Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2006

Canadian Heritage

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people involved with museums in Trois-Rivières have certain expectations with respect to a museums policy—they want the stable, recurring, long term funding this government promised—but they are in a precarious position.

Education, which is key to any society's progress, must be alive, and we want people and youth to be interested. This often happens in museums, which are places where we can express our culture.

I would like to ask my colleague to what extent we should do as they do in Europe, where they are well aware of the major economic benefits of tourism, and where they recognize that museums are places for culture and education, and places to bring tourists. Money spent on museums comes back in the form of tourist dollars.

Consequently, funding museums is an investment. It seems to me that Canada should have some vision and introduce the long-awaited museums policy.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are innumerable members of this House who defend culture, because we know how important it is and what it means to a democratic, open and progressive society.

As I said in my opening statement, we are dealing with grave-robbers, with poachers preying on culture, people who, because of their focus on dogma and ideology, have no idea of the importance of that culture. They are more likely to think that entertainment alone is what defines a culture.

We must continue this discussion nonetheless. I could have gone on at greater length, but I am being told that not much time is left for me to answer questions.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate. While the member opposite seems intent on distorting the record of this government, I will attempt to engage in a higher level of debate and discuss the importance of museums in this country.

I want to begin by congratulating the committee that I am part of, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, for drawing to the attention of the House the importance of the role that the collective heritage of our country plays. For over 13 years of Liberal rule, museums were left on the back burner. Nothing was done. This government recognizes the important role that museums play in terms of our society and our culture.

I want to speak about the importance of heritage to all Canadians and about the safeguarding of our heritage for the benefit of our current and future generations. Heritage is a vital aspect of all of our lives. It binds us to our past, to each other and to our country, Canada.

The standing committee's motion reminds us of the important aspects of our cultural policy. Canadians connect to their heritage and each other in their communities and mobilize hundreds of thousands of volunteers to cherish the places, the stories and the objects that epitomize the spirit of the communities they live in.

There are over 2,500 museums and related heritage institutions across this country. They range from the tiniest historical society, entirely staffed by volunteers, to the largest institutions with encyclopedic collections and international reputations.

Through our heritage, we are able to reflect with pride and confidence as a nation about our accomplishments throughout our past. Since Confederation, the federal government has played an active role in cultural heritage, beginning with the creation of our national heritage institutions to preserve heritage objects, records, buildings and sites significant to Canada. The Government of Canada makes its greatest investment in the sector as guardian of our national collections.

The federal government is not alone in the efforts to preserve Canada's heritage. All levels of government across the country own and support heritage assets within their areas of jurisdiction. While the Government of Canada makes its greatest investment in our national museums, it also recognizes that all across this country our collective memory finds its home in museums.

Canada's new government recognizes the efforts and the actions of our provincial and municipal governments, which make, at the local level, a major effort in terms of protecting our national historical documents and our historical items so they will not be irreplaceably lost.

This government also recognizes the efforts and actions of countless community leaders across this country who serve as volunteer board members of not for profit museums, who give generously of their time and their financial resources, and who are actively involved in fundraising.

As the Minister of Finance said when he introduced the budget in May of this year, “Charities”--and museums are included in this definition--“play an invaluable role in assisting Canadians, and in contributing to our sense of community and to important projects in the cultural, educational and social sectors”.

Canada's new government has made it more attractive for taxpayers to make donations to charity. In the 2006 federal budget, Canada's new government eliminated the capital gains on donations of publicly listed securities and registered charities. This new measure is already having a dramatic impact on charitable giving across Canada and will provide significant benefits to the arts and cultural communities, including museum communities.

I want to speak about our commitment to the preservation of national collections. As I indicated, since Confederation the federal government has played an active role in preserving our cultural heritage. The Government of Canada allocated approximately $140 million in the 2005-06 budget to national museums and a further $90 million to Library and Archives Canada.

Our national collections are national treasures and belong to all Canadians. I am reminded of the words of the great Nova Scotian Joseph Howe, who said, “A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its monuments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures, and fosters national pride and love of country...”.

In 1880 the Governor General inaugurated the first official exhibition of the Royal Canadian Academy and launched the National Gallery of Canada at the Clarendon Hotel in Ottawa.

Many of the hon. members in the House today have visited the Canadian Museum of Nature in the Victoria Memorial building, but I do not know how many know that the Victoria Memorial building is the birthplace of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The Victoria Memorial building opened to the public in 1912 and was one of the earliest buildings in Canada designated as a museum to preserve and showcase collections.

In the late 1950s, the single National Museum of Canada was divided into two branches, the National Museum of Natural Sciences, dedicated to natural history, and the National Museum of Man, representing human history, both housed in the Victoria Memorial building. The building has also housed the national collection of fine arts.

Today we have four national museums. The Museum of Man is now the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Together with its affiliate, the Canadian War Museum, it tells a story of human achievements and sacrifice. The Canadian Science and Technology Museum helps the public understand the ongoing relationship between science and technology and Canadian society. The National Gallery of Canada is proud to present outstanding Canadian art, together with its international collection.

