Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 1st, 2006

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'll speak next.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There has been an amendment proposed by Mr. Simms that the last paragraph read:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage include in its upcoming report on the government's museum policy a recommendation that the government officially designate Exporail as Canada's National Railway Museum with dedicated long-term funding outside of the Museum's Assistance Program.

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

This is exceptionally difficult because of the cooperation that we've had with Mr. Scarpaleggia and obviously by the questions that came from the Conservative side along with the other side to the people who came from my constituency, representing the rural rail museums.

Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of empathy, sympathy, whatever the appropriate word is, for where this motion is coming from. I have had the opportunity to contact Mr. Anderson and Mr. Johnson, who were the witnesses here, and they were concerned about this particular motion, wondering where it left them. So then we started to have just a small amount of dialogue about their becoming satellites to this and so on. The point is that while I am very sympathetic to the intent here, we simply don't have enough information for the committee to be binding when the committee does come forward with a report on museums, because this question of satellites or other things simply hasn't been canvassed or isn't part of this.

So with that in mind, I would ask if we could have a further amendment, simply because it isn't necessarily automatic that the government be given the opportunity to submit a dissenting report. In other words, there has to be some kind of designation, because if the report comes out without a dissenting report and we may be taken as having a negative vote on this, it doesn't mean anything. If this is going to go forward, we would want to be able to put down in black and white where we're coming from and why. I have no idea what that information or what that report would say, because we simply haven't had time to work this out either as a committee or as a Conservative caucus, or to get sufficient testimony and ideas.

So I would certainly be recommending to my colleagues that we would be voting against both the amendment and the motion, but not from the perspective of ill will, just from the perspective that this motion is very significantly premature.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there are a couple of points I'd like to make. One is that the hearings of the last two sessions are probably--I'm making an educated guess--some of the most detailed and involved hearings any heritage committee on this Parliament Hill has had on the subject of rail museums. We spent two full sessions with the top actors and players in this area.

At one point, I believe Mr. Fast asked the question about satellite museums. Mr. Johnson--or maybe it was the other witness; I can't remember, Mr. Chair--said it was fine if we wanted to fund Exporail and treat them as satellites in some way. They didn't seem to have any problem with that.

The other point I'd like to make, Mr. Chair, is that we have a great railway heritage in this country, and that's what the last two sessions have brought out.

Second, there's a gaping hole in the museums infrastructure in Canada. The railway is such an important part of our history, and it's one of the few areas that is not officially recognized in our national museums infrastructure.

As I pointed out the other day, that is not the fault of this government, by any means. It's a problem that has existed for decades, I suppose, but even if it's not the fault of this government, there's an opportunity here to send a clear message to the government that it should look at this issue very closely.

I know, having been around this place for maybe as long you have, Mr. Abbott, in different capacities, how things get buried and get swept aside. I really think a motion like this, so amended, would simply alert the government to the fact that we think this is a priority and that they should look at creating a national railway museum or designating a national railway museum.

Mr. Chair, that museum will never be in Ottawa. The infrastructure is first-rate. The facility is first-rate, it exists, and it's in operation. It could be tied in with the Canada Science and Technology Museum like the Canada Aviation Museum is.

I don't know exactly how we could roll this out, but if we just say it's premature and we need to look at it in greater detail.... It reminds me of that joke that when you want to put something on the shelf, you give it to some other committee, or going back to Mr. Angus's point in the House, there are the 12 steps to doing nothing.

Again, I'm not saying that's where you're coming from, Mr. Abbott--not at all. I know you're pushing this in good faith, and you're a member of the government and you have to approach these things in a somewhat gingerly fashion. Of course it's the government that's going to have to act on it; it's not the opposition that's going to be implementing any decisions in this area, but our opportunity is now, and if we don't shine a light on it and don't underscore it as a priority, I would submit that we will be guilty of an omission or an oversight.

This motion, Mr. Chair, is not intended as a request to amend the Canadian Constitution. It's a statement of our intent to give this some attention. That's the spirit of it, and as I say, the museums that appeared--including the Revelstoke museum--didn't seem to have any problem with being a satellite or a spoke in the wheel as long as they got some funding to continue their great work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus is next.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion puts me in a difficult situation, because I feel like I'm being asked whether or not I vote to support mothers. We do support; the question is whether it's appropriate here to make a recommendation.

I don't understand the amendment, first of all, because we haven't done a report yet, and I certainly don't think we bind ourselves to recommendations and conclusions if we haven't done a report. That's just not how things are done.

I've talked to people in the museum community nationally about how we should look at this, and there was a great deal of discomfort about our committee putting forward individual projects and saying we want permanent funding outside of the museums program, because we do not have the expertise to adjudicate how that should be done. I understand the concerns about waiting for museums policy and things not happening, but we would be setting a very dangerous precedent, and not just in terms of museums. There are amazing arts groups that have come before our committee. There is incredible talent out there. There are incredible areas of industry that are extremely underfunded, and we haven't said we want this one funded through a special amendment that we bring forward.

