Debates of March 27th, 2009

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite sure if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent in the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there agreement to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Artists

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give direct assistance to artists by increasing the annual budget of the Canada Council for the Arts to $300 million and should roll back the cuts it announced in the cultural sector and restore funding for the following programs to their fiscal 2008-2009 levels: Arts Promotion Program, Trade Routes, National Training Program for the Film and Video Sector, New Media Research Networks Fund, Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, Canada Feature Film Fund and Canadian Music Memories Program.

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying that I have a hard time believing that, after artists and people across the country demonstrated, especially during the most recent election campaign, how important they considered the cultural programs the government had cut last summer without consultation, I should have to initiate a debate in this House today to get the government to understand the importance of funding for those programs. Motion M-297, which we are debating today, is very simply stated, but very important.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give direct assistance to artists by increasing the annual budget of the Canada Council for the Arts to $300 million and should roll back the cuts it announced in the cultural sector and restore funding for the following programs to their fiscal 2008-2009 levels: Arts Promotion Program, Trade Routes, National Training Program for the Film and Video Sector, New Media Research Networks Fund, Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, Canada Feature Film Fund and Canadian Music Memories Program.

I have introduced this motion because this debate must be held even though the Conservatives would rather avoid it at all costs. These cuts were announced on the department's website in the middle of summer, when everyone was more interested in barbecues than in politics. Why in the middle of summer? Was the study on the relevance of these programs completed in the middle of July? I highly doubt it. Why did they decide to make the announcement at a time when everyone was on vacation at the cottage, busy with other things, and not paying much attention to the news? They did it because they wanted to bury it and move on to the next issue as quickly as possible.

I was outraged, so I got together with some other members and called an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I acted on my commitment to make sure that our artists, as the voice of our nation, get as many opportunities as possible to show and perform their work. The committee meeting took place on Tuesday, August 26, 2008, and the members of the governing party did everything in their power to prevent the committee from addressing the issue immediately because they knew that an election campaign was imminent.

In Canada, culture is an $84.6 billion industry that provides over a million jobs. In Quebec, the cultural sector accounts for 314,000 jobs, 171,000 of them direct. In Montreal alone, culture generates $1.4 billion in revenues. Does the government realize that it collects some $8 billion in taxes from cultural activities?

The Conservatives have never bothered to take those facts into account. They defend their cuts, saying that programs were evaluated and found to be inefficient or ineffective. But nobody has seen any documents pertaining to these so-called evaluations.

Why have neither the current Minister of Canadian Heritage nor his predecessor, the minister responsible for the Quebec City region, submitted the results of these evaluations? Are these evaluations just a sham or an alibi for the Prime Minister's Office?

We have been told that these so-called strategic evaluations are confidential. Why are they confidential? Anyone with half a brain can see that the government is trying to cover up studies that support programs it would rather cut in an attempt to silence people whose messages differ from its own. One begins to feel a bit cynical about this government, which was elected in 2006 on a transparency platform.

The government is using the excuse that the programs are not working. Why refuse to provide explanations then, especially in the case at hand, where the cultural community was left in a situation that is destabilizing the organizing of cultural events in Quebec, in Canada and abroad?

Hon. members probably know that a tour, be it for a dance troupe or any other group of artists, is not something that can be organized overnight and is part of a program of activities. Programs are generally negotiated one year or sometimes two ahead of time. In addition, it is easy to understand that, given its size, our population alone cannot support all that is produced. Capital raised by international tours is required for that. That is another reason why the assistance to programs like Trade Routes and PromArt are important in ensuring artistic innovation.

I expressed my outrage at the announcement cooked up in secret by the government. In fact, the entire artistic community was outraged at the same time. Let us simply think of the rally organized by the cultural community on August 27, 2008, in Montreal. This was a grassroots rally from which a coalition was born spontaneously.

This coalition has spread to Ontario, Atlantic Canada and western Canada. Essentially, people from Quebec and across Canada have expressed their concerns to the government, a government that would not listen. It is up to us, as representatives of the people, to take up our responsibilities, speak on their behalf in this chamber where democracy is upheld and pass Motion M-297.

