Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 9th, 2009

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion, of course. No motion can be adopted at committee when there hasn't been a vote held on the motion.

I'm very concerned with this, and I think all members of the committee should be. I think the committee should be forward-looking. I think we have a number of things that we can be working on, a number of very significant projects that we could undertake, a number of very significant studies that we should undertake.

We just heard from the minister today, and the minister was very clear on the strategic review items. I don't know what questions are remaining. There's no question that the minister was forthright in talking about this thing. I'm certain that anyone who received funding from the former programs might be upset about it; this isn't news. In fact, we know that the most recent budget makes significant new investments. We should be talking about what impact this committee wants to have on these new investments and what types of studies we want to undertake.

This is looking backwards. I humbly suggest that the witness list before us is a huge witness list; we can't get through this many witnesses. I dare say that to get through this witness list, we'd be fortunate to have this study done by the first of May. Is that what the committee wants to do? Is that a good use of our time?

I would strongly suggest that it is not a good use of our time, that we are providing no service to Canadians whatsoever. We've heard from Mr. Angus in the past that he wants this committee to operate. I think this starts the committee down the path of conducting nothing but witch hunts. I've been on one of those with Ms. Lavallée already; it provided zero value to Parliament in a lot of cases. And I don't think that's what this committee should be doing.

So I'd humbly suggest to members that we vote against this motion. In any event, the motion would certainly need to be amended, because the witness list's date of no later than Friday, February 6, has passed. And I would suggest that perhaps Mr. Angus might have witnesses, should the motion pass, so obviously that portion of the motion is going to have to be amended.

I'll pass on to other members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Rodriguez, and then Mr. Angus.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am in favour of the motion. I think that we can find a way to work together on this issue. During the minister's appearance, I said that I was not satisfied with the answers given as to the reasons that led to the program budget cuts. I think this matter warrants debate, and we need to be able to ask questions.

That said, I agree with Mr. Del Mastro. I do not think that we should spend several weeks discussing the issue. I am in favour of the motion, but the committee could decide to limit the discussion to two or three meetings and agree on a witness list. Obviously, the list should remain open-ended, given that the motion was not adopted last time and Mr. Angus, myself, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives will want to add names to it.

I move that we adopt the motion, that we limit debate to two or three meetings and that we keep the list open in order to add names of witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

We had discussed this at the last meeting. My sense was that there was a general understanding that this was unfinished business from the summer. Like Mr. Del Mastro, I was a little shocked to see 60 witness names. That would, or could, throw everything we've done off until about May, and I don't know if that's necessary. I appreciate actually having a list that we can draw from.

I would be in favour of this motion if it were amended, where the amendment would say that the committee hold three meetings and then determine at that time if further study is required. We could choose from this witness list, we could hear...and the minister's office could give us a response. Three meetings would certainly allow us to deal with the substance of this study, and then we could move on. I'm uncomfortable moving forward with just a blanket motion that's not amended at this point, because with 60 witnesses listed it would certainly swamp our committee. If people were amenable to saying three meetings—and I think three meetings is fair—that allows us to make sure that it's adequately studied, and if people have a burning need to go forward then we'll re-address it at that point. So my amendment would be that the committee hold three meetings and then determine if further study is required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say, as a new member, I had hoped sincerely that this heritage committee would be looking at things that would offer a future to our artists, a future to our culture. As far as I'm concerned, I believe the minister was very clear on what he said. Some of these programs have met their mandates. If I could use an analogy, it's like having a wedding, the wedding being completed, and then asking for more money to redo the wedding. Some of these things are absolutely concluded, and I believe the minister was very clear in saying that he is willing to discuss all of those. He's provided most of that information today, and to waste precious time could really provoke us into a future for our artists and the culture we're looking at.

I have to vote against this, because I want to move forward. I do not want to go back just to argue these things that have been very clearly stated by the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Dhalla.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I think it is important to have that spirit of cooperation and collaboration of working together. But at the same time, in light of what the minister said today, there was a substantial amount of cuts made that did have a great impact. I think that I, and I'm sure many of the MPs around this table, have been inundated with e-mails and phone calls from individuals, from organizations and stakeholders who suffered from the cuts. I think it's important to know where we were at, where the inefficiencies were, and what the government needs to do to really move forward to ensure that the funding that is provided in the future is focused, especially for the programs that were cut and what has been done to replace them, so that these artists and these organizations have the resources they need to really build our identity as a country and also to promote our Canadian artists.

I think, as Mr. Angus was saying, we could perhaps have a limited number of meetings so we don't focus all of our time on that, and if Madame Lavallée were amenable to that she would find great support and consensus from everyone around the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Ms. Glover is right on a number of elements. Some things will be easy to do. If some of the things are already concluded, the study will last exactly 30 seconds. However, there are other programs that still raise questions. I think that the study is worth conducting.

That said, are we now speaking to the amendment? Has Mr. Angus amended the initial motion in order to circumscribe it? If that is the case, I am in favour of his amendment. We could vote on it now and move on to something else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, we have to call a question on the amendment to hold three meetings.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The amendment carries that we will hold three meetings.

Now we will vote on the motion as amended.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I have a question please, Mr. Chair.

Have we amended the date for submitting witnesses? Was that covered in the amendment as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I don't think it's been covered in the amendment.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Would anybody like to move a--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Could I make a suggestion? Are there any other people who have supplied lists of witnesses? Are there more witness lists to be presented? I have two lists in front of me.

Are you going to present a list, Mr. Angus?

Are you going to present a list, Mr. Del Mastro?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

The only witnesses I might want would be the deputy ministers. I see that they're on the Bloc's list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

I wasn't going to be adding witnesses, but my understanding is that in these three meetings it is implicit that there would be a chance for the department to respond.

I'd also like to see if it's possible to request the department to provide some of the analysis they gave, because it's certainly going to help frame the discussion. If they have information that could help us and if they could provide it before we start the study, it could move things along fairly quickly.

If we're breaking it into two groups per meeting, one group is going to have to be towards the end, and it will have to come from the department. As for whoever the department decides to send to respond after they've heard the various questions, I'm open to that, and I don't think we need to give those names now. I think it's an understanding that we'll reserve time for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

That's fine.

We will now vote on the motion as amended: That the committee discuss the recent elimination of federal government funding programs for arts and culture, and that the committee hold three meetings on the recent elimination of federal government funding programs for arts and culture, and that the members of the committee send the committee clerk a list of witnesses no later than Friday, February 6, at noon.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to make a bit of a recommendation about witnesses. We can't have everybody here, and I think it would be up to the list. I have lists of witnesses from the Bloc and the Liberals.

Maybe you could sit down together and decide on which witnesses you want. I talked to my clerk. We could probably have split sessions of three, with three for the first hour and three for the second hour. That would give us 18 witnesses. Again, remember that maybe the last hour or last day would be for government people to respond to what has gone on before.

Can I leave it to both the Liberals and the Bloc to decide on that? You could get back to the clerk.

Yes, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I was just going--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Oh, sorry. Mr. Rodriguez is first.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

On our side we will prioritize this, from one to ten, let's say, and we'll sit down with the Bloc to make sure that it's efficient and it works, and you can invite the people as soon as possible.