Debates of Sept. 28th, 1995

Cultural Property Export And Import Act

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Hon. members opposite seem to be regarding this as bit of a joke. I do not find anything particularly funny about a tour of Canada's cultural industries. Hon. members opposite talk about deficit reduction and they forget that Canada's culture contributes mightily to our economy. They do not pay any attention to the fact that people spend billions of dollars a year attending artistic events, concerts of all kinds.

These are the artists the bill is designed to assist. The bill promotes artistry and culture in Canada, and hon. members opposite are opposed to it. They keep moving amendments to delay its passage. Why are they opposed to it?

Surely the member who represents Drumheller and sits on that side of the House is aware of the museum and its value in his community. It is a big drawing card for Drumheller. I have no doubt the bill will assist the museum in some of its work. Yet hon. members opposite attack the bill.

What about the famous museums in Calgary? The city of Calgary is burdened with Reform representation in the House. These people cannot represent. Unfortunately, with no adequate representation in the House, members from Calgary are failing their very famous museum in Calgary, the Glenbow Museum. I have been to it.

Hon. members opposite laugh and treat it as a cavalier matter when that museum is a major drawing card for the city of Calgary. The museum attracts tourists to Calgary to see the art and the other exhibits. Hon. members opposite should be ashamed of their mocking of Canada's cultural industries.

What are the objectives of this very important piece of legislation? The bill amends the Cultural Property Export and Import Act and related legislation to establish a process to appeal decisions by

the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board on the fair market value of certified cultural property. That is a significant change and it is not all for the benefit of the wealthy.

Deals work both ways. The minister can also appeal if he thinks the valuation is wrong. Hon. members opposite fail to mention that in their amendments and in their speeches. Their only reason for doing so is that they are out to kill Canada's cultural industries.

In the 1990 federal budget responsibility for determining the fair market value of cultural property donated to designated Canadian museums, art galleries and libraries was transferred from Revenue Canada to the review board. No provision for appeal of review board decisions was included in those amendments, despite the fact the right of appeal existed when the responsibility was with Revenue Canada. In other words, we are trying to get some fairness back in the system, fairness not just for the donor but also for the Government of Canada, which has a right of appeal in these cases.

Donors and custodial institutions have expressed serious concern about this lack of appeal process. It led the Department of Canadian Heritage, ably led by the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage, in co-operation with the review board, to undertake a series of consultations with the community, which has resulted in this bill.

Hon. members opposite think this bill was an idea conceived by the government acting on its own. Nothing can be further from the truth. As usual, the government consulted extensively with Canadians and came up with a process that is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, these amendments were prepared. There is a right of appeal established by this bill to the Tax Court of Canada. The creation of the appeal process is a reinstatement of a right of appeal lost in 1991 and a means of ensuring that there is no denial of natural justice.

I know the words "natural justice" must be something difficult for members opposite to understand. We have been listening to them this morning talk about Bill C-45 and sentencing. Their notion of justice is wildly different from the notion of most other people in this country. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra may have missed that part of the speech. I expect he was in committee this morning. All they want to do is lock people up and throw away the key. We heard about that.

Unfortunately I missed the hon. member for Wild Rose's speech too. I understand it was a real blockbuster. As usual, it was the kind of speech that involves locking people up and throwing away the key. It is not a useful contribution, in my view, to the administration of justice or to the rehabilitation of offenders that we are all seeking.

I want to return, as return I must, to Bill C-93, which after all is the subject of my remarks this afternoon.

The government is committed to improving the collections of all Canadian cultural institutions through a combination of import controls to retain cultural property in Canada and tax incentives to encourage donations to designated institutions. This approach to cultural property preservation is acknowledged internationally as a model for other countries to follow. Canada is a world leader in that regard.

When I was at the Tyrrell museum in Drumheller-and hon. members opposite ought to be supporting these institutions instead of tearing them down-I discovered there was a rule in Alberta prohibiting the export of fossils from Alberta. They could not be removed from the province. Hon. members opposite should be aware that kind of cultural legislation exists, not just at the federal level but also at the provincial level.

In making it easier for individuals to appeal rulings and valuations to the tax court, the government is demonstrating its commitment to allow Canadians efficient access to the judicial system to challenge the decisions of government boards. This has been the policy of the government for many years. The policy of this party has been to favour fairness in treatment for all.

