Evidence of meeting #16 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was museums.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I don't have it in front of me, Mr. Chairman, but we'll rely on the good judgment of the chair.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
That correction will be made. Thank you.
Now we move to Mr. Angus's motion: “That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage invite witnesses from organizations who have utilized the Court Challenges Program.”
Mr. Angus, could you be short, please?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Yes, I will be very short.
There will be a question, of course, about which witnesses and what organizations we have. I had left that vague because I find that we end up with a motion arguing about who we should have and then having to write it in formally, and I don't think that's the best way to go. It hasn't been exhibited to be in past practice.
What I'm suggesting, and I talked to our clerk, is that if there are people who are interested in bringing forward witnesses, they should bring that to the clerk. He speaks with them and sees if they're available, and I think this is something we can wrap up. I'm not looking for a hearing on this; I want a meeting on this. If there are two or three groups that want to come in, that's fine.
I didn't specifically come with a written agenda. I'm interested in learning about the effect, because it was cut from Heritage Canada, and that's why I'm bringing it forward.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chairman, the motion as it's presently crafted I wouldn't be able to support. However, if in fact there is some desire to be balanced in the types of witnesses we bring forward, Mr. Chairman, you may find that there is a consensus at this table. Essentially, what I'm proposing is an amendment that would also add witnesses who have applied but were unsuccessful. I'm hoping that the scope of our discussions, when the witnesses are here, through the questions and answers, will also encompass what kinds of criteria the witnesses would propose for individuals or organizations to qualify for funding. That's been one of the big issues that disappointed organizations--those that didn't receive funding--have raised.
My amendment would simply be that we expand the organizations that would be asked to appear as witnesses to include those who applied but were turned down. I know one in particular, already, that has expressed interest, and there may be a couple of others.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm sorry if I'm out of line here. Just for clarification, I'm not sure who has been.... I know some of the groups that have been successful in the way it was used. I'm not sure who hasn't been successful. Do you have an example to give us that would help clarify this?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Well, at this point in time, I'd rather not say who it is. I do have one organization,specifically, in mind. One of the issues, of course, is confidentiality. You may be aware that under that program, unless the organizations formally give us permission to disclose that information, it may be a breach of the non-disclosure requirements. So I would beg your indulgence on that. I can certainly share that with you in a different setting.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
In a sense I suppose there is nothing wrong with Mr. Fast's point about wanting a balanced view, but where it breaks down for me is.... I think what Mr. Angus is trying to show is that this was a valuable program, and he wants to bring people who used it to show that it did help them. The logic Mr. Fast seems to be using is to bring people who didn't benefit from the program to tell us why it should be abolished. Unless there's something I'm missing, which is quite possible, it just doesn't make sense to me.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
From the outset, it must be said that the reason the program exists is because it was needed. It was created out of necessity, it was founded, and when you cancel this type of program, you are taking away something from people which they have had access to in the past. We are talking about museums, we have heard witnesses who are stakeholders, who have worked on the architecture of museum projects, we have spoken to people whose lives are deeply intertwined with museums or who are simply museum visitors. In parallel to all of this, we have been asked to hear from people who could not care less about museums and who can live without them. The reason museums exist is because they are needed. A country needs museums to preserve memory, to educate the masses, to educate its citizens, and if the reason this program exists, the reason it existed, is to support the most vulnerable people, minorities, and the most marginalized groups in society. I do not see why we should hear from people who could not careless about this program. It is a historic fact that this program was born out of necessity and that it has played a useful role. But today, it is being cancelled and, as a result, a lot of people will end up on the street.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
On Mr. Kotto's point, if we don't bring people who were unsuccessful, who applied to get funding through the court challenges program, if we don't ask them to come and be witnesses, then we aren't going to address whether or not the program actually was working.
To use your analogy, if we only invite museums that traditionally got funding, if we never invite museums who never got funding, then we don't have a clear picture with which we can move forward. Every application should be valid, and we need to talk to those people.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
We could debate this issue at nausea, but I do not want to engage in sophistry. Of course, we have to be realistic. Let's take the example of museums, to come full circle. In the last ten years or so, the funding from museums has been cut by half, and there are figures to prove it. In the last two years, that funding has been cut back by 25%. Some museums need money and do not have access to funding. This is probably due to the lack of vision on the part of those people who are responsible for developing a museum's policy. But to come back to the motion, inviting witnesses who have not used the program does not mean that reducing the program's budget is in any way justified. It is an aberration.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, I've got two questions, first for Mr. Angus and then for Mr. Scarpaleggia. And I'm going to tell you, we have three minutes. I'm going to have the vote before 5:30.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I would not be able to accept that amendment at this time because we're not talking about changes to the program. We're not talking about faults in the program that if we were at committee, we would suggest changes. So if there are people who could use that program, who felt it wasn't responding to their needs, what we're talking about is the fact that apparently these groups have already been heard, because the government axed the program. The government has made its decision. The government said this is not a program worth going forward. So I think discussion at this point about groups that didn't like the program is moot. What needs to be heard is was there a need and was this responding to a need? So I would prefer to keep it simple.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Basically Mr. Angus made the point I was going to make. If the issue was that the program will remain and you can make it better, I would agree with Mr. Fast. But that's not the case, so we should call the vote.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chairman, we're forgetting one thing. There is a motion that's been passed here, even though we voted against it.