These programs represented an investment of $23 million a year. This is truly an investment, because the economic benefits and cultural spinoffs from these programs far exceeded $23 million a year. I would like to give just a few examples to show that this was direct assistance given to artists, which allowed them to create and to showcase themselves in a way that would otherwise have been difficult to do.

Amy Belling from British Columbia received $1,300 to show her short film at a festival in Rotterdam. This is far from the billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil industry, is it not?

Also, $15,000 was allocated to attract foreign buyers to the 25th edition of the International Festival of Films on Art in Montreal. The Conservatives are saying that that money was probably poorly managed or invested. However, with that $15,000, art film directors had the opportunity to screen their films and sell their documentaries, which would then be seen around the world. There is also the Académie baroque de Montréal, an instrumental ensemble, which received $10,000 for six concerts in Germany and a concert of Mozart's music in Milan. It was a small price to pay for the prestige it brought to us all, and for the unique experience enjoyed by our musicians.

Instead of cuts, the Quebec artistic community was expecting an increase in the Canada Council for the Arts budget to $300 million. For the past five years, the Bloc Québécois, together with the Mouvement pour les arts et les lettres du Québec, has been asking the federal government to increase the Canada Council's annual budget significantly to $300 million, which would help improve funding for artists. With such a significant budget increase, the Canada Council could raise the number and the value of grants to individual artists, as well as subsidies to arts organizations.

It must be understood that such a measure will have a direct impact on artists' working conditions and revenues, even though artists already live below the poverty line, which is quite tragic.

Not only would the number of cultural productions have increased, but such an initiative would have helped bolster the revenues of artists, crafts people and cultural workers.

As an aside, I would like to talk briefly about our artists' revenues. For some time, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to look closely at and conduct a real study of our artists' living conditions. It is very worrisome, knowing that many of our artists are living below the poverty line.

Let us get back to raising the Canada Council for the Arts budget to $300 million. Why did the Liberals wait until just a few days before the election was called in 2005 to announce increasing the budget to $300 million? Was it simply to embellish their election campaign? That is a completely legitimate question. As for the Conservatives, they have limited that increase to $30 million a year.

And yet, this government calls itself a strong supporter of culture, which is really a contradiction. One need only take a look at the Canadian Heritage website. On the Internet page of each program that was cut we can read the following: “Promoting Canadian culture to the world is important because it has a direct impact on foreign policy, tourism, immigration, business and investment.”

On the same page, in a small red box, we see: “IMPORTANT NOTICE / PLEASE NOTE Please note that the Cultural Sector Grant program mentioned below will be concluded as of March 31, 2009.” How ironic.

The government boasts about the impact of actively promoting culture and in the next breath announces that the programs will conclude on March 31, 2009.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

That is a disgrace.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

As my colleague from Lavalsaid, that is a disgrace.

Let us take a look at one of the programs cut. The PromArt program opened doors for artists and cultural enterprises to a network of marketing experts in every Canadian embassy and consulate abroad. This program made it possible for Canadian artists or organizations working in the arts to obtain funding to promote Canadian culture abroad. It was aimed at the performing arts, the recording industry and literature and publishing. The spinoffs from the program exceeded by far the $4.7 million invested by the government. Creators, dance and theatre troupes and authors were able to make a living from their art because this program opened up more markets for them.

Since the federal government cut programs to help artists showcase their work abroad, Quebec artists have been turning to Quebec's ministry of cultural affairs. The growing number of applications is forcing the Quebec ministry to make tough choices because of budget constraints. Cuts to federal programs have had a direct impact on operating subsidies allocated to Quebec companies. The number of spectators attending a company's performances is one of the criteria for granting subsidies. Take, for example, the Carré des Lombes dance company. I would like all of my colleagues to listen carefully to what the company's director, Danièle Desnoyers, said:

We were cut because we did not perform enough. But how are we supposed to perform more when we no longer get federal subsidies to take our show to audiences abroad? Cutting our funding for that reason is counterintuitive.