We have striven for fairness in many ways. That has been evident in most of the legislation that has been introduced in this House, including the legislation that was debated so vigorously this morning, which hon. members dumped on because they wanted to lock people up and throw away the key.

The Bloc Quebecois, on the other hand, has been relatively silent today. I congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil-

The hon. member has indicated he does not want me to refer to what was said by members of his party about this bill. But I must, because they always argue that the province of Quebec does not receive enough funding for culture in this country. They are wrong. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the province of Quebec receives more-

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

More than its share.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

-more than its share. Exactly. I thank the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his assistance.

In any event, although Quebec makes up only 25 per cent of the Canadian population-it is a significant percentage and I should not say only-an average of 36 per cent of federal funds for cultural organizations were distributed in Quebec.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Could we hear that in French?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Perhaps I could repeat it in French.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Yes, they would appreciate that.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thirty-six per cent of federal funds for cultural institutions were distributed in Quebec, including 37 per cent of the funds for Telefilm Canada, 40 per cent of the National Film Board funds, and 37 per cent of the funds for CBC. Let me perhaps repeat that.

My translation is not perfect. Although the province of Quebec represents only 25 per cent of the population, 36 per cent of federal funding for cultural organizations was distributed in this province, including 37 per cent for Telefilm Canada, 40 per cent for the National Film Board and 37 per cent for Radio-Canada. Imagine!

If these figures are accurate, the hon. member has no reason to argue in this House that there is a problem with what the federal government does about culture in the province of Quebec.

I realize that the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who chairs one of the organizing committees for the referendum in the province of Quebec and probably has quite a few problems on his plate right now, has his own views on the subject. If there are any museums in his riding, he should talk to his friends in the Reform Party who want to kill these museums. He probably wants to support them. If there is a museum, it will certainly get a lot of money from the federal government, because of the huge amounts the government is spending in his province.

I urge the hon. member to recant his heresy, abandon the idea of separation, and jump on the bandwagon so that he can keep receiving all these benefits the museums in his constituency receive from the Government of Canada.

The Leader of the Opposition, and I thank the member for Ottawa West for reminding me of this statement, declared before the Bélanger-Campeau commission

"One of the splendid achievements of the Canadian dream was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We all know that our cultural roots developed largely thanks to and under the aegis of those cultural titans who worked at the CBC".

The Leader of the Oppostion and the premier of Quebec are henchmen in leading the parade for the yes vote in Quebec. If he acknowledges that Canada has contributed so greatly, surely he ought to acknowledge that a little more often during the referendum debate. I have not heard him speaking on that subject. I do not understand it.

Since the hon. member for Témiscamingue is here and hearing this, perhaps when he next speaks with his leader he could remind him of this statement and of the tremendous support Canada gives to cultural industries in Quebec and indeed elsewhere in the country.

We in this party are proud to support Canada's cultural industries.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Let me wipe my tears.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The hon. member says he is about to break into tears. I can understand that because his party seems hell bent on the destruction of Canada's cultural industries.

I am delighted that so many of my colleagues are here to show their support for Canada's cultural industries. I know the hon. member for Halifax attends cultural events in her community on a regular basis. She goes to concerts, to museums, to art galleries, and all these great things in Halifax. The hon. member for Ottawa West visits cultural events in this community. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair visits cultural events in her community. The hon. member for Saskatoon visits all kinds of cultural events and sites in his beautiful city of Saskatoon.

This country is covered with excellent cultural facilities and has a tremendous number of very gifted artists. Hon. members in the Reform Party should be ashamed that they are trying to destroy that cultural heritage.

Hon. members opposite may have received recently a diskette of the Juno award winners in Canada. Hon. members should realize that this kind of bill can assist in organizations that are distributing this kind of material in our country and promoting Canadian artists here and abroad. These are all part of the policies of the government that are supported by this Bill C-93.

I urge hon. members opposite to abandon their position, support this bill, and let us get it passed.

[The Speaker]

We have time for a very brief question and comment. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if in two years or so some Liberals, perhaps under the leadership of the Prime Minister, were to travel to Wild Rose country, where there have been some sightings of dinosaurs, and

sneak up behind a couple of them and knock them off and then try to donate them to a museum, how would this act work to allow us to have a tax credit for knocking off dinosaurs in Wild Rose country?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to attempt to answer the hon. member's question.

