Canadian Heritage Committee on March 11th, 2009

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

You may want to take a look, because there has been a breakdown in that communication strategy somewhere, because the majority of organizations that have been in existence for the last five, ten, fifteen years that have clientele they answer to found out either through the media or through a letter, with absolutely no phone call or any type of discussion.

I know I'm running out of time, but you mentioned, Ms. LaRocque, that there were other options for people to explore who were originally taking part in the Trade Routes funding, which focused on exporting our product. What other programs can those individuals who were going through Trade Routes apply for now?

And secondly, with regard to Trade Routes, it's been mentioned repeatedly that there was a huge administration cost to run the program. I know my colleague asked for documents to be tabled to hopefully get answers. As my colleague Charlie Angus was saying, if we had those particular documents in front of us, then perhaps we could have some sympathy for the fact that the program was cut for those particular reasons.

So I have two questions. First, whose fault was it that there was such a high administration cost in this program? Could that not have been fixed? Second, where else do these people who have lost funding for their particular initiatives go to now within the government?

[Judith LaRocque]

In answer to your second question, I just went through the list. They have options through the Canada Council with the $13-million budget they have, the Association for the Export of Canadian Books, the National Film Board, Telefilm, and FACTOR Musicaction.

In terms of the original design of the Trade Routes program, in 2001 that was considered to be quite an innovative program. For the first time, we would have people across the world, in markets that were important to us, to help the export of cultural goods.

Times change and technologies evolve and you want your trade policy, I think, to be far more nimble than to have a fixed investment in five locations. Those happened to be probably the five most expensive locations in the world to establish residency for an official.

Also, we were continuing to use the network of trade officers in our embassies abroad elsewhere in the world and we were noticing equal opportunities or viable opportunities were coming to us through those channels as well. So it's not a matter that a design—

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

Who's responsible for the administration portion of it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Dhalla, we're going to move on.

Mr. Pomerleau, please.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. LaRocque, I entirely approve of the analysis done by Mr. Angus. We are representatives of the public, and the funds that you distribute come from the public. We are mandated by the public to ensure that that money is properly spent. We've begun an analysis here today for the purpose of getting a clear and simple answer.

Cuts to cultural funding are having an incredible impact, according to all those who have testified. This is not about billions of dollars, but rather about a few million dollars. That does not represent a lot of money for the government; it's peanuts. I agree that it's a considerable amount for you, but as part of the government's overall budget, it is nothing at all. However, the impact is phenomenal.

We're asking very simple questions. I'd like you to tell me whether my interpretation is accurate. You're saying you prepared documents for the ministers, but that we can't see them. The minister claims he received them, but he can't submit them to us. Lastly, the public, who have given this committee a mandate, is wasting its time. The public cannot have the final say; it is required to take your word.

[Judith LaRocque]

Mr. Pomerleau, I clearly do not entirely share the view you've expressed.

I would like to give you more context. My role as deputy minister is governed by quite clear parameters and is based on two fundamental pillars. The first pillar is executive authority. I give my minister opinions and advice, which he then submits to cabinet, which considers it before making decisions on whether to create or cancel programs and with regard to the terms and conditions that will govern their implementation. The second pillar is the financial resources that are approved by Parliament, by all of you, and which give me that executive authority.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

All right, I understand all that.

Is your role based on a third pillar, which consists in providing explanations to the public, who, through us, are asking for an accounting? You report solely to the minister, if I understand correctly. The public has nothing to do with that. The minister will receive certain reports that he will make public, the public will be made aware of what the minister is willing to tell it, and it will believe him as much as it believes you. Is it appropriate to present matters in that way?

[Judith LaRocque]

Once again, I don't entirely approve of your interpretation of matters. As deputy minister, my role is to ensure proper management of the resources that are allocated to me by Parliament and that are approved by the executive authority, which is cabinet.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

And the public is not informed of that.

It appears that everyone who came and testified, the majority of whom benefited from the PromArt program, received funds from both sides, on an alternating basis. All of them, without exception, told us that the funding they received, which was relatively small, made their organizations profitable, since the business that they conducted outside the country brought in funds here. They gave us any number of examples to show that, most of the time, it was Canada that benefited from that, since the expenses they incurred in order to travel out of the country were incurred here.

They said that these international activities were necessary to their survival. We know perfectly well that all theatre, ballet and modern dance companies cannot survive solely in a market like Canada, even less so Quebec, which is far too small to ensure their long-term survival. All those people told us they needed this funding. Today, it's being cut, and we don't really know why. There are apparently good reasons for doing so, and that is what we'll be looking at with the minister later.

You're telling us that these people have the option of requesting funding elsewhere, if that's necessary to their survival. However, all these people confirmed for us that there was no other funding or options. That's what I don't understand. Are all those people wrong? Have they not done a proper search or have they turned to the wrong place? They claim they are in danger, that they are dying. It is the entire Canadian and Quebec cultural industry that is at stake.

[Judith LaRocque]

I thank you for sharing your concerns with us. The fact remains that the Canada Council offers artists and companies major programs, particularly for touring. I understand the frustration expressed, but the PromArt program is not under our authority. People appear before you to testify about the importance of those programs, of course, but the fact is that our strategic review focused solely on our programs. I can't express an opinion on a program for which I have no responsibility, whose scheme I am not familiar with and which I do not know whether it is well managed or not. It is quite hard for me to offer a judgment on a program that is not the responsibility of our department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Grewal, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for coming to answer our questions.

First of all, I would like to compliment you and your department for doing an excellent job. You've done a brilliant job of ensuring that money contained in our budget has gone out to assist the arts across this country.

