House of Commons Hansard #138 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was artists.

Topics

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

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

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 20 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and there is agreement to re-defer the recorded division requested on the motion to refer Bill C-38 to committee before second reading until the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 21.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is that agreed?

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is there consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

12:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai Canadian Alliance Calgary East, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this private member's motion, Motion No. 293. The government should celebrate and encourage Canada's magnificent and diverse culture by changing the Income Tax Act.

As the multicultural critic for the Canadian Alliance, I must start by saying our multicultural policy has been highly successful. It is viewed around the world as being one of the most progressive policies of countries that have people of different cultures living together. This of course allows an expression of culture, which is excellent, and promotes, like any other cultures, innovation and creativity. One would tend to agree with the motion because it recognizes diverse creativity among the artistic community.

A civilization's maturity is also reflected in how far it has developed its culture. Canadian culture is very highly respected around the world, be it the French culture, the English culture or the aboriginal culture. We have a diverse culture. Across this nation we see this fabulous creativity from artist from all walks of life. It is a matter of great pride and support.

We would like to support the motion wholeheartedly. However aside from the fact that we would like to support this cultural advancement, and we will support it, the difficulty with the motion is it asks that artists be treated as a special group. It asks that they have an exemption from income tax.

In many of the gripping notes I have received, mention has been made that artists have to struggle a lot before their work is recognized. I think that is a given fact not only in Canada but everywhere else. However to change the Income Tax Act to try to assist them in that way leaves us with this question. Where, how far and why only them?

I have a partial list of people with special status. It includes people with disabilities, caregivers, people employed overseas, people who have stopped earning an income, people who are buying RRSPs and so forth. It is a partial list but it is big. When we see the government using taxpayer money to promote its friends, like Bombardier and some other businesses, then one would not be surprised that somebody like my colleague from the NDP, who is from the artistic community, would also want that. There is nothing wrong in her bringing forward that motion.

We have had three private members' motions, particularly this week, asking for the same thing. As a matter of fact one of my colleagues, whom I supported, brought forward a motion asking for an exemption for firefighters. Then we had my colleague from the NDP asking for income tax exemptions for those who participate in sports. Now we have this. Where do we go from here?

The Canadian Alliance believes the solution to all this lies with having lower income tax for everybody, because every group, one way or another, has a need. A lot of seniors live in my riding. They face terrible times because of their fixed incomes. Calgary being a booming city, the rents are rising and so is everything else. They are having a hard time. Groups, such as minor hockey teams, are looking for some kind of relief. Everyone is looking for relief. How much can the pot be spread before there is nothing left?

In my party's view, a very simple solution to better address these issues would be to cut the unnecessary expenditures. Let us get rid of the boondoggles at HRDC and the gun registry. Cutting out the unnecessary expenditures would allow the Government of Canada to reduce taxes overall. Then every Canadian would benefit, be they in the artistic community, in the business community, anywhere.

An overall tax cut would give the initiative to all Canadians, including artists. It would meet the objective that my colleague has put forward to help the artists that need assistance. An overall tax reduction across the board would assist everyone, including single mothers. We seem to forget single mothers. Single mothers have a difficult time raising their children. They have jobs which do not pay enough. In my riding the last time I was out knocking on doors I came across many single mothers who had returned home to live with their parents because they could not financially make ends meet.

There are pockets of homeless people in our cities. To come up with a band-aid solution for this group or that group will not solve many of the issues. Why would we say yes to one group and no to another group? How could we differentiate between the groups? They all make a solid contribution to our Canadian mosaic.

The solution is an across the board tax reduction. That can only happen if the government controls its expenditures. If the government does not control its expenditures, then there is nothing we can do.

The same party that has put forward the motion has said that our foreign aid commitment should increase by 0.7%. That is a very nice thought, but where would the money come from? There is only one taxpayer and there are other issues to be addressed.

If the government reduced its expenditures, it would be able to reduce taxes. Then everyone in society would benefit, including the artists.

It is with difficulty that we must say we do not support the motion. It is not because we do not recognize the value of the artistic community; it is because we think a better approach would be a reduction in overall taxes.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Madam Speaker, it might surprise members to hear me speak on Motion M-293 today because I am the Bloc critic on citizenship, immigration and the status of persons with disabilities.

