Canadian Heritage Committee on May 16th, 2006

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

I would feel more comfortable if we asked our researchers to give us an overview of the corporations, and as well, Canada Council's involvement with National Film Board--the other important players. If we can have that by the end of the spring session, it's going to make it easier for us to know where we need to go in the fall session.

I don't think we have very much time right now. I do think that when we do lay out our calendar over the coming year, our ability to say the nature museum...whether we're going to be able to decide to take a day to review its mandate, or two days or three days. I'd prefer that by the summer break we had an overview that we could all look at. When we come back in the fall, we'll be laying our calendar then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott again.

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

Just by the way, the agencies under this are CRTC, Library and Archives Canada, the National Film Board of Canada, and Status of Women Canada.

I'll give you an example. I mentioned at an earlier meeting that as parliamentary secretary I'd had the privilege--and I count it a very great privilege--to be able to go to a few of these museums. For example, if you were to go to the Canadian Museum of Nature, you would find it under construction. They are about halfway through a $48 million project, and there is a lot of input that they would like to give this committee for us to understand what it's about.

Also, interestingly, the Museum of Nature is involved in things like endangered species and the COSEWIC listings and things of that nature, because the Museum of Nature establishes a benchmark of either live archives or archive objects, natural objects, etc. Within itself, it would be worthy of, at the very least, three hours to go and see the construction site--they're doing an amazing job--but it would probably take a couple of sessions for us to understand the mandate of that one alone, which goes to what Mr. Fast was saying.

I've also had the privilege of going to the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It's the same thing, times two. I've had the privilege of going to the National Gallery and seeing some of the challenges they're faced with, particularly some of the expansion they would like to do. There is particularly the Canada Science and Technology Museum, which has two large facilities in the Ottawa area, but has a number of others outside this area.

What I'm saying is that although this is the shortest motion in front of us--perhaps a grand total of 20 words--en anglais, in any event--it's about a five-year project for this committee. I think in order to be real, we would need to narrow it down just a bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Warkentin is next.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Well, being new to this committee, I actually think that motion 2 would stand as being most beneficial to those of us who are new to the committee, because it would give us a broad understanding. But I understand the arguments that have come from all sides of the table with regard to the time constraints.

I would support what Mr. Angus suggested with regard to reviews coming forward. Then we might be able to prioritize as to which areas we would like to go to first when we come back in the fall. Certainly I think this committee has a responsibility to look at all the different portions of its responsibility and not just single out certain areas we want to focus on. It would allow a very broad perspective. So I certainly want to see, even if this motion isn't passed, that we spend a significant portion of our attention on these types of initiatives, to see a broad overview of the entire department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just before I come back to you, Mr. Kotto, I want to get my two cents' worth in.

I think it's a great motion. I didn't know--and I see the list here now--of all the crown corporations under our umbrella. At the same time, when we're talking about some museums, I want to get back to what I mentioned on the very first day I was here. I hope we have some time, as we go through the agenda, to do another part of our mandate, and that's the small museums and archives across this country.

I'm just putting that in. I know it got a little off the topic of your motion.

Again, please expand on your motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In my humble opinion, there are always ways of introducing a motion of this nature. When a budget is in the drafting stages, pre-budget consultations are held. Representatives from a cross-section of society make presentations. I don't think the entire exercise takes longer than two weeks. Some government agencies dedicated to arts and culture are in a deplorable state. Without going into more details, it seems that the further we advance, the more irresponsible our actions become.

One example that comes to mind in the Canada Council. For years now, this agency has been asking for additional funding of at least $150 million. This year, it was granted a paltry $50 million over two years. That's not an adequate level of funding.

Ultimately, the people in dire straights are the artists and creators who will be tempted to give up, spelling an end to the creativity that nourishes our collective psyche and moulds our identity. Least we forget, we have an important mandate to fulfil, namely to defend, not destroy, our culture.

Today, our neighbour to the south exports close to $7 billion in cultural products produced by artists and creators. The United States have their own production culture and we have ours. What sets us apart is that the State is always ready to jump in to assist, train and nurture our creative talent. If we abdicate responsibility, what kind of message would we be sending to those who defend our language, identity and cultural sovereignty? That's our fundamental goal. There's always a way to bring in this type of motion. We're not asking for a study, or to start over again at the very beginning. Studies have already been done.

Mention was made earlier of museums. The Canadian Museums Association has already examined the situation of museums at considerable length. The last government did some studies that are now gathering dust on some government shelves. It wouldn't take long to compile and analyze some of this data. It's not like we're starting out with a blank slate. Some work has already been done. We simply need to find a way to... The timetable is not a sticking point for me. This work can in fact be done when we reconvene after the break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We've heard arguments from both sides and around the table. I call the motion.

The motion reads:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage review the mandates of the Crown Corporations under its purview to ensure their capacity to carry them out properly.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Motion 3 reads:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage summon the senior executives of Telefilm Canada, the members of its Board of Directors in November 2004, and Stéphane Odesse. The item on the agenda will be a review of the selection process and criteria for a film event in Montreal in 2005.

