John Richardson

[Canadian Unity, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about our great nation, Canada.

While the results were close last night, we as a nation have so much to build our future on. Canadians from coast to coast share many of the same values and priorities. We all care about finding and keeping good paying jobs, that our streets are safe from crime, and that future generations will inherit a compassionate and prosperous country.

The love for our country remains.

Last week the citizens of my riding organized a rally to demonstrate their desire for Quebec to remain a part of our great nation, and thousands upon thousands of Canadians travelled to Montreal to declare their love for this country.

These are the things that will hold us together. These are the things that we can build on in the weeks, months and years ahead.

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-61.

This bill adds to the enforcement option available to certain legislation administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada by allowing administrative monetary penalties to be imposed. The bill also authorizes the minister, if requested, to conclude compliance agreements with persons who commit violations.

Under compliance agreements, administrative monetary penalties can be reduced or cancelled if persons agree to take the appropriate steps to ensure future compliance with agri-food acts and regulations. The administrative monetary penalties are subject to review by an independent tribunal. Now every contravention can currently be prosecuted.

The bill gives the minister an administrative option where prosecution is seen to be too harsh a measure. In arriving at his decision the minister will be guided by a compliance and

enforcement policy-I underline the word policy because it gives broader perspectives-that establishes the criteria to guide the department in making decisions on the use of all enforcement controls or options.

The policy is a public document. The choice to be made by the minister of whether to prosecute or issue a monetary penalty is akin to a prosecutorial choice. It is such as we would find in a criminal case in which the decision is made as to whether a matter should proceed by way of indictment or by summary conviction. Because the choice is heavily dependent upon the facts in each situation, flexibility is required. This flexibility is best offered by relying on policy rather than regulations.

It has always been the intention to administer this bill in a reasonable manner. We on this side of the House are happy to accept this approach to the bill. However, compliance agreements form an integral part of the proposed scheme. The object of the scheme is to obtain compliance rather than to penalize the violator. It is a common sense approach to bring those who are the users into a compliance mode without using the heavy hand of the law or penalties.

By authorizing the department to enter into these agreements the bill gives the department a tool to negotiate the implementation by industry of measures that would change the violator's practices and processes. The emphasis here is on change. At the same time, the violator may pay a reduced penalty in exchange for committing funds to effect the necessary improvements leading to future compliance. The bill provides that kind of flexibility.

Compliance agreements result in immediate corrective action which is the desired result of the bill. Of course, immediate corrective action leads to a better product, improved health and safety, and more effective enforcement. Compliance agreements are optional and no one is forced to enter into them. The bill provides an incentive to enter into compliance agreements by making it possible to reduce the amount of monetary penalty.

The nature of the bill is to achieve compliance. For those who do not comply and who are found out, they are counselled into compliance. If they do not comply, the second stage is enacted. The nature of the bill is to encourage people to comply.

Current maximum penalties are relatively modest. The bill does not make a distinction between first and subsequent violations for the purpose of setting a maximum penalty that could be assessed. However, the regulations will determine a base penalty amount and the range and circumstances under which the penalties may be increased or reduced. The regulations will determine a base penalty amount and the range and circumstances. The compliance history will be one of the factors set out in the regulations whereby penalties will be reduced for violators with no previous history of non-compliance. Again, it is the nature of the action. If there is a perceived resistance to compliance the enforcement of the regulation is the only tool the government has.

Penalty amounts may be increased or decreased based on the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation, the amount of harm done by the violation, and the compliance history of the person who committed the violation. Flowing through this is a series of steps that is known in law as the law of natural justice. Was this a one-shot affair? Was there fair warning? Was there counselling? That is the rule of the land in our country: no one is caught out the first time. In that sense it shows fairness. If it is not fair, the person who is charged has the right to appeal.

I had the opportunity to sit through the clause by clause deliberations in committee. A number of very good concerns were raised, mainly by the opposition but from the government side as well. I see that some of them have been incorporated in this bill. It speaks for the bill having some input from members who are not of the government party.

I see this adhering to the laws of natural justice and due process is outlined clearly in this bill. I would like to review a few points in the bill that may give it a bit more light.

Bill C-61 allows for issuance of monetary penalties on the basis of absolute liability; that is, where the department needs only to prove that an alleged violator committed an act that is in violation of the regulations. The bill does not allow a defence of due diligence by which a violator can avoid liability by establishing that he or she was not negligent.

Under Bill C-61 there is no possibility of imprisonment, no record of conviction for an offence is created, and penalties are modest rather than punitive in nature. Because of these factors, there is no constitutional or other legal impediment to proceeding on the basis of absolute liability.

From a policy perspective, the use of absolute liability is essential to encourage the food industry to exhibit a high standard of care, which the people of Canada expect. This is important for matters involving the food chain and consistent with the approach the courts take in civil cases. The concept of absolute liability is important to the effectiveness of the system as a preventative measure.