“Counterintuitive” is putting it mildly.

The Bloc Québécois condemns cuts made without public debate on false grounds and will do everything in its power to make the government change its mind. That is why I moved Motion No. 297.

[Pierre Poilievre]

Wow!

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I am glad my colleague said “Wow!” because this motion is very important and I am pleased to hear a Conservative member acknowledge that.

Given that the federal government poses a serious threat to artists, the Bloc Québécois believes that the entire culture portfolio should be handed over to Quebec as soon as possible. If the federal government does not care about culture, then let it say so and transfer the funds and the responsibilities to Quebec, as the Government of Quebec has requested, because Quebec will know what to do to support creativity and those who create.

Once again, the Conservatives are trying to silence those who disagree, just as it did with Bill C-10, the court challenges program and the women's program.

Artists are free thinkers. They have to be. As such, they must be given appropriate, fitting opportunities to continue enriching social debate with their unique take on things. We have to do everything in our power to support their development. I hope that elected members of the House will agree with me that Motion M-297 aims to do just that.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes on his excellent presentation. It shows that he and the rest of the Bloc Québécois have been fighting hard for artists for many years now.

On a slightly more personal note, I would like to ask him a question. Before the election campaign, the Conservatives had made massive cuts to cultural programs, and my colleague explained that these cuts led many artists in Quebec to turn to the Government of Quebec for funding. That intrigues me, because, as our colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes pointed out, the Conservatives could not care less about culture and are slashing cultural programs, but at the same time, they recognized the Quebec nation.

So would it not make sense for them to transfer all the money to Quebec so that we can thrive, instead of cutting programs and leaving us to die slowly, if that is the Conservatives' goal?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for his question.

He raised an issue that goes beyond cuts to culture, and that is the artificial recognition of the Quebec nation by the Conservatives. Since the government recognized the Quebec nation, all that has happened is that Quebec has lost ground in terms of what all Quebeckers want. The National Assembly of Quebec asked the government not to impose a Canada-wide securities regulator, because that amounted to interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The federal government decided to go ahead anyway. It is the same thing with culture.

Recognizing a nation means recognizing its distinctive and unique character and giving it the means to develop and take charge of that distinctive and unique character. That would have been a sign of openness. This government is constantly telling us that it is open to Quebec. It could have demonstrated that openness if it had agreed to the request from Quebec's culture minister, Christine St-Pierre, who asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages to transfer all the tools and responsibilities connected with cultural promotion by Quebec artists.

Since this request does not deal directly with the request made in Motion No. 297, I urge the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages to pay close attention to it. I also personally invite my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou to bring some pressure to bear on the heritage minister. Perhaps she could even ask her predecessor, from a neighbouring riding, to also exert some pressure, so that all Conservative members from Quebec might apply some pressure in that regard. All too often we have seen them roll over when it was time to defend Quebec's distinctive nature.

Like all members from Quebec, I urge her to bring some pressure to bear on the Minister of Canadian Heritage to recognize the uniqueness of Quebec culture and return full powers and responsibility in cultural matters to the National Assembly.

In the meantime, this does not release them from their duty to restore funding to the programs that were cut and significantly increase funding to the Canada Council for the Arts to provide direct assistance to our artists. It is important that money be put directly in the pockets of artists so they may express themselves and explore all the possibilities offered by their art, without having to experience the kind of objectionable situations we are currently seeing. Groups will have to lay off artists, cancel tours and stop creating, when that is what artists are asked to do.

I therefore thank my hon. colleague for this excellent question, which has allowed me to go beyond the strict framework of my motion.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to share with the House this government's commitment to arts and culture in Canada. We believe in the intrinsic value of culture in nourishing and inspiring the people of Canada and Quebec.

