Debates of May 27th, 2009

Youth Voluntary Service

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion.

I want to begin by congratulating my colleague, the member for Papineau, for the work he has done in this field and certainly for bringing a real emphasis and focus on young people, something which, unfortunately, is sadly missed in the House, much to the great loss of Canada as a whole. Many of us would argue that to not discuss the issues that young people face in our country is to do a disservice to the population that we represent.

We in my party see this motion as a positive initiative. Certainly the focus on a national voluntary service policy is seen as something that is positive. It is something that could certainly contribute not only to recognizing the work that is already being done but also to strengthening the volunteer sector and the work that young people do or are interested in doing in making their communities, regions and ultimately Canada a better place in which to live.

The amendment moved by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie was well considered with respect to the timing to allow the human resources committee to engage in its important work with regard to poverty. Poverty is a very serious issue that Canada faces and the House and the current government have been extremely negligent in dealing with it.

In terms of the national voluntary service, it is extremely important to examine the kinds of organizations and programming we have right now. It is especially important and extremely necessary to engage in consultations. We need the opportunity to hear from people in the field and on the ground, young people in this area or people who are at the helm of many of these organizations. We need to hear from them what exactly the needs are and what they see as the way to move forward. Any program we come up with in the House, unless it has the proper consultation, could be seen as ineffective and in many ways could prevent or stand in the way of some of the good work that people on the ground would like to engage in.

I would like to highlight some of the exciting volunteer work that already takes place in the riding I represent in northern Manitoba. I am proud to represent one of the youngest regions in Canada. The median age is 26. There are many young leaders all across the region that I represent. They are on school boards and city councils. They run for all sorts of elected positions on committees. They perform leadership roles, are the heads of organizations and community groups and start important campaigns.

I would like to particularly highlight some of the important work that some young leaders are engaging in and who usually do not get the recognition they deserve. A while ago we heard some glaring statistics about suicide on first nations reserves in northern Canada. While this is a stark reality that all of us and certainly the government should be dealing with, it inspires me that so many young people in communities that have been afflicted with such pain are actually taking a leadership role. They are engaging with young people and looking at proactive solutions in dealing with the needs for recreation, counselling and general support for young people so that they do not have to face such difficult situations. These leaders include Saul Harper, Bobby Monias, Frankie Manoawakeesic, Allison McDougall, D'Arcy Linklater, and the list goes on.

More recently, I had the chance to work with exciting young people in a campaign that we felt very strongly about to save our CBC station. I am very proud to say that that campaign was successful. Despite the economic difficulties that CBC is facing, it listened to our community and recognized that it is important. What was very exciting was the way in which young people who have grown up with such an important institution came out, donated their time and said they were going to show the outside world what CBC meant to their community. They took a leadership role in doing that.

I would like to highlight the important work of young people in the Ma-Mow-We-Tak Friendship Centre in Thompson, Club 53 in The Pas, and the Flin Flon friendship centre. Young people, including Amy Jackson, are playing a leadership role in making sure there are opportunities for young people to get together after school and engage in positive activities rather than looking elsewhere for support.

Something that we need to be supporting as a Parliament, but certainly something the government needs to recognize is the serious need to fund recreation and opportunities for young people to come together in positive and healthy ways.

I would like to recognize the important work being done by the Boys and Girls Club in Thompson, and the countless hours that volunteers put in year after year to maintain such an important club for young people, who are often disenfranchised and on the margins of the community.

I would like to highlight the work done by the Adams Lake youth council. Young people set out to march to Winnipeg from their isolated communities that have no roads, except for two or three months a year, to bring forward the need for attention to the issues that they, as young people, are facing.

I would also like to highlight the important work being done in our sports community by young people. Whether it is hockey, swimming, skating or soccer, the general sports community for us in northern Manitoba and certainly in northern Canada is so important, given our smaller communities and in many ways our lack of access to recreational opportunities. We need to make sure that we come together to promote healthier lifestyles, to bring the community together and in that way strengthen the community.

There are so many examples of the exciting work that young people are doing. Only yesterday I had the honour of attending the millennium scholarship dinner. I was surrounded by so many bright young people with so much promise, young people who in many ways were given these scholarships because of their volunteer work, because of their commitment to their communities. This is a fantastic example of recognition of that volunteerism. It is very sad to note that the millennium scholarship program is one of the programs being cut by the Conservative government.

In many ways it is so important that we look at all of our regions to learn about the exciting work that young people are doing, to be inspired by that work and to see how we can support that kind of work.