We sit down, as we did on film, and we bring forward general reports to ask the government to consider. I'm very concerned about our taking a one-off ad hoc approach to a particular museum. And there's nothing disrespectful. I think it probably is a national museum, but that has to be determined in terms of the museum community, in terms of policy, and in terms of how we lay out a larger view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fast, do you have a comment?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes. Mr. Angus just made one of my points, on the whole issue of prioritization. We've just had a suggested amendment to the motion that in fact refers to the museum study or review that we will do as a committee.

What we have had is one subgroup out of many subgroups within museums that have come before us. They've made a very compelling case, a very passionate case for their cause. However, there are many other types of transportation. We have cars. We have bicycles. We have marine. There are other types of museums outside of transportation that are all clamouring to get some national recognition, and certainly more national funding. For us now to move forward with this motion in a vacuum, so to speak, without having an opportunity to prioritize other proposals that will be put forward, would be a huge mistake.

I would encourage that we allow the process to be completed, so that we have a complete picture of where we're at. We need to do much more consultation before we start the prioritization process. There are significant financial ramifications to moving forward with this motion right now.

The group that was before us, Exporail, suggested they were looking at around $4 million per year, I believe, in funding. That's just one organization. We had a suggestion from the other two proponents, in Cranbrook and in Revelstoke, who said they were not opposed to a national museum, provided they were part of it, as satellites, but we don't have a commitment from Exporail to include them as satellites and to include in their own funding as a national museum these satellite museums.

This can become quite convoluted. It would be very unfair to the many other sectors within the museum industry. So I would implore you to put this off. It's simply premature.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, you have come forward with a lot of passion on this issue, and I'm likely to agree with you on it, but let's make sure we have all the information in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just like Mr. Angus, the motion to amend the motion bothers me a little. The perspective is not the same. The committee voted, with a majority of votes, for a motion asking the government to set up a new museum policy discussed in 2005 as quickly as possible, all the while respecting the Department's conclusions and work. The motion also asked that this new policy, once completed, be examined by our committee before being tabled before the House and that a report be drawn up, which the House recently accepted.

The proposition was adopted in September, and the Minister has 120 days to follow up on it. It would be too much to expect not to wait for this Bill, which would be discussed here and allow us to propose such a motion depending on what the Department proposes. It was asked to conduct its work to this effect. I expect that these works, which may take the form of a Bill or a reply to the Committee's request, be submitted.

What bothers me is the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Abbott said this was rather difficult. It's triply difficult for me.

First, the same reasons as Mr. Abbott has apply to me as well. On those issues, we've had a real collegiality and done some interesting work. Second, it is difficult because it was moved by a colleague. Third, it moves us into something I'm not sure we agreed on. Here is where it gets tricky. In the amendment, we're talking about a report on museum policy. I've brought this up before, Mr. Chairman, as you may recall.

I have not signed on to a committee working towards a report on museum policy. I might, but for that to be the case, we as a group would need to know what we want to achieve and how we mean to achieve it. We have not had that discussion. So far, it's been haphazard. I need to be convinced that this is the appropriate forum. The amendment forces me towards accepting by stealth, if you will, that we are in the midst of a museum policy review, which we have not determined as a group.

Having said that, I understand where it's coming from and I share the same sense as everybody else does. A useful procedural rule would be for one of us, for me, to move that this be tabled until such time as our committee considers a report on a museum policy. This does not kill it. It keeps it there. We could then deal with it from a policy-driven angle, as opposed to saying, this is what we want to do. These kinds of decisions, in my humble opinion, should flow from a policy framework, which we have yet to adopt.

I'm getting a lot of nods on that side. I'm not sure if I'm getting any on this side. If this were to be helpful, Mr. Chairman—and I'm looking to you for guidance—I'd be prepared to move that this be tabled until such time as the committee considers a report on the museum policy. This leaves it open, because we may or may not do it. I'm being very upfront on this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You haven't moved yet.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

No. In fairness to colleagues, we need to know where we want to go with this.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I don't know how to go about doing this. After discussion with my colleague, I don't know how the government side feels about it, but I would like my amendment to stand as an amendment to my amendment. This is fun.

The current motion reads: “That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage request that the government officially designate Exporail as Canada's National Railway Museum with dedicated longterm funding outside of the Museum's Assistance Program.” I would like to replace “request” with “recommend”.

So the motion would now read: “That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend that the government officially designate Exporail as Canada's National Railway Museum with dedicated longterm funding outside of the Museum's Assistance Program.”

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I move that the motion and amendments be tabled until such time as the committee considers a report on museum policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It's not a debate about that. It's a follow-up on another thing he said.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The clerk can help us with procedure, but I think that when a motion to table has been proposed there has to be an immediate vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger has moved. We will vote.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If you're going to play that.... The rule, if I know it properly, is that what's debatable is the time of referral, not the motion. There could be debate, Jim. I said, “until such time as”. Or: “ if we consider a report, if ever we consider one”. That's what I'm moving. I don't want to cut off debate.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Okay.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

In fairness, I think we're all trying to go in the same direction. I sense that a majority of the committee agrees that we put the horse before the cart. We need to reverse them and give ourselves time to achieve it. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to go to Mr. Bélanger's amendment that this be tabled until such time as a report is--

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Considered by the committee.