In Budget 2009, we committed $540 million to arts, culture, heritage and related tourism initiatives, including $276 million in new funding. We are familiar with these impressive initiatives. Each of them creates jobs and strengthens the economy. Let me mention, for instance, the additional $60 million over two years for cultural infrastructure and $100 million for famous festivals.

These new investments are in addition to the money already invested in arts and culture in Canada, including the $600 million we are providing to the film and video industry through various programs and organizations such as Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board, or through tax credits for the production of films and television programming.

Just recently, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages announced an investment of $5 million for the new national translation program for book publishing. Through this program, the number of literary translations that we finance as part of our Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality will double over the next four years.

Last fall, thePrime Minister announced that we would invest an additional $25 million over five years in TV5, the successful international television network which broadcasts French-language Canadian shows to more than 180 million households all over the Francophonie and the world. This government is injecting significant funding into arts and culture, knowing how close to the hearts of Canadians and Quebeckers culture is and how much they benefit from it financially.

We are also determined to ensure that each dollar invested produces tangible, relevant and significant results for the people of Canada. This includes looking for new ways of supporting culture where the old ones are no longer relevant or are not worth the time, money and effort. Not only do arts and culture inspire Canadians and Quebeckers when times are tough, but they are also key elements of Canada's economy.

I would like to remind the House that the Conference Board of Canada reported that, in 2007, the cultural sector's contribution to GDP was 3.8% or $46 billion. For that reason, in this global recession, we are making a generous investment in the arts and the cultural industries. We are supporting this sector today in order to build the future and the dreams of tomorrow. We must focus on the future as we move forward.

Motion No. 297 is not a good way to help the arts and culture communities in Canada. It focuses on the past and seeks to restore programs that are no longer pertinent and do not meet their objective efficiently. Motion No. 297 will not work.

However, my colleague did get one thing right: the Canada Council for the Arts is an integral part of our arts strategy. It supports exciting new initiatives by professional artists and helps new artists launch their careers. That is why we have already increased permanent annual funding for the Canada Council for the Arts by $30 million to $181 million.

I would like to point out to the House that this is the largest amount of funding ever provided to the Canada Council for the Arts by a government.

We are determined to ensure that the arts are viable. However, just like ordinary Canadians, we must make choices every day about the money we spend. We must ensure that every dollar counts.

That is why we are streamlining the considerable funding allocated to arts and culture so that it has the greatest impact possible here, in Canada, and internationally.

The current government has an integrated strategy to support the arts and culture in Canada. This strategy focuses on improving the arts infrastructure and developing markets for culture, and at the same time enhancing Canada's reputation abroad.

I am proud to say that the Department of Canadian Heritage is creating funding programs that dovetail with those of other departments. Take tourism, for example. Cultural tourism is a growing market for the arts and culture in Canada. We have allocated $40 million to the Canadian Tourism Commission in order to promote Canada as a destination for tourists who have money to spend in Canada.

Parks Canada will receive new funding of $75 million to improve national historic sites. We are also investing in the building Canada fund, which supports sport and recreation infrastructure as well as important projects in the areas of arts and heritage across the country.

Cultural tourism is not the only beneficiary of such investments. Heritage Canada makes strategic contributions to arts and culture. In our 2009 budget, we increased funding for the cultural spaces Canada program by $60 million over two years. That money will benefit community cultural establishments, such as local theatres, which will be able to improve performance venues for Canadian artists. We recognize that Canadian artists participate in their local communities and that Canada's cultural industries are a vital part of local, regional and national economies.

The government is proud to support arts and culture in Canada and is doing a good job. It is working strategically. Cultural programs do not exist in a void. Culture is part of the everyday lives of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Our review showed that most of our arts and culture programs are strategic, effective and avant-garde. That is why we renewed $264 million in cultural funding for various programs and sectors, such as the Canada media fund and the national arts training contribution program, as well as new media and community magazines and newspapers.

We understand that short-term investments in arts and culture are an excellent way to strengthen Canada's artistic and economic vitality in the long term. That is why we increased funding for the national arts training contribution program by $14 million over two years. With a $20 million budget, the program will train the next generation of young artists and talented, hard-working creators on whom Canada's future creativity depends.

