Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that we are discussing Bill C-204. Its title is very precise. It is the Cultural Grants Acknowledgement Act.
The bill, as we will have gathered from its supporters, deals with grants, contributions or loans for cultural projects funded from within the portfolio of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It has a very narrow focus. It deals with funding, but in particular it proposes that the acknowledgement of such support become a legal mandatory requirement.
Recipients would have to acknowledge support and specify the amount of the grant at the time the funded project is announced or advertised or opened to the public. This obligation would apply to individuals as well as to corporations and organizations.
The bill provides the Minister of Canadian Heritage with powers to regulate the time and manner in which an acknowledgement must be made. Such regulations would define the compliance certificate, which is the term used in the bill, the recipient would have to produce. Non-compliance would result in a recipient having to repay the financing granted by the minister or the agency.
I believe the bill in one sense is based on a sound principle. Governments are accountable to the public for financial support that they provide for projects and organizations of all kinds. Accountability starts with the faithful reporting of what is done with taxpayers' money.
I also believe it is very legitimate for governments to expect an acknowledgement when a grant contributes to the realization of a project. Government money is taxpayers' money. It is only fair that corporate or individual citizens acknowledge receipt of such support.
Private donors and sponsors routinely obtain such acknowledgement. There is no reason why governments should not. This principle should be extended to the provision of financial assistance by all government departments and agencies to any project. However the bill singles out one type of support referred to as cultural grants. These grants are singled out from within a particular ministry, the Canadian Heritage portfolio.
If such a principle is a matter to be based on law then surely we must also consider public support granted to cultural projects by other government departments, but is this a matter requiring legislation specifically applicable only to cultural projects? If we agree that such a principle is valid and requires the force of legislation to be implemented then we must consider that the government also grant support to small businesses, health groups, human rights groups, foreign aid projects and so on. We should also consider them and not just culture.
Why should we restrict legislation to cultural projects alone? Is there something in culture to be feared to such a degree that by no other means can we ensure that an individual or an organization will acknowledge support?
With reference to cultural projects funded within the heritage portfolio, it is normal practice for recipients to acknowledge support. It is well understood and documented how this should be accomplished. Applicants are instructed on minimum requirements concerning acknowledgements. They are advised of this through program criteria when they apply and through the application guidelines and standard clauses regarding acknowledgement in the case of negotiated signed agreements.
In addition to these formal requirements I would have thought that most grant recipients would acknowledge support as a common courtesy.
The policy regarding acknowledgement in the Department of Canadian Heritage is open and transparent. It is integrated throughout the process and accommodated with the express will and consent of the recipient as a condition of receiving the grant. Support can be acknowledged in advertising and at openings, in catalogues for exhibitions, and in other print or video resource material produced as a result of the grants. We heard some examples of that from the Bloc member this evening.
Recognition of public support is also acknowledged by means of annual reports including audited financial statements. In the case of incorporated organizations most proposals, if not all, include a plan for marketing and/or distribution which recognizes public support.
Amounts of grants are a matter of public record as soon as they are awarded often by means of a press release.
As a matter of principle, legislation should be used when other means are insufficient or inadequate. By and large current measures can be characterized as self-regulatory. They work reasonably well. Should there be room for improvement—and there always is—I believe that in this case anyway improvement can be accomplished without the intervention of legislation.
At the present time acknowledgement is not obtained through a coercive process. Acknowledgement policy as practised by Heritage Canada and agencies such as the Canada Council retains the integrity of the objective for providing support in the first place.
I for one am glad that the Government of Canada supports the Canada Council and I believe that most Canadians are of the same mind.
The bill would place the government in the awkward position of saying that the focus of public support for culture is not culture itself but government visibility. This would unnecessarily thwart the development of the government's relations with the cultural community and its many public and media supporters.
Compliance is presently assured by more informal means. Groups and individuals know their future funding could be placed in jeopardy should they refuse to play by the rules and respect what are very reasonable requirements for acknowledgement.
Split payments in the case of grants and the specific negotiated schedules of payment for contributions and loans additionally serve as an informal mechanism to draw attention to the importance of acknowledgement.
I believe Bill C-204 is unnecessary and will not be supporting it.