Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon. It indicates a philosophical difference between the Liberals and those people in the Reform Party. I suppose that is no surprise.
I have a copy of the little book of reform. This is the gospel according to the leader of the Reform Party. Let me read a bit from the booklet. From page 23: "The Reform Party supports the responsibility of the state to promote, preserve and enhance the national culture". I wonder if the hon. member opposite has ever
read the little green book of the Reform Party. I recommend it to the member. It is very interesting reading, provided it is not done on an empty stomach. Otherwise it is quite good and I highly recommend it to the member.
The Reform Party supports the responsibility of the state to promote, preserve and enhance the national culture. Let us remember what we are doing today. We are adopting a bill which in a small way does precisely that. One would think the Reform Party would be saying it is about time the government did something it recommended in its handbook.
No, of course not. What happened is there are Reform members who did not read the little green book and they obviously do not know we are trying to do what they advocated.
The Reform Party seems to believe the cultural industry benefits only rich people. Let us talk about the whole industry of museums and cultural industries generally. Two of the largest cities in the world thrive and make as their main business culture: Paris and London. Those fortunate enough to have see the Louvre, I believe the second largest museum in the world, will agree it is beautiful and almost impossible to describe. The treasures are such that it would take weeks to see everything in it. Millions and millions of people have seen and will see the Louvre. One could probably open any fourth or fifth door of any building in Paris and the same would be true of so many things there. Many people go to Paris for that reason, because it is so lovely, because it is such a wonderful city and because all those cultural amenities are there.
Other museums are the Musée d'Orsay, which focuses on paintings, and the Centre national d'art et de culture Georges-Pompidou, which features modern art.
It is the same in London. I have been to the Royal Albert museum where the Magna Carta is displayed, one of the most important historical documents in the western world. There were people standing to have a glimpse of the Magna Carta. They must have been four or five abreast and a queue of them several feet deep waiting to look at it for seconds just so they could go back home and tell people they had seen it.
The Mona Lisa at the Louvre is the same thing. There were so many people around it you could barely see it at all. I had the previous misconception it was a very large painting. It is a little painting and one has to almost fight one's way to see it. Many people go there for no other reasons than to see that.
That is true of how many other works of art? How many people in this city reap the benefits of that? They are not just rich people. People visit Ottawa to see our beautiful museums. I highly recommend the Queen's collection, although it is no longer here. How many people travelled here from many communities, stayed in hotels, gave tips to waiters, gave jobs to those transporting them from the airport and so on? It has contributed to the local economy.
Culture is a business, a very big one in many cities in the world and in our country. It is big business. It provides meaningful jobs.
That is a concept people across never raise. They think somehow the whole cultural industry has half a dozen beneficiaries getting rich and no one else is benefiting so that two or three artsy-fartsies can watch this stuff. It is not like that. It is the way the Reform Party would like to depict it to Canadians and to the House. It is a wrong way of viewing things.
In my riding there is the Nor'Westers and Loyalist Museum in Williamstown.
The Cumberland Township Museum in Cumberland and other local museums hold historical artefacts, old documents, and so on. Many visitors end up spending some time in the community and supporting local businesses.
This bill applies to Canadian and other cultural property. Earlier, a Reform member asked the hon. parliamentary secretary whether someone who owns a foreign work of art would be eligible for this deduction? I am asking you: What difference would this make?
If someone wanted to give Canadian taxpayers or a Canadian museum a work by Leonardo da Vinci, would we refuse the offer? What kind of narrow minded values are some of our colleagues trying to convey in this House? If some valuable cultural property was available, I think we would want it so we could enjoy it and show it to others. And even if we looked at this from a strictly economic point of view, we as a society would want to capitalize on the fact that people would come from abroad to see it.
How many tourists come to this city to see these things, not just locally, not just people from 10 miles away, but people from across the country? They cross the border from the United States. They come from everywhere to see some of the things we have.
That is equally true elsewhere. My very distinguished colleague reminds me that we are not even talking about the educational benefit. If you bring a child to the museum and show him or her a copy of our Constitution, a copy of the original flag proclamation or other such artefact, there is a tremendous educational benefit as well.