Yes, Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

At the last meeting, certain committee members wondered which managers and board members the committee was interested in meeting with. Therefore, I'd like to propose an amendment to Mr. Kotto's motion, to add the name of those individuals whom members would like to call before the committee. The motion would read as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage summon the senior executive of Telefilm Canada at the time: Richard Stursberg, Michel Pradier and Jean-Claude Mahé, the members of its Board of Directors in November 2004, namely Charles Bélanger, Jacques Bensimon, Felix Fraser and , Trina McQueen, and Stéphane Odesse.

The rest of the motion would remain as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Could we have a list? Are they all going to come?

Yes, Mr. Abbott.

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

I'm not so far removed from opposition that I can't recall the desire to get at whatever the truth may be. Certainly, with our having just taken over, we have no vested interest in this whatsoever. With that qualification, I would like to see this motion go forward at an appropriate time.

If you take a look at the Quebec minister's report made public on May 5, and the Canadian heritage minister's report made public on May 6, and you read those, you will then have the total amount of testimony that will be permissible before this committee at this time.

Now, we can invite the witnesses to come and to read those reports. That's fine. But the fact is, with two sets of litigation that are currently in process, that are pending, while there is a possibility there might be a few extra small bits and pieces that the executives from Telefilm might be able to say, because of the fact that the matter is before the courts—not just in one instance, but in two—I can guarantee that the answers will be under very strict control of the lawyer who would be sitting beside them. They would make sure there wasn't any way that they were compromising the process.

What I'm trying to say is that I concur, I agree that this would be a very good motion, and at its time it should go forward. But to do so right now, I would suspect, could very well be a waste of time because of the constraints that would be on the witnesses at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kotto.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand Mr. Abbott's reasoning, but with all due respect, I disagree completely with him. First of all, this is simply not a waste of our time. This issue was raised during the 38th Parliament, when the Chair was a member of the committee, and surely he will recall how adamant I was about calling Telefilm Canada officials before the committee to discuss this matter. There was no question at the time of going over the entire file because two cases were indeed before the courts, pitting Telefilm Canada against an organizer of a Montreal festival.

We're not dealing with the same file today. We're talking about discussing the subject openly, about hearing from people who were behind the decision to go with an invitation to tender and about assuming one's responsibilities—one mustn't use the word “accountability”—for what transpired between the two agencies. The two agencies were competing against each other and in light of information that was made public, it's clear that the rights of one of the two agencies were violated, in the case, the rights of the FNC. In essence, the festival was stillborn. The event was staged, but organizers racked up an enormous deficit. As we speak, it's unclear as to whether there will even be a film festival in Montreal this summer. Toronto has its festival. According to some people, who are crowing over the news, it seems Montreal is being squeezed out of the film festival market.

Therefore, I think we need to put some questions to those responsible for this admittedly unfortunate turn of events. While Quebec is doing its job in so far as SODEC is concerned, we have a responsibility to do the same with respect to Telefilm Canada. SODEC is not dependent on the federal government, but Telefilm Canada is. The members of this committee have a duty to be transparent and to take their responsibilities as seriously as Quebec officials have done with respect to SODEC when it comes to invitations to tender and the selection process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I've been concerned about this because it's an issue I have not been fully briefed on. I am, as a rule, wary of using the committee to bring forward festival leaders to review the criteria of why they made the decisions they made, whether they were successful or disastrous. I am worried about a precedent of micromanaging.

I am concerned about the issue of.... I'm not sure, my understanding is that litigation is still going on; Mr. Kotto says it's not. I'd like to have that clarified. At this point I don't feel comfortable enough saying yes, we're going to bring forward all the witnesses whose names were just read out to go through this if we're not going to be able to get to the bottom of this, if litigation is ongoing.

I would be more than willing to...and I don't normally suggest in camera, but, for something like this, to sit and have a rundown of what went down, so we have a better understanding of why we should be intervening as a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could the clerk tell us if the sub judice rule has any effect at all on the motion before the committee?

No, I'm asking if the clerk could tell us whether or not the rule of sub judice, by which we are bound, has an impact upon this particular motion or not. I need to know that before I continue.

Can you repeat that so everyone can hear it?

[Georges Etoka]

If there is a process taking place in front of a court right now, usually the committee restrains itself from inviting the people involved to come and make comments before the committee.

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

Okay. Is this the case?

[Georges Etoka]

I don't see--

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

No, no.

I think I know the answer to the question, but I would like confirmation of the fact that right now, there is either one or two pertinent cases pending before the courts.

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

Not cases having to do with the selection process, but cases involving the Losique-Telefilm Canada matter. However, Losique is not being called to testify before the committee.

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

No, but Telefilm Canada officials would be.

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

That's true, but not in connection with the Losique case. The latter has filed charges against Telefilm Canada with respect to the Secor report. This has nothing to do with the grid that led to the selection of the Regroupement pour un festival de cinéma à Montreal rather than the FNC. We're talking about two separate files. There is no connection between the two, because these incidents occurred at different times.