In 1990 the National Museum of Natural Science became the Canadian Museum of Nature and continues to occupy the Victoria Memorial building. The Canadian Museum of Nature has embarked on a renewal project marking its 150th anniversary. The project includes extensive renovations of the 90 year old building that is recognized for several reasons as a national historic site. It takes a fair bit to do, because the extensive renovations have to respect the fact that it is a national historic site. I was there on October 20 for the grand re-opening of the west wing. It means that new activities, programs and special exhibits will continue to delight visitors as they walk through this wonderful new expansion.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is also celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2006. With its scholarly expertise, extensive collections, absorbing exhibitions, stunning architecture and high standards of operation, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is a source of pride and inspiration for Canadians and is one of the most visited cultural attractions in the nation's capital.

Close behind is its affiliate, the Canadian War Museum, which attracted over 575,000 visitors in its first 11 months of operation. That is unbelievable. Its new building has won many architectural design and construction awards in both national and international competitions.

I also want to speak about some of the other federal government initiatives that we are involved in to preserve our heritage.

The Cultural Property Export and Import Act came into force in 1977. The act regulates the import and export of cultural property and provides special tax incentives to encourage Canadians to donate or sell important objects to public institutions in Canada.

The act protects objects of cultural significance to Canada by regulating their export. It also supports Canada's obligations to international agreements that prevent the illicit trafficking of cultural property. Lastly, it assists designated, well-managed custodial institutions and public authorities to acquire cultural property and to apply to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board to have donations certified as cultural property for income tax purposes.

The government assists designated institutions and public authorities in acquiring outstanding artifacts that might otherwise be threatened. More than 600 major collections and objects have been retained or recovered from outside of Canada with support from the government through this program. For example, the government recently helped the Royal Alberta Museum to acquire important first nations and Métis artifacts from the 1840s and 1850s, acquired in 1859 during the travels of a Canadian throughout the plains.

In March 2006 Canada's new government announced that Canada has agreed to the two protocols of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, known as the Hague convention. The protocol came into force in Canada on March 1, 2006.

The Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act is also something that addresses two key objectives that are important to Canadians. First, it increases access for Canadians to Canada's and the world's heritage through the exchange of artifacts and exhibitions in Canada. Second, it provides Canadian art galleries, museums, archives and libraries with a competitive advantage when competing for the loan of prestigious international exhibitions.

Through an indemnification, the government assumes financial risk for potential damage or loss in major travelling exhibitions should this occur. In the first five years, the program indemnified 46 exhibitions valued at $7 billion, without a single claim for financial compensation, saving Canada's museums more than $20 million in insurance.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently reviewing the first five years of operation of the act. I look forward to hearing and being involved in the committee's review of this matter.

The museum sector encompasses the national museums, the provincial museums and other major collections, the mid-sized institutions in regional centres, aboriginal cultural centres, and small community institutions that reflect local experiences of the forces that helped shape Canada. Each segment of the sector has a role to play in Canada's heritage sector and each segment must contend with unique issues.

Canada's new government is meeting with museums and representatives of the museum sector to discuss priorities and to develop a renewed vision for the role of museums in the 21st century.

Provincial and municipal governments also share an interest and a responsibility in the preservation of museums. We will continue to recognize the responsibility of other levels of government as we undergo this process. We will take the time necessary to get it right.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this important issue this afternoon and I will entertain any questions.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recognize my colleague, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to know whether, in his view, it is reasonable to make commitments, in an election campaign, relating to a field that has been operating on a shoestring for a quarter century and then today, once in power, to renege on those commitments? Does behaviour like this help to generate respect for politics or does it rather bring politics into disrepute and lead to the public becoming disengaged from politics and ultimately tarring us all with the same brush?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the involvement of the member opposite in the committee. We work collaboratively with the hope of developing the necessary environment for cultural expression in the years to come.

Certainly, there is no question that specifically with regard to museums there has been a negligence when it comes to the previous government in dealing with the programs that will assist the museums. What we have identified as a committee is that in years past, money has been allocated for museums but unfortunately, because of the criteria and the archaic nature of the particular program, the money was not being given out to museums. Museums were unable to access the full amount of these dollars.

Certainly, this has to be looked at. It is incumbent upon the committee to look at the issues surrounding local museums, address this issue and bring a proposal forward to the minister. The minister made it very clear that she is interested in seeing what the committee comes up with as a long term tangible plan to assist museums.

There was money pulled back from a particular program because it was not being utilized. Museums were not able to access it. Members of the committee collectively have to look at a plan going forward as to how they are going to ensure that museums are able to access the funds that are allocated.

It is my commitment to work with the member opposite to develop a strategy that will benefit local museums.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech. It says in the good book to make yes mean yes and no mean no, so I would like a fairly straightforward answer.

When the President of the Treasury Board described the cuts, he said they were going after wasteful, inefficient programs that were completely out of touch with average Canadians. We looked at what Canadian Heritage was facing and it was a museums program. Now we hear that every year $3 million was not used by the museums. I asked the minister why that was and the minister's assistant said there was a lack of sophistication in local museums in that they did not know how to use the money.