It is important to make some notes on the issue of the public hearings. There is no sense in engaging in a process if it is not thorough and if it does not recognize the diversity of our nation. I would like to spend a moment talking about the need to look out for that diversity.

I am proud and honoured to participate in the status of women committee in this House. It has been a very interesting exposure to the way in which issues of gender are sorely missed by many of our policies and obviously, in many ways it is to the detriment of achieving gender equality in our country. We need to ensure that those public hearings recognize the experiences of gender, for example, the women who volunteer in certain sectors rather than others. In many ways women volunteers would be seen in terms of child care, for example.

On regional issues, we are an area of Canada which, as I noted, has a great deal of volunteerism, but it is difficult to get to. I would like to hear that this consultation will happen in northern Canada and in rural Canada as well, where the voices of young people are often not heard. They certainly need to be acknowledged as part of these hearings.

There are a number of things that ought to be recognized as well as a number of issues that young people face on a daily basis in a country like ours, whether it is student debt, high unemployment, rates of poverty, discrimination, lack of affordable housing, lack of affordable child care and the list goes on. I would hope that not only would we look out for important initiatives such as this one, but that we would make sure that there are concrete measures, legislation, that support our young people and that we do not just pay lip service to them.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of a worthy initiative that will be of significant benefit to young people across Canada and to volunteer programs throughout the country. I applaud the member for Papineau for this initiative. I recall that it was his late father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who inspired me to enter politics and be more active in my community.

I have seen first-hand the great work of committed individuals in my own riding, groups of selfless people coming together to work toward a common goal, a goal that is not for personal or economic benefit but simply that of improving living conditions for others within the community and across Canada.

The motion we are debating today proposes the fostering of enduring principles, intelligent planning and stable assistance for the generations of young people who are the country's future.

This motion would not only recognize the significance and accomplishments of volunteer organizations but it would also provide the necessary tools and resources to better equip them so that they may enjoy continued success. It would improve transparency and communication between not-for-profit groups across the country and, in this way, allow for a dialogue to better identify what is effective and what is not.

By supporting measures to assist these programs, we support a vision of Canada's future where communities, rather than a solitary individual, are the focus. I believe that strong communities most definitely mean a strong Canada.

Facing the difficulties of the economic downturn, we must necessarily address the important issues of the moment, issues such as economic stimulus and municipal infrastructure, but we must not neglect our preparations for the future.

Canada needs lasting and enduring policies, policies that strengthen communities and the country as a whole. Such initiatives lend assistance not only during the hardships of the moment but for the unforeseen challenges that we cannot yet predict.

Challenging times are the greatest opportunity for the creation of enduring, meaningful policies. Many of Canada's greatest initiatives, such as the national pension plan, the national railway and the universal health care, were a response to times of great adversity.

Today, Canada is not facing war or natural disaster but financial insecurity and job losses. How will we respond to these difficulties? We will use this hardship to unite our country with a great national vision.

My hon. colleague's motion asks for great things from Canada's young people. However, it offers great things as well. This is a fully voluntary program of action. It invites young people across Canada to seek opportunities to help build better communities and a better country. In return, we are called upon to provide needed resources.

The central tenets of this motion are the central tenets of what it means to be Canadian: unity of purpose, community and generosity. These are the attributes for which Canadians are known the world over. It is this kinship and compassionate regard for our neighbours that have contributed so greatly to Canada's success.

I am reminded of the words of a former prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who said, “...without the vision of human brotherhood, the Canadian nation could never have come into being...The unity of Canada is vital to the continued existence of Canada”.

Today we have the opportunity to further strengthen this vision of Canadian solidarity by building a bridge from the one to the many, from the individual to the collective and from the local to the national.

In a globalizing world and in a constantly changing universe, today's young people feel disconnected from a world that seems to think there is a minimum age for social contribution. We must combat feelings of estrangement in young people and endorse the message that social contribution is possible at any age by providing them with the tools to do so.

Today's young people must stop being told they are leaders of tomorrow and realize that they can be leaders here and now. They can be engaged and active in their community, rather than biding their time in a society of adults. As parliamentarians, it is to us that the task of sending this message is given.

Historically, there has been little effort to understand youth disengagement. It is seen as an existential crisis that only maturity can solve. Rarely is it considered that perhaps it is not disinterest but frustration that motivates this disengagement.

This is not an issue on which we should stand still. We need to extend greater attention to these pressing issues and assist our young people in moving forward and support them in their development as citizens of this great country.

I ask each member in this House to reflect not only on the immense power of engaged youth but also on their development into engaged and compassionate adults. This is not an issue restricted to the legislatures but an opportunity to recognize a worthy goal and to commit all levels of government in an open dialogue to promote it.