Obviously, we all have favourite subjects. To some extent, we are all critics at heart when it comes to our special interests. Some people are passionate about sports, recreation, science or technology. In my case, it is health and culture. My past experience in health care explains my interest in the former, and my passion for arts and culture justifies my special love for the latter. Today, I want to talk about culture.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth for having drawn the attention of the House to the important issue of supporting artists and various cultural stakeholders.

The motion before us today states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should celebrate and encourage Canada's magnificent and diverse culture by changing the Income Tax Act to exempt creative and interpretive artists from paying income tax on a percentage of income derived from copyright, neighbouring rights, and/or other income derived from the sale of any creative work.

Before I continue, I want to clarify that my hon. colleague for Drummond has moved an amendment to replace the word “Canada's” with the word “a”. Later, I will talk about what this means.

The Bloc Quebecois will be pleased to vote in favour of the motion by the hon. member from the NDP. Once again, this demonstrates our support for artists and creators.

There is an obvious paradox between our daily lives, the place of culture in our lives and the status of artists. Who does not have at home books that make for a good read from time to time, to escape into another world, either real or fantasy, leaving behind the hustle and bustle of everyday life? Who does not watch television or videos once in a while? How many people enjoy a night out at the theatre or at a concert? How many CDs do you have in your collection at home—and I hope there are more real ones than illegal copies? This goes to show that culture is an integral part of our way of life, our reality, and wherever we turn, whatever we do, it never leaves anyone indifferent.

What about the individuals in the many professions in the cultural sector, though? What about the artists in particular, who are self-employed for the most part? If culture is everywhere and we consume culture daily, does this make artists some of the wealthiest members of our society? With the exception of a few comedians, singers and actors, the majority are very badly off, financially speaking.

Given this situation, are we unable to change anything? Some thought has to be given to this by both individuals and lawmakers. Allow me first to call on individuals. Our artists are not poor only because of a limited market or greedy production company agents.

I would be curious to know how many illegal copies of CDs we could collect if we searched every household in Quebec and Canada. How can one claim to appreciate the work of an artist, but not feel it is worth paying $20 or $25 to buy the CD and listen to the music or songs performed as often as we want to? Copying an artist's work without paying is disrespectful, ungrateful and unfair. We have a collective responsibility to prevent artists from being robbed, and robbery must not be trivialized “because everyone is doing it”, as some put it.

What can the lawmakers do? Of course, we have a responsibility to creators and performers. We cannot ignore the fact that most often they are financially hard up,if not living below the poverty line.

Moreover, they are often self-employed, which means they cannot receive certain benefits provided for in the Labour Code.

Looking at various factors that influence an artist's work and living conditions, there is no doubt that positive government action is essential.

In Quebec—this will come as no surprise—we already have provisions similar to those in Motion No. 293. At first artists were eligible for an annual exemption on copyright revenues based on a sliding scale up to $30,000. This has now been raised to $60,000.

Except in cases when artists enjoy a resounding success, it is difficult for them to predict what their future will hold and what their tax return will look like the following year. In this case, the past is not necessarily an indication of what the future will be like.

The Canadian Conference of the Arts, or the CCA, has been asking for tax breaks on copyright revenues for a long time. In its budget proposal to the finance committee in September 2002, the CCA asked for a tax exemption equivalent to the one granted in Quebec. To that effect, recommendations 3 and 4 stipulate:

That the government of Canada give serious consideration to supporting Canada’s professional artists and creators, the cornerstone of Canada’s cultural industries and institutions, by exempting up to $60,000 of annual copyright income.

That, following the implementation of the above-mentioned tax exemption on copyright income, the government of Canada give serious consideration to extending such an exemption to apply to up to $60,000 per annum of all artistic income.

Since there is no question of the legitimacy of these demands, and since artists deserve additional government support, at least through tax measures encouraging their artistic endeavours, we support the motion of the member for Dartmouth.

As I have already said, a motion in amendment has been submitted by my colleague from Drummond, seconded by the member for Matapédia—Matane. It reads:

That the motion beamended by replacing the word “Canada's” with the word “a”.

I m sure that you will not see this as an undisguised attempt at trouble-making or petty politics. On the contrary, we want to make this motion into a more inclusive parliamentary initiative, one that better reflects the reality of the culture of this vast territory north of the American border.