I do not claim to be an expert on the bill. Whether the bill would assist in knocking off dinosaurs, I do not know. One thing that will help will be the vote on this bill. If hon. members opposite vote against it, I am sure the electors in their constituencies will want to do their best to knock them off in the next election. We will look forward to that.

[The Speaker]

It being almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by Members and hope the topics will be more up to date than the dinosaurs.

Aids

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, AIDS is a problem we must all address. It has significant implications for public health, human rights, and impacts on our economy and our health and social service systems.

Our government recognizes the tragic nature of the disease and has allocated $203.5 million over the next five years for education and prevention initiatives, for research and monitoring, and to help people living with this disease. The people directly involved know that even this generous support will not be enough.

On October 1, for the first time the residents of the region of Peel will join others all across the country in walking to raise money for HIV and AIDS support, education, and awareness. I am sure all the members of Parliament will join me in wishing the participants the greatest possible success.

Quebec Referendum

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, former Senator Arthur Tremblay has made it very clear he will vote yes in the upcoming referendum. From very start, this senior civil servant of the modern Quebec state helped develop and put in place the vital tools Quebecers gave themselves in the early 1960s under Jean Lesage's vision of "Maîtres chez nous".

Hardened by his many years of experience and his knowledge of the workings of federal political machinery, Mr. Tremblay said it was no longer possible, within federalism as it exists, to recover the powers that Ottawa had taken on over the years and that the time has now come for Quebec to take charge of its destiny.

In Mr. Tremblay's words, if Quebec is to escape from trusteeship federalism and domination by a central government continually reinforced by the dynamics of the general powers it has given itself, sovereignty is the only option.

New Brunswick Government

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week we were subjected to the gloating of government members over the re-election of Frank McKenna's Liberal government.

Of course those members forgot to mention that the way Mr. McKenna is running his province proves that he is no longer pursuing a Liberal agenda. In Halifax two weeks ago the upper management of two major corporations told me that doing business with Frank McKenna's government is like doing business with a private enterprise corporation. They also confirmed that Mr. McKenna seems to have abandoned the old style tax and spend dependency programs of the Liberals.

Clearly Mr. McKenna has joined the Reform wave that is washing Liberalism right out of provincial politics in every part of the country. Mr. McKenna is now running a Reform style government.

Government members rarely credit their constituents with any intelligence, but our side of the House can see that the Reform message has been clearly received and understood by the voters of New Brunswick. If only Liberal members at the federal level had the same degree of understanding.

Pages

[Peter Thalheimer, Liberal, Timmins—Chapleau, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome the pages to the House of Commons for this 1995-96 session. In particular, I extend a warm welcome to Nadine Nickner, a constituent of mine from the beautiful city of Timmins in the riding of Timmins-Chapleau.

These young men and women from all parts of our united and strong Canada will assist us while we debate the laws of Canada.

Book And Magazine Fair

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, November 24, the sixth annual Word on the Street book and magazine fair was held on Queen Street West in my riding of Trinity-Spadina.

It is not only a celebration of the very best in Canadian writing, but it also draws our attention to the importance of literacy by promoting reading, writing and learning.

Last year a crowd in excess of 100,000 people jammed Queen Street West to view the many exhibits and to discover the large sampling of new Canadian writing. This year the crowds in Toronto grew and were joined by large parallel festivals at either end of the country.

Thanks to the grants from the Literacy Secretariat and the Department of Canadian Heritage, Word on the Street has grown to include festivals in Vancouver and in Halifax, making it a truly national event.

I take this opportunity to salute the organizers for their hard work and for their efforts to promote literacy.

Canada Post

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in late August the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation ordered a top to bottom review of the mandate of Canada Post.

It is my understanding that in the very near future the minister will announce the details of the review: who the chairperson will be, how long the review will take and whether it will be held in public or in private.

In the past I have called for the minister to establish an independent commission that would evaluate the performance and mandate of Canada Post on an ongoing basis. Rural and urban communities have been greatly affected by post office closures, privatization, community mailboxes, slow delivery and stamp and service price increases.