It is said that before we can run, we must learn to walk. However, before we can walk, we must see someone else walk. Similarly, we must recognize that the intrinsic benefits of volunteering are not always innate and in this way, we must consider what models exist to demonstrate a positive example of volunteerism, as well as its importance to our country. There is, after all, no short-term or long-term benefit to short-changing today's young people. They are indeed Canada's future.

This motion, however, would do more than provide opportunities for young people, which is certainly a noble goal in itself. It would also respond to the needs of communities. Communities with no means of presenting volunteer opportunities to young people would have the infrastructure to do so. As well, communities which currently do have such means would have more tools to meet their goals more effectively.

Canada's celebrated diversity brings with it the need for a flexible framework. It would be a mistake to believe that this volunteer infrastructure seeks to regiment existing volunteer efforts.

The spectrum of needs for a given community is as diverse as the number of communities themselves. Rural communities differ from urban communities, just as the needs of small towns differ from those of the suburbs. With these differences come demands for a wide variety of projects.

This motion presents the framework capable of answering these demands within a system of disclosure; a democratic and thoughtful system, one committed to researching the best solutions on a topic that has the dramatic potential to re-engage our youth, enrich our communities and foster strong principles of partnership among our citizens.

The question that this motion addresses is not how we can get more Canadians to volunteer, although it is certainly a desirable and predictable effect of this motion, but to answer how we get those who want to volunteer the means to do so, and certainly to answer how we can volunteer better.

I am the first to admit that these questions are challenging in our world of so many distractions, but I am not willing to step aside and allow them to be neglected. Difficult questions must be met with intelligent discussion, a review of existing programs around the world and multilateral government co-operation. Difficult questions should be met with democracy, and it is exactly this that my hon. colleague from Papineau proposes.

In the words of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it”. While the future may seem uncertain, we have today the opportunity to invent it and, in this way, support a Canada that emphasizes community, that emphasizes selflessness, and that emphasizes more fully Canada's young people.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There being no further members rising to speak, we will go to the hon. member for Papineau for his five-minute right of reply.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to recognize and thank the member for Davenport, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, the member for Churchill, and other members who spoke very eloquently about my initiative.

I would also like to recognize the members from the government side of the House who spoke very eloquently and passionately about the importance of volunteerism, the importance of service and the importance of young people.

It is a great honour to be able to be here and, more importantly, to be able to tell the people of Papineau that we have achieved something important. For two hours in this House, the topic of debate was young people. We talked about the future, volunteering, and the involvement of young people in their communities and in society. Regardless of the results of the vote on this matter, young people have been the focus, have been validated and encouraged for two hours. That is in itself a victory for the young people of Papineau and all young Canadians. This has been possible thanks to the trust that the people of Papineau have placed in me.

I would like to talk about this motion. I propose referring the matter to committee in order to study a policy, not a program or any sort of interference, but a policy whereby this Parliament, this government, would engage young people in building our country. That is what is needed. That is the answer to the major problems ahead. We live in a world with so many challenges and we have to start making major changes in terms of the environment, the economy and justice for the most vulnerable members of society. We must cultivate a new way of thinking.

Albert Einstein once said that the problems we have created for ourselves cannot be solved at the level of thinking that created them. If we are to bring in to the House, to the country, to the world a fresh level of thinking, it must be through our young people. It must be in our capacity to give to our young people the chance to express themselves, not just through their voices but through their actions, day in and day out, of shaping this world to be better, stronger, fairer, more responsible toward the long term.

Our capacity to do that depends on the kind of vision that drives us in the House. The one thing that will happen when we get more young people involved in their communities, connected to their world and engaged and interested in what politics has to offer them, is we begin to shift in our thinking toward being more responsible to the kinds of things they are worried about, which are all the big picture, long-term issues. We shift away from the fight over what is urgent and what is immediate and start involving and encouraging talk about what is important and what is long term about the country we are trying to build.

After the first hour of debate, I was asked by a member opposite if I was trying to generate something that we were giving to young people, was it about turning President Kennedy's expression on its head and actually trying to get government to do for youth what we could? The problem is youth are asking what they can do for their country every day.