By deleting the word “Canada's”, we are acknowledging that there are different cultures within this vast country, and that all deserve the same recognition by the federal government. To name but a few: the Quebec culture, the English Canadian culture, the French Canadian culture, and those of the aboriginal, Acadian and immigrant communities.

In closing, I raise my hat to all those who, day in and day out, bring colour to our lives through their cultural creations. Thanks to them, our lives are touched by imagination and fantasy. Often the ups and downs of life seem more bearable when our spirits can soar with the help of music, poetry or a good book.

As André Malraux put it:

The entire history of art, of genius, should be a history of deliverance: for history strives to transform destiny into awareness, while art strives to transform it into freedom.

That freedom is what I wish for all the artists and other creative members of our society.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Madam Speaker, I have just a few words on this motion, the principle of which I certainly support. For many years I have been a strong supporter of artists of whatever type, whether it be visual artists or painters or musicians across this country. In fact, on numerous occasions I have had the opportunity to work directly and indirectly with a number of individuals and groups in promoting the great history and culture of our country, which can be done more explicitly through the art form than perhaps any other way.

Some of the best ambassadors we have had for our country, and we can say individually from our provinces, have been our artists and our musicians. In my own case, I can think of a group of very good friends of mine, a band called Great Big Sea, which is known from coast to coast to coast. These young men, long-time friends of mine, have done a tremendous job of representing not only Canada but specifically Newfoundland. If one watches any show in which they perform, some time during the show, in fact quite often many times, they will mention, promote and sing about the great province from which they all come.

I look at my friends from the Bloc next to me here. Some of the strongest artists and performers we have in this country of course come from Quebec and over the years they have done a great job not only of representing the province but in preserving that unique history and culture of the great province of Quebec.

Yet is there some way we can help them? Because all of them are not successful. I mentioned Great Big Sea. People are saying that those guys are making a lot of money these days, so why would they want breaks? Of course they are not asking for them, but there certainly was a time; they did not just appear on the national scene. They performed as students, actually, trying to work their way through university by making a few dollars entertaining, and it was a few dollars. Like it is for any group, it takes a while to gain the attention that gives a group the bookings or the buy-ins or whatever in order for it to start making money.

For many of our young artists, in particular our writers and painters, it takes a long time to prove themselves, to have their work accepted. For many of them, because their names are not recognized, unfortunately, it does not matter how good the work is. Unless somebody is really keen on interpreting the works of these writers or artists, their work quite often goes unnoticed. For many of those who are successful, their breaks come through luck or the support of some very conscientious people who are constantly looking for a good product, and consequently the performer or artist makes it on the scene.

Unfortunately many do not, but yet in their own ways they contribute. If we did not have our artists, if we did not have our actors, if we did not have our musicians, again I hesitate to try to understand how our heritage and culture could be promoted and preserved. One of the ways that we learn about history is from verse. I am sure it is from the old ballads that were passed along long before history was written by several cultures; the stories, the ballads, the poems, that is how we learned about our past. The same is true today.

Again, in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador there is a very rich culture and history. Much of it is preserved through art forms, certainly not by the dedicated efforts of any government trying to write a proper history. Those who do that work for us and get little in return certainly should be helped in any way. Is an exemption in the Income Tax Act the way to do it? It is quite possible it is, and I would have no problems with that.

However, the danger is of course that we would get people from other groups that make low wages in their professions asking why a young evolving artist who hopefully will eventually do exceptionally well should get a break, when those in the trades at the lower end or working on a farm as a labourer or whatever the case may be would not. They would say, “I am not going to get that break and I will be here until I die”. They would ask why they should not get a break when they are not making any more money than the people we are talking about exempting and when they have less of an opportunity to advance.

We cannot overlook any groups in our country who are making minimal wages. If only we had proper exemptions; our party has recommended that at the least we should have a $12,000 ceiling on income tax so that families and individuals who are making low wages would not have to pay income tax before they reached that bracket. That would give many low wage earners a break and we would not have to ask for exemptions for specific groups because they would automatically have it. Nor would we be getting complaints from individuals whose earnings are similar to those for whom we are requesting breaks.

We would avoid all of that by having a realistic taxation system in our country, with a base whereby low income people would not be harmed, and also through other exemptions like capital gains and so on, because many of the artists and writers eventually get into promoting and selling their products and really become entrepreneurs.