We are talking about whether we should give a tax benefit to someone who donates an object of art. What is the test? First, the object in question has to be determined to be one that qualifies for such a tax credit. It is not arbitrary. I cannot empty out my desk and call it art or cultural property and get a tax credit for it, although maybe some day the little green book of the Reform Party could be put in a museum. However I do not think I would get much of a tax credit.
The first test is that the object has to qualify. The second test is what the parliamentary secretary said in her speech a while ago if members across had been listening, which is giving a credit of 50 per cent of the market value. My other colleague from Durham is very knowledgeable with numbers as he is a accountant. I am sure he would agree that if you start off with that proposition the taxes saved are a proportion of that, whether it is 50 per cent, 60 per cent or whatever the number is depending on the tax bracket the person is in.
Let us now assume a 50 per cent tax bracket. That means that if one gives a $1,000 object one does not get $1,000 from the taxpayers. One receives $250, assuming a 50 per cent tax bracket working on 50 per cent of the appraised value of the original work. That is the way I see it. If those numbers are even slightly off the principle remains the same. It is not a matter of only rich people getting a credit for a piece of cultural property.
Let us not forget that the Reform Party, despite the comments made by some of its members today, launched its last election campaign by calling for the promotion, the furthering of Canadian culture. I am totally confused. I must tell you that I am having difficulty in following the logic used by Reform members. Their thoughts and actions seem to lack coherence. What are these objects they are talking about?
Some members across have alluded to the fact that former Prime Ministers gave their personal papers. Let us look back in history. Let us not measure things as they are now. I am not here to defend Brian Mulroney. I probably criticized him more than all the MPs across put together. However, that is not the point here today. The point is not whether I happen to agree with that person's policy at the time he was the Prime Minister. I think the verdict is already out on that one. Read Stevie Cameron's book and you will find out in case you are still in doubt.
The point is whether there is value to these objects. That is determined by an independent panel, not by members of this House and least of all by political opponents such as I. It is looked at historically. As I said earlier today speaking on another bill, if we were to evaluate today whether the documents of Sir John A. Macdonald are of historical value we would be hard pressed to find people who do not think they are. They are obviously very significant. Probably three years after he left office the discussion on the issue would have been a little different. The same applies for many other people.
Some time ago the Hudson's Bay Company gave some important historical documents of that very old business which was founded in the 17th century. For a period of time that company owned part of what is our country today. It was the physical owners of the land, a quasi government of its own with administrative powers, et cetera. Some of these documents have been given to the country.
I suppose there were times in the past when a trapper who brought things to be exchanged at the Hudson's Bay store did not get what he considered to be the proper value. He would not have thought much about the cultural value of the documents that belonged to a company that did not give him what his material was worth. But that was measured in the contemporary. It is not necessarily the way in which we can measure objects of value for the future.
Our museums across the country can avail themselves of certain tax measures to take advantage of donations made to them. That is right, sometimes rich people donate works. It is great when they do so. This way, the rest of us get to see these works, because only the rich can afford to have a private collection at home. I will not see them often myself, but if these people can give some away, that is just fine.
In our society, there are also people who own works of art, say a painting bought some 30 or 50 years ago by a relative, and who now want to donate it to society in exchange for a tax benefit. What is wrong with that?
I would like to put forward a final argument: Without these measures, would it be possible for individuals richer than myself and many of our fellow citizens to buy this cultural property and put it in their private collections, where it will be impossible for the rest of us to see and appreciate it? I urge Reform Party members to think about this.
This measure can, has been and will be beneficial for all Canadians. However I do not feel the policy of the Reform Party is reasonable in its approach. Cultural property that is sometimes given to the public and to museums could very well end up in the hands of very small groups and would be lost to the rest of us.
I am reminded that parts of the Lord Beaverbrook collection, for instance, were given through tax credits. I do not know whether colleagues from the Reform Party have ever been to the Beaverbrook Museum in Fredericton. I highly recommend it if they have not. They would see the extent of the collection and how precious
it is to have that as a property of the people of Canada. Again, one has to see it to appreciate it.
The Ontario government through cultural agencies owns the McMichael collection in Kleinburg. No doubt a portion of those works were acquired utilizing devices such as this.
Notwithstanding tax credits, which I am not too crazy about either, I am happy to see those works stay here for the Canadian public to see rather than in private collections in another country such as the United States or elsewhere, where people are either richer or have the advantage of a tax credit and can acquire property which I hope will stay here for the benefit of all Canadians.
