Canadian Heritage Committee on Aug. 26th, 2008

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm so respectful that I'm going to continue my story, because it's an important one. It's about inquisition. It's about the way you're acting in the government against the film industry, which is worth $5.4 billion and creates 126,400 jobs from coast to coast to coast.

In Cinema Paradiso, the priest is watching a film with a couple kissing. He rings his bell to ask the projectionist to cut the film because he considers it pornographic.

Is that the kind of country you want to live in? This is what it's all about, inquisition. And that's why it's important, Mr. Chair, to have a gathering here with all the witnesses, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and all those deputy ministers we spoke about.

We could mention a number of people, not just from Quebec. There are organizations like the Canada Council for the Arts, that brings people together right across the country. We can cast our net widely.

I will end there. They tried to slip this by us this summer. They thought that, because of the Olympic Games, people would not be paying attention to it. It is important to hold this meeting and to call appropriate witnesses in order to finally see the Conservative in their true colours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Could we speed it up a little bit?

Ms. DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to add my two cents worth to Mr. Coderre's comments. When I listen to the people opposite, I see once more that they are light years away from Quebec values and cultural identity. They understand nothing about Quebec. As I listen to Mr. Del Mastro and Mr. Harris once more today, it confirms for me the feeling that a number of Quebeckers have that the Conservatives are not at all in tune with Quebec.

Mr. Del Mastro tells me that Canadians are proud of his government's decisions. I tell him that Quebeckers are not at all proud. They have shown their dissatisfaction and their anger. Your first decisions were to abolish status of women programs and the Court Challenges program. Now you are going after artists. For me, the Conservative government is like a bulldozer crushing and trampling everything that it does not like. I find that quite disgusting.

Let me shed a slightly different light on what Mr. Harris said about superfluous costs. Is he aware that Amy Belling, from British Columbia, received $1,300 from the PromArt program?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, with all due respect to Madame DeBellefeuille, I never in my presentation just earlier referred to any of this spending as superfluous. I very distinctly referred to these programs as programs that either had met their original objectives, had similar kinds of support and training available from other sources, or were using funds to manage the programs where there were extremely high over-budget operating costs.

I believe that every arts program is important, of course, as we all do. It's important to the Canadian culture and it's important to Canadian values. However, there are certain realistic tests that every program has to pass, and that's what this strategic review was designed for. So I believe the word “superfluous”, with all due respect, Madame DeBellefeuille, is not appropriate to describe my comments.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to continue along the same lines. There are artists like Amy Belling from British Columbia who received $1,300 from the PromArt program so that she could present her short film at a festival in Rotterdam. That is not what I call a grant or assistance that was out of line. She probably used it to pay for her plane ticket so that she could promote her creative efforts and bring honour to her province and her country.

Let us not forget the importance of these programs in the regions. I mentioned the regions of Quebec, regions that I know well. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, various international festivals, like the guitar festival or the Festival de musique émergente, for example, receive money to bring foreign buyers to Canada to see the products which they can then distribute in their countries.

Let us talk numbers. There was $15,000 to bring foreign buyers to Montreal for the 25^th International Festival of Films on Art. We are told that the money was probably badly managed or badly spent. But we can use this exact example to show that, with $15,000, producers of documentaries on art can not only have their work seen, but can also sell them so that they are seen around the world. This is an economic engine and we often forget to say so.

In regions like Saguenay or Abitibi-Témiscaminque, festivals accessed these funds to bring in foreign buyers. The Académie Baroque de Montréal received $10,000 for six concerts in Germany and for a Mozart concert in Milan. Mr. Van Kesteren can count the pages of grants awarded by his government—he got to 12—but I can count my list too. My list has more than 30 pages, full of the names of artists and companies that will not be able to get government assistance to show, sell or promote their creations around the world.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that we will be able to undertake a thorough study that will allow us to ask meaningful questions of the government. We want to find out why, having been elected on a platform of transparency, their strategic analysis is confidential, why it is secret if it is so valuable, and if there are good reasons for cutting programs. The government should be transparent in bringing forward the facts, so that we can judge for ourselves.