Generally, yes, we support the motion. If it is one way to help, we certainly support it, but perhaps collectively we should look for a way to help not only these people who do so much for us but also to help others who cannot do so much for themselves.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak in support of Motion No. 293 put forth by my colleague, the member from Dartmouth. It is absolutely a terrific motion and I think it has had very strong support across the country. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should celebrate and encourage Canada's magnificent and diverse culture by changing the Income Tax Act to exempt creative and interpretive artists from paying income tax on a percentage of income derived from copyright, neighbouring rights, and/or other income derived from the sale of any creative work.

I am very proud to represent a community, the riding of Vancouver East, that is home to many artists. Many people have written me or e-mailed me about this motion, and people I have met in the community have spoken to me about it. They have tremendous support for the work the member from Dartmouth has done.

I do want to say that the member, who is our culture critic in the NDP, has been a very outstanding advocate for arts and artists in this country. She works in a very quiet but very powerful way in persuading people about what needs to be done. I want to thank her for her dedication in continuing to bring forward issues that affect artists, but they are also issues in a broader public policy sense in our country.

I think this motion today is a reflection of the kind of work she undertakes to start moving the wheels of government toward recognizing some simple things that could be done to support artists right across the country.

I think there is a huge issue about lack of federal funding for the arts. We do know that every year the Canada Council for the Arts has to turn down over 75% of the applications for individual support. In fact, artists can only apply twice every four years, so we know there are big issues around lack of federal funding. In Vancouver, which generally is a city that represents a very strong arts community, there have been numerous reports through the Greater Vancouver Regional District and through the City of Vancouver that have actually exposed the lack of support given to B.C. and to Vancouver for artistic endeavours compared to other provinces.

We certainly have our share of issues and complaints about the lack of federal funding for arts and culture. I put that forward as a context that there is a larger issue we are dealing with here, and that is the cutbacks by the federal government in its support for arts and culture.

But I think the motion before us today is an opportunity to do something that will provide very tangible and real support to individual artists. It would mean that hopefully they could still access all the other programs that are available, but by saying that we would be willing to consider a part of their income tax exempt it would be a very important initiative.

I think of organizations in my riding like the Vancouver East Cultural Centre or the Video Inn or Headlines Theatre, or a very popular event that takes place in the fall called the East Side Culture Crawl, where members of the public in the thousands visit various studios in east Vancouver, talk with artists, look at their work and have a dialogue. It is an amazing event.

I think of places like Gallery Gachet or the Western Front, which is a very well known artist-run co-operative, one of the oldest in the country. I think of these venues and places in my own community where artists are able to come together to perform, to speak, to paint and to display their artistic endeavours, and where the community can also learn, understand and participate. It is something that we in east Vancouver find very empowering. It is a very important part of our community. It is very much a part of the fabric of east Vancouver.

In fact, the City of Vancouver zoned particular areas to encourage what we call artists' live/work studios, because of course one of the issues is that artists never can find affordable housing, particularly if they are doing studio work where they use industrial chemicals and paints. They need a place where they can live and work, so the City of Vancouver changed its bylaws to allow that to happen.

We are very proud that in east Vancouver we have this incredible vitality of artistic creation and endeavour. What always amazes me is that there is a very common misconception that the government is subsidizing the arts. I think it is the other way around. I think that artists are subsidizing us. If anyone ever sat down and did a proper financial accounting of the hours and years of work that artists put into their creative endeavours and the actual monetary value that artists get, it would be pennies per hour.

I think of an artist that I recently met in Vancouver, Nathaniel Geary, who just premiered his new film On the Corner at the international film festival. It is a very powerful film about the downtown east side, about the drug issues and the sex trade. It is an incredible film. It has had wonderful reviews. It is difficult for him to do the distribution for that film even though it has been critically acclaimed.

At the opening night when he spoke to the audience, who gave him an ovation for his work, he told us that it had taken him three years to write the script and then another year or two to actually do the filming, so there are four or five years of work. He did get some funding support but if he ever sat down and counted up what he put in, in a monetary sense, it would literally be pennies per hour.

That is just one example. There are tens of thousands of artists in this country who work as a labour of love on creative expression, on artistic output. Artists are not asking for a lot, which in some ways is a sad thing. They are not asking for very much. The arts community is asking that they be acknowledged for the value of their work. There is a monetary value. There is a value in terms of our society and what it represents in terms of our history and our culture.

