Canadian Heritage Committee on March 20th, 2013

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to talk to you about two organizations that have had a tough year. In budget 2012, you eliminated the Arts, Culture and Diversity Program, which allocated funds to the Canadian Conference of the Arts and the Coalition for Cultural Diversity.

Canada and Quebec have been true leaders in terms of the UNESCO cultural diversity convention, but your government is now cutting the lifelines of those two organizations that play a key role—especially the Coalition for Cultural Diversity.

Are we to conclude that, in your opinion, protecting cultural diversity is no longer a priority for the federal government?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That is always an obligation—a responsibility. We take pride in protecting our artists' interests, not only through our investments in culture—as part of our programs—but also through our policies, which will always be headed in that direction. That approach applies to our investments in the Canada Council for the Arts.

Some of the programs you mentioned were short-term projects, which are now finished. The Canadian Conference of the Arts had almost 800 member organizations at the time. The maintenance of that umbrella body is in its members' hands. We want to invest in culture and not in organizations that, frankly, have done virtually nothing over the past few years.

I can tell you, when we announced that we were ending funding for the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the protestations were virtually non-existent. Many cultural organizations realized that was an organization that over the years had become incredibly stale, to the point where.... I don't think there was a more high-profile or important debate we had in this Parliament, in a respectful way—our party disagreed on some of the elements, we agreed on others—than on copyright legislation. It is a critical issue for artists in this country, and the Canadian Conference of the Arts didn't take a position. What kind of arts advocacy organization doesn't actually take a position on the most important arts legislation to come before Parliament in a decade? But they didn't.

I can tell you, when we ended funding for the Canadian Conference of the Arts we didn't create a vacuum. There are other organizations that stepped up. You've met with them, and I've met with them as well. The Canadian Arts Coalition stepped up. They're a great organization that's actually pan-Canadian and has advocated for specific things, and we've worked with them very well.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Clearly, you are very adamant in saying that this organization has done nothing over the past few years, and I think that's really too bad. To my knowledge, the organization has produced documents that objected to several aspects of Bill C-11 and voiced the opinion of 80 organizations from across the country, including 50 organizations from Quebec—or actually almost 30. However, we are not here to talk about that. We are here to talk about the figures.

As you know, the Trade Routes program—which had a $9-million budget—was abolished in 2008, as was the PromArt program. The latter initiative helped artists with their tours by promoting them on an international stage in order to help them break into new markets. In 2008, Canadian embassies stopped organizing events to promote our artists abroad and demonstrate their talents.

Why has Canadian Heritage not proposed new programs since to showcase art and culture abroad and to promote our economic and cultural activities on the international stage?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That's not the case. You talked about two programs. That decision was made by the former minister six years ago. Since the decision is quite old, we will not be renewing those programs.

However, it's not at all true that Canadian Heritage in not helping Canadian artists on the international scene. Canadian Heritage now has 21 programs for helping our artists on the international stage. We also have other ways to help them. The Canada Council for the Arts has a considerable budget.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

That's actually the problem. Since those two programs were abolished, the Council for the Arts has had to cut down its own financing systems for creation to facilitate distribution abroad.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That's the best way to proceed, since the Canada Council for the Arts really understands artists' needs better. It's an organization by the artists for the artists. The council representatives understand that, and we are working with them on that endeavour. I also want to point out that our embassies around the world still have budgets set aside for supporting our artists when they come to visit.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

That's not what we've been hearing. Be that as it may, it makes no sense that the budget of the Council for the Arts has remained the same, while that organization has been given additional responsibilities.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I would just say that the Canada Council for the Arts is happy to be doing this work. I talked to Simon Brault and to the board there, and they are actually quite happy to take on this work.

The idea that the Canada Council for the Arts, which under our government has had a 20% increase in funding, should stay static and not move their funding around to meet the needs of artists is opposite of the reason you would create a crown corporation independent of the government to work to the best interests of the artist.

The Canada Council for the Arts has a budget, we have increased it by 20%, and they're moving their financing around to go in the best ways to help artists. They've decided now that one of the things they want to do is this, to help artists on the international stage. That's their job; that's a good thing. They're working at arm's length, and we applaud—

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

They did their job, but they need more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Nantel, you are way over your time now.

Mr. Simms.

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

Thank you, Chair. It's good to see you again, sir.

You said earlier, and I'm paraphrasing a little bit, that it's a mistake to forget our collective history. You were talking about it in regard to the new museum.

I understand that. We do not currently have a museum of that stature. The problem is this. When you start using words like “digitization” or “collecting the works of our history”, there is a group of people out there.... You mentioned one group that didn't protest too much. One group that did protest a lot was Library and Archives Canada. They're not happy. I would never think to tick off a librarian to the point that they keep writing me to the nth degree, but they are very good at it.

One of the programs was a great little program—it worked in my riding, it worked in hundreds of ridings—called the national archival development program, or NADP. It allowed small communities to digitize and to archive their collective history.

If you want to see collective histories, sir, I don't think cutting programs such as this is the way to go. It seems to be that now you have a centralized version of history that can only be done by the people who can afford it outside of government help.

I know the budget is tomorrow. It's always a little awkward to talk about estimates before we actually get our budget, but having said that, the Library and Archives Canada has a pretty good beef about this program and the ILL they use.

Would you not agree? Is there something for them?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I'm sorry, are you asking whether there is something tomorrow? Is that what you are asking?

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

Yes. I know I have one more sleep, as the saying goes.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, exactly.

As I've said in the past in the House in some different contexts, we were elected as a government asking Canadians to trust us with a majority government and saying that we would arrive at a balanced budget without raising taxes and without cutting health care. That means that we have some difficult choices to make.

I have to tell you that this was a difficult choice. I'm not going to pretend it wasn't. When we worked with Daniel Caron and Library and Archives Canada and asked them to put together proposals to reduce their spending by between 5% and 10% and to come up with the programs that are the least efficient and the least effective in their eyes, based on their own self-assessment, this is what they arrived at as the program that was the least effective. It doesn't mean that in the future there won't be a reallocation of resources to try to backfill some of the lost opportunities you described.

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

I look forward to the backfill, but the one thing I can say about people involved with Library and Archives Canada....

In question period, you suggested that the respective critics should bring Mr. Caron in to this committee to speak to us. If you're talking about a shift, then let's talk to the experts who know how to do this. If I were to move a motion to have Mr. Caron and others come in to talk about the situation that we currently see ourselves in with Library and Archives Canada, would you recommend to the whole committee that they come in?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I believe Mr. Calandra, my parliamentary secretary, has spoken with Mr. Nantel to that exact effect, about having a motion before the committee. That was yesterday in question period, with regard to the issue of the code of conduct that has been in the news in the last few days.

But absolutely I would. Library and Archives Canada, like the CBC, like our national museums, operates at arm's length. I don't involve myself in their day-to-day decisions. If you have questions, that's the job of Parliament—of all of us. We vote on the budgets; we vote on the mandates and the law.

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

But I did ask for them to come before us and it was voted down.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Library and Archives has their mandate and they have their budget. If they are making decisions on either the code of conduct question or the allocation question, and if you want to ask them about how they backfill and go forward with the existing budgets and whether they can do it, if you think that's a priority, then that's exactly what parliamentary committees are for: to bring in the heads of agencies who are making decisions at arm's length from me—the law prevents me from telling them what to do and what not to do—and that's precisely what I would encourage you to do.

If you put that motion before the committee, I think you would have a favourable outcome.

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

Do you find that the mechanism we currently have for granting is transparent enough? Do you think there should be greater transparency concerning some of the groups that get the money?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The outcomes are very transparent. We publish a list. If you go to the Department of Canadian Heritage, it's down to a dime—everything that every organizations gets.

The reporting the Canada Council for the Arts does is exhaustive. The Auditor General looked at the Canada Council and came back saying that if every Government of Canada organization were run as efficiently as the Canada Council, she wouldn't have a job. It was Sheila Fraser who said that.

So I think it's done quite well.

One thing that I suppose has frustrated me a little bit, and this wasn't his point, is that very often with cultural funding there's an expectation that because you received $5,000 for your Canada Day celebration, or for your Festival du Bois in my riding, for example—they get $5,000 a year for some staging, equipment, some fencing, some lights and all that, and sheet cake for the kids and whatever, to add a little something to it. Because they received it one year, there is an expectation that they should get it in perpetuity.

The problem with that, of course, is that there are all kinds of very entrepreneurial cultural people out there who wish to have access to funding for the first time and often can't get it because we have funding organizations, sometimes like the Canada Council, who are afraid to upset incumbents who are currently getting money. I think there needs to be a little more accountability and flexibility and openness.

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

Some might say that for some of the numbers of the agencies you fund directly through the department, there is not a transparent process. I'm assuming you disagree with that, but why would—

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

“Some say”? I don't know who's saying that, and if they want to say that and make an argument, I'd be glad to hear it.

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

These are the festivals, maybe, and all those sorts of things.

Is there any way you feel you can improve the process of transparency within your own department when it comes to festivals, if certain festivals don't get their funding?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

We're pretty up front.

I can give you an example. There are two communities in British Columbia that are celebrating their centennial years this year....

I extend this to any member of Parliament. I say this often.

Many communities, as you know, especially municipalities that are very small, or organizations....

As you know, Scott, there are many organizations in this country that are volunteer-led. These are not people who are professional politicians at getting government funding and support; they don't have a bunch of lawyers and accountants and actuaries who can go in and get all this stuff. They are working on a volunteer basis, and sometimes the applications can be too cumbersome and a hassle.

What I often tell organizations, especially those who are applying for funding for the first time, is to call my office. We'll sit them down with the Department of Canadian Heritage staffer in the regions, because we have offices all across the country.

They sit down with staffers at Canadian Heritage and say: “Here's what we have in mind for our festival. How do we put together our festival in a way that will be successful for applications?”—not “How do we apply?” and then be turned down, and then “Omigod, it's the eleventh hour; we can't have our festival this year.” Start it the other way around: what does one have to do to qualify for funding?

Design your festival that way, and then you have a successful outcome. We've had great success with that all across the country with organizations. That's what we do to try to get rid of any mystery there might be between the department and organizations seeking funding, because that's not how it's supposed to be: we don't want to have a tall wall that's impossible for small organizations to scale.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

Next we will move to Mr. Hillyer for seven minutes.