The artistic community and the cultural industry has now been thrust into a period of instability and intolerable vulnerability. If you have made the cuts in order to reallocate, I really have to ask what you are waiting for in order to reassure this community. I hope that this study will provide answers to the many questions that have been asked since this discussion began.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to your suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I have two more speakers: first, Ms. Nash, and then Mr. Bélanger.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Having met this morning with some of the leading arts organizations in Toronto, I want to reiterate how devastating the artist organizations and individual artists are saying these cuts are for the arts in Canada. That's the clear message the arts organizations have given to me. These cuts are devastating for them. These cuts are attacking the launch pad for many artists, directors, producers, and writers. It will hobble their production, and they will not be able to continue with their work.

I'm told that a U.S. film production, for example, will spend a third of its money on the actual production, a third on marketing, and a third on distribution and promotion. You can't have one without the other two. If you make something, you have to market, promote, and distribute it. That's what in many cases is being attacked here.

For example, I know of a festival in Toronto every year that is extremely popular: the Contact Photography Festival. Photographers will continue to take photographs, but they won't be able to get them to the public through this kind of festival without the funding they have been receiving. They won't be able to sell their work. They won't be able to continue.

The other message they conveyed to me was a clear lack of trust in the process, that these cuts were made in a secretive way without consultation, without justification. It has left them mistrustful, fearful, and apprehensive about what might be coming in the future. There is real concern that this government might be picking and choosing which artists they're supporting. I suggest that in a democracy that's a very dangerous situation. The Prime Minister should not be the one to decide which artists' voices get heard. That's not appropriate, and it is not the kind of authority we want our government to have.

Based on all the reactions that have been heard in public and today at this committee, I want to say as clearly as I can that we should have hearings to review this process and that the hearings should be held as quickly as possible. I think September 2, right after Labour Day, would be an appropriate time. Let's not waste time. Let's get at it right away.

Others have suggested that the relevant ministers and department staff be invited so they can clarify the determinant in the cuts they made, so there can be an examination of the process they undertook. Then, clearly what we need to do is hear from the artists themselves and the arts organizations. There needs to be a full public review and a transparent process. Until that happens, there should be no cuts. There should be a moratorium on any cuts to these programs.

I think the first thing that should come out of this meeting is these hearings. I think the second thing that should come out of this meeting today is a clear indication, from every parliamentarian on this committee, that we stand with artists, that we value their work. They're an important part of our country and our democracy, and we value their work. We appreciate their work. We need to work to restore the trust that has been broken, and the way that trust will be restored is by the establishment of a clear arm's-length process for arts funding. I hope we can come out of this meeting today with those two measures adopted—immediate hearings together with a reaffirmation of our support for the arts. I'm talking about all arts, a full democratic process for support of the arts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Finally, Mr. Bélanger.

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

You say that with glee, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Nash, I agree that we should do this early. Why wait till next week? We can start this week, even.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if you schedule some meetings we might want to have them where they can be televised, because I think there is a great deal of interest in this matter.

On the matter of copyright, I agree with Mr. Del Mastro. It is an important issue. I had the privilege of being on the first round back in the late 1990s. I was involved with copyright. It seemed to be important to the government. Once they were elected, they said that they would bring in legislation in the spring of 2006. That was put off to before Christmas of that year. Then it became June 2007, and then December 2007. At that point the government actually gave notice of legislation, which sat there until June 2008.

Of course, it's not being referred to this committee; it's being referred to the industry committee. It's not even being referred to committee before second reading, so it further delays the process. Now the Prime Minister is apparently going to seek dissolution of this Parliament. That shows the importance that this government has attached to copyright, with all due respect.

Mr. Del Mastro also seemed to suggest that I don't believe government has a right to review programs. Absolutely not. I've never said that. I believe government has not only a right but a duty to review programs. It must do so, and do so in every department. I have no objection to that. Not only do I have no objections, I encourage that behaviour.