As the member from the Tories mentioned earlier, and I agree with him, artistic expression can communicate in a much more powerful way the ideas, concepts and issues and the passion that people have about different things than we can by standing in the House and making a speech.

The motion before us today is about the principle that the value of the work produced by artists individually and collectively as a community is something we should recognize, and we should recognize it at different levels. One way to recognize the value of their work is to ensure that there is some mechanism within the income tax regime so that they can deduct some of their income from copyright and from their creative work, so that they have some benefit.

This concept is not new. It has been done in other places. The example most commonly used is Ireland, where artists are allowed to use a 100% deduction. That is not being suggested here. We are only talking about a partial deduction or a percentage of income derived from copyright, neighbouring rights or other income. We are not talking about 100%. There is a well established process that has already worked in other jurisdictions, so it is very feasible and realistic that it should be done here in Canada.

I have received quite a lot of e-mail on this issue from artists in my own riding. Kevin wrote to me and said:

This motion is not only about improving the living standards of all artists and arts institutions and nurturing the development of arts and culture in this country, but more importantly it is about the recognition and respect for the artists and arts institutions in Canada, who are presently significantly undervalued.

I would wholeheartedly agree with Kevin.

I have another e-mail that I received from Marita who wrote that if this motion were approved it would have a great effect on her life and standard of living. She wrote:

I hope that the House will see beyond the petty party lines and support this motion that not only benefits artists, but Canadian culture and forge our distinct identity.

I have another--

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bagnell)

Order, the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford Ontario

Liberal

Aileen Carroll LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that our government is seeking to ensure the vitality of all Canadians. That is one reason I am taking this opportunity to make a few remarks about the motion tabled by the hon. member for Dartmouth.

In order to maintain its mandate as the representative of the Canadian people, the government must, among other things, consider the diverse culture that is so unique to our country. It is an important characteristic of Canadian society and it should not be otherwise.

It is with this in mind that the Government of Canada is trying through a variety of means to stimulate the industry that reflects the character of our nation. For this reason, the initiative from the hon. member is certainly of some interest. Nevertheless, as my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has said before, there are many government agencies, institutions, programs and policies that are focused in whole or in part on this goal without creating or promoting unfairness in the collection of taxes.

As was mentioned earlier, the motion proposes to reduce the tax rate applicable to income earned by literary artists. While I do not deny that this would be a financial benefit to people working in this sector, it would be difficult to justify this type of approach to other taxpayers. Among other things, I do not see how we could explain applying such treatment to one group of Canadians while refusing it to another. Moreover, there is no indication that all writers actually need this type of benefit. While it might be beneficial to low income writers, we would be hard pressed to explain why such an exemption should not be applied to high income earners.

It is not hard to understand that the government would indeed be swamped by an avalanche of demands from various groups of Canadians, and understandably so. Given the limits and priorities of our system, we would inevitably have to deny most, or perhaps all, of those requests. How then would we explain one refusal to one profession after giving special treatment to another without any particular reason? No sufficiently valid justification can be offered in this regard, and I do not see how we could find a satisfying response to this question. Needless to say, in a society like ours which promotes social and economic justice for all, this type of practice would be unacceptable.

The consequences of amending the tax system should not be taken lightly. That is why using the tax system as suggested would not be an appropriate way to help a single sector of society, considering all of the undesirable repercussions that would flow from the decision.

In addition, in several respects, the motion does not have enough detail to justify straying from our usual practice. For example, there is no indication of the amount of the reduction in the tax rate that would apply, nor are definitions suggested as to who would be considered “creative and interpretive artists” and what would constitute “creative work”.

Lastly, we must not forget that there already exist various programs and incentives that stimulate the creation of Canadian cultural product. There is a tax credit for the labour cost of creating a Canadian film and video production, including the cost to hire screenwriters. There is the possibility for an artist to immediately deduct the cost of a work of art that the artist has created and is holding for sale, rather than waiting until it is sold. There is the availability of a business deduction for the cost of Canadian artwork. The non-taxation of capital gains earned on cultural property given to museums is another incentive.

Added to all of those incentives is direct and indirect assistance provided by the government to a variety of sectors to support creative work.

