Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This study that the committee is preparing to undertake is very important because, given the comments we have heard since the minister's announcement this summer, we see that it deals with questions that have not been answered. So I feel that the list of witness proposed a little earlier, including, of course, people from the department and the two ministers involved, would certainly provide answers. That is what we want.
We have heard the minister's explanations for some time, but we are having trouble understanding the answers she is providing. Clearly, this study is important, if only to find out about the timing of the announcement. Why in the middle of the summer? Was the study on the relevance of the programs finished in the middle of July? That hardly sounds plausible to me. Why decide to make this announcement when people were on holiday at the cottage, when their attention was elsewhere and they were not up to speed on current affairs. The only reason is to try and slide the issue through and move as quickly as possible to something else. I think that we have to get that question answered.
The minister and the members opposite say that funds will be reallocated. We would like answers about that too. Where will they be reallocated? The only thing we know at the moment is that cuts have been made. We are told that there will be money for international promotion. But this is a small and vulnerable community and, when cuts are made, people need to be quickly reassured. There was either too much haste, or the other possibility is that money is going to be reallocated into other areas that the government prefers. We have seen this government's liking for military spending. Is the money that we would like to see go to culture going to be diverted to other areas of government activity?
Earlier, Mr. Harris even seemed to say that these expenditures were unnecessary. So the Conservative government manages finances by cutting useless expenses. He seems to be telling us that the programs affected by these cuts were useless. Is that not contradicting his colleague who said the government is firmly committed to culture and has a strong involvement in it? They are trying to have it both ways again. So perhaps this study will provide us with some clarifications. If artists and the cultural industry were as clear that the Conservative government is committed to promoting and enhancing culture, they would certainly not be organizing a demonstration tomorrow. If they were as convinced that the Conservatives were passionate defenders of culture, I feel that they would not be afraid at all and that they would be waiting like good little artists for the cuts to be reallocated to other parts of the cultural community.
Mr. Van Kesteren said that this committee should be doing other things than discussing cultural programs. If that does not clearly mean that, in his view, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should not concern itself with culture, I do not know what it means. It worries me and I am sure that it also worries Mrs. DeBellefeuille, the Bloc Québécois' heritage critic. I think that we should start this study very quickly and begin hearing from witnesses so that we can bring some clarity to the Conservatives' intentions on cultural matters. It is important.