But here's where he and I part company. The executive government, once it has done these reviews, is accountable to Parliament. In our country we have a responsible government. People forget that the word “responsible” here doesn't mean what he's suggesting. It means that government has a responsibility to the House, to Parliament. It is responsible to Parliament. For the government to have decisions made in Parliament about programs, about the funding of programs and spending authorized by Parliament, and then to turn around and cut those programs unilaterally, without sharing any evaluation, could very likely be an abuse of Parliament. That's what I object to.

Then we're talking about reallocation. If you're going to reallocate money, you need to seek Parliament's approval. We live in a parliamentary system, but this government seems to want to avoid Parliament like the plague. Well, it's too bad that they're in a minority situation in Parliament. That's the reality and they have to face up to it. They cannot just go ahead and, by executive fiat, undo what Parliament does.

I repeat, I hope our staff give us some suggested readings on this. I think we're nearing an area of abuse of executive authority, to the detriment of the artists. We should not support only artists we like. That's the problem here, the underlying situation. It's not because Conservatives approve or disapprove of a program or of certain artists, as the Prime Minister's press secretary insinuated, that decisions of cutting or not cutting programs, funding or not funding programs, should be made. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case now.

Every Canadian should be wary of this. That's what's at stake here. I think we have a serious responsibility, as a functioning committee of Parliament, to undertake this matter, and I think that Canadians expect no less.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

I'll take one question from each party.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd like to put forward a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to make a suggestion first, Mr. Del Mastro, seeing that we have bantered back and forth and been very political here today. Coming from Stratford, Ontario, I know that artists are very important. In terms of artists per capita, Stratford is probably one of the greatest regions in the country. I'm very supportive of artists.

What I suggest this committee do is that each party put together a list of witnesses and that it be given to my clerk within seven days. At that particular time, the list will be set and distributed.

That's my suggestion. It might not be fast enough for some people, but I think there are two things that we have to do here. Number one is getting the list to the clerk. The clerk has to make sure the witnesses are available and can be here. In all fairness to my clerk, no matter what political things we want to do here, I want my clerk to have time to put together a proper list.

I'm not going to be a dictator, but at the same time I'm not going to spend another 20 minutes trying to banter back and forth. So my suggestion—and I'd like it to be unanimous—is that a list be put together by each party, and that we get each list to my clerk within seven days, and that from point we will get the list of witnesses together and see it when we come for the meeting.

I'll take one question from each party.

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I support it in principle, but my concern is that I think seven days is a bit too long. I propose that we provide lists by Friday; I would be ready by Friday to provide a list. If we provided a list by Friday, you would have time to work. We all know that we have a caucus for two or three days the next week and we will have time to be full participants.

Since everybody agreed to have those witnesses, I think that providing a list on Friday would be okay. So we agree in principle, but if all the parties say, okay, by Friday we will provide our list, I think it would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The Bloc.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, this matter is important enough for us to ask all parties to make an extra effort and to submit their lists by Friday so that we can hear from the witnesses as quickly as possible. The matter is on the minds of a number of players in the community; I am sure that the clerk will find that people are readily available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We'll have our list by Friday.

I just have a question. Are you anticipating having a day for hearings? That would be important in order to be able to advise the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

When the list is put together, or once I have the list and it's circulated, we'll address that. I think we can put a couple of dates in as quickly as we can after that list is suggested and approved.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

As a supplementary question, if I could, are you entertaining the possibility of hearings prior to the resumption of the House?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Again, I can make that decision. Our meeting here today was brought forward by four people; four people can demand a meeting. Once the list is out, then I'll address that when it comes. If there are four people in the opposition who suggest a date, bring that motion forward and I will set the meeting in the required time.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I indicated, we would welcome hearings into this. We'd also like to invite witnesses. We can meet the Friday deadline, and certainly if the Liberals can't be here next week, we would be happy to be here the following week. As I indicated, we welcome hearings into this. We have a great story to tell.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It's agreed that the list be in by Friday. On Friday we get the list. Can the clerk's office circulate the list quickly on Friday?

[Jean-François Pagé, Procedural Clerk, Table Research Branch, House of Commons]

Yes.

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

So the list will be in by Friday noon?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, the list will be in by Friday noon. Hopefully the list can be out by Friday afternoon.