I would like to summarize by mentioning that there are, for example, support programs for certain cultural products and a host of grants, awards or bursaries of all sorts. Direct expenditure programs allow the government to address more directly the various specific needs within the artistic field than can be achieved through the tax system. In this way, the assistance offered by government is more easily justified to other Canadians.

I must also point out as a further reminder that the 2003 budget continues the implementation of the government's five year plan to reduce taxes for all Canadians. Unquestionably, this plan better meets the government's current objectives. These reductions apply to all taxpayers, but especially to middle and low income families with children. Of course, the reductions apply equally to families in the artistic community as they do to other taxpayers.

While I respect the hon. member for her support of Canada's creative literary artists, I must emphasize that the motion before us today is not the most effective way of achieving this objective.

Given what I said earlier, and notwithstanding the fact that the motion tabled is certainly based on honourable intentions, I must ask that the motion not receive the support of the House at this time.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have been able to turn the attention of the House to the issue of the artists in the country. It has been a privilege. We heard some interesting things in the course of the debate.

I think that we heard from all sides that there is a sincere concern about the continuance of real support for people in the arts. My motion is quite symbolic. It simply says let us now look at the economic state that people in the arts face in the country.

I appreciate the comments by my colleague from the Bloc who in fact is an artist herself. She is an eloquent spokesperson for persons with disabilities and also for culture.

I also appreciate the comments that have been made about the need to really examine our tax system to see who it is in fact it represents and examine the idea that people who are making under $15,000 are there. We have to make sure that we are not taxing the wrong people. All of these things are excellent ideas.

The Canadian Conference of the Arts has put forward some strong suggestions on how we can support people in the arts. One of the them is tax breaks for copyright income. Another one is an income averaging system. The third one is really careful fine tuning of the employment insurance system which would allow artists to be part of that and get some security.

The point has been made that the artist is no different from the mechanic or many other people in the country who work and are critical to the existence of the country. The point was made that an artist can in fact work at something for years on end and not find any financial benefit until three or four years down the line. It is very different. It is not a wage situation. They do not get a paycheque at the end of every two weeks and that makes a big difference.

Everything has been said today. I have received some wonderful comments from artists from across the country. I want to take the last few minutes to put a couple of things on the record.

Ingrid Jenkner, the curator of the Mount St. Vincent Gallery in Halifax, wrote:

Artists do not constitute a “special interest group” comparable to powerful corporate lobbies. They are neither wealthy nor well-organized. They are undersupported, period. The incomes of visual artists are especially pitiful. I am speaking as a Dartmouth constituent and as a public art gallery director who has worked with visual artists for 25 years. Let's get this motion passed and prove that Canada is a civilized country.

Emily Bickell of Globe Studios wrote:

It is a constant struggle for artists to meet financial requirements while making a serious attempt to have a professional arts career. Emerging artists in particular have a very difficult road ahead as they strive to create artwork without financial support or a body of work as “stock” which they could sell to finance future endeavours.

Leslie Smith wrote:

As president of the Toronto Chapter of the Periodical Writers Association of Canada, PWAC, I can tell you that things have gotten worse for the freelance writers who provide so much content for Canadian newspapers and magazines. Media convergence, the rise of the Internet and just plain stinginess on the part of publishers have meant that our real incomes have nosedived over the past 50 years.

I will read something from Alberta's Lieutenant Governor, Lois Hole, which I think is really germane to the argument. She said:

The contributions of artists are as vital as those of the entrepreneur, the police officer, the doctor, the custodian, the child care provider and the construction worker. Artists are just as important because they are our greatest teachers and questioners. They give us the means to think critically, with a keen eye for both the smallest details and the big picture.

She asked us to imagine how different the world would be if we did not have our singers, painters, writers and sculptors serving as our eyes. She went on to say, “Frankly, I think we would enjoy a more saner, more compassionate society, one that keeps a better eye on the details that can make or break a culture”.

We have an opportunity today to support the arts in many ways. We can support them by putting more money into the Canada film fund, into the CBC; by funding our Canada council better; and by putting some special mechanisms into the unemployment insurance system that would take into account the needs of people working in the arts. We could do this through some kind of tax relief for copyright income for artists, and with things like income averaging.

What we have to do is say that it is art that legislates the heart of a nation. That is where we have to begin and that is where we will end.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is the House ready for the question?

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.