Peter Milliken

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Perhaps I could repeat it in French.

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

-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.

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

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-

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

Hon. members opposite find this act a bit of a joke. I am sorry they think so. It is sad that they have moved amendments to delay adoption of the bill in the House. This surprises me because it shows they really do not care about Canada's cultural community with which the bill deals. If hon. members opposite gave two hoots about Canada's cultural community, they would not have moved all the amendments.

I will read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I believe it is the second or third one; I have lost count. The amendment reads:

That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, since it fails to address the issue of the burden the tax credit system places on middle class taxpayers who are asked to pay for a potentially endless stream of donations of questionable cultural and artistic value claimed by wealthy Canadians.

The amendments shows a complete disregard for Canada's cultural community because it says that the work of Canadian artists is worthless, that the acquisitions of art by Canadians are worthless, and that these are "donations of questionable cultural and artistic value". That is what Reform Party members are saying. Those are the very words of their motion. That is what they are saying to Canadian artists and philanthropists involved in supporting Canada's artistic community. It is a disgrace.

My hon. friend for Ottawa Centre will appreciate that I had occasion to go to Alberta in July of this year. One place I visited was the Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller. There are a lot of dinosaurs in that museum and I can say that the resemblance between some of the dinosaurs there and members of the Reform Party was absolutely striking. I could tell where their ancestors came from.

I was very impressed with the Tyrrell Museum. It is one of Canada's cultural centres. It has an excellent collection. I enjoyed my visit immensely. I took a tour of the entire museum and I saw the workings of the very specialized people involved in the digs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the bill, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 28th, 1995]

Nonsense. Not in federal prisons.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a good speech in the sense that he set out, apparently very clearly, six or seven alternatives to the current bill.

I am surprised he is not supporting the bill because all his colleagues know the bill goes some way to meeting the complaints they have raised regarding Canada's justice system. Yet because it does not go far enough, they say they are going to vote against it, which has to be the silliest logic I have ever heard. I will set that aside for a moment.

I want to talk about the six or seven points that he raised. Frankly, they were sugar coated. I think he will admit that because although he said he wanted to look at sentencing again, he wanted to revise sentencing here and he wanted to change the rules there to make things a little different, the underlying message in almost every one of his points was that he wanted people locked up more often and for longer.

At the very end of his speech, having said nothing whatsoever about the cost of incarceration of inmates or persons in prison, he said: "Of course if we did these other things we would reduce the cost of the system". However, if he does all of the things he listed at the beginning he will increase the costs enormously. To incarcerate an inmate in maximum security costs something like $60,000 a year. It is an extremely expensive process.

What will he do to reduce the cost of the justice system? He says the government is spending too much money. The Reform Party has as its policy drastic cuts. Where will it cut in our justice system if it is to keep throwing people in jail or keeping them there for much longer?

I urge the hon. member to come to Kingston and tour the prisons. I will be glad to show him around. I think he would benefit from learning the way our justice system works and that part of the purpose of the justice system is to rehabilitate offenders so when they are released they do not reoffend. We have had remarkable success, quite frankly, in that. The hon. member should be pointing out those successes and giving figures.

If the member looked at the day parole statistics, for example, and he talked about the evils of letting people out early in their sentence on day parole, he would find that over 95 per cent of them-possibly 98 per cent but I do not have my little book here to recite the figures for him-or more are successful. It is a very successful program. It works and it helps reintegrate inmates into the community which is important for the long term development of our communities. We just cannot spring somebody at the end of a 20-year sentence and expect them to readjust to life outside. People lead a different life in there.

I am not saying that incarceration is not necessary. It is in certain cases. However it is not necessary to lock everybody up for life which is what the Reform Party seems to be urging.

Will the hon. member take a tour of prisons in Kingston and learn something about our prison system before his next speech on the subject? I know the hon. member for Wild Rose has done that. I congratulate him for it but obviously it did not work.

Finally, with respect to his own points, will he admit that what he was proposing would drastically increase costs for our prison system and greatly increase sentences for offenders in Canada?