We are making considerable investments to ensure that Canadian culture survives the worsening global economic crisis and continues to develop in the future. We are giving Canadians and Quebeckers the tools they need to succeed here at home and internationally.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the motion moved by my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes is basically asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages to listen to the people from the arts and culture community, who have been saying from the beginning that he made a very serious mistake by cutting arts and culture budgets.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage eliminated a number of programs, including international programs such as Trade Routes and PromArt, because, he says, they were ineffective. Quite the opposite is true. Not only were those programs effective, they were in fact profitable. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard from nearly 20 people who came to testify that the programs cut by the minister were good programs and that this decision was a mistake.

For instance, on March 2, 2009, John Lambert, a prominent agent for artists, appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and explained that the elimination of the PromArt program will have a destabilizing effect on the performing arts industry, which is currently highly successful. According to Mr. Lambert, the artistic community has already had to cancel several tours abroad because international festivals do not pay transportation costs for artists or their cargo, such as sets and sound and light equipment. The PromArt program is what allowed artists to travel and perform abroad.

Because of the Conservative government, this is no longer possible.

On March 4, 2009, Pierre MacDuff, executive director of Les Deux Mondes theatre company, told the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that he simply could not understand why the PromArt program was eliminated. He said, and I quote:

It took years of work for companies and artists in every province of Canada to develop networks and partnerships with these countries, and all of that is in jeopardy with the elimination of PromArt. Of course, it is our hope that the federal government will provide an immediate injection of additional funding to the Canada Council for the Arts—indeed, there is no one left to manage the PromArt program, since the officials in charge of it have been fired—so that it can pick up the slack and save the co-productions and tours that are now under discussion. The work of organizing an international tour is something that has to begin a long time in advance.

If I remember correctly, one of my colleagues said it well this morning: it takes about two years of organization before a group can perform on stage. Mr. MacDuff continued:

Our projects are now in jeopardy as a result of this program being cancelled. For companies like Les Deux Mondes and many others, this most certainly means cutting back our touring activities...

All the witnesses who appeared before the committee said basically the same thing.

The same day, Alain Dancyger, the executive director of Les Grands Ballets Canadiens de Montréal—he is not just anybody—said this to the committee about PromArt being abolished, and I quote:

This situation threatens Les Grands Ballets in the short and medium terms as regards its financial viability, but it also creates a major image problem for our country outside our borders... [I have] a difficult time understanding the reasons why a country like Canada, a member of the G8, does not support its cultural actors even while they... inspire unprecedented interest from international audiences. If Les Grands Ballets were a dynamic and innovative SME producing electronic components, for example, whose products were in high demand on the international market, it would be logical, even strategic, to support that SME so that it could gain market share, especially in the current economic context. Why would a cultural product be treated any differently?

He said, in closing, that the “consequences of the federal government's decision to eliminate all of its support for export activities are disastrous”.

The government members had no clear answer to give to these 15 witnesses. They say that the government has injected more funding than ever in culture and that the arts sector players should be happy, not complaining.

Such an answer is an insult to the intelligence of those in the arts and culture industry. They always welcome increased government funding, regardless of the party in power. They wanted the government to know that investing is not enough, that it has to invest wisely. Cutting programs that work well and are useful without consulting those concerned or providing any explanation does not seem to be a very wise, let alone responsible, way of investing.

There was almost unanimous support, however, for one recommendation from these groups, and that was for the rollback of the $45 million in government cuts to the Canada Council for the Arts, so that it can manage its programs and restore funding for international tours. Naturally, the Liberal Party of Canada supports that proposal, as well as what is proposed in Motion No. 297. The motion proposes that the annual budget for the Canada Council for the Arts be raised to $300 million. The council is currently receiving $180 million from the federal government, but $300 million would allow the artists, who, for the most part, are living below the poverty line, to get the support they deserve from our Canadian government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to support my colleague's Motion No. 297, to increase the annual budget of the Canada Council to $300 million and to call on the government to roll back the cuts that were announced this past summer to the arts promotion program, trade routes, the national training program for film and video sector, the new media research network fund, the Canadian independent film and video fund, the Canadian feature film fund and the Canadian music memories program.