I am asking him what he thinks the problem is and why there was this decision to take the $3 million out. Was it because the museums were inefficient and wasteful with the money and did not need it?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Treasury Board went through a process of trying to find ineffective programs and it identified one. At least it was the Treasury Board's idea that this program was not effective if museums were not able to access the funds. There is no question in my mind that if local museums are not able to access the funds, we have to look at a program that would be more efficient in terms of getting the money to the ground level where local museums would be able to access these funds.

There is no question that the member and I, as well as other members in the House and members of the committee will be playing an important role as we look for a strategy going forward.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the member might want to comment on the fact that our colleague from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the member for Saint-Lambert, has brought forward his concurrence motion at this particular time.

I have the highest respect for the member for Saint-Lambert and for his dedication to this question. Considering the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I on her behalf have made it perfectly clear that we are working toward a new museums policy, I am wondering about the timing of this debate. Today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-25 from the Minister of Finance, a bill regarding the proceeds of crime and money laundering, an important issue, Bill C-26 from the Minister of Justice, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), and Bill C-27 from the Minister of Justice, an act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

We are trying to make Canada a safer place. I am wondering if the member for Peace River would agree with me on the timing of this debate. While I respect the member's intent of trying to keep the pressure on the government, nonetheless, we have to make sure that we are keeping Canada safe, not the issue that the member has brought forward with this motion.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, museums document history. I hope history will not show that because we engaged in this debate today we delayed something else from happening.

Certainly, we were involved in a very important debate this morning. I spoke to the issue of the importance of cutting off terrorist financing. I agree with the parliamentary secretary in that the minister did come before our committee and explained that as we work together we will be able to address this issue. There seemed to be a consensus among all members that that is what we would do. I find it very surprising that this motion came before the House today, especially on a day like today when we were discussing such an important piece of legislation that would protect Canadians from the terrorist organizations that have been able to get funding through illegal means, money laundering and that type of activity.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that today there is an issue we should be addressing and that is the issue of terrorist funding. The sooner we deal with that, the safer Canadians will be.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that we are being criticized for using the parliamentary process that is available to us to bring forward our proposals, as is being done in this motion. The parliamentary process allows us to make proposals in this way. Today, we have done nothing more than to use our power as members of Parliament.

In Quebec, and in Canada, museums have been struck a mighty blow. They have been handed over $4 million in cuts. On the same day, the federal government reported that it had a $13 billion surplus and applied all of it to the debt.

Could anyone have done anything more bizarre than that? The people who earn a living in all of Canada’s museums, in Quebec or in Canada, are told that they will have to cut their budgets so that, ultimately, they will find themselves in dire straits and depending on employment programs so that they can provide decent services. And the same day that they are told about a $4.6 million cut, it is reported that the $13 billion surplus will be applied to the debt.

Is this not an unacceptable message coming from the Conservative government? At the same time, we are being told, as members of Parliament, that we should not exercise our rights according to the rules of this House. It is completely unacceptable to say that. This government must absolutely come to its senses and give these millions of dollars back. This is the money needed to carry out projects that will cost in the order of $10,000, so that the museum in Kamouraska, for example, can digitize and put up a web site. They are not asking for fat. They are asking the minimum needed to ensure that our museums are able to survive.

Will the government reconsider its decision and will it agree, this year, that $13 billion will not be put into the debt, and instead a few million dollars more will be spent on museums?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member brought forward this concurrence motion now, because I am able to correct some of the information that the member across the way had wrong.

He stated that there was $4 million being pulled out of Quebec from Quebec museums on an annual basis. In fact the entire amount that was reallocated was $2.3 million. If there is $4 million that is being pulled out, it must be through some other imaginary program that the member has concocted. That was across the country; it was $2.3 million that was pulled out of MAP, the museum assistance program.

As I stated earlier, this money was not being distributed anyway. The federal government was holding it in its coffers and it was not being allocated. The minister made it very clear in committee that there would be minimal impact, little or no impact on any local museum.

The minister has actually asked the member opposite to identify a single museum in all of Quebec or in the country that will be negatively impacted by this reallocation. Not yet has he been able to table or bring anything to the minister's attention.

I find it curious that we would stop the discussion we were having earlier on a bill with regard to terrorist financing to discuss an issue on which even the member opposite has not been able to identify any evidence that it is going to do what he says it is going to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the issue of culture and identity, two words that keep coming up. They are two words that we take very seriously, certainly in my esteemed neck of the woods in the eastern part of this country, Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have always looked at the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as brimming over with culture, as the expression goes. Certainly, anyone who travels there bears witness to what a beautiful place it is.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, Newfoundland and Labrador has gone through a lot in the way of a downturn in its traditional industries, such as the fishery. Tourism, however, has been a small gem for many areas of my province and for many areas of Atlantic Canada. One only needs to look at places like Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia where tourism is on the increase. One of the big reasons, and I would argue one of the major reasons, is the infrastructure that now exists, an investment in a vast amount of infrastructure that dedicates itself toward our culture and identity as people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador, or on the east coast in general.

To me what truly represents Canada is the diversity of culture across the entire country, whether it is in British Columbia, the north, certainly Quebec, and now Atlantic Canada as I have mentioned. The museum assistance program represents a vast investment into parts of this country that certainly show themselves to the world. For the past five or six years the numbers would dictate that a lot more travellers are coming to this country from other parts of the world to celebrate our culture, as we like to do ourselves.

