Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Van Kesteren commented that people are afraid. Just the fact that he doesn't think this is a serious thing justifies some of the concern that is being expressed. In the arts community--and I'm talking about the broadest application of that, the people who organize the Harvest Jazz & Blues Festival in Fredericton or the East Coast Music Awards--they make travel money available to artists through these programs, and the papers in the region are full of comments about the damage this could do to those kinds of small-market festivals and artistic opportunities.
I think it's a legitimate subject for this committee to take up. Certainly no one who has called my office from the community, whether it was Fredericton, the Atlantic, or elsewhere in the country.... But I feel particularly responsible to Atlantic Canada because it is a big part of our economy, perhaps proportionally greater than any other part of the country on a per capita basis, and because it's small-market, they do take advantage of a lot of these programs. Both emerging artists, depending on where they come from within the region....
Ms. Nash mentioned that she'd had a round table. I have an ongoing arts advisory committee in my constituency. We meet very regularly, and to a person they're horrified. These are people from all political backgrounds and so on. They are suspicious, frankly, and I think it's no secret that these are born of an ideological disposition that is perhaps.... Funny enough, because generally speaking my view would be that the government doesn't believe in government enough, in this instance they believe in government too much, I think, in terms of having too much to say about what constitutes art, and having a disposition that would allow or cause some involvement to pick and choose. I think these things should be peer-reviewed, and that is one of the duties of most of these national programs, and that's one that has to be protected from any kind of censorship.
On the question of 1995, I think I'm the only one on this side who was here. Well, I think Dick was here in 1995, and he'll remember that Mr. Manning proposed a subamendment to the 1995 budget saying that we didn't cut fast enough or deep enough. So for people now to reflect on that 1995 budget in the way that happens regularly here simply is revisionist history. The reality is that I suspect that if Mr. Harris was in the House that day, he voted in support of that amendment to the budget, saying it didn't cut deep enough or fast enough--all of these things. So I would want that on the record, since I may be the only one here who remembers that, other than Dick.
Anyway, I think these are wrong-headed, and so does the artistic community in Atlantic Canada. They should be reconsidered. There should be a public discussion about this, because it is important, and we have to hear from the minister. I'd like to hear from the gentleman from the Prime Minister's Office who referred to PromArt, I think it was, as a boondoggle. I'd like that explained. Is that accurate? If so, does the government actually believe these programs have no value, that they would be referred to in that way? Or give him a chance to correct the record if it's not true. And if it is true, on what basis do people believe these programs are not good? It has not been a public debate, but it should be, and this is the committee that should be entertaining that debate.