My question concerns the strategic review. There have been many mistruths spread about the decisions made during the strategic review, so could you please elaborate a bit on where these funds are being reallocated?

[Judith LaRocque]

There are perhaps two parts to your question, so perhaps two parts to my answer.

Strategic review, along with other mechanisms in place to review government spending, like evaluations, audits, and periodic renewals of our programs at Treasury Board, is the method this government has chosen to ensure proper and effective spending of taxpayers' dollars. Other governments have chosen other means. We went through strategic reviews in 1995 and 2005. Different governments approach it different ways.

In this strategic review exercise, as I said, we were asked to look at every program in the department. Even though we were asked to identify the lowest performing or lowest priority 5%, every single program was examined. Every one of our three pillars under the PAA, sport, identity, and culture, was looked at. Treasury Board asked us to have a person from the private sector on our committee, which we did. We had a principal from Deloitte & Touche, who helped us review every one of our programs.

In the end, choices are made by the duly elected government of the day as to which programs will be affected, to what extent, and when. We understand the consequences of those choices can be difficult for groups and organizations that have benefited from them in the past. However, the fundamental relationship of confidence between us, as public servants, and our ministers means that our advice to our ministers must remain confidential. It has been ever thus, and I suppose it will be ever thus.

In terms of the strategic review, if I could just take a moment for that, as you know, it was roughly $45 million that resulted in decisions of the strategic review. That is roughly 3.4% of the department's budget, not the full 5%. Choices were made to not go for a full 5% with respect to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Of course one might take issue, as I think Mr. Angus did, with the selection of what might have been reallocated or reinvested into the department, be it money for the torch relay, for summer sport, or for the official languages road map, which I think comes in at a total of about seventy-some million--I forget the number--but over a number of years. I think the torch relay and summer sport are two-year investments, and then the road map is a bit longer.

Even that's not the end of the story, because since then we've received $30 million for festivals. We've just received a top-up in the last budget for the cultural spaces program of $30 million a year for two years, which will be direct investments. That last one is part of the stimulus package.

It's very hard to compare apples and oranges. I understand that is frustrating for honourable members, but there is a larger story.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

There still seems to be a lot of confusion in understanding this $45 million. Could you please provide us with an explanation of why it was really necessary to make reallocations following the strategic review? Perhaps you could begin with the Canada memory fund, which accounted for almost 25% of the $45 million, and go from there.

[Judith LaRocque]

The Canada memory fund was an incentive program, in the sense that its intention was to incent other federal departments to digitize crown collections where they were custodians of a crown collection that would be important to future generations of Canadians. Incentive money was given, say to the National Film Board, and last week or the week before the National Film Board announced that 900 titles have now been digitized and they are now online. Funds were also provided to Library and Archives Canada to digitize their collection and get more and more of it online.

It was always intended to be a program with a beginning, a middle, and an end. You started it up. You invested the money. You ensured that the institutions of government had the proper equipment to start digitizing their collections, and over time the intention was--and it worked out--that they would integrate that into their ongoing business planning. Now the National Film Board, as part of its integrated business planning, has the digitization of the collection. The same with LAC, and with other institutions across the country.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

No, your time is pretty well up.

Now we go to Mr. Simms, please.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To our guests, I've been here long enough and been on enough different committees to realize what a tough situation you're in. I know in a situation like this, with the cuts, it's difficult for you and obviously not so friendly here and somewhat friendly over there. So from this side, I would just like to say, you guys look marvellous today, by the way. You look great.

That being said, what I'm going to do is to make a comment on the Trade Routes program. Whether you choose to respond is entirely up to you. Perhaps this belongs, like many of the questions here today, on the floor of the House of Commons, and not necessarily in front of you. Granted, the minister is not here.

Here it goes. On the Trade Routes program, one of the things several witnesses before us talked about—and not just about Trade Routes, but PromArt as well—was how this money signified, to them, a steady money flow. It's not money that's dependent on the private sector, which is taking a huge beating these days, as we all know. Therefore, the Trade Routes money created an indirect mechanism or indirect opportunity for them to receive money.

Now, according to this and the minister's statements on February 7—and you reiterated this as well—there will be a $7 million investment for a $2 million direct benefit. That means we're top-heavy with an inefficient mechanism.

You talked about the places that you need to close because they are too expensive to operate. Therefore, my point is that $7 million is going into this program, and $2 million of that—the money I'm talking about—will translate into an even greater benefit to our witnesses. So instead of destroying the program, why wouldn't we reduce the $5 million to get to our $2 million direct benefit?

This is why we use terms like “ideological cut“ to describe this, because what you've done is that you need to shave off an inefficiency, but with the philosophy of the program staying intact. And according to every witness, this was the program that helped them to distribute...as opposed to relying on something like YouTube.

[Judith LaRocque]

Mr. Simms, at the heart of your question I believe is a political question, because these are political choices. These are—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

In that case, I may move on.

[Judith LaRocque]

May I just add something?

I just want it to be clear, though, to the committee that the response you receive from us would be exactly the same response if we were serving another government.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I agree; I totally agree. I'm not disagreeing with you there.

I just have a couple of quick questions.

There's a small town in my riding. They took advantage of a program that allowed them to digitize their local archives. Which program would that be?

Once you tell me what program it is, I want to know if you considered the fact that not 100% of the people in this province receive high-speed Internet, when you decided to cut this program.

[Judith LaRocque]

Certainly I'm familiar with the program or project, if I remember the right one in your riding. They would have received money through LAC to digitize their project. And there would still be, I think, an opportunity through LAC for them to continue digitizing. I believe so.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Oh, all right. I wasn't aware of that.

[Judith LaRocque]

Because there's a broader context to LAC than simply digitizing their collections. They're interested in—