One of the reasons I really like the museum assistance program is it provides the funding for the incorporated non-profit Canadian museums. So many volunteers give their time and their expertise to so many organizations, institutions and museums across this country. It is absolutely outstanding. The volunteers in this country who give up so much of their time to celebrate our culture have been absolutely outstanding. I think some of our greatest volunteers are in my part of the country, in Newfoundland and Labrador. I commend them all because to put up our culture to the world shows just how proud we are of that culture.

Approximately nine years ago we celebrated our 500 years in Newfoundland and Labrador. What a celebration it was in the town of Bonavista, which is one of the oldest towns in all of North America. It established that link between the old world and the new world with a replica of the Matthew, the first ship to come over to this country about 500 years ago. Before that, we celebrated the Vikings in L'Anse aux Meadows up on the northern peninsula.

The volunteers and the money that we have invested into infrastructure showed to the world that we have a good sense of who we are and our identity has been celebrated because of that.

The MAP funding is available under certain components. That is how the program has worked. Access to heritage, the exhibition circulation fund, aboriginal heritage, organizational development, and the Canada-France agreement are some of the programs accessed by many people across this country. As some of my hon. colleagues talked about , all the data is there, the work has been done and now all we need is to say yes to our cultural organizations across the country.

A short time ago members of the committee had the pleasure of welcoming Exporail, celebrating our linkage to the railway. Let us face it. The railway is what brought us to who we are as Canada. Being the second largest nation in the world, we certainly have a great appreciation for our geography. The railway, and the establishment of it, has shown that to us.

Anyone who has the chance should see the fantastic museum in Saint-Constant, Quebec. That is the place to celebrate our heritage when it comes to railways. There is also one in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, which also celebrates our connection to the railway. I encourage all members of the House to take advantage of this.

I mentioned earlier that Newfoundland is celebrating 500 years. I also mentioned the fact that the Vikings first landed on Newfoundland and Labrador. It was somewhat of a contentious issue I might add. Thousands and thousands of visitors over the last couple of years have come to celebrate with us. To me that is the essential link between our government, a museum assistance program and the ability of my constituents and all Canadians to show the world exactly who we are. It gives them a reason to be very proud.

I want to talk about some of the programs the museums assistance program has helped benefit over the past couple of years. In Newfoundland and Labrador alone, these include groups such as the St. Michael's Printshop. We are also involved with the National Tour of Possessions and Speaking our languages, in conjunction with the provincial museum of Newfoundland and Labrador and the professional development program. A lot of this helps us to gather information and present it. It provides essential support for many volunteers across the country and for staff as well. These programs alone will testify. Anyone who has been into the museum rooms in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador will see the celebration and linkage to the old world.

My hon. colleague from Churchill and northern Manitoba pointed out the Métis National Heritage Centre. The Manitoba Métis Federation received money to conduct a feasibility study for the centre. It is an incredible program. It helps find the information, creates the links and gives something to our young, a sense of identity and pride. It is one of the greatest gifts we can give to our next generation.

I also commend some of the projects ongoing in Prince Edward Island such as the museum development project by the Community Museums Association of Prince Edward Island and the Confederation Centre Art Gallery exhibition, “To a Watery Grave”.

I will go back to my riding once again and talk about Bonavista. Certain events over time have defined us. They may be good times, they may be tragedies, but they reflect who we are. My hon. colleague brought up the term “diversity”.

What a perfect way to show the diversity across the country when we visit the museums and institutions of Manitoba and we hear about the struggles of the Métis. The residential school museum project is also part of the museums assistance program. We also have British Columbia and Quebec. It is quite fascinating to go through rural Quebec and see some of the older churches. It is the same for our urban areas as well.

I commend the people who do much of this work behind the scenes. The bureaucrats involved in Canadian Heritage do a tremendous amount of work, and we commend them for that. They want to get in there and get every area of our country represented. This program is all about that.

I congratulate my hon. colleagues for bringing this issue to the floor. I also commend our committee for doing the work. I also commend a colleague of mine, who I served with on the heritage committee, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, chair of the heritage committee. He has brought this matter up quite often. I commend him for the works he has done and continues to do. He has been an inspiration to us all.

I hope he manages over the next little while to convince his colleagues, when it comes to investment in our museums, no matter how big or small they are, small town or big town, that one step forward and two steps back is really not the way to go. Essentially that is what we are seeing.

Commitments were given in the election. Now recent cuts show that the Conservatives were maybe not as sincere as we had first thought, and what a crying shame. As my hon. colleague pointed out earlier, with the information that is there and the commitments that have been given, the logical step now is to make this happen, certainly for my province and for the entire country.

My hon. colleague, who spoke earlier, talked about his sincerity, about protecting our cultural institutions such as the national museums in Ottawa and other museums across the country. Let us go forward with that. Let us not say to them that we will cut this now and maybe do something in the future. One of the biggest problems with our cultural institutions is that they need the core funding to allow them to operate. It gives them the flexibility by which they can make the long term plans. Let us bring some clarity to this. Let us find out what they stand for and bring this forward to the House for a vote.

