Debates of Sept. 25th, 1995

Excise Tax Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The government whip has informed the House the vote on Bill C-103 will take place at 6 p.m.

Cultural Property Export And Import Act

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, at second reading, a bill which seeks to allow appeals of decisions made by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.

The Cultural Property Export and Import Act was proclaimed in 1977 to ensure the conservation, in Canada, of important objects which are part of our movable cultural heritage. To that end, the act provides export controls, as well as tax incentives to encourage the donation of cultural objects to designated museums, archives and libraries in Canada.

Moreover, the act established the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, whose mandate includes three major responsibilities: to hear appeals filed when an application for an export permit is rejected; to determine whether cultural property given or sold to a designated Canadian institution is of outstanding significance or of national importance; and, to determine the fair market value of certified cultural property.

The fair market value of certified cultural property can be eligible for a tax credit, just like a charitable gift. However, unlike in the case of a charitable gift, the eligible amount is not limited to 20 per cent of the net income. Moreover, any capital gain realized following such a gift is exempt from the capital gain tax.

From 1977 to 1991, the board only had a mandate to hear appeals related to the rejection of an application for an export permit, and to determine whether cultural property was of outstanding significance or of national importance.

In 1991 responsibility for determining fair market value of cultural property was transferred from Revenue Canada Taxation to the Board. At that time, there was no provision for appealing Board decisions in this connection. Thus the right of appeal provided by the Income Tax Act was inadvertently lost.

The number of gifts of cultural property has increased constantly since 1991 and the Board received a record number of requests for the 1994-1995 fiscal year.

In performing this new function, the Board carefully examines the fair market value proposed for a gift. In the majority of cases, it accepts as the fair market value the amount indicated in evaluations made in good faith by at least two independent assessors and obtained by the recipient institution.

If the Board requires additional information, the recipient institution may seek another opinion, or in certain cases the Board itself may have an assessment done by Canadian or foreign experts. After it receives this information and approves the proposed amount, the Board issues a tax certificate for the cultural property in question for the amount established.

In approximately 10 per cent of cases between 1991 and 1994, or some 150 cases annually, the Board determined that the monetary value of the gift was lower than the evaluations accompanying the application.

In conformity with the current provisions of the Act, if additional information becomes available, the applicant may request that the Board redetermine the fair market value of the gift. If the Board does not change its initial assessment, the applicant will then have no further avenue of appeal.

Donors in custodial institutions have complained about the lack of an appeal process. In the interest of natural justice, they have suggested that donations to institutions might decline if it is not possible to appeal review board decisions.

In 1993 the former department of communications hired KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne to undertake an independent assessment of the needs for an appeal of determinations of the review board. During this study using professionals, art dealers, donors, collectors of cultural property and members of the review board were interviewed about the need for an appeal. Agreement was unanimous: an appeal process should be established.

As a result in June 1993 it was announced that the Cultural Property Export and Import Act would be amended to allow donors of cultural property to appeal determinations of the review board to the Tax Court of Canada, a right that had been in place before 1990.

At the same time it was announced that amendments would also be included to extend the circumstances under which donors would be able to request determinations by the review board. Donors, institutions and some professional associations such as the Canadian Museums Association have advised me that they continue to believe it is essential that there be an appeal of the review board's determinations.

It is expected that the expanded circumstances whereby the review board can redetermine fair market value will mean that the donor and the review board will be able to come to an agreement about value. It is expected that this will significantly limit the number of appeals to the Tax Court of Canada.

The question of who is eligible to request a redetermination of fair market value has been the subject of some discussion with the Department of Finance. The legislation states that either the donor or the applicant can request a redetermination while only the donor can appeal to the tax court.

These proposed amendments will benefit donors, museums, archives, libraries and art galleries throughout Canada. While donors do receive a tax credit, their donations enrich public collections for the enjoyment and education of all Canadians. This program is open to all. Many important objects of Canadiana have been donated by individuals from every sector of society, gems of

history, heritage and culture that may have been in their families for generations.

