, for example ice breaking, traffic management and hydrographic charts. Access fees for commercial fishermen are established under section 8 of the fisheries act, not under the oceans act. The two pieces of legislation are entirely distinct.

I hope every member of the House will consider the legislation as a very positive step in the right direction and give it their support. I certainly do.

[The Underground Economy, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address the House this afternoon on Motion No. 382 sponsored by the member for Mississauga South. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend my hon. colleague for his work in this area.

The underground economy that is the focus of this motion is of major importance and has implications for Canadians right across the country. There has been a great deal written about the size, extent, nature and causes of the underground economy.

As members are probably aware, estimates on the size of the underground economy vary widely, depending on the methodology that is used, from 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of GDP to over 20 per cent. That translates into $20 billion to $140 billion a year.

The greater the activity in the underground economy the less revenue is available to governments. Underground economic activity creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs are lost. Therefore, honest taxpayers are forced to pay more than their fair share of taxes.

We all know that deficit elimination and the eventual repayment of the federal debt will depend primarily on long term economic growth and job creation. While spending cuts may contribute to deficit reduction, why should we continue to cut programs when the collection of legitimate tax revenue could be substituted?

We need to seek out options and solutions. It is imperative that an attack on the underground economy be part of the overall solution.

For many individuals and businesses the underground economy has become a convenient way to avoid paying taxes. When these people take their financial transactions underground they are failing to make their contribution in support of Canada's social and economic programs. These people do not pay for the services they use. Instead, other Canadians are forced to pay more.

People who deal in the underground economy may feel that their financial situation justifies their actions. It may be because it has been several years since their last raise. It may be because they feel the tax system is too complex or unfair. Or it may be just basic greed. They see cheating the tax department as a victimless crime. Let me say that, whatever the reason, underground economic activity makes victims of us all. Indeed, all Canadians are victims and this does not sit well with me.

I ask members as well as all Canadians to consider the real cost of underground economic activity. The cost is large. It shows up in reduced essential services, taxes higher than they would otherwise be, unfair competition and a reduced standard of living for the honest taxpayer.

How does the underground economy affect a legitimate business which is trying to be competitive? The Canadian Homebuilders Association is concerned. Indeed, home renovators who evade taxes have an unfair advantage over honest contractors. Honest businesses are at a competitive disadvantage because they cannot offer a customer the same deal as that offered by someone who will do the work but not collect the taxes. The end result is that the legitimate business faces unfair competition and job loss.

I ask the members to put themselves in the place of an entrepreneur who plays by the rules and who diligently collects and remits tax to the government. How would they react if they lost work because someone dealing under the table outbid them for a contract? I would certainly be upset and I would insist that the government do something to restore fairness to my situation.

We must not forget the dishonest consumer. The dishonest consumer who takes the lower price and pays cash is cheating the

system and becoming a party to the evasion of taxes. These consumers benefit from the full range of government services but do not pay their fair share. All they have done is take part in a transaction which jeopardizes our health, education and other essential economic and social services. This is simply shortsighted and unfair. It is illegal and criminal.

The underground economy results in lost revenues for the government which, as I have said, jeopardizes essential social and economic programs and forces honest Canadians to pay more taxes.

The motion before the House is a three-pronged motion. It suggests that the government educate the public and encourage their participation in addressing the problem. I agree that Canadians need to know the facts about the seriousness of the underground economy, how it affects each and every one of us and what can be done to reduce it. I also agree that governments cannot solve the problem alone. We, the citizens of Canada, all must do our part and fulfil our responsibilities.

We must tell Canadians the facts about the seriousness of the existence of the underground economy and how they can help to eliminate it. We must address the myth that everyone is doing it. We must emphasize that tax evasion is a crime and that it is not a victimless crime, as it is often argued. All Canadians are victims. Tax evasion leads to job losses, an increase in the deficit, honest taxpayers carrying more of a burden and legitimate businesses operating in an environment of unfair competition which often leads to bankruptcy. We must stress that people who evade taxes are cheating honest taxpayers and those in need. We must publicize the fact that 14,000 calls are received by Revenue Canada each year from Canadians who know tax evaders. Many more would call if they only knew that the follow-up would take place.

To ensure that everyone is aware that the government is serious about prosecuting those who deliberately defraud the tax system, the Minister of National Revenue publicizes convictions for tax evasion. The increased publicity and resulting embarrassment of a fine or imprisonment coupled with the payment of taxes, interest, and penalties, has had a deterrent effect.

During the past year, officials of Revenue Canada have been actively consulting with individuals and associations across Canada on the issue of tax evasion, the underground economy, and smuggling. Revenue Canada has sought and received the support of these groups. With the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, for example, the department established a working committee to investigate the causes of the underground economy, examine audit techniques and identify training that would assist in tracking down unreported or under-reported income, and identify opportunities for reducing the cost and administrative burden of compliance for businesses and individuals.

These groups are taking the message of the risks of dealing in the underground economy back to their membership. Every citizen and every business has a role to play in eliminating the underground economy. Individuals can start by refusing to deal with businesses and tradespeople who ask for cash payments. Businesses can do their part by turning down demands to do work off the books. Yes, all Canadians must do their part, individuals and businesses. Simply put, they must say no.

The second prong of the hon. member's motion calls for a limited amnesty on interest and penalties otherwise payable when a taxpayer voluntarily declares income previously undeclared. My colleague has stressed that the amnesty pertains only to interest and penalties, not to the taxes owing. The preferred approach is to encourage voluntary compliance. It does work, as 95 per cent of all revenues are collected without the need for enforcement action. Revenue Canada currently has a program in place for voluntary disclosure which would waive penalties if an official audit had not yet been initiated. However, interest would still be payable.

We must encourage an amnesty because it is very important to give underground economy operators the opportunity to come clean. We must be clear that underground economy is not normal business and that Canadians will not continue to tolerate dishonest business practices at their expense. Here is a chance for the business person to come out.

The third prong of my hon. colleague's motion is a tax credit for taxpayers on home improvements and renovations in order to provide an inducement to create the essential paper trail and to serve as one of the primary vehicles for the information campaign. By offering an input tax credit for the GST paid on home improvements or renovations, the taxpayer would be required to submit the original invoice as part of their income tax return. The objective would be to create a real paper trail in an area of abuse with which most people are familiar. It is a good vehicle through which we could educate the public on the crime and discourage action under the table. It would also help to support the honest businesses that are prepared to provide an invoice.

I have spoken to the people of my constituencies about the underground economy. Those who follow the law and pay their taxes do not like having to pay higher taxes because others are trying to cheat the system. Entrepreneurs who are trying to make an honest living say they do not like being at a competitive disadvantage from businesses and tradespeople who ask for cash payments to avoid paying tax. My constituents are also worried about how lost revenue is affecting the government's ability to maintain the social and economic programs so important to our well-being.

I will support my colleague's motion. I want to see that all legitimate taxes are collected so that the honest taxpayer does not

have to bear the burden of both higher taxes and lessening of programs. The underground economy is not the norm and it is not acceptable to Canadians.

[Niagara Grape And Wine Festival, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the grape harvest season is well under way in the region of Niagara, bringing with it the renowned Niagara Grape and Wine Festival.

I would like to congratulate Dan and Darlene Haist of the village of Ridgeville in my riding of Erie on their being crowned the 40th Niagara Grape king and queen. The Haists are fourth generation grape growers who have sold their product to Niagara wine makers for over 70 years. Decades of labour by growers like the Haists have contributed to the evolution of our wine industry to world status.

I invite one and all to come to the Niagara Peninsula this fall to enjoy our fine wines and warm hospitality.