Mr. Speaker, from the level of the debate particularly from the opposition benches this afternoon, I can see that the dinosaurs from the west are not only in Drumheller. Some of them appear to be alive and kicking and present in the Chamber today.
It is important to understand that cultural property is not just paintings and fine art. It extends also to natural history, paleontology and mineralogy, all aspects of human history, archaeology, military history, antique furniture, antique firearms, which I am sure my friends like very much, scientific and technological objects and a full range of archival and library materials. There have been some significant examples recently of donations which help to illustrate the diversity of cultural property that is included in the legislation.
Last summer several pieces of a meteorite fell near St-Robert, Quebec. These have been donated to institutions in Quebec and to the Geological Survey of Canada to enable scientists to enhance their knowledge of space and the history of the universe.
The Hudson's Bay Company donated its extensive archival collection of business records dating from the 17th century to the present to the archives of the province of Manitoba. This collection includes information rich documentation that is being consulted and analyzed for such diverse information as arctic exploration, Canada's economic development and even climatic changes and weather patterns.
Native run museums in British Columbia have been able to retain important and in some cases sacred objects in their communities through donations facilitated by the act.
Some people like to characterize these tax credits for donations of cultural property as loopholes for the wealthy.
I am thinking today of some constituents of mine. They are not people who drive $70,000 Cadillacs to Parliament Hill. For instance there is a research scientist for the federal government who has a group of seven painting which he inherited from his grandmother. He has loaned it to the art gallery of Windsor. A grade school teacher who is a friend of mine has collected primitive Inuit pieces over many years which I am sure she will ultimately donate. There is an anthropologist retired from the University of Windsor who has a collection of native relics. On Pelee Island in southwestern Ontario there are retired farmers who have exquisite collections of fossils and native relics. These are not wealthy people. These are not people for whom these so-called loopholes are gaining extraordinary advantage. These are people who would like to be able to make a donation of their precious collections.
Even if somebody is wealthy, and some donations are made by wealthy Canadians, this is consistent with their support of performing arts, of the arts community and of collecting institutions. Without their support Canada's museums, archives and libraries would not have the quality collections they now possess. Nor would we be able to actively participate in the international exchange of exhibitions and scholarships. Without strong collections in our custodial institutions we would have a reduced sense of our own identity and a diminished role internationally in the cultural domain.
Many individuals who have donated important objects of Canadiana have donated those objects from collections which have been with their families for generations. They have contributed to the preservation of Canada's history. These individuals have chosen to enrich the collection of a local or national institution rather than exporting the object for sale with the result that it would be lost to Canada forever. While they may receive a tax credit for their donation, it is nevertheless a philanthropic act on their part because the money they receive is equivalent to about 50 per cent of the fair market value of the object.
Donations ensure that we are able to maintain a record of artistic development in Canada and that artists receive the recognition and exposure in Canada they so richly deserve.
In today's economic climate few collecting institutions have funds to purchase objects and we must therefore rely on donations. By offering incentives for donations to custodial institutions that have demonstrated they meet professional standards, the Government of Canada is able to provide assistance to ensure that their collections continue to reflect our country's heritage. This is something that is certainly valued by the government if not by the Reform Party.
Responsibility for determining fair market value of cultural property has been transferred from Revenue Canada to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board. This happened in 1991. However this arm's length board was making decisions which could not at that time be appealed. The establishment of an appeal process of the determinations of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board proposed in this bill will permit any donor of cultural property who disagrees with its decision the opportunity to pursue this ultimately with the Tax Court of Canada. What could be fairer?
The amendments in this bill should be reviewed as a guarantee of the donor's right to natural justice through an appeal to the judicial system if that is warranted. These amendments should also be viewed as the reinstatement of the right of appeal that was lost in
1991 when the responsibility for determining fair market value was transferred to the review board.
The announcement of these proposed amendments was applauded by members of the public who enjoy and who value our cultural history, by collectors, by custodial institutions and by members of the review board itself. We believe that the establishment of this appeal process will strengthen the incentive for individuals to collect and ultimately to donate cultural property to designated institutions or public authorities rather than to sell it on the international market.
In recent months articles have appeared and comments have been made even in this House suggesting that tax avoidance schemes have extended to donations of cultural property.
