Evidence of meeting #17 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was company.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I want to welcome everyone to meeting number 17 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
This morning we start off with committee business, and we'll go right to that first.
There is a notice of motion from Carole Lavallée. Madam Lavallée, would you like to speak to your motion?
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I will introduce both motions at once, if I may. Then we can either vote on or discuss each one.
I want to start by giving the political context behind my motions. Industry Canada has a marquee tourism events program. Last year, Industry Canada announced that $100 million would be allocated to various festivals throughout Canada and Quebec. Then there was a delay in announcing the recipients of the program funding, and we are not sure why. The announcements were made a month late.
The Francofolies de Montréal festival was denied funding. The decision was hard to accept, especially since it came barely a month before the festival was scheduled to begin. Organizers were never given any indication that they would not be getting their $1.5 million in funding. That is pretty significant. Then suddenly, after the funding was allocated, people learned there was a new criterion, one they had not heard of before. It was a post-game rule, if I can call it that. It had been decided that only two festivals per city would receive funding. That criterion did not appear anywhere. People found out about it after the announcements were made.
Furthermore, that criterion was not even respected, because Winnipeg received funding for three events. The city of Winnipeg received three grants for three different festivals. In the end, program officials did not take into account that Montreal is a city of festivals, one of its defining characteristics. We do not understand why such a criterion was applied to a grant program, especially since we know it was done after the fact.
In short, when I examined everything, I noticed that $12 million of the $100 million initially announced in 2009 had not been spent. Only $88 million had been allocated. What happened to that $12 million? Where did that money go? Why was it not allocated?
My first motion calls on the government to immediately reinstate funding to the two events, Francofolies de Montréal and Pride Toronto. My second motion calls on Industry Canada officials to explain why they cancelled funding for these two major festivals without warning. Who made the decision? When was it made? And why? That is what we want to know.
Conservative
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've had the opportunity to review each of these motions. It would strike me that in order to deal with them concurrently you'd have to amend them such that they were a single motion, so perhaps Madam Lavallée might want to consider that, if that's what she wishes to do.
I find it remarkable, Mr. Chairman, that the member has brought forward motions demanding funding from a program that she voted against. In fact, there are many things with respect to culture that the Bloc has voted against with respect to funding, but this specific program they most certainly voted against and now they are here demanding funding from it.
Be that as it may, the member specifically mentions Les FrancoFolies de Montréal. In 2006-07 the festival received $75,000. In 2007-08 the festival received $75,000. And if we move forward to this year and next year, the festival receives $175,000 each year, for a total of $350,000. Now, that's a record commitment, a multi-year commitment made to Les FrancoFolies. The member is simply not being forthright in that regard. I believe she knows that, but I think she is in fact simply not stating that.
With respect to the Toronto pride festival, quite simply, Mr. Chair, last year was a year when I think an awful lot of festivals right across the country were concerned about advertising support and sponsorship dollars coming in to help provide festivals. This is a major economic driver in the city of Toronto. As such, it was awarded funding. But frankly, what we're seeing this year, and in fact even what we saw last year in large part, was that a lot of the sponsorship dollars in the city of Toronto in fact hung in. Now, there was some fall-off, but it wasn't nearly as bad as we thought it might be. And this year certainly--and we can talk to any number of advertisers in the city of Toronto or in the city of Montreal--what we would find is that the advertisers are back. Television stations are largely sold out. Radio stations are virtually sold out. Festivals are in fact finding funding.
We have to remember, Mr. Chair, that funding was put in place last year that had never existed before. This festivals program was a new program. And I once again remind you, Mr. Chair, that the member voted against it. Now, Liberal members across the way did not. They did not vote against the festivals program. I think they saw that money was invested into festivals and supporting festivals right across the country and in Quebec. In every region of the country the program worked to that effect.
This year what they've done is put a rule in place so that it's a little bit fairer, so that we can reach a little further with the money. We've suggested that no one city would receive more than two funding applications. Now, in major centres that money is likely to be in larger quantity. But there is an opportunity for festivals in other regions of the country, in other cities, to receive money from this program.
I would add that this program, which was a temporary stimulus measure, will end. This is a temporary program, so any of the groups that received funding from it need to be aware that next year this festivals program will not exist, because it is part of the stimulus program that--we've been very clear--was targeted, timely, and temporary. So it is our hope that all of the groups who have received funding from this have found strength in this program, and that it has sustained them through a difficult time. But ultimately, all of the festivals....
