Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 4th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I call to order the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The orders of the day are to debate some motions.

Concerning the motion put by Maka Kotto and the two motions put forward by Charlie Angus, I'm wondering if they might be better answered at our October 18 meeting when the minister is here. We're going to have the minister here on October 18, and we're going to have the officials here on October 23. The minister could be questioned directly.

Mr. Kotto.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have voluntarily and in a spirit of openness accepted that the debate on this motion be postponed to today's sitting. There is some urgency in this matter. Perhaps time is not an important factor for some, but for the people who are now feeling the impact of these cuts—I am thinking particularly of museums in Quebec—time is very important. It is urgent that we, as members of this committee who are supposed to be defending culture and not cuts, give a clear and definite expression to the position that we are about to take.

I believe that this is an urgent debate and that time is of the essence in dealing with this issue. If the minister comes on October 18, it will be an advantage allowing us to go further into this issue. However, she will have, before her appearance, been apprised of the committee's position concerning this file.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

I understand we're discussing Mr. Kotto's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes. I am wondering if these motions could be looked at when the minister is here and with the committee. That was Mr. Kotto's response to that.

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

I would say certainly not. I think we've wasted enough time in this committee. This is really a simple, straightforward vote. Do we think that cutting funding to the museums is a good idea or a bad idea?

I don't think there should be much discussion about when we have that vote. I think we should just vote and be on the record. We don't have to spend a lot of time on this. Let's just vote now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

I have a question about the order in which we will deal with these motions. On Mr. Kotto's motion, which I do support, we should dispose of it now and not wait until the 18th, or whenever. It is somewhat in opposition to the motions by Mr. Angus, in the sense that Mr. Angus calls for witnesses to the committee, whereas Mr. Kotto's motion calls for a conclusion.

So I want some clarification on the order in which they would be dealt with. I'm quite satisfied, if you're dealing with Mr. Kotto's motion, to deal with it immediately, and I would be prepared to vote immediately on that as well. Perhaps after that we can deal with Mr. Angus' motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, is there anything else?

If that's the case, we'll deal with Mr. Kotto's motion. The motion is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend that the government maintain the Museums Assistance Program (MAP) at the same level as in fiscal year 2005-2006, that a new museum policy be established, and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House as soon as possible.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We will move to motion number one, put forward by Mr. Angus:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage request officials from Heritage Canada to come before the committee in order to explain where cuts in the department will be made.

That is your motion, Mr. Angus. Would you like to speak on your motion?

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

Yes. It is fairly straightforward. We have a sense of what's happening with the museums assistance program, but overall, there is a little bit of vagueness on where some of the cuts may be coming in the department. It would be a chance for us to find out what exactly is planned, because we will need to have a sense of that, especially with estimates and other things.

Motion one is fairly straightforward. It's not tied to motion two because motion two is speaking to the impacts of the cuts we've identified. Motion one is about what other cuts we are looking at within the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Is there any question?

Mr. Bélanger.

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

This is through you, Mr. Chair, directed to Mr. Angus. Would he consider the appearance of the minister here on the 18th to respond to our questions about estimates as satisfactory for responding to motion one, were it adopted?

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

I don't think so, because it seems that when the minister comes she is in and out quickly and we have two or three minutes--five minutes maximum--to speak to her. There are a number of issues with estimates that we have to address.

I would like to find out, in terms of the cuts that were announced last week, what impacts those are having, and I'd like to talk to department officials. I still have a number of questions to speak to the minister about, so I would prefer to have those as two separate--

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

I have a supplementary, then. If we look at the proposed schedule we have before us, we have officials on the 18th, which would be the Wednesday we're back, and on the 23rd, the following Monday. Would that pair of meetings with the minister and officials be deemed to meet the requirement of this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Does anyone else wish to speak on that?

That's what I was kind of alluding to. Between the minister and the ministry officials who will be here.... They're already booked to come the Wednesday after break and then the Monday following that. Would that not be the time? We can't get the officials here any sooner than that, because at our next meeting, we have museum people coming in from the Canadian Railroad Historical Association.

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

It helps if we have those two days. I want to make sure we are getting those officials in, and that's why the motion was put forward. That is satisfactory to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Would you withdraw the motion then, Mr. Angus?

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

Yes.

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

Mr. Chairman, there may be no need to withdraw the motion if it's understood, as we cast our votes, that part and parcel of the response to the motion is indeed the appearance of the minister on the 18th and of the officials on the 23rd. Then I would be glad to vote for it in that context.

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

I would prefer that to withdrawing the motion, so that we are then committed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Do we need an amendment to that?

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

No, we just need to vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, we just need to vote on it. The minister and the ministry people are already confirmed for those meetings. I will then entertain a vote on motion one:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage request officials from Heritage Canada to come before the committee in order to explain where cuts in the department will be made.

That is already booked in for those meetings.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We will move to motion two, again from Mr. Angus:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage request officials from the Canadian Museums Association and the Heritage Canada Foundation come before the committee in order to speak to the impacts of the cuts on their ability to deliver their services.

Would you like to speak on that motion?