In conclusion, the tax incentives for donations of cultural property continue to enrich public collections. They ensure that objects which might otherwise be lost to Canada are retained here for the benefit of all Canadians.

I also believe that the establishment of an appeal process is sufficiently important that we will be reallocating resources within the department of heritage to ensure that it will function effectively. The establishment of an appeal of determinations by the Canadian cultural property export review board is in fact only the reinstatement of the right of appeal that was lost in 1990.

This legislation will help to ensure that Canadians do not lose the evidence of their heritage. I would ask for support of this initiative which will strengthen legislation that has been instrumental in preserving our national heritage.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure for the Bloc Quebecois to support the bill tabled by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We think it is extremely important for this bill, whose purpose is to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, to be passed as soon as possible.

The only point I would like to make as opposition critic is-and speaking of bureaucracy, I think this is a good example-that back in 1991, it seems that after the legislation was adopted, they realized, at least that is what I was told, that through an unfortunate oversight they forgot to include the right to appeal. It seems to me that at the time, the government should have turned around and said: "Listen, we forgot something. We will immediately amend the legislation we just adopted to correct this oversight".

Fortunately, four years later-and I hope we will have time to finish the process-it will be possible to adopt the legislation and correct this oversight, to ensure that Canadian cultural property remains in Canada. There is a weak spot in this legislation, an omission, and we would have liked to see stricter controls on the export of cultural property.

I once saw a television program that provided clear evidence that many items of Canadian cultural property are readily passed across the border between Canada and the United States. It seems that controls are so lax this is not a problem.

I think it is important to remember that the right of appeal is a fundamental right. If someone makes a decision, he must have the right to appeal, the right to be heard if he is not satisfied with that decision.

That is exactly what is happening here. You donate something, its fair market value is assessed, you are not satisfied, and you appeal to the board which can then decide to make certain changes.

If you are still not satisfied with the board's decision, you have a second chance to appeal, this time to the Tax Court of Canada.

I think it was an excellent decision in 1991 to take the responsibility for this decision away from Revenue Canada, since the board has the real expertise. The people there are knowledgeable about the value of cultural property. They are experts, so it is much easier for them to determine the value.

I think the minister's speech was very clear. The Bloc is prepared to support this legislation, which is very technical and is based on a natural right. This is a bill the Bloc can go along with because its purpose is to correct an oversight, the kind of technical legislation we have become accustomed to getting from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In fact, I would like to see the minister introduce fundamental legislation on Canadian policy, and we are really waiting for the new copyright act. I am launching one more appeal in this House.

However, it is not my intention to take up too much of the time of this House, for whatever reason, and I think that the minister gave a very clear explanation of a technical bill. I mentioned omissions that are of some concern to the Bloc Quebecois, but he has our support, and that will be it for now.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-93. When addressing an amendment it is important when doing research to look at the actual act and make some judgments about whether or not the act in itself is a good piece of legislation and whether or not it is appropriate for a political party such as ours to support the act overall. I will touch on the amendment and speak a little more broadly about the overall act.

Both the minister and the hon. member who just spoke talked about the appeal process. Previously there was an appeal process which permitted people to go to Revenue Canada and ultimately to the tax court to get a ruling on the value of a piece of art being donated to a recognized Canadian cultural institution. We do not have problems with that. One big concern we have with respect to the whole issue is the potential for bureaucracy and the potential for abuse. I want to talk about that in a little more detail.

One concern we have is that there is a potential for a board which has been appointed by a government to be very cosy with people in the arts community. Very often they come from the arts community. I am very concerned that we will have a situation similar to what we have in the Canada Council today where artists sit in judgment of other artists. It is a "you scratch my back and I will scratch your back" situation. I can see some real potential for abuse.

To be a little more specific, when appointees are passing judgment on the historical value of papers belonging to former prime ministers who may have appointed them to the board, there is some real concern in my judgment about those types of things. We have to be mindful of this and ensure there are processes in place so that people are not caught in a conflict of interest position.