I support my colleague, the member for Saint-Lambert, in his efforts to do this. I congratulate him as well as my hon. colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, from the northern part of Ontario, who, like me, represents a lot of small communities that love to put their culture out there for public to see.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the House to put this into context.

Our government made a solemn commitment during the last campaign that we would ensure programs delivered results and that those results were delivered in a way that ensured the value for money was there. We want to keep the faith with Canadians and we have delivered on our commitment. The government has identified $1 billion in savings this year out of an annual budget of close to $200 billion a year.

To put this in context, because sometimes the numbers get quite large and out of touch with ordinary Canadians, this is a very similar thing to a family living in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that has an annual household budget of $20,000 and they identify $100 a year in savings. It is entirely reasonable. Families do this day in and day out and families expect us as a government to do the same with their hard-earned tax dollars.

Furthermore, the government invests close to $250 million a year in museums and their programs. We will continue to do so, but only if those programs deliver the results that were intended and in a way that ensures the value for money is there. We identified $2.3 million in a museum budget of close to $250 million that we felt could be more effectively spent. This is why we decided to proceed with the initiative.

More important, the member opposite talked about how museums and arts and culture are integral to Canadian identity, integral to the identity of the country. If identity is so important to us as Canadians, if the idea of the Canadian nation is so important, does he agree with his colleague's, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, comments and belief that Quebec is a nation?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me carry this analogy a little further. The member talked about $20,000 and realized a savings of $100. If we think about it, they have to come up with savings of $100 or the new government will take it back anyway. That is called unused spending. Therein lies the trap in that little analogy. With a median income of about $25,000, it would be interesting to hear what other financial plans he has for other families in my riding.

The other thing he talked about in this case was cultural identity. We are comfortable in Newfoundland and Labrador with who we are. We tell the world we want to bring it in because we want to show it the cultural institutions by which we define ourselves.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a cultural distinction that needs investment in infrastructure, year after year core funding, operational money. If the savings, about which he talks, is to cut some sort of underbelly of spending, or some grey area, or some wasted money, then where does it go from there? Will we face more cuts in the upcoming budget out of a $13.2 billion surplus?

My other colleagues talked about how they have negated the need for this debate to happen today. Now I am starting to question the validity or at the very least the sincerity of what the government says.

As I have said before, we take one step forward and now the government plans on taking two steps backward. Every region of the country has its own cultural identity, whether it is recognized or not. This one came from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. That also applies to Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the amounts allocated under the museums assistance program. What the government has been saying for the last little while is totally wrong. They say that there were $4.6 million in cuts and the programs were not working very well so they decided to recuperate the money by making these cuts.

But that is not where the problem is. The amounts allocated to museums were in the range of $10,000, $15,000, $17,000 or $35,000. The problem was not that the museums did not want the money or could not use it. It was rather that the program was poorly designed. There is a difference between a poorly designed program and a museum not being able to get a grant.

If a museum requests government assistance, the assistance must meet its needs. The program in question here is badly designed at the present time. This does not mean, though, that museums do not need the money.

In its great wisdom and desire to make cuts, the Conservative government has been saying that the program did not work very well and therefore museums did not need it. Talk about logic! That does not make sense. Since a government is doing something badly, they conclude that there is no need for it. If I go to a country where people do not eat beef and I offer them some, they will obviously not eat it. It is not in their culture to eat it.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether it is right to say that museums did not really need these funds.

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

Au contraire, Mr. Speaker. My colleague touched on a very good point. There seems to be a synapse between the operations in a particular museum and what the federal government and the bureaucrats here put out. It is almost like we need more leverage.

We need to get to the people to provide them with the information they need by which to invest. My colleague brought up a very good point. As a result of the hours a volunteer puts into these programs, they become stretched to the point where the information about these programs does not get to them or they have not heard about them, or they do not realize they exist. The government should allow them the flexibility by which to make these programs work for themselves.

If unused money is out there, and the government takes it away simply because it is not used, is not to say the need is not there. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. It is not that the money is not needed. The fact is that it is somewhere between Ottawa and the people on the ground who are actually doing the work. As it floats there nobody seems to know how they can access it or how they could make it work for their own program. Therein lies the problem.

I will give an example of my hometown of Bishop's Falls, which is a railway town. If there is a program that is essentially tailored for it, there could be something available that the community is not aware of. It is incumbent upon it to come to us and tell us what its needs are and we can then provide it with the information it needs to make it work.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and the member for Saint-Lambert for the information they are providing us today.

I was a volunteer member on the Workers Arts and Heritage Centre in Hamilton. I was really struck when I heard government members talking today about the fact that money was available, but people were not sophisticated enough to access it. It strikes me that it would be the government's responsibility to help people who are not sophisticated and need access to their government and government programs.

I was extremely disappointed to hear a government member today comparing Bill C-25, Bill C-26 and Bill C-27. These are very serious pieces of legislation. The member was saying this should be minimized debate. It sounds to me as though the government started searching for programs it wanted to cut and unfortunately it chose this one.

