Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 20th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We dispensed with that.

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

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

Okay.

The committee will be aware of my arguments, and I apologize for repeating them, but the difficulty we have, before we can go ahead and have any meaningful discussion about these motions, is this committee has made a decision that we are going to be having three days on the court challenges program. That being the case, and the agenda of the committee now being completely full, both of these motions become completely unworkable, in my humble judgment.

I apologize, because I am unilingual, but I've taken the time to take a look at the number of pages I have in my hand from the official languages committee, where the issue of the court challenges program was brought up. I also have in my other hand the court challenges program minutes, or Hansard, from the justice committee. So the point of view particularly of the people who oppose the government is well on record, both in the official languages committee and in the justice committee. Maybe the committee wants to revisit the idea of using up three full days of this committee as well, with these other two committees already working on this issue, and get into the museums policy--in other words, to make some time so if either of these motions were voted in favour we would be able to do something about it.

I want to speak to the motions, but I'm just asking about this issue. We don't really have any time in our agenda to be able to react positively, even if we had a positive vote on these motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

I don't believe the issue of the court challenges program is what we're discussing right now. The committee had discussed it and they had made a decision. So it's what to do with future business, i.e., either implement a museums study at a date we haven't decided, at a date to possibly do a CBC review, or under Mr. Kotto's motion, which is to ask the government to present to us before the budget, so we can look at the policy they're supposed to implement, because we have the recommendations already given by witnesses. So the court challenges program issue is not to be discussed at this time; it's to focus on setting our agenda out of these three motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

We have established that we would spend some time on the court challenges program. That's decided. We've had the proposal from the clerk, which we've agreed upon as a committee, and I believe we should move ahead on that.

In terms of the motions before us today, here's the way I intend to vote unless we see some amendments: I will not support Mr. Abbott's motion. It's not that I have anything against museums, but I do believe that in terms of museums, Mr. Kotto's motion is perhaps where we should be going as a committee, because the work's been done--and I'm not the only one saying that: it's the Canadian Museums Association itself.

Also, we had confirmation at the last meeting this committee had with the Museums Associations that indeed the government--the minister--is currently engaged and has asked them to bring forward suggestions before the end of this calendar year. In that situation we would perhaps be doing work for nothing, because if the government has decided to pick it up, as we had encouraged it to do back in the spring, when we tabled a report to that effect, then I'm not sure we'd be doing the right thing.

I'd rather wait and see if indeed the government intends to come forward with a policy. If it wishes to submit it to the committee, I would personally welcome that. It doesn't have to; I respect that; the government can issue its own papers and its own policies as it sees fit. In the spirit of cooperation, it would be welcome to come here so that we could react to it, but I'm not sure that it would be a good use of our time at this juncture to determine that in reality we'll be looking at that in January or February, when in fact the government might have finished its work, as I would hope it would have. That's basically what Mr. Kotto's motion says, grosso modo.

I intend to support the one from Mr. Angus. The future of public broadcasting in this country is a priority for us, particularly CBC and Radio-Canada. If the government comes forward with legislation on other issues, as it should have, since we've had commitments made by the minister twice at this committee that we would have legislation tabled in the House and referred to a committee--presumably part of this one--in terms of copyright, at that point that would take precedence.

In the absence of that, if I had to choose between doubling the efforts, dédoubler, on what the government's doing in terms of the museum policy--which it is working on, we've had that assurance--and working on the future of the CBC and Radio-Canada and its mandate--which the government is not doing--then I'd rather go to the CBC and Radio-Canada. That's how I intend to vote on these particular motions at this time.

I think all of that can be revisited come January 28, when we reassemble, in light of what may be before us at that time, whether or not we have a review of a policy on museums and whether or not the government is intending to move further on the CBC review mandate. At that point, I'd be perfectly willing to look at this, but for the most part the die is cast for the next four weeks that we have, so I'd stick to that. That's how I intend to vote on these particular motions, subject to revision at the appropriate moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Kotto, please go ahead.

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

Mr. Chairman, allow me to refresh the committee's memory.

I'm going to cite Mr. McAvity in relation to Mr. Abbott's motion. At the meeting of June 20, 2006, Mr. Malo spoke to Mr. McAvity in the following terms:

As you know, the previous government initiated a review of the museum policy. I imagine you had an opportunity to make some recommendations to that government.