I have had the great privilege in my life to tour from one end of this country to the other as an artist and to be involved in many wonderful festivals. I learned two really important lessons doing that. One is that Canada may seem like an immense country, but it is actually very small. Wherever one travels across this country, the audiences are surprisingly like one town spread across vast distances. The other element is how difficult it is to mount tours. In western Canada, one is travelling 12 hours between stops. That presents enormous challenges to a country like Canada and it is unmatched by almost any other country in the world.

I spent many years working with the Ontario Arts Council studying touring grants and working on them to get programs out there. I can say that for the very few seed dollars that come from the federal or provincial government to arts organizations, theatre, music and dance, those dollars create so much more in terms of in-kind and matching contributions and developing a creative economy. I say that because I think many in the arts community across this country were stunned last summer when about the only move the government made during a very quiet summer was to cut some key programs. The two that often come to mind are the cuts to the PromArt program and trade routes, which were programs specifically designed to build international audiences and an arts industry internationally.

When the government was asked about why these programs were cut, the response from the Prime Minister was absolutely staggering. With a level of personal vitriol against the arts which I think shocked even people who have known the government's opposition to culture, he accused the arts organizations in this country of being some kind of schmooze fest for rich people at the taxpayers' expense. That showed the deep anger his government has toward arts organizations. It also showed an incredible misunderstanding of how the creative economy actually works in this country. I would like to provide an example.

La La La Human Steps in Montreal began back in 1980 with a first show that had maybe 75 people in attendance. It was a very small seed organization. Twenty-nine years later it is a touring company that is travelling around the world. On its initial tour, the group went to New York City and returned to Montreal. Now it is touring up to two years at a time. On its tour the group plays before audiences of 140,000. It shows how much the small investment made in that theatre at that time has grown. This is a group that is dependent on international markets because the market in Canada is not enough.

If one is going to have successful arts organizations in this country, one builds a show that can tour for a while in Canada. However, that international organization is needed in order to develop. It is about building relationships and making investments and long-term planning. For one of its tours, La La La Human Steps will plan two or three years in advance. This is the kind of commitment that is made.

At the international level, Canada has developed this reputation because of the reciprocal nature of building these relations. However, it is also building an industry. It is taking what would have been a small theatre production and turning it into something that can actually create a sustainable industry. For example, one of the dancers in that company now earns 10 times the budget for that company back in 1980. That shows the results of the investment.

When the government arbitrarily cut the programs, we were faced with a disastrous situation where suddenly, years of tour planning were put in jeopardy. Mr. Martin Faucher, the president of the Conseil québécois du théâtre, said that these cuts will be “a disaster for the international development of Quebec theatre”.

Alain Paré of the International Exchange for the Performing Arts said that the results were, and he used the word “disastrous”. In particular, for 61 professional companies 327 tours have been compromised, 3,395 shows affected, and over $25 million lost.

That is the immense, long-tail loss from shortsighted, short-term ideological positions taken by the government. Contrary to the Prime Minister's claim that this was some kind of massive tax subsidy for galas, what these programs would do is pay the air fare. That is it. It would pay the air fare for the artist to get to Europe, pay for the equipment to get over there. From there on in everything that happens internationally in Europe or anywhere else in the world is carried out by the theatre through its relations. So for a little bit of investment at the federal level, we have an amazing response economically and we also have a development.

Now we are in a strange position where Canada is being looked at as some kind of cultural backwater because we are the only country in the western world that has pulled out the support for these tours. There is nothing to replace it.

The government, because it has taken hits recently and it knows that its colour is starting to show, is starting to say there is money in Canada Council, here, there, but if we look at the numbers carefully it does not add up. The numbers that are in the Canada Council do not come close to dealing with what was lost in terms of the government's attack on the export markets that they had through Promart and Trade Routes.