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

Mr. Speaker, this may come as a shock to many people in this House, but I agree with my hon. colleague. I would go further and describe the museums assistance program as welcoming us to the days of the politics of abandonment. If groups are not utilizing this money, then I think the government takes this as being the code word for saving. The government feels safe enough to cut a program in the hopes it will not get as much negative feedback.

What the member talked about as a volunteer cuts right to the core of this issue, which is money. I am sure in his experience he knows what that means to him and to millions of others across this country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss this issue today. I think it is a very important issue and I thank my colleague from the Bloc for bringing this forward today.

When we are talking about a commitment that was made to museums, we have to place it in context of the political rollout that has happened with these cuts. We have not heard from the government that tough decisions had to be made, that this is difficult, and that it wants to work with those in the museum sector who have lost a major share of their funding.

What we heard is ridicule. I was there when the President of the Treasury Board made his announcement. He was emphatic. In fact, he seemed almost gleeful. He said he was going after programs that were wasteful, inefficient, and completely out of touch with average Canadians. That is what he said.

He did not say that some of these programs needed to be tweaked and could be better if we got stakeholder interest. He attacked these programs. The program he attacked in heritage was our museums program. The finance minister followed up with the same sort of gleeful contempt saying that he did not mind saying no to what he considered a bad idea.

I have a question for these minister. Are the museums that we have in Canada a bad idea? Are they wasteful? Are they inefficient?

We had a colleague from the Conservatives who just left who said that in choosing where to cut they went after programs that did not deliver value for money. He used the example that some $240 million a year is spent on museums, so why are we trifling about 1% or 2% that is being taken out of the MAP?

That is a code word. That money is given to Ottawa and Toronto, to the three or four big museums. The government did not cut those. No, it cut every small museum in the country.

When the government says that these are not delivering value for money, it is sending a message to Gander, Newfoundland, to Moose Jaw, to Timmins and other small communities. That message is, “Buzz off. Your story is not part of our story. If we're going to fund something, it will be one, two or three of the large national centres. We will continue to put money in there, but for your museums you can continue to find ways to raise your own funding like bake sales”.

I think this discussion is very important now. We have had this discussion over and over again about where we need to go with the museums policy. We have looked at the problems with the MAP. One of the things that is very clear is how do the voices of the small regions of Canada fit into some sort of national voice? How is it part of a national significance? That is one of the criteria for federal funding. The museum, the story and the history has to be part of a national significance.

I have always found, as a writer of history and the arts, that we are arbitrary in what we consider nationally significant stories and what stories we consider absolutely not worth funding. This is an important issue for museums.

Across Canada, since 1990, we have seen a 40% drop in attendance at museums. Museums are struggling to reinvent themselves because history is not objective. History is not something that exists out there. History is reinterpreted all the time. For a museum to keep pace with changing demographics and changing cultural attitudes, it must change its own presentations and programs of study which requires research. It requires a commitment between museums and educational institutions. It requires funding in order to rediscover histories that have been erased and deliberately forgotten. We know of stories all across Canada where our histories have been forgotten.

I am from the mining community of Timmins. As a little boy growing up I always felt that the story of the people who came to work, the multi-ethnic families who worked in the hard rock mines of northern Ontario and northern Quebec, were not represented in any national story.

We did not fit the sort of two dimensional tableau by which we tell our stories: the prairie print dresses in Saskatchewan; the happy bûcheron; the roller piano player in the Klondike; the story of families who came over from Yugoslavia, Finland, and my own family who came from the slums of Dundee, Scotland. These families were sent underground, entire multi-ethnic communities, with men who died at age 41 of silicosis.

These stories were never part of a larger sense of history. I always had my own desire to find where this history was and who could tell the story. I spent many years doing oral histories, meeting people, and realizing that there is a much larger sense of history out there than the history that is often presented to us in schools. The museums recognize this and the need to be reinventing themselves.

When we talk about a museums policy, a lot of that work has been done. This work was laid out. The issues were brought forward. Last year I met with museums from across northern Ontario to talk about what we would need in terms of a museums policy that we could present to the government so we could get some action. What we are being told now by the government is that not only is it going to take the money, but it will give the vague promise of a new policy somewhere down the road. That is not good enough.

What we are seeing right across Canada is that museums are suffering now from years and years of underfunding in terms of their ability to maintain capital costs, collections and artifacts in carefully enclosed areas. The discussion that arose is that somehow this MAP was not delivering value for money. My colleague from Gander was saying that money was not spent and perhaps they did not know how to spend it.

What strikes me as amazing in this situation is that I have met with people from museum after museum who said they have tried to work with heritage officials. They tried to get a program that responded to the needs of museums across this country. What did we see? Since 1995-96, when the program was at $11.8 million, there was spending of only $8 million, $7.9 million, $8.3 million or $7.2 million. Year after year the program was not being utilized.

I asked the minister in the House this question. Why was it not utilized and was this part of what the government said was wasteful, inefficient and out of touch? Was it that the museums somehow did not bother to apply for this funding?

The minister's assistant said there was an issue of sophistication. The word used was “sophistication”, as if the museums all across Canada are just a bunch of country bumpkins that do not know how to fill out the forms properly. I would suggest that was not the case at all.