Mr. Chair, you have a great festival in your riding, the Stratford Festival. I know that it did receive some funding from this program, but it's a festival with a strong heritage and there is no question in my mind that the Stratford Festival will outlast the two of us. It's well appreciated and well attended.
When we look at all these things in their entirety, we see this is temporary funding that the member voted against. Les FrancoFolies is receiving more money this year than it's ever received. The member well knows that the Department of Canadian Heritage is at record funding in support of the arts right across the country.
Frankly, neither of these motions tells the whole story. In fact, they seek to mislead what the actual support of the government is in these areas, and I would suggest that both of them should be defeated.
I would also suggest to the member that if she wishes to put it as a single motion, that she amend one or the other by attaching one to the other if she would like to deal with it as a single motion.
Conservative
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I support breaking it down into one motion.
I listened to my colleague from the Conservatives. I hear that line all the time in the dumbed-down talking notes in the House of Commons, that because you did not vote with the government you are bad. That works in question period. I don't think it has any credibility around this table.
Regardless of whether the Bloc supports the government or not, they are here, just as I am here, just as the Liberals are here, to scrutinize decisions that are made. That is what the role of this committee is.
Concerning the idea of having a fair balance by having a limit of two festivals per community, that makes sense if you're dealing with communities of equal size across the country. The city of Toronto is the size of a number of provinces, and Montreal is as well. To say you're going to have only two festivals supported in a city like Toronto or Montreal is frankly absurd. It sounds like an ad hoc explanation, and we should hear from officials as to why they made that decision. That is a fair question to ask.
There are also questions that need to be asked because we know there's been a lot of controversy about the funding of Pride Week in Toronto. If my colleagues have ever been in Toronto in Pride Week they will know you can't drive anywhere. This is one of the biggest economic drivers in the city of Toronto. This is not just a festival like many other festivals. This is a massive coming together of people.
We noted that last year when the government supported the Pride Week festival many noxious statements were made by Conservative members regarding it. There were questions whether Madam Ablonczy was downsized from her portfolio for supporting Pride Week. A lot of people were left wondering why this government seemed to be so opposed to the Pride Week festival. Is it a social conservative agenda? Perhaps. Then we see this year the Pride Week was left out entirely. Those questions returned, and I think those are legitimate questions to ask.
So I would certainly support my colleague in her motion.
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I'm going to repeat many of the things that Charlie brought up.
There are so many festivals across this country. If we are staring at what we consider to be a $12 million void--meaning the money is there and not being taken advantage of--certainly there are festivals across this country that fall into the same boat. I'm very uncomfortable, at this stage, to single out two of them. For the sake of getting answers—just simply that, I just want to get the answers—if you single out two to reinstate the money, wait a minute.
If this comes from an issue of ideology, that's one thing. I have no problem with the Gay Pride festival or Les FrancoFolies. Fine. I've lived in Toronto. It's a fantastic celebration. However, I could be equally suspicious in saying maybe there is an ideological bent, a social conservative bent, but I could also say that places in Newfoundland and Labrador never got money because there were no Conservative seats in that province. I didn't say that; I just said it was a possibility. I'll leave it for you guys to decide.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
You're working on it, okay. All right, let me know how it turns out.
The only thing is, I'm not quite sure at this stage. I would like to see an amendment to this that doesn't single out two festivals in particular in getting money or being reinstated. It's a little too definitive for me. It's a little too prescriptive, if that's the right word.
As Charlie mentioned, I would rather put the horse before the cart. Let's find out the process or let's have a discussion with someone. We generally know how it works, but I'd like to bore down to more details and I would like to see more. Instead of picking two festivals, why can't we say “various events” that were excluded in the latest round?
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
Speaking to what Mr. Simms has just added, perhaps the best way to look at doing that would be to amend the second motion, to call officials.
But I would like to clarify a couple of things that were said. There is not $12 million that is unallocated or unspent; all of the money from the program is allocated. Perhaps if officials came before the committee, they could adequately explain that, if there are concerns in that regard.
I want to address a number of the things that Mr. Angus said as well, dealing with, I suppose, what he described as an ideological opposition.