I know my hon. friend from Okanagan will be talking about that a little bit later.

Another concern is that a lot of these things are going to end up being appealed to the tax court. In my judgment there is very little doubt about that. People will say: "I am getting a raw deal" when they bring their work of art forward and ultimately say: "We want to take this on to the tax court".

This was not something told us officially, but when we were researching this, someone in the department told us there are 22 tax court judges across the country but something like 6,000 cases before the court, an astonishing number. That is a tremendous backlog of cases for determination about the value of these various articles. Given that backlog it may be advisable to allow this to remain in the hands of people who are experts in this field.

I want to talk a little bit more about the actual tax credit system itself. This is an area in which I have grave concerns. This is a tax loophole that definitely benefits wealthy Canadians more than anyone else. In the last budget the government talked very enthusiastically about the need for tax fairness.

I would argue very few ordinary Canadians are going to be able to take advantage of this legislation. Somebody who is a subsistence hunter in northern Canada, a wheat farmer in Saskatchewan or somebody who works in the coal mines in Glace Bay is not going to be able to take advantage of this loophole. The people who are going to take advantage of it are going to be the crème de la crème, the top 1 per cent of income earners. If anyone does not need a tax loophole it is them.

I would encourage the government, when it is engaging in this rhetoric about the need for tax fairness, to think about that for a little while. Not only does this legislation reward them in so far as they are the ones who are most likely to have the important pieces of art that institutions want, but it rewards them in how it has skewed the tax system for them.

Let me give some detail on that. It is amazing. In fact when I read it I could not believe it. Right now the department issues about $60 million in tax credits every year through this legislation. It works like this. If something is donated to one of these institutions the tax credit is far greater than is available for any other type of charity in the country. In fact, normally if you donate to the food bank you can get a tax credit up to 20 per cent of your income. That does not apply to people who are making cultural donations. They can get a tax credit for all of their income. They can carry the tax credit forward into years down the road so that it can be applied against income.

It is an amazingly lucrative way of avoiding paying taxes for the wealthiest of Canadians. If one has an income of several hundred thousand dollars and gets a tax credit through the cultural export review board for $300,000 one will pay no tax. To me that is absolutely ridiculous. I wish the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood was here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

May I have the House's attention. I want to caution members not to make reference to the absence of members in the Chamber. I do concede there was no deliberate intent but certainly it is worthy of mention as we continue debate.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood has campaigned long and hard in the Liberal Party for a flat tax system that gets rid of the very type of loopholes that wealthy Canadians are taking advantage of today through this legislation.

Lately the Reform Party has talked long and hard about the need to have legislation that treats everybody fairly. Reformers believe in equity and this is very inequitable legislation. I really do have a tremendous problem with its essence which is special treatment for people who donate these objects of art. That is of great concerns.

I challenge the government to review this matter and to ask itself, in its heart of hearts, if this is really fair. I am sure on reflection members across the way who in good conscience stand in the House and tell us that they do not like to see privilege go to wealthy Canadians, if they understood the essence of this bill they would have a tremendous problem with it. That is one of the things that concerns me greatly about this legislation.

Our party views this as Robin Hood in reverse. It is not only that wealthy Canadians are getting a tremendous tax advantage here. It is the lack of revenue that is created by the $60 million in tax credits. It means that when taxpayers have to pay for things the government views as priorities, average Canadians have to be taxed to a greater extent in order to bring that revenue in. In a day and age when the talk is about cutting social programs, reforming UI

and possibly looking at pensions for seniors, that $60 million would be extremely valuable.

I will be moving a motion in just a moment on the need to bring this type of legislation in line with what currently exists in the income tax system. Ultimately Reformers would like to see a flat tax implemented which would get rid of these types of abuses and privileges for the wealthiest of wealthy Canadians.