Let me give an example of the standards necessary in the food chain. To someone with peanut allergies, even a minute amount of peanut dust is enough to send them into an anaphylactic shock. To such a person, the issue is not whether a company exercised due diligence. When we see the breakout of products, even when we have HP sauce included, it is far more detailed than any other country I know of in this world. As a preventative measure, finding

that a product is mislabelled in not indicating the presence of peanuts in itself warrants finding liability. That is presently in the law.

The focus of Bill C-61 is on preventative and remedial action and not in finding of fault. The use of absolute liability is also provided for in an effective and efficient enforcement system.

The resource base for enforcing regulations is shrinking. Bill C-61 deliberately designs a simple and efficient system to deal with those importers or domestic companies that do not follow our health, safety, and quality regulations. It is worth mentioning that although the due diligence defence does not apply, other common law defences are available to a person to whom the notice of violation is issued.

Bill C-61 is in my judgment a fair bill, presented and debated openly in committee. It follows the natural laws of justice and includes due process. On that basis, I give my full support to this bill.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of petitioners in my riding concerning the government's restructuring of the railroads.

The petition states that rail service is the fastest and most environmentally responsible means of travel and that the subsidies to VIA Rail are not disproportionate to the huge subsidies provided for highway infrastructure.

On behalf of my constituents I present this petition to maintain passenger rail service in Canada.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member, but he has disappeared.

The nature of Canadians is to give and support institutions within their communities, both at the lower level and to the senior levels of the museum chain. A country is known by its culture, not by its material aspects, and what it leaves behind for the world. Little by little the artefacts have been gathered together by small museums at the local level, the provincial level and the national level.

Does the hon. member feel strongly that the bill will ensure that those who give those valuable artefacts whether to museums or to art galleries would be given fair compensation under the rules of the Income Tax Act as the bill is presently written?

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few years a number of donors and custodial institutions have felt uneasy about the arbitrary decision making upon which the value of the goods donated to a museum or an art gallery were executed.

In the mind of the member for Central Nova, are the protocol and processes that will allow for due process and the laws of natural justice to take place incorporated in the bill?

[Privilege, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The member for Red Deer referred to the Canadian soldiers that we send abroad as "big, bad junk yard dogs". What a terrible and unfair characterization of the members of the Canadian forces who have served our country and the UN for decades.

There seems to be an attempt by the members of the third party to smear the Canadian forces.

[Public Works, October 19th, 1995]

Yes, it does, Mr. Speaker.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of the act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

The opposition to the bill and the thrust of the amendment to the bill would undermine cultural institutions from coast to coast. Culture is the one legacy that the past leaves to the present and the present prepares to leave to the future.

By establishing the incentives that are inherent in this bill it will encourage people in this country who have items of great significance nationally, of great significance regionally or great significance locally to donate those items to art galleries, museums and heritage buildings that may be in any town, city or county.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, with consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, to establish an appeal determinations by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board of the fair market value of certified cultural property.

In December 1991 the responsibility for determining the fair market value of cultural property donated to the designated Canadian museums, art galleries and libraries and significant heritage buildings transferred from Revenue Canada Taxation to the review board and the review board assumed this responsibility at its meeting held in January 1992. No provision for appeal of the review board decisions was included in the legislative amendments despite the fact that the right of appeal had existed when this responsibility was withdrawn from Revenue Canada. Donors and custodial institutions expressed serious concerns about the lack of an appeal process that is inherent to have built into any program like this where value is to be judged.

The Department of Canadian Heritage in co-operation with the review board then undertook a series of consultations with the community about the need for an appeal process. As a result of these consultations, it was agreed that the legislative amendments should be prepared to establish the right of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada.

This bill establishes two processes. The first gives the donor or recipient institution the right to request that the review board consider its initial determination of fair market value. If after receiving a determination from the board the donor is not satisfied, he or she may take the second step of appealing the board's decision to the Tax Court of Canada.

There are key messages inherent in this bill. I will review some of them at this time. The cultural property export and import tax provides tax benefits to encourage donations to public institutions of objects and collections that are of outstanding significance and national importance. This support is the only program of the Government of Canada that provides financial support through tax credits for donations to museums, art galleries, archives and libraries.

Museums, art galleries, archives and libraries in every province and territory in Canada benefit through the receipt of donations of cultural property as a result of these tax credits. Cultural property valued at approximately $60 million is donated to Canadian

institutions each year. A significant amount of real property is donated to public institutions.

The fair market value of cultural property certified by the review board is eligible as a tax credit at 17 per cent for the first $200 and 29 per cent on the balance over $200. The donor can claim the fair market value of the gift up to the total amount of his or her net income. There is no tax payable on any capital gain resulting from this gift.

Because a donor receives a tax credit, the amount of money realized as a result of the donation is approximately 50 per cent of the fair market value. The donor does not therefore receive a tax refund equivalent to the fair market value of the gift.

Donors, museums, art galleries and professional associations have been lobbying for the right to appeal review board decisions as it was perceived that the lack of an appeal was a denial of natural justice. In most cases where there is arbitration the laws of natural justice in this country must be seen to be in action. Due process must be seen to be in action.

