Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

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

Are you able to guarantee that recipients will have access to the same amounts, that it will be as easy for them as it was in the past?

[Jean-François Bernier]

I am really glad you asked that question. Most recipients already have access to the FACTOR and MUSICACTION programs. Andrée and Heather talked about it. The Canada Council for the Arts has an envelope of approximately $30 million for the music sector, including $9 million for this kind of sound recording. I might bore you, but I can list you off the 16 programs that benefit from that $9 million.

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

If you check the blues from other meetings, you will see that I have already asked this question. Why are they saying—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Excuse me, Mr. Rodriguez. Your time is pretty well up.

Ms. Lavallée, please.

Mr. Rodriguez, you're the one who told me to stay to five minutes, and I'm doing that.

Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

It is Mr. Rodriguez's fault.

Thank you very much for coming, but I must say that I am extremely disappointed with your presentation. When you talked about the main recommendations set out in the Summative Evaluation of the Canada Music Fund, it seems that there are things that do not correspond to what I read in the report.

You say that the structure has been simplified. In fact, there are three lines on the simplification of the structure. We are talking about helping the industry benefit from digital technology opportunities. However, the word “digital” does not appear anywhere in the report. New technologies are mentioned once, but digital technology is never mentioned.

You also talked about increasing support for tours. The report instead states that we need to “Increase the level of support to the artist, including more funding for skills development [...] and to marketing [...]”. That is what it says. There is one part of the first recommendation, which you did not take into account, and it says: “Shift resources from production to online distribution and marketing.” I am being honest with you here—

You talk about technology, but never ever— You have forgotten part of the report. In any case, there was one part that you twisted, and you are also twisting the issue of digital media.

The report is extremely interesting, and I recommend that all committee members read it, particularly the parliamentary secretary. However, this report cannot have brought you to the solutions you have identified, meaning, slashing the cultural diversity program to invest in digital media. That is not what the report says at all.

It has been suggested that the recommendations in the report will form the basis for a process by which we can start talking about and reviewing the CMF. I want to share a few quotes with you. Recommendation 1, or the main recommendation, states, “ [...] no one had a clear vision on what the next version of the CMF should look like [this is on page 11 in English]—nor is it the purpose of an evaluation study [...]”.

That is not the purpose of an evaluation study!

I will continue, “For this reason, a main recommendation of this study is that PCH should develop options for the next generation of the CMF and obtain feedback on these options from stakeholders.” Were the stakeholders consulted? They came here and told us that they were not.

I want to read other quotes. You will see that, as indicated in the report, this is the basis of the process. Nowhere does it mention cutting specialized music programs. The word “digital” appears no where in the report.

The report also states that, “The survey of CMF recipients found that both CMD and NMW projects [Canadian musical diversity, which we are talking about, and new musical works] have had a positive impact on the careers of funded artists. The case studies of artists supported this finding.”

The report states a little further on: “Of the three CMF components covered by the survey of the recipients, the CMD component (grants for specialized music recording production) had the largest incremental impact on the production of sound recordings.” Those are your own findings.

After that, how can you cut the Canada music program?

The report also states, “No major duplication/overlap issues were identified.” This is on page 10. So, really, I am quite surprised. You have just told us something that previous witnesses did not know, that there are new programs, meaning, that money will go to MUSICACTION and FACTOR.

Have I understood correctly? There are new programs that will be available. The Canada Council for the Arts said that these organizations were profit-driven, but they deny it. That is quite interesting. It seems that there is a disconnect from the report. The report does not say what you are telling us today, and normally, since this forms the basis for the process, you should have undertaken further consultations.

Later, we will look at a motion in which I ask for information on who was consulted and the methodologies used. It's not about the report, because the report sings the praises of the musical diversity program. So it can't be that. The report and what you are saying do not match. They are inconsistent. There had to have been another consultation, which perhaps you are hiding from us, because it can't be based on this one. So, we will wait for new consultations.