I conclude by saying that I recognize that wealthy people are discriminated against in this country. Being wealthy is quite a burden. People are not protected in the Canadian Human Rights Act for being wealthy. Wealthy people are not protected under Bill C-41, the legislation that extended protection in the justice system to people based on certain categories. I do not believe wealthy people are protected in employment equity legislation either.

I appreciate that wealthy people have a tremendous burden to bear. I appreciate that sometimes people say snide things about them behind their backs and talk about them as though they are better than rest of us. I can see that is a large concern, but I do not know that we have to go so far to correct that abuse and that inequity as to give them the $60 million in tax credits every year.

I am going to conclude by moving a motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:

This House declines to give second reading to 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, since it fails to address the issue of the burden the tax credit system places on middle class taxpayers who are asked to pay for a potentially endless stream of donations of questionable cultural and artistic value claimed by wealthy Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The amendment is in order. Debate is now on the amendment.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen an example of the shallowness of the debate by the Reform Party. When people look back on the Reform record they will find Spanish eyes on the turbot, green eyes on unity and closed eyes on the cultural industry at large.

The Cultural Property Export and Import Act ensures the preservation in Canada of our heritage in movable cultural property. Through the combined provisions of export controls, grants and tax incentives for donations to designated Canadian custodial institutions, the legislation has been highly successful in enriching the collections of public institutions and thereby providing Canadians access to their heritage.

The legislation also established the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board and defined its mandate. From 1977 to 1991, the Board's mandate was to hear appeals in the case of denied export permits and to determine whether the cultural property given or sold to designated institutions met the criteria of "outstanding significance and national importance" contained in the legislation.

In 1991, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act and the Income Tax Act were amended in order to transfer responsibility for determining the fair market value of certificated cultural property from Revenue Canada to the Review Board.

There was no provision, however, for appeal of decisions by the Review Board, and the right to appeal under the Income Tax Act was lost.

The need for an appeal process was identified and acknowledged in 1993 following widespread consultation with custodial institutions, donors of cultural property, dealers in art and antiques and members of the review board. The museum community is convinced that an appeal is necessary to ensure that donors will be confident their donations will receive a fair hearing.

By establishing the right of appeal, potential donors will be assured that if they are dissatisfied with a review board determination they will have recourse to the Tax Court of Canada. With the concurrence of the Tax Court of Canada the appeal to the tax court has been made retroactive to January 1992, thereby providing all donors who have made a gift since the right to appeal was lost and who wish to pursue an appeal with both the opportunity and the legal right to do so.

The bill also covers situations in which donors may ask the Review Board to reconsider its initial decision. The increase in the number of situations in which the Review Board may redetermine the value of a gift will provide donors not wanting to spend the money involved in an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada with an opportunity for a new hearing on the circumstances surrounding the gift and the determination of its value by the Board. This approach will mean that most of the applications for appeal will be handled directly by the Review Board, eliminating the need for court proceedings and thus making the process accessible to all.

It will also ensure that any disagreement on fair market value is discussed by experts in this highly specialized field. Applications for redetermination made to the Review Board will be studied in depth by members of the Board and other experts as necessary.

The provision for two appeal processes is also cost efficient because it is anticipated that the majority of appeals will be resolved directly between the donor and the review board and will not necessitate a formal appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. In a time when we are all concerned with reducing government spending, the ability to resolve differences of opinion about fair market value with an existing organization, the review board, whose members serve on a part time basis, will result in savings of both time and money.

The review board is an agency operating at arm's length from the Department of Canadian Heritage and it is resolutely in favour of establishing a procedure whereby one could appeal its determinations regarding fair market value. The review board is made up of specialists in museology, collectors or traders, who are well aware of the difficulties custodial institutions and donors of cultural property have encountered because there was no appeal procedure. The determination of the fair market value is currently done and will continue to be done by individuals who are skilled in various areas relating to cultural property and very active on the markets where this property is sold.

The determination of the fair market value of any object and particularly cultural property involves an element of subjectivity that can lead to disagreement. These disagreements occurred when the responsibility for determining fair market value resided with Revenue Canada. There have been disagreements among the experts in the time since the review board has assumed this responsibility. This debate is both healthy and inevitable when dealing with often unique material. An open and transparent process at the time the review board determines and if necessary redetermines the fair market value of cultural property is essential.