The establishment of appeal should be viewed as a reinstatement of the right of appeal that was lost when the responsibility for determining the fair market value was returned to the review board in 1991.

These amendments will ensure that donors who disagree with determinations of the review board will have the right of appeal to the courts and that they will not be denied natural justice. The announcement of the establishment of an appeal process was received positively by donors, museums, art dealers and the media. These legislative amendments therefore enjoy a high level of public support.

The amendments are technical in nature and respond to strong concerns expressed by the heritage community. Their passage into law should be seen as part of the ongoing commitment of the Government of Canada to ensure the preservation of Canada's cultural heritage.

As I said before and would like to stress again, the era of a country is known by the culture it passes on to another. We must bring those significant items that demonstrated the culture of that era into a place of safekeeping so that they can be studied, viewed and appreciated by people in future eras.

Throughout history works of art have been prized by civilizations as expressed by the cultures that created them. They are regularly protected, conserved and displayed as both symbols and concrete examples of the history of a particular society or cultural group. We see this now as our natives in this country seek to preserve items of their cultural heritage which have great meaning to them. Other groups in our society are seeking now to preserve items of cultural heritage that will have great meaning to future generations.

All nations define themselves in the present by events of the past. It is therefore vitally important to preserve our nation's history and heritage.

Canada passed the Cultural Property Export and Import Act to provide cultural patrimony and preserve in Canada significant examples of the nation's cultural, historic and scientific heritage in movable cultural property. As a means to protect its cultural property, Canada adopted unique combinations of export controls and tax incentives for making gifts to the designated public institutions and incorporated these in legislation by establishing the articles that flowed from that act.

May I speak from some personal experience. Last Sunday I attended a cultural heritage event. I stood in for the minister of culture at a ceremony for a plaque commemorating a historic building of significant architectural importance. Its interior was significant; it was the most outstanding example of fresco painting in three dimension in Canada. I was pleased to be there as were all the people of that community. It is not a sophisticated metropolitan community but the town of Baden of approximately 2,000 people.

People gathered in great numbers to celebrate the historic recognition of Castle Kilbride. Significant artefacts that belonged to that castle from the early 19th century were donated. People brought them back and these items were of significant value because they were owned by a man of considerable wealth. They returned them to this heritage building and museum so that the people of that community would see the architecture and painting of significance to Canadian history and how life was lived in that building.

I live in a town where there are a number of buildings of architectural significance that will be declared heritage buildings. There is not just the culture of significant and exciting designs but there is also the finest English speaking repertoire theatre in North America, the Stratford Festival Theatre and its three stages. We go down the trail and recognize great writing, great playwriting and performances in Stratford, which by the way is playing to its best year in history.

Canadians will look back on those significant events which developed their culture, developed their appreciation for fine architecture, developed their appreciation for fine art, which were developed in Canada by Canadians, for Canadians today and for Canadians tomorrow.

[Excise Tax Act, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to conclude on the government's behalf the section on Bill C-90.

Bill C-90 is just the legalization or legitimization of items covered in the 1995 budget in the areas of air transportation tax, excise tax on gasoline, and the marketing requirements for tobacco products sold in Prince Edward Island in order to sort the problems out there and to allow for sale the Nova Scotia marked tobacco products. As well, there is a seizure notification provision with respect to offences under the excise tax which will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the enforcement activities.

This is basically a housekeeping bill that follows up and has to be done to legitimize and formalize our budget process. It also contains important changes with respect to the excise tax rates for tobacco products for sale in Quebec, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island. The amendment contained in this bill will give legislative effect to the modest federal excise tax increases that were announced earlier this year in conjunction with the provincial tobacco tax increases.

No one who sat through this modest tax increase likes it, but this kind of tax was a restructuring type tax. These taxes are necessary to sort out.

The air transportation tax will increase the maximum air transportation tax on the higher domestic and transborder air travel in Canada from $50 to $55. This is not a significant amount, but it would assist in underwriting the loss leading operations we have in running our international airports and the airports in Canada.

Gasoline taxes are needed to keep up the Trans-Canada Highway and other vital routes in the movement of goods and services in Canada.

In closing, I would like to say that the government taxes were modest in reference to the budget and were based on the need to service our airports and roads across Canada and to restructure some of the taxes in some of the provinces as well as the tobacco selling in Prince Edward Island.

[Terry Puhl, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Canadian athlete and the community that honoured him.

On September 14 the town of St. Mary's, the future home of the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, hosted 15-year major league veteran Terry Puhl.

Terry, a native of Melville, Saskatchewan, spent 14 of his 15 seasons with the Houston Astros and holds a .280 career batting average. Also known as a superb defensive player, Terry holds the major league record for the best fielding percentage in baseball, .993.

In six of his seasons he did not make a single error and he had only 19 in his entire career. Terry Puhl is the first player to be inducted into the new St. Mary's home of the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

This visionary and enthusiastic community of only 5,000 people is undertaking to build an $8.7 million complex to showcase Canadian baseball history and heroes.

I congratulate the people of St. Mary's for their hard work and dedication toward this goal. I wish them success.