Unfortunately, under the former Liberal government there was a program in place that did not meet the needs of museums across this country. Year after year museums were asking for help and did not get it. Year after year the Liberal government was throwing that money into the surplus.

Now we come to this so-called new government. Canadian museums across this country needed a champion. They needed a government that was willing to fight for them and say that the museums were right, that year after year this program was not meeting their needs and the government will make it meet their needs.

However, no, they did not get a champion. What did they get? They got a pack of ideological buzzards who set upon them, feasted upon them and, not only that, crowed upon them when they were done. That is what we have seen here.

The government said it was taking the money back, money that the museums were never able to access. It said it was going to take the money back and give it to its buddies in tax cuts. That is an unacceptable situation. We needed a minister who was willing to sit down and make this program work. Unfortunately, she has been more like an absentee landlord.

Why are our museums not able to access these funds? I will give an example. I was speaking with an arts organization the other day that had successfully applied for the cultural spaces program. It is six months into the year and it has not seen a penny. It is waiting. The government committed, but no money has flowed.

In fact, one of the bureaucrats from the Department of Canadian Heritage wished the person good luck in using the money as the museum would need a full time staff person just to administer the amount of money it was receiving. We are not talking about a very large amount of money.

The Ontario Métis and Aboriginal Association has not received any money this year from the funding commitments of the government. In fact, it has not received money from last year. It has been running on empty halfway through the fiscal year because of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I would say that culture is not the only “c” word that our government and our minister seems to have a problem with. I would say that contracts, commitments and capability might be other questions that need to be asked. When the minister was in opposition she heard the problems and she knew what the problems were. They were discussed, brought forth and she presented herself as a champion.

During the election, the Conservatives told our museums that they would support them by bringing forward increased funding. What we hear now is claptrap, another “c” word, claptrap from the government that the museums never bother to deliver good value for money. Why did the Conservatives not say that in the election? Why did they not have the guts to tell people?

Another fiction that is being thrust upon the House by the Conservative Party is that we will all be sitting around the heritage committee working with the government on a new museums policy. We do not need a new museums policy. Canadian museums do not need to hear the heritage committee talk for another year. They need some action. They need that money put into programs.

What we are seeing here are the 12 steps for doing nothing. The government has laid out a course of action in terms of our museums and our other arts programs, which is to do nothing.

I would like to read Sir Humphrey Appleby's twelve steps for doing nothing. Sir Appleby is on a well-known U.K. television show. He says, first, informal discussions; second, a draft proposal; third, preliminary study; fourth, a discussion document; fifth, an in-depth study; sixth, a revised proposal; seventh, a policy statement; eighth, a strategy statement; ninth, a discussion of strategy; tenth, circulation of an implementation plan; eleventh, the revision of the implementation plan; and twelfth, cabinet agreement. However, guess what? In a minority government, we will not even bother getting to step 12, so here we are at step 1 again.

The Conservatives have taken millions out of the program and we are back at step one. The Museums Association is supposed to come into the House and kiss the ring of the absentee landlord ministry and say “Thank you, Madam Minister, for not only taking our money, but putting us back to the first step out of the 12 step program when we thought we were at step 12. What a wonderful situation”. For me to be standing in the House and talking about it is an outrage.

I was told by one of our former members that we should be talking about important things in the House like terrorism rather than the fact that our cultural sector is going down the tubes.

It is incredible that we have put in place a minister who has basically sat back on issue after issue and done nothing. We are seeing major issues that are being brought before government right now that will forever change cultural policy in this country. The government is talking about its commitment to UNESCO, its commitment to cultural diversity and yet there is a complete undermining of our cultural industries, the people who create our notion of culture.

A series of issues are coming forward right now. The CRTC review of television will have profound implications. The government is over in Geneva right now pushing for the Telecom deregulations, Telecom, which is now our delivery system for our forms of culture. We need a mandate review of CBC and it is obviously not happening. The minister appears to have choked in Banff on her commitment to hold a mandate review.

In terms of the television sector, where so much of our culture is being delivered, serious decisions are being made right now and we have heard nothing from the government. We have heard lots from the industry minister. The industry minister has been on record. He is telling CRTC to let the market forces rule. If we talk about culture in the House we will hear members from the Conservative Party ask what business it is of Parliament to tell a private industry how to run its business.

Those private industries receive the right to the public airwaves. They do not have to compete. Those airwaves belong to the people of Canada and in belonging to the people of Canada, there are certain commitments and requirements that go along with it, which is the entire cornerstone of our cultural policy in this country. That policy is being undermined at this moment and we have no plan from the government other than to sit back, wait and watch it fall.

This brings me back to my earlier metaphor which is that we need a champion in culture but instead we have a pack of ideological buzzards.

I want to go back to the issue of museum policy in this country. This government told people it would make--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure the term “a pack of ideological buzzards” is parliamentary. I hope the member for Timmins—James Bay was not referring to any member of this House in that metaphor. I caution him in his language in the future to get away from animal references.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I made sure I did not call anyone in particular a buzzard. I was referring to the general term. Would I call it a murder of crows or a flock but perhaps flock is not correct? I will not use that expression a second time, as long as I got it in the first two times I will be pleased.

