Canadian Heritage Committee on March 11th, 2009

[Judith LaRocque, Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Chair, I have a very brief opening statement, if you will indulge me.

Thank you very much for inviting us here today. We're here to provide information and to respond to your questions about the Department of Canadian Heritage's strategic review of program expenditures.

I would like first to bring your attention to the scope of Canadian Heritage's mandate and activities.

Our headquarters are in Gatineau. We serve all regions of the country through our five regional offices and 21 points of service. The department is responsible for some 60 or so programs in a number of fields, including culture, official languages and sports.

I want to point out that all of the department's activities are reviewed on a regular basis in accordance with specific criteria. When we examine our expenditures, we review our entire range of programs.

To advise our minister, we try to determine whether, for example, the program examined continues to serve the interests of Canadians, whether it fulfils a legitimate role of the government, whether there are partners better equipped to deliver the program, such as the private or volunteer sector, whether the program enables the federal government to fulfil a responsibility within its field of jurisdiction, whether it is effective, whether it is affordable within the current economic context, and whether it performs well for Canadians.

I would like to give you some details about the Department of Canadian Heritage's participation in strategic review.

In the budget presented in May 2006, the government committed to adopting a new way of managing public funds. A key element of the new approach is the review of all programs and spending on four-year cycles. In 2007-08, 17 departments and agencies were selected by Treasury Board to be examined for their spending and programs as part of the strategic review. The Department of Canadian Heritage was one of these, but we also had Library and Archives Canada, and the four national museums were also selected in that first round.

Treasury Board asked our minister, as well as the ministers responsible for the other departments and agencies, to identify, for its consideration, the 5% of spending out of their total budget that went to the lowest priority and the lowest performing programs. I wouldn't want you to misunderstand the words “low priority”. Sometimes people jump on that as something that is no longer of value. In some cases, programs were considered to be of low priority because they had successfully achieved their original goals. In the case of other programs, conditions had changed since they were established, particularly with the rapid development of new technologies.

Cabinet considered the issue and the government has reallocated the savings from all departments and agencies involved in that particular strategic review. This reallocation took into account current government priorities.

I hope the information I have given you will be of use to the committee. I am now ready to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Our first questions come from Mr. Rodriguez, please.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon to the three of you. Thank you for being here today. A few weeks ago, I introduced a motion to obtain documents from you justifying the budget cuts. You have read that motion; it was extremely precise. Its purpose was to request all analyses, reports and audits prepared by the Department of Canadian Heritage serving as a basis for the government's decision not to renew funding allocated to a series of programs, an exhaustive list which we have here.

We've received four documents. The first is the Formative Evaluation of Trade Routes 2003. We were in power at the time. That evaluation has nothing to do with the 2007-2008 evaluation you refer to. The second document is the Formative Evaluation of Canadian Culture Online, which was produced in 2004. Here again, it was produced well before the current evaluation. The same is true of the third document, the Formative Evaluation of the Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program 2004. Lastly, the audit of the Canada Magazine Fund was conducted in 2003. All these documents were prepared in 2003 or 2004, that is to say a number of years before the evaluation you refer to.

I don't know whether someone has an odd sense of humour or whether there has been a mistake, but you definitely did not rely on these documents in advising the government to make cuts.

[Judith LaRocque]

When we received your motion, Mr. Rodriguez, we reviewed all the evaluations that had been used in conducting the strategic review. You received what appeared in the file. The evaluation is only one element of the strategic review. There are a number of others on, for example, costs, government priorities, whether programs are still relevant, whether technologies and the economy have changed, and so on. The evaluation is only one of the elements considered in a strategic review.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

If there aren't any other documents than these and you didn't rely solely on the evaluations in making this decision, then we can say that you relied on the philosophy behind the government's orientations. There's no study or specific analysis on which we can currently rely. It is really the government's orientations that took over. It was a choice.

[Judith LaRocque]

I can't agree with that statement. You have to take the context into account. The strategic review is a budget exercise that is completely subject to budget secrecy, cabinet secrecy. All documents, opinions and advice that were provided to the government during the discussions are cabinet decisions; this is advice given to the ministers. Consequently, it cannot be disclosed. I can cite the laws guaranteeing the security of those documents so that cabinet can make its decisions in full knowledge of the facts.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

In 2003-2004, those documents were not deemed confidential and they were not necessarily submitted to cabinet. Today, however, they are.

[Judith LaRocque]

We put these kinds of evaluations on our websites.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Ms. LaRocque, we have a dilemma here. All the witnesses who have come here told us that these programs were essential not only for them, but for the Canadian culture industry as a whole, dancers, artists and theatre, as well as for Canada's credibility. No one said that the decision to make cuts was a good idea. The government tells us it based its decision on factual studies and so on. But we have nothing, except documents that date back four, five or even six years, in some cases. We find it very hard to believe this. We think instead that these cuts were of an ideological nature.

