Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 18th, 2006

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

My question is, of the $11.8 million, how much was spent every year? How many requests for grants under this program were actually approved? What was the total dollar amount of those grants?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I'm going to ask the deputy, who should be able to give you that.

[Judith LaRocque]

It's my recollection—though I would have to check with Bruce—that this program actually started a few years ago at quite a lower level. It was around $7 million a year, and it was progressively added to over time.

As to how much was accessed, we try to maximize the potential for museums to draw on. But it would be fair to say that every now and again there might have been a fluctuation, maybe at the end of the year. There could have been instances of their not drawing on the whole amount, maybe a 10% figure.

[Bruce Manion, Assistant Deputy Minister, Planning and Corporate Management, Department of Canadian Heritage]

I have more information.

Over the last three fiscal years—2003-04 to 2005-06—the budget was approximately $12 million. There were some fluctuations up and down. The total expenditures against the MAP were $8.9 million, $8.5 million, and $8.3 million. If you like, I can explain why those expenditures were slightly lower.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I think you understand where I'm going with this.

We have a budget of $11.8 million, and the spreadsheet I have goes back to 1995-96 under the previous government. Starting in 1995-96, the expenditures were $8 million, $7.9 million, $8.3 million, $7.2 million, $8.5 million, $9.6 million, $7.7 million, $7.4 million, $8.2 million, and $8.1 million. These expenditures do not get close to the $11.8 million that was actually budgeted. So I'm a little skeptical about the claims that museums are being shortchanged, when in fact the total funding on an annual basis was significantly less than what was actually budgeted.

Could give us a comment on your commitment to the long-term viability of museums in Canada, especially the smaller museums?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just a short answer.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I certainly can make that commitment. We conducted a review of the overall approach to museums, and we are as concerned about the small and local regional museums as we are about our national institutions.

You make a good point that even with the reductions the full amount for the MAP of $9 million has historically not been accessed. But in fairness, we also have to understand that because of the nature of museum projects, they are not all completed within the designated fiscal year. Some of them carry over. We are now looking at ways to make sure the cuts have a minimal impact. That's why I'm comfortable to say that I think we can minimize the impact on the museums.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, keep it short please, if you can.

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

Should I keep it to a short five minutes?

Thank you. I'll start to speak immediately.

I didn't get an answer about when we're getting a commitment to the Canadian Television Fund because it's under review. You remember very clearly the bizarre situation in March 2005 when the heritage minister at the time refused to make a commitment to “Tomorrow Starts Today” until it was time to announce it in a budget, and yet our arts sector was in chaos because they couldn't make any commitments to projects.

Television needs to know there is money on the table if they're going to get financing. When will you be able to make a commitment one way or the other to the CTF?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I would suggest to you that there is a proper government process. And certainly one thing, Mr. Angus, I can share with you is that it's very different when you're in government and you have to really try--not just try--to understand government process, and you also have to understand government budgeting.

As far as a commitment to certain projects and to certain areas of activity, what I learned was that your best indication is in the main estimates, budgets, and supplementary estimates. That's where the real commitment is, once those are passed. And we are going to need your support in passing some of those when they include moneys and support and resources for the areas you have a concern about.

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

When I was at the event where Mr. Baird announced the cuts, he was very clear. He said that they had chosen a path to go after the programs that were wasteful, inefficient, and out of touch with average Canadians. You had said that you had criteria and that you had to make clear choices.

I'd like to follow up on the question my colleague, Mr. Fast, asked. If $3 million a year was not being spent in that program--if that's what I'm looking at in a snapshot year after year, that all the money was not going out--was it that the museums were wasteful and inefficient and weren't eligible, or was it that Canadian Heritage was not supplying the money that was needed out in the field?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I think I'm going to ask Mr. Manion, because Mr. Manion actually worked with the Treasury Board on this.

[Bruce Manion]

The basic issue here is one of the size and sophistication of some of the groups. When we fund some of these projects, we have to do due diligence on them. But there is a certain amount of flexibility in terms of their ability to actually initiate the projects--in some cases we may not be the only funders of these projects--and what winds up happening is that these are based on projections, and the actuals don't always pan out.

So what we find in this program--and we have a number of other programs that are capital-based--when we talk about small organizations is that they don't have the capacity and critical mass unless they generate really strong cash flows. So we wind up at the end of the year seeing a fair amount of money coming back to us that does not cash out in the projects, and under the terms and conditions of our programs and Treasury Board rules and the basic appropriations acts, we can't spend--

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

Yes, but this goes on year after year. You're telling me that 25% of the money comes back because the groups aren't sophisticated enough to spend it. Should you not have changed the criteria to make small groups eligible or just cut the program, then? It seems to me crazy that 25% of that budget isn't spent when our museums across the country are telling us that they've tried and tried and tried and they can't get money for anything.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Angus, that is why I would suggest that we're undertaking a review of our approach and our program regarding museums, and that's why I've also indicated that I really welcome the work you will be doing in your discussions with the museum sector, just as in my discussions we hope we'll be able to bring back some very good, valid information with some strong, firm recommendations.

Right now we take into consideration not only what we hear from the museums and the museums associations, but I know that each member has a local museum, and they talk to the directors of their museums, who know from the reality of the day-to-day operations what the needs are going to be.

The other thing I would suggest is that we've looked at the Auditor General's reports and recommendations as well. So I really am very sincere; I do welcome input from this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that wonderful indulgence of that extra five minutes. You will some day be rewarded in the other kingdom, and I will speak for you if I get there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Angus. I hope we're in the same kingdom.

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

I don't know about the rest of them, but you and I can get along.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I must thank you, Minister Oda, for coming today.

I know it's a little shorter than everyone wished, but it is a little longer than was projected. So thank you for being frank with us, and your responses. I appreciate that, and I'm sure the committee does.

We can carry on now with our deputy minister and assistant deputy minister, with any questions.

Mr. Bélanger doesn't want to do that today?

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

No. I don't think it's fair to the administration to have to respond to questions that are inherently political, Mr. Chairman, without the minister being present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Would you move adjournment?

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

No. I want to discuss.... You have a notice of motion from me.

If I may, if I have the floor, it's on this museum issue. I'm one of those who believe that if there's information to be had in order to shape future policy, that information should be had. I'm getting some conflicting messages here.

It would be useful, either from the department or from a third party--perhaps the Auditor General of Canada or a forensic accounting firm of some sort--to have a clear picture, going back a few years, in terms of what was spent for whom, whether there were any lapsed funds, and whether these were accounted for in subsequent years. Are we talking about apples and apples, or apples and oranges, in the sense of support money going to administrations and money going to programs in the museums themselves? That is quite confusing. If indeed the situation is that money was not flowing sufficiently, let's have that out and correct the problems that may have existed. But to try to use that to argue there have been no cuts, I'm off that wagon.

I gave a notice of motion last Monday. It's quite straightforward, if I may explain it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes.