Evidence of meeting #95 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
Because of the Conservative filibuster I can't ask all of my questions, but I have two quick questions to end with because I know that the chair will cut me off.
One is on indigenous artists and the other is on the parliamentary allocation now, which is $45.8 million. Is that sufficient to reach the goals that you see for the institution? How can indigenous artists across the length and breadth of this land be brought more prominence in the National Gallery?
Noon
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
If you could answer in 10 seconds, Mr. Bélisle, because the member is out of time.
Noon
Director and Chief Executive Officer, National Gallery of Canada
The $45 million equates to less than $1.50 per Canadian, and it is not enough. It is not enough for the National Gallery to fulfill its national mandate from coast to coast to coast. Indigenous artists are a big part of our programming, and they will remain so. We have a wonderful internal department called “Indigenous Ways”, where people work both on curating and the administrative instruction of the gallery, so they will be part of our collective future.
Noon
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Thank you very much, Mr. Bélisle.
We are now beginning the second round of questions. I would suggest the following structure to my colleagues: five minutes each for the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, and two and a half minutes, as initially planned, for the NDP. That will amount to approximately to the additional time that Mr. Bélisle generously gave us.
Since everyone is in agreement, you have the floor for five minutes, Mr. Shields.
Noon
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here and spending your time. I appreciate it.
As you know, the controversy has been significant. You have a plan in place that was built starting on a $30,000 contract, which almost ended up as $1 million for a California organization, but it doesn't match what the National Gallery in London has done. You talked about digital. You talked about some things, but it doesn't match what they have suggested at the London museum came out of a California...besides the HR they're doing.
Are you going to match what London does, or stick with the California one? Are you going to hire curators instead of them being your HR?
Noon
Director and Chief Executive Officer, National Gallery of Canada
Thank you very much for your question.
There are a few items in your question that I would like to speak to.
With consulting contracts that have been given out, as I said, I can't talk about what was given out in the past, only about how we move forward from there. In terms of the strategic plan that exists, strategic plans are made to be looked over and updated on an annual basis. This one dates from a few years back. I think it's a very positive, inclusive and lofty strategic plan. The interesting part in the next part will be how we make it land into the specific context of an art gallery. If I use your links, this is perhaps what London has done that we are doing now, but it is not the general document that you are referring to. This is a very concrete action plan.
However, the action plans that exist, I think, also need to be tweaked, as any action plan or strategic plan needs to be, on an annual basis. It needs to be done in consultation with the teams that make the plan happen to see what the hurdles are on the ground, what is working and what is not working. That is the very process we're involved in right now, with me talking to every team within the gallery. It will result in a wonderful—I hope and I believe—action plan that is anchored in the strategic plan. We're working on that now.
As far as the consulting contracts, I think there is room and a need for some consulting at times, but for the moment, I want to make sure, as I said, that we build the in-house capacity and that we don't rely on outside consultants to do what should be done internally. In that sense, a lot of the consulting contracts have expired, have been renegotiated or have been cancelled so within months, very few of them will be left.
I do believe we will probably need consultants at one point in the future, but when we do, we will make sure the contracts are done in full compliance with the procurement policies of the federal government and of the gallery, because we do have our own policies as well.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
You made a statement: “His point was not that the National Gallery crafts Canadian identity but that it speaks to it.” That's a statement you made to media.
How would you interpret that so we could understand what you want to do?
12:05 p.m.
Director and Chief Executive Officer, National Gallery of Canada
We're not into crafting identities. Artists are into raising interesting questions and generating dialogues that are interesting. Our role is to bring those artworks that have these questions in them to the public space. The National Gallery does not, and I think should never, have an opinion in those questions and dialogues.
If there is a Canadian identity being crafted, being questioned or being improved on, or however you want to say it, by artists and Canadians across the country, then wonderful. That's going to transpire through the art. It should not transpire through us.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you. I appreciate your answers.
I'd like to move a motion. There's a notice of motion that has been distributed:
Given that, the Department of Canadian Heritage approved ‘anti-racism’ grants upwards of $130,000 to Laith Marouf of the Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC) despite his open and repeated history of racist, anti-semitic, violent and anti-francophone language, and that, after 8 months of the Department of Canadian Heritage confirming that they have revoked the grant funds and requested a return in full, the Department has yet to receive any of the revoked funding, the committee:
a) Demand the immediate return of all government grant funding awarded to Laith Marouf;
b) Call on the Government of Canada to collect the revoked grant funds by any means necessary, including legal action;
c) Hear testimony from the Minister of Heritage on this matter within one week of this motion being adopted;
d) Report this to the House .
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
He did say, “notice of motion”. I thought it was customary to give a notice of motion for the next meeting.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Mr. Shields' motion was distributed on Friday and he would like to speak to it.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what I hear the Conservatives saying is that they are now starting a second filibuster, not allowing the second—
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Mr. Julian, your intervention is not a point of order, but a comment.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm asking you, Mr. Chair, to clarify that they are now starting a second filibuster. I have a second question period to ask of Mr. Bélisle—
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Mr. Julian, I understand what you're saying, but Mr. Shields does have the right to speak to the motion he moved on Friday. I'm going to ask him whether that is what he intends to do.
In the meantime, Mrs. Thomas raised a point of order.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Mr. Shields, do you want to speak to your motion right away?
Are you rising on a point of order, Mr. Coteau?