The government had an opportunity to explain to Canadians why these cuts were made if they were not just done for ideological reasons. There could have been a reason. Maybe these programs were inefficient, maybe they were wasteful.

We held hearings at the heritage committee and we gave the government full opportunity to come forward and explain why it was necessary to cut these programs. It was quite shocking and I think very disrespectful to the committee that the minister's staff refused to show us any documents that were anything less than six years old.

They had to dust off these old reviews of these programs, and when we looked at these old reviews they were all very positive, but surely to God there had to be some reviews in the last six years that might show some warning signs that maybe there was a problem with these programs. They refused.

When we asked them why they would not show us any documentation or any proof that these programs were inefficient, for a six year period, the minister's staff said that telling us anything about this would be a violation of cabinet secrecy, that these secrets were somehow, she used the word, “sacrosanct”.

I was actually astounded by that word because some of those reports were already available online. We could look at the 2007 review. They refused to show it to our committee but it could be seen online. The 2007 review of the Trade Routes program showed that it was an excellent program and it had very strong results. In fact, the various reports and studies that were done by the International Exchange for the Performing Arts found excellent responses for these programs.

At the end of the day we are left with a very clear picture of a government that attacked some key arts funding that was more based on developing arts as an industry and arts as an international export. These cuts came because of ideological reasons. That is the only reason we can seem to find.

The government always seems to find it very touchy when we use the word “ideological”, but these were two cuts happening in two different departments at the same time, both of them focused on international arts development.

I have to ask, can we imagine any government anywhere in the world that is not interested in actually creating a sustainable export business for its arts? How could a government think that is a waste of money? How could a government see that having a strong international development for arts organizations, for books, for movies, for music, for theatre would somehow be against a ruling party ideology? It is absolutely staggering.

If we look to our neighbours in the United States, their trade missions and trade departments promote Hollywood, promote their industries, almost with a brass knuckles furor. We see that Europe is more than willing to invest in arts to ensure that arts are funded. The development of any creative economy in any city in the western world is focused on the viability of its arts sector.

In Canada, for years, we have struggled with some of the most anemic funding imaginable and even with that, we have had such great success with our arts. However, the government made the decision to attack these programs without being able to provide any viable explanation for their loss, any possible replacement value for having taken this money out.

As I said earlier, we are seeing the loss of millions of dollars in investments, the damaging of thousands of shows and tours all across North America and the world that have been carefully planned out for the last number of years. They have had the rug pulled out from under them.

In conclusion, the New Democratic Party will be supporting this motion. We are calling the government to task for its failure to support the arts and for its attack on our international reputation in terms of artistic development.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that, finally, the members of the Liberal Party and the NDP, like the Bloc members, see the light. I am pleased that we are and still remain the only ones to defend Quebec culture in all its forms.

Today, I am 59. When I was born in 1950, very little was known about Quebec culture. It was invisible and seldom seen. When we listened to French-language radio stations, we heard French singers like Maurice Chevalier, Yves Montand and Édith Piaf. When we listened to English-language radio stations, we heard big bands like Guy Lombardo's.

In the early 1950s, when television first appeared—it is funny, I was just talking this morning with two security guards about this—the first TV program I can remember watching is Pépinot et Capucine. It was certainly not a cultural program, but as my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles would say, it was amusing.

In the early 1960s, when Quebec was coming into its own and being recognized, there was an explosion of Quebec culture in all its forms, from dance to singing, rock to theatre.

Someone that our colleague from Beauport—Limoilou knows quite well, Denise Boucher, wrote Les fées ont soif, a play that has been acclaimed but at the time was dismissed as offensive. Yet that play is still performed today by many theatre companies because it is still current.

Our culture has developed so much and so well because we have taken risks and have had the means to do so. We made sure we had the means. In contrast to my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, I will say that money and grants are not good or bad, old-fashioned or outdated, but means we give our artists so that they can explore and work on their art to the best of their ability.