The right to pursue the matter in the courts if no resolution can be found is consistent with both the Canadian legal system and the concept of natural justice.

The staff of designated institutions argued that the absence of any appeal procedure caused the number of donations made by collectors to drop. All designated institutions would therefore welcome the implementation of such a procedure, since it would foster an increase in donations while at the same time eliminating the potential for tension in dealings between donors, custodial institutions and the review board.

Donors of cultural property have also reacted positively to the introduction of the bill, as they believe that it removes a major deterrent to donating. Any perceived denials of natural justice have been resolved, as donors will now be able to appeal to the tax court if they disagree with the review board's determination of fair market value.

There is also strong professional support for these amendments in the communities that are most affected by the availability of tax credits for donations of cultural property. The Canadian Museum Association and the Canadian Art Museum Directors Association have expressed strong support for the bill and the establishment of an appeal process. Both associations, whose members include museums and art gallery personnel from across Canada, have issued policy statements in support of the establishment of an appeal process.

These amendments to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act to create an appeal process to the Tax Court of Canada of decisions of the review board should not be viewed as a shift in government policy, nor should they be interpreted to be a reflection on the work or credibility of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board. Instead the bill must be recognized for what it is: the reinstatement of a right to appeal that was lost in 1991 when responsibility for determining the fair market value of certified cultural property was transferred from Revenue Canada to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.

The amendments to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act contained in the bill will ensure the continued preservation of our heritage in movable cultural property. The appeal process will ensure continued confidence in the donation system and will in turn lead to an increase in donations to museums, art galleries, archives and libraries.

This bill also ensures that there will be public confidence in the fairness of the procedures of the review board and that there is no denial of natural justice. Furthermore, a right of appeal that was lost in 1991 when responsibility for determining fair market value was transferred to the review board will be restored.

These amendments will also remove any obstacles, real or perceived, to making donations to Canadian custodial institutions. Through these donations all Canadians will benefit, as we will be ensured of the continued preservation and access to Canada's heritage in movable cultural property.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member.

What we are seeing today in the House of Commons is the hypocrisy of the Liberal government. It talks of fair taxation. It has the nerve and the audacity to talk of fair taxation. Is the bill before us fair?

It is not just donated works of art that are eligible for the tax credits; it can be anything that is deemed to be of outstanding significance and national importance. For instance, prominent retired politicians such as Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Turner and Mr. Mulroney have all donated their personal papers to the National Archives in return for very high tax credits. It will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars over many years. Who is it being funded by? It is being funded by the taxpayers of Canada.

Fair taxation? Is it fair that this will be used by former prime ministers and people the government deems important, but not by the dual income family that is having a difficult time making ends meet? Is it fair tax policy when something like this will be used mainly by the extremely wealthy in Canada and not by the disabled worker who is on a very low income or by the mother of two who is struggling to survive?

What we are seeing today is the hypocrisy of the government, which in its last budget told Canadians that there would be a tax increase for those mothers who will have to get work to make ends meet, to the dual income family and to the disabled person.

The government raised gasoline taxes by 1.5 cents per litre. That hits home. That hits the average Canadian taxpayer.

What we are seeing today is a tax measure that is for the elite of our society.

Would the hon. member like to comment on that?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many fallacies in the hon. member's statement that I am at a loss where to begin. Let me try to tackle them one by one.

I am not surprised by the limitations of the member's discourse, as his party refused an earlier briefing on Bill C-103. Had they been briefed on that bill and this bill they would be more erudite in their comments.

There are very few programs that are not vulnerable to abuse. We are not going to abandon our cultural institutions because there is one dishonest person or maybe two who might be participating in fraud or tax schemes. However we will make every effort to safeguard programs that have value. We are not going to paralyse all our programs in support of the Canadian cultural industry because of abuse to a program that has on the whole served museums and the Canadian cultural institutions well.