I would say a couple of things. If we were ideologically opposed to it, then so are other governments that never provided any money previously. It's unfair to single this government out and say, because money isn't provided this year, that they were ideologically opposed to it. But other governments never saw fit to provide that money either. I guess you could take that to the same conclusion, which I think would be entirely unfair.
Not all parties are unanimous on everything. I can tell you that I have, I think, at least four official parades in my riding, Mr. Chair. They're all huge events. Canada Day probably draws anywhere between 12,000 and 15,000, which in a community of my size is an awful lot of the general public; plus there are many people watching at home on community television. None of them receives a dime in federal money—not a dime.
To what Mr. Simms has indicated, that some of the ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador never received this money, I can tell you that my riding didn't qualify for any of this, because we didn't have any festivals that were deemed big enough to justify any of the money, and none of my parades got anything. So either I'm entirely ineffective, which I don't believe I am, or that's just the way the program worked, which we can discuss.
Certainly, if you want to bring officials forward to discuss the program and to talk about the manner in which the program was dealt with this year, I would support that. I have no problem with that at all, because I think that an exchange of information on this.... Madam Lavallée would like to ask them about these specific programs and put questions about them. She could do that at that venue.
I think that's entirely more constructive than what we have before us right now. Some of the comments that have been made today are, I think, entirely inaccurate, and I would love to give officials an opportunity to speak to them.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Just before I go to Madam Lavallée, I'd like some clarification. I think we're talking about the marquee festivals fund. Was it $100 million or was it $50 million?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
The last thing I want to add is specifically concerned with FrancoFolies. I want to quote what Laurent Saulnier, the vice-president of Les FrancoFolies de Montréal, said. He said: “the Harper government is the one that's been the most generous toward...festivals”. Those are his own words. I would welcome officials to come before the committee to speak to that.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I am also in favour of inviting representatives from the Francofolies de Montréal festival to appear before the committee.
Mr. Simms' amendment is an excellent idea. In the first motion, we could replace the names of the two festivals with the wording “various events”.
Allow me to read the motion: “That, given the significance of these cultural events, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage condemns the harsh manner in which Industry Canada cancelled its financial assistance to various events, and the Committee recommends that the government reinstate funding to these events immediately.”
I could have added “[...] given the $12 million surplus”. But since I do not want to complicate matters, we will stick with those two minor amendments to the first motion.
I would like to respond to what Mr. Del Mastro said earlier. He said it was not true that $12 million had not been spent. Unfortunately, when I add $48,600,886 and $39,184,246, I get roughly $87,800,000, in other words, approximately $12 million was not spent. According to a departmental news release last year, there was indeed $100 million in funding.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would encourage committee members, perhaps before they pass the motion, to hear from the officials, who will in fact indicate that the money has been allocated. As members know, money is spent in the various estimates that pass through the House. To look at any given estimate does not mean that you're looking at the entire envelope. In fact, in this case, I think you'll find that you're not. So before you pass such a motion condemning the government for not spending the money, I would think you might actually want to find out if it has or hasn't been spent. So it might be prudent to look at your second motion and change the two named events and call the officials before the committee as soon as you want, and ask them specific questions about this. Call the minister, if you want. Ask him specific questions about this to find out if the money has been allocated and why the changes were made. Then if you want to pass the first motion, it would seem to be entirely more well thought out, because you would be basing it on information that you have, rather than on things you can't possibly be certain of—because, I can tell you, they're simply not the case.
Conservative
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I think we need to hear from the officials to explain the decision-making process, in particular. We want to know why they waited until the end to announce their decision in certain cases. I understand that the program is temporary and limited to two years. In the case of the Francofolies de Montréal festival, for example, which was a success right off the bat, they submitted a report and organizers were congratulated on their work. But they did not receive word until 30 days before the event began, despite the fact that they have to negotiate with artists who come from all over, book indoor and outdoor venues, technical people and so forth. There is something odd about telling organizers they will not get the funding a month before the event is supposed to start, an event of this size, with all the people, logistics, contracts and so on.
Therefore we need to examine that aspect with the officials. Nothing should be taken for granted. I do not think organizers of the Francofolies de Montréal festival took anything for granted. But they did have good reason to think that since everything was in order and since the event was a month away, they could keep moving forward. So they ended up having to make cuts at the last minute. Those questions should also be put to department officials.