Unfortunately, we have seen that culture does not have the same importance for the Conservatives. It is almost as if, just as they tried to muzzle women, the Conservatives are trying to muzzle Quebec culture, because more artists in Quebec than anywhere else are likely to suffer from the Conservative government's brutal cuts.

Unfortunately, the artists who keep at it, work and perfect their art day after day are not all like Guy Laliberté, the chief executive officer of Cirque du Soleil. He started out with very little money but was fortunate to have people who believed in him, unlike this government who believes in no one but itself. He was fortunate to have people who believed that he could export his art. Now, he is on stage throughout the world, from Las Vegas to Beijing. Throughout the world, Cirque du Soleil has fans because this man is a visionary, unlike the Conservative government which makes cuts to culture rather than giving it more money.

Putting money into culture does not mean spending it on the Olympic torch relay route. That is not what I would call putting money into culture. That is not putting money into structures. Putting money into culture means putting money into people, investing in them. It means investing not spending money.

Until the Conservative government understands this we will need people like my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes to introduce such motions. We need to force the government to do something and to reconsider its decisions, which are poorly thought out, ill-conceived, ill-advised and unacceptable to all citizens, both in Quebec and in Canada.

Earlier my colleague mentioned La La La Human Steps. It is true, there are many companies, groups and individuals who work hard every day to promote their art, and those people have had the rug pulled out from under them.

I very much doubt that the people who have had the opportunity and the privilege to travel abroad to present their art, performances and concerts think that that money was poorly invested. I also doubt that the various programs that were assessed were given the recognition they deserve. If they had been, we would have seen the results of those assessments. Perhaps we are not being shown those assessments because the results were not what the government was hoping for. Otherwise, we would have seen them. We know this government—perhaps a little better today than we did yesterday, and perhaps a little less than we will tomorrow, but we will always be a little surprised.

I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of my colleague's motion because the only way we can grow is through culture, the only way we can define who we are is through culture, and the only way we can cherish the hope of one day becoming our own country is through culture. Culture is how we define ourselves as men and women, strengthen our roots and develop a sense of pride. Our artists make us proud everywhere they go.

We have artists like Céline Dion and artists working in film. Allow me to indulge my mother hen side for a moment and say that I have a son who makes films and wins prizes. I sure do. From time to time, he needs money too. He sure does. Filmmakers are not wealthy; they have a wealth of talent, hope and desire, but they have a hard time doing three things at once.

People who work five days a week and want to do creative work as well have a very hard time. People who want to be fathers, have children and lead a normal life, while making a living from their art, often find it difficult.

True, not all artists need that kind of support, but all artists, whether they are well-known or not, have the right to pursue their dreams. Childhood dreams, anyone's dreams, it does not matter what the dream is so long as there is an opportunity to achieve it. This is not a lot of money at all. The $45 million they cut is a drop in the bucket. A tiny drop.

We know that this year's deficit will be unprecedented in recent memory. We have not had deficits like this in 30 or 40 years. Yet, for $45 million, the government will be preventing people from doing their best, preventing hundreds and thousands of people from doing their work as composers and artists. The government will be denying people the opportunity to showcase what Quebeckers and Canadians can do in venues around the world. That is pretty shoddy treatment and smacks of disrespect for our artists, it really does.

I would just comment that the person who said it does not make sense was the only person pointing fingers this morning. Point a finger at someone else, and four more are pointing back at you. I would urge that person to take a good look in the mirror before saying anything at all about others.

Business of the House

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among all parties, therefore I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, for the sole purpose of considering the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, standing on the order paper in the name of the member for Davenport, immediately after the taking of the deferred recorded divisions scheduled at the expiry of the time provided for government orders on Monday, March 30, 2009, the House shall revert to the rubric “Motions” under Routine Proceedings, provided that during this debate no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Speaker; and, after a member from each recognized party has spoken, provided that members be permitted to split their time as per the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion shall be deemed adopted.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.