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.