Mr. McAvity then answered that he had conducted broad consultations and developed proposals and that:

The museum policy was very close to fruition when the election was called. Unfortunately, it was unable to move forward to that point, but literally, consultations were finished and it was ready for a decision.

I agree with Mr. Bélanger on this subject.

At the November 8 meeting, Mr. Vadeboncoeur, of the SMQ, was asked whether a new consultation could lead anywhere. He answered as follows:

We're repeat to you exactly what we said during the other consultations that were held 2, 3, 4 even 10 years ago. It's as simple as that. The situation hasn't changed.

In the same line of thinking, Mr. Gerry Osmond from the Alberta museum community, told us the following:

To put it in layman's terms, we've been there and done that. You will not hear anything different on consultations any more. We would have been very clear in the last consultation, and delaying this process any further will not give you any new information.

That's why I'm introducing this motion. As regards that of Mr. Angus, one of our major concerns is to review the mandate of Radio-Canada to evaluate the resources that are allocated to it to carry out that mandate. I therefore suggest that we not waste a lot of time on museum policy. Ultimately, it might be harmful to do so, because the words and intentions are clear. Wasting time discussing them further would probably be an attempt to stall for time, to waste the committee's time and eventually to undermine the good faith that our party is showing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott, then Mr. Fast.

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

Well, in goodwill, I suggest to Mr. Angus that the reason why I was talking about that is if our committee wanted to have some relevance and input to the minister, we would want to be able to take a look at a suggestion I'm about to make, but we don't have time to do that.

One of the things that we have never discussed, and which certainly in my judgment is key to this, is the whole issue of national significance. The policy has to establish parameters within which to recognize nationally significant collections, to determine the level and nature of support. We have never had that under either a Conservative government or a Liberal government.

What we need to find out, for example, is the mandate of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board. Perhaps I may read:

Among its various responsibilities, the Board certifies cultural property for income tax purposes. In this role, it makes determinations with respect to the “outstanding significance and national importance” and the fair market value of objects or collections donated or sold to designated Canadian museums, art galleries, archives and libraries.

For example, I think it would be of value for this committee to call the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board before it and ask the board and other appropriate people like that: If we want to establish the criteria of which museums and which artifacts should be receiving national support, as opposed to regional or as opposed to local support, would you be able to do that? We could do that kind of a hearing and offer this counsel to the minister.

The minister can call those people in. I happen to have a copy of the submission the Canadian Museums Association made on the Canadian museums policy, “New Approach”, which all of us can have from the Canadian Museums Association. This was made to the minister on October 30. They're happy to share that with us.

We have all of this documentation, but there still are missing links. All I'm trying to say is that there are questions we don't need to spend a lot of time on, but if we are going to be relevant in the process, we have to gather the information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could I ask, first of all, are we debating a specific motion or are we still dealing with these three amorphous motions all at once?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Well, the one we seem to be dealing with right now--or maybe two--is Mr. Kotto's motion primarily.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right. So Mr. Kotto's motion is on the table, is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We've got it on the table.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right. I only wanted to confirm that.

I guess what makes it difficult for me to vote in favour of this at this point in time is that I haven't been able to review everything that was presented at the previous committee, before I was ever here. I would like to have that opportunity, at least until the next meeting, so that staff can prepare a compendium of material that's been submitted, because it's a chance to go back and review not only minutes but the blues on some of the testimony that's been given. Then I'd be in a better position to assess whether we can close the door now and move forward with drafting the policy.

To do this now, I'll have to vote against it, not because I don't support it necessarily; it's simply that I don't have all the information. Had I had it a week or two weeks ago, it would have been easier. And staff, obviously, are in a position where they could provide us with further supporting information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Which particular meeting would you suggest this information would come from?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Or come to—?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Well, it would come here. The program that's been presented, or that most people are talking about here, or the policy.... There was never a policy reviewed by this committee. There were meetings between the museums associations and the ministry. I don't ever recall.... We did zilch here on policy at this committee.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm looking at the motion, and it refers to the fact that “...the government implement as soon as possible the new museum policy discussed in 2005 and respect the work and consultations undertaken by the Department...”. I'd like to see that work before I make an assessment on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I think that's what the motion is saying, that no one has seen that work.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

How can we then determine that the door is closed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It was passed out earlier.