It is important-and this is the limitation of the member's argument-to understand that cultural property is not just paintings and fine works of art; it extends to our natural history.

I know the hon. members of the third party really do not appreciate our heritage and our history and would perhaps prefer to adopt a Fahrenheit 451 policy to literature.

I remind the member that the hotels in Ottawa are packed with people who come to see our works of art and our museums. They are not coming here for the Reform Party. As much as they might have delusions, there is nothing much artistic about their arguments, as abstract as they may be.

On their attack on the wealthy, what they forget is that people who have money do contribute and sponsor the arts. They make a considerable contribution in that regard. The best possible treatment a donor may receive is a refund equivalent up to 50 per cent of the fair market value of the object or collection they are donating.

We understand that the members of the third party would rather see all our collections of art shipped to the United States or elsewhere to foreign markets. However, we feel there is merit in keeping them in this country, because Canadians appreciate them even if members of the third party do not.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. parliamentary secretary acknowledge that this tax legislation also applies to works of art that are not Canadian, that it applies for instance to American works of art as well as Canadian works of art?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Maybe the members opposite really do not have an appreciation for art in any form, but Canadians do not hold their heads in the sand like ostriches. There is a world there and we would like to have access to that world in any form and in a cultural form as it may occur.

Is the hon. member suggesting that we build a little cocoon around ourselves? I suspect that the hon. members have no appreciation for anything of a cultural nature. If it were up to the members of the Reform Party, the only place they would find culture would be in yogurt.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate the fine edge of wit spewing forth from the other side.

The third party, as the hon. member has put it, has raised some serious issues, not the least of which is the fact that it is the wealthiest of the wealthy Canadians who are taking advantage of this. This is not something that is available to everybody. She has continually skated around that issue.

I would ask her to address this very specifically and tell us how she can reconcile this piece of legislation with all the rhetoric of the last budget about the need to have tax fairness.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had opened his mind to have a briefing from the department he would have learned that it is not just wealthy Canadians who donate art; it is individuals who for instance have had Canadiana in their family for generations. These may be objects that benefit Canadians in general to know their history. The individuals have chosen to enrich the collection of local or national institutions, rather than selling them.

If the member wants to reduce this just to a dollar figure, they might make more on the foreign market if they were to sell their objects of art.

I can list a countless number of objects that have been donated to museums. What I might suggest is that the member might benefit from a little trip to the museum to get a fuller education.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. parliamentary secretary knows, there is a warehouse full of alleged art which used to belong to the art bank. This art is going to sit there in storage probably for years upon years upon years. The fact is that every year the amount of tax credits that are requested and granted goes up, not down as both the minister and the parliamentary secretary have suggested.

Given this, does it not make sense that there should be some kind of a limit placed upon the amount of available tax credits? We would then not ding people so strongly in the middle class because we are having to pay for the wealthiest Canadians. Also, where are we going to store all this stuff? We already have one warehouse full. I am wondering what the parliamentary secretary is proposing to do with the rest of it.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again the question indicates the ignorance of the third party. If we have objects of art that are worth seeing, I think we will find a place to put them so that Canadians can benefit.

Members of the third party really thrive on misinformation. For instance, the same member mentioned that the annual value of certified cultural property is approximately $60 million. That was the figure he cited. What he did not tell Canadians is that the results in foregone revenue are approximately $25 million to $30 million annually.

Having said that and since we know the Reform Party never tells the whole story, it is the position of this government that we do not like to see a situation where flaws in the tax act cause us to lose precious works of art.

Notwithstanding the fact that members of the third party feel that natural justice should be tossed out the window, I think even with the limitations that the members of the third party have shown themselves to have today, I believe Canadians will agree with me that we do not want headlines such as: "Canada loses art donation due to tax rule hang-up". I think most Canadians would not want to see situations like that occur because of a housekeeping matter, because of a right that was lost as an oversight, even if members of the third party do not believe in natural justice.