Therefore, I urge the minister to ensure that the review recognize that service is important to the public and not use the results of the review only to justify further privatization and service reductions. The review should be held in public with cross-country public hearings and adequate time given for groups and individuals to make presentations.

Regional Development

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the Reform Party's record in regional development.

When Reformers visit Atlantic Canada they say they will eliminate subsidies to stimulate business. However, what does the Liberal Party record say? The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency invests in business. The government has eliminated grants and every $1 we invest in the economy has a $4 effect.

When Reformers visit Atlantic Canada they say they want to get away from Ottawa-directed approaches. However, regional development in Atlantic Canada is just that, regional and local. ACOA's 94 per cent success rate proves it is working.

If the member for Fraser Valley West is an example, maybe Reformers do not really mean what they say when they visit Atlantic Canada, but Canadians cannot take that chance.

Reform has proven that it does not understand Atlantic Canada, but the government is proving that regional development works.

Hydro-Quebec

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec has decided to withdraw from the Conseil du patronat du Québec because of this organization's militancy for the No side. The chairman of the board of Hydro-Quebec, Yvon Martineau, severely condemns the statements made by several business leaders who have come out in favour of the No side.

He said that some business leaders, who claimed to speak for businesspeople, made public comments that were unworthy of their responsibilities.

Responding to Laurent Beaudoin's remarks, Mr. Martineau said that speaking of Quebec as a shrunken state denotes a lack of respect for its people. He rightly ascribed our prosperity to the work done by successive generations and not to the country's size.

Despite the wishes of Mr. Garcia of Standard Life, Quebec will not be crushed.

Transport

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, air travel is convenient but can be risky, particularly on the rugged, inaccessible and unpredictable west coast.

It is with deep regret, shock and sadness that I rise to extend my deepest sympathy to the families of the eight individuals who perished in the crash of the single engine turbine Otter aircraft in Campbell River last night.

I know my colleagues will join with me and that the prayers of this House are with the bereaved families.

We also want to let the survivors and their families know that our thoughts are with them.

Quebec Referendum

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of the federal riding of Waterloo, a part of English speaking Canada, overwhelmingly recognize that Quebec is a vital, integral

and essential part of our country. They recognize that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts.

They are concerned and apprehensive about the upcoming referendum in Quebec. They want a Canada that includes Quebec.

They know there are two sides to the referendum campaign: the separation side led by Jacques Parizeau and the unity side led by Daniel Johnson.

It is their expectation that political parties that say they favour a united Canada work together and not engage in self-serving political opportunism.

The questions raised by the Reform Party to the Prime Minister during question periods on the upcoming referendum have aided and abetted the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. It is time members of the Reform Party matched their rhetoric with action and got onside with the group that is working together for a united Canada.

The Member For Laurentides

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member for Laurentides, who is also the official opposition's critic on the environment, recently stated: "Fortunately, on October 30, Quebecers will decide to give themselves a country. Our environment will then cease to be a federal issue, and we will be able to breathe easier".

It would be in the Bloc member's interest to read again some statements made by her leader when he was Canada's minister of the environment. She would surely learn some very valuable lessons. At the 44th annual general assembly of the United Nations held on October 23, 1989, her leader said this: "At a time when environmental problems transcend borders, our idea of sovereignty must continue to evolve and adapt".

The separatist obsession must not shrink our horizons to the point where we are going against the tide of major global trends. The separatist vision is easy to see through, as the hon. member for Laurentides has just shown us once again.

Canada-Quebec Economic Union

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard for the first time a separatist spokesperson speak in favour of tabling the partnership deal Quebec would offer Canada should it achieve independence.

Victor Lévy-Beaulieu, the author and co-chairman of the Yes campaign in the Lower St. Lawrence region, told Radiomédia Rimouski listeners: "Of course, for the purpose of the referendum and perhaps also to make people feel secure, it might not be a bad idea after all to finally define this new society referred to in the proposed agreement".

In his statement, Victor Lévy-Beaulieu concurs with 75 per cent of the people of Quebec who demand that the partnership offer be made public before the referendum. The people are entitled to know what is this partnership offer that an independent Quebec would extend to the rest of Canada, and it is the separatist leaders' duty to disclose its content. That is how democracy works.