In closing, do you not believe that the best solution would be to take the $1.3 million that you took out of the musical diversity program and transfer it to the Canada Council for the Arts? That way, with that money, in addition to the $180 million allocated to it, the Canada Council for the Arts could really take care, once and for all, of the creators who are really creating specialized music, including audio art.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

They were very lengthy, so you're not going to get an answer, because five minutes are up.

Mr. Angus, please.

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

Thank you.

I would like to thank my colleague for laying the groundwork on the issue of the summative evaluation. This is what I find very confusing. I read the summative evaluation, and it did not lead to any of the conclusions I've heard from the department or from the minister.

The minister stated that this program, the diversity fund, was for artists who weren't interested in a commercial career, so that wasn't a priority for the government. But I didn't see that in the summative evaluation and I didn't hear that from any of the artists I spoke to. They seemed to feel this was an important key in building that.

Who offered the advice? FACTOR said they weren't asked. The Canada Council wasn't asked. Who looked at those and said to the minister that this is a redundant fund, these artists are musical welfare bums—that seems to be the interpretation—and we can do better? Who gave that advice?

[Jean-François Bernier]

I mentioned this in my presentation. The evaluation process is one tool to help in making decisions about program orientation and resource allocation. The department gave the advice to the minister. That's our job.

That advice is based on the summative evaluation. It's based on public policy development work that we do continuously within the department.

In terms of program renewals, I just want to be clear here. There are not 15,000 options when you renew a program in terms of the—

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

We totally understand that.

[Jean-François Bernier]

But let me finish.

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

I only have five minutes. That's my problem.

[Jean-François Bernier]

Mr. Chair, I think I have the right to.... I would like to have the time to answer the question.

You could have status quo. That's an option. You do nothing. You take the summative evaluation and you do nothing. You could reduce the budget or eliminate the program. That's another option. You could increase the funding. That's the other option in program renewal, or you could reallocate some of the resources from within the fund toward other priorities.

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

I think this is the job of the ministry. I think when a program is redundant it needs to be removed, cleaned up, and changed. My problem is that I'm not seeing how that process happened with the diversity fund. That's the question for me. Programs often end up at a dead end and they have to be changed.

I'm looking at the summative evaluation, and two people from private radio in Montreal were on the expert panel. Dave Kusek from Berklee Media—I understand why he would have been chosen; he's obviously got a lot of experience. But I'm thinking, to have an expert panel with two guys from private radio in Montreal, and they're now both Astral Media.... That was it? That was your expert panel? Why them?

[Jean-François Bernier]

Let me remind the members this was not our panel; it was the consultant's panel—

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

Okay. I'm going to continue then—

[Jean-François Bernier]

Let me finish. Mr. Chair—

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

You hired a consultant, and he picked two guys out of Astral Media in Montreal and said that's your expert panel? Then you turned around and cut the diversity fund? I'd ask for my money back. What kind of advice comes from two people in one media market playing private radio? How could you have done that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to allow an answer.

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

Certainly. I had to ask the question.

[Jean-François Bernier]

That's a good question. The process for the expert panel is part of the methodology of any evaluation. The department submitted a list of 13 names to the consultant and asked if they wanted an expert panel. We thought those could enrich their conclusion about this study. Who's available and who's on the panel is the consultant's decision. We had—

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

Who was the consultant?

[Jean-François Bernier]

Kelly Sears.

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

My time is running out. I don't want to be confrontational about this. I just think we need to.... You cut the Canadian Music Centre—$150,000 a year. It provided 1,300 titles, 200 labels for international distribution. Two guys on private radio in Montreal wouldn't have thought that would be a priority?

Don't you see that not having the advice of people who counted on something like this...$150,000 is peanuts, and yet we had international distribution for a whole whack of labels. Why was that allowed to happen? There's nothing in the evaluation that justifies that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus, we don't have time for an answer on that particular one. We're over time.

Mr. Gourde, please.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Bernier.

I have a question for both of you. We have heard from a number of people that the department has stopped providing money to artists and instead gives it to big corporations. These same people say that less funding is granted to the poorest in the industry to support the millionaires. What is your opinion on that?