What was your recommendation? Did you recommend cutting those programs?

[Judith LaRocque]

Mr. Rodriguez, the onus is not on me to speak out publicly on the advice I gave my minister. All I can tell you is that the advice we gave our minister is sacrosanct and protected by specific laws.

Maybe I'll stop there.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

The artists who came and testified before the committee said that support for tours has been cut, that they are facing deficits and that companies are closing their doors. At some point, however, the government states the contrary, saying it's continuing to support exports.

What I'm going to ask you pertains specifically to your field and is not confidential. Where should these companies turn as of April 1, when PromArt is terminated? What are these programs that are intended to support our artists? How big is their budget?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, I'll give you time.

[Judith LaRocque]

Thank you.

Mr. Rodriguez, I would like to clarify a number of things. First, I carefully read the official transcript of the meetings you held and the evidence you heard. To a large degree, people said they were concerned about the cancellation of PromArt, which is not a Canadian Heritage program. We didn't review that program or make any recommendations to our minister concerning it. That program was established by the Department of Foreign Affairs. As I told Ms. Lavallée earlier, that program was introduced in 1968. It was reviewed in 1976 and a new version of it was produced. I am therefore not responsible for that program. I'm not saying you have the wrong person before you, but it is clear that most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee are concerned about PromArt.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I just want to clarify one point. That doesn't answer my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We've almost gone seven minutes, so you can get that in the next round.

Ms. Lavallée, please.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to questions quickly because time is short. I find it hard to believe, Ms. LaRocque—perhaps because I don't understand how the public service works—that you conducted a strategic review of a number of programs, a dozen or so, seven of which were cancelled on August 8, that you conducted no evaluation that is still available, which you could submit to us, that would date from 2007 or 2008. You conducted no evaluation that can be presented. You did cost evaluations, but there again you can give us nothing.

You examined the economic situation, priorities. Did all that meet the objectives? And you conducted all those evaluations either orally with the minister or these are studies that you yourself sent directly to the minister. I simply want to say—and I'm not asking you to comment—that I find it hard to believe that.

Having said that, I also find it hard to understand how it is that, in the things—and I call them “things”—that you sent us, we can't find the evaluation of Trade Routes which is on the website. That was done in 2007, and it waxes rhapsodic on the subject of Trade Routes. This is a program of direct interest to you. The evaluation states that 80% of respondents consider the program invaluable and useful for their organization. A distinct majority, 61% found it very useful. Using the program resulted in an increase in clients' trade links. Virtually all Trade Routes clients (91%) said they wanted more.

And you turn around and advise the minister—that was in the fall of 2007—to terminate the program because you had allegedly met your priorities. What priorities? The artists came here, exactly where you are, and told us they had no other options. There is a small program at the Canada Council for the Arts that does not allow them to apply for more than $50,000. In any case, that program has a budget of less than $1 million and it previously had $7 million.

As you will understand, there is currently an enormous hole in the supply of Canadian government services to cultural organizations, particularly those that conduct foreign tours. There is no longer a single door to knock on—they all said this—for touring abroad.

Is it because your department has decided that it is no longer one of Canada's priorities to send performing artists outside the country?

[Judith LaRocque]

You've asked me a number of questions in a row. So I'm going—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Start by answering the last one.

[Judith LaRocque]

That's the easiest answer. It is not up to public servants to determine the government's priorities. It is the government that determines its own priorities. We implement them. In my mind, that's very clear and very simple.

As regards the documents, I didn't say there weren't any documents. I told you that the documents were cabinet secrets. These are cabinet documents that are not made public, and that is the tradition, a tradition that has always been upheld in this country. As a result—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Pardon me for interrupting you, I imagine you involve a number of public servants in that kind of evaluation. So all the officials, from the moment they say they are working for cabinet, their work becomes ultra-secret. Is that correct? There aren't parts of documents, such as situation reports, that can be made available?

[Judith LaRocque]

The strategic review, being part of a budget process, meets the same demanding, very strict standards of a budget process. In other words, the documents are documents that go directly to cabinet for consideration. What we provided were documents that were in the public domain and that could be shared.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

And now, what are you suggesting to cultural organizations, theatre companies, dance companies that want to go abroad, that want to go and present their shows outside Canada? As a senior official of the Department of Canadian Heritage—which is not nothing—what are you suggesting to them? Where do you suggest they file applications? What door can they knock on?

[Judith LaRocque]

There are a number of doors. There is $22 million currently available for all kinds of international opportunities—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I'm talking about the performing arts. I'm talking about the Grands Ballets Canadiens, for example, and a tour that costs $250,000—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Lavallée, could you let the witness please answer the question?