I have been thrown off my discussion and I must get back to what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that a government told an arts and cultural sector that it would be there for them. It told them that it would commit because it recognized that this was a sector that for years had been underfunded.

We are not talking about a sector that had received adequate funding. People understood that the museums across this country were having serious problems and that an infusion of cash was needed. Meanwhile, some of the cash was sitting there.

What the government could have easily done is it could have worked with the museum sector to ensure the money flowed. The government would not have needed to increase it because the money was there but it did not. It took the money back while it was sitting on a $13 billion surplus and then turned around and told this House and the public that the museums were not delivering value for money and that they were wasteful and inefficient.

It is the insult to the injury that has to be opposed here most strenuously. We also need to clarify the misinformation that is coming from the government that it has only cut 1% out of the $240 million. It has in fact cut 25% of the funding that goes to every regional museum across the country. In doing so, the government has undermined the ability of smaller regional museums to partake in a national conversation, to tour exhibits and to work together, a number of museums working together to create stories that are of national significance. Under the present government these stories will not matter. The government will put its money into two, three or four main urban museums and leave everyone on the sidelines. That is not acceptable.

What we need in this House is a commitment. We need to tell our cultural arts sector, not only that they are the ones who tell our stories and make of us a nation, but that they are also a serious industry. These museums are a serious player in the creation of jobs. If we go to any small town in Canada and ask people in the town about their tourism strategy, what do they point to? They point to their museum. Every small town knows that culture is what brings in tourists and tourists play a major role in the ability of our smaller communities to survive. Our regions understand the value of art and culture in terms of economic development but the government does not seem to have a clue.

The government does not seem to think that culture is anything other than some kind of soppy waste for the left wing socialists. I would argue that culture is an industry that needs a commitment and, if there ever was a time, we need it now.

In terms of the Canadian Television Fund, where is the government on its commitment to invest in the Canadian Television Fund? It is absent. Where is the government in terms of a mandate review on CBC? It is absent. Where is the government's review of its need to push art and culture internationally so we can sell our cultural voice and products abroad? It has been absent on every account. It has been missing in action.

I have to say that I am very sorry that the minister, who I had some great hope for as being someone who understood the issues of culture in this country, has instead turned into an absentee landlord on fundamental issues that are facing the cultural sector at this time.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my hon. colleague on the fine presentation he just made in defence of culture in the broad sense and museums in particular.

I would like to ask him a question, though, that is not directly related to what he said but rather to the reactions in the House of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the minister herself: she asked me to name a single museum that had been negatively impacted by the deplorable decisions to make cuts to the museums assistance program.

The Canadian Museums Association and the Société des musées québécois have expressed their concern, their anguish and their frustration with these decisions.

I therefore want to ask my colleague the following question: when a government promotes misrepresentation by way of the minister—people might wonder why—what does that inspire?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was also astounded that the government's position would be to challenge us to point out a museum that had suffered or that had complained. I thought it was fairly clear from the consensus across the country that the museums associations were led to believe that the government was finally willing to address the years of chronic underfunding. The perception was based of course on campaign commitments made by the government.

However, what the museums have seen instead is that their funds are being cut. Not only are they being cut but now they find out that there was money there all the time that was not being utilized and they are being blamed because the government programs did not respond to the ability of museums to meet them.

On top of that, some museums have met the requirements. They have gone through all the hoops that the government can think of to keep them from getting money and they are still not seeing any money being added to their operating budget now six and seven months into this operating year. I find the position of the government to be incredible.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is looking for a number of museums that have been impacted by the cuts and by the lack of funding over the years, I have probably 11 municipalities in my riding on about six little islands and each has a museum that has been struggling for many years maintaining, collecting and storing artifacts in barns and garages. They were very hopeful that funding would be forthcoming.

Would my colleague agree with me that our rural rich heritage is in jeopardy of being lost if the funding is cut for rural museums?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised something that really needs to be pointed out and hammered home in this discussion.

We are not talking about organizations that were receiving adequate funds for years and are now having to make due with less. Year after year the problems facing museums were identified. Some museums have mould on the walls, some have leaks and some have no proper storage facilities in certain areas.

I want to refer back to the issue of the lack of research dollars. Museum curators do not have the funds to get out into the field and to create new exhibits. Museums have identified this problem year after year.

What we now have is a major cultural deficit in the country. We are at the point where we need investment. We needed the federal government to say that it was impossible for little municipalities to handle it and that it was too much for a single province. The federal government needed to make a national commitment to look at a cultural framework. When I hear members of the Conservative Party say that they want to see other forms of government step up to the plate, I say, what an insult.

I have to watch myself before I get ruled out of order but who does the government think is putting the money into our small museums across the country? It is the municipalities. I have seen small municipalities with hardly any budget at all and they are the ones who keep these museums open. They are the ones who do what they can with volunteers.

What we have asked for is a federal government that is at the table but it is not at the table on this because not only did it decide to cut the funds but the funds that were sitting there that it knew could have been utilized better it thought it could just--