Every year tens of thousands of young people ask what they can do for their county, and every year we in the House have an inadequate response because we are not giving them the opportunities to do what they want to do, which is serve, build, create the Canada we need for our children and their children. The kinds of thinking we need to bring forward will happen only when we have young people committed, engaged, involved, powerful citizens and agents of change shaping their world.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 3, 2009 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is in sorrow that I address the House this evening in terms of the lost 22 lives in the listeriosis outbreak of last year and the need for a straightforward public health inquiry into the response to the outbreak from all the government agencies. Only with honest and open answers on the failures during that crisis can we be better prepared for the possibility of another outbreak in our food system.

What were the communication failures between different agencies at various levels of government? Why was no mandatory food recall issued immediately by the CFIA itself?

We need candid responses to these questions, and we cannot allow ideology and politics to ever affect our response to a crisis as the Harper government did. The safety of the--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member knows that she can only use riding names or titles.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The safety of the Canadian people must be given the highest consideration in our decision-making process. Unfortunately, the idea that a looming election or possible election interfered with straightforward communications with the people of Canada raises very serious questions in terms of what the public deserved and needed to know at that time.

We need much greater coordination between our food safety bodies. It was very concerning to us today in the subcommittee on food safety to realize that Ontario has come forward with only one report at this time. Canada has three separate reports: one from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, one from the Public Health Agency of Canada, and one from Health Canada. The reports themselves conflict with one another. Now we have an inquiry set up by the Prime Minister that reports directly to the minister who seems to have been implicated in this shoddy response.

President Obama has tasked his secretaries of health and agriculture with reviewing every federal law that has to do with food safety.

In a time when such comprehensive efforts are being undertaken across the border, what is preventing us from taking an extensive look at our own food safety framework? Since we import a great deal of foodstuffs from the United States, we also must put more effort into the harmonization of regulations. Working together with American food safety officials can only make it stronger.

The questions that have been raised already are very concerning to those on the subcommittee. We have only begun our important work and already it seems that the government of the day is interfering.

We had asked that there be at least six hours, twice a week, from April 20 until this time. I am sorry to report to the House that out of a possible 54 hours that the committee should have met, we have only met 27 times. Extraordinarily important ministers like Minister Clement, Minister Aglukkaq have not appeared--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have to stop the hon. member there again for the second time. She may only use titles or ridings.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and the former minister of health have not yet appeared before the committee and the committee does not seem to be able to get through the padding of panels by witnesses, not requested by the opposition, and the ability to drag this out.

We were very concerned at the testimony of Lynn Wilcott from BC CDC who said that during routine food calls, the CFIA was very collaborative and demonstrated a working relationship, but during an outbreak it failed to share information openly and freely.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak about what our government is doing to preserve the safety of Canada's food supply.

To answer some of the comments made by my colleague, the Subcommittee on Food Safety is going very well. We are working in co-operation. The committee is responsible for its own operations. This is the first I have heard of complaints regarding how often the committee is meeting. We are the ones who offered to extend committee meetings, and we have done so.

It was interesting to hear my colleague's comment. She only wants opposition witnesses invited. There are other witnesses other than opposition witnesses. We feel the subcommittee needs to hear from all Canadians, not just those from whom the opposition would wish to hear.

Our government is committed to keeping the food we eat safe and ensuring Canadians and consumers around the world have confidence in the products our farmers grow and in the food on our grocery store shelves. We are reinvesting in food safety after the Liberal spending cuts in the nineties. Under the Liberals, food safety funding was cut in 1994. It was cut again in 1995. If that were not bad enough, they cut it again in 2005.

Under our government, the CFIA budget has only increased and CFIA has more resources available to it than ever before. Food safety funding, which was cut by the previous Liberal government, has been increased now by $113 million.

Regarding listeriosis, we look forward to seeing the report from the independent investigator appointed by the Prime Minister. We want to improve on food safety where we can. We have already begun implementing changes to make our food safety system stronger.

Immediately following the 2008 listeriosis outbreak, the CFIA acted to assess and improve industry practices for the sanitation of equipment used to manufacture ready-to-eat meat and introduced new procedures for sanitation of plant areas where ready-to-eat meats were processed.

The CFIA has introduced new inspection procedures to ensure that all company microbiological results for listeria are reviewed by inspectors on a daily basis and any corrective actions are taken by the company if positive results are found.

This is part of our compliance verification system, or CVS. Some, including the Liberals, have criticized this system, but Bob Kingston, the president of the Agricultural Union which represents inspectors, told the following to the food safety committee, “I also want to make clear the compliance verification system as a system, we don't fault it...Having a checklist scheduled approach to verifying that the people you're regulating are doing what they say they are doing, we can't see that as a bad thing”.

The CFIA also undertook a review of its directives regarding the control of listeria and ready-to-eat meat production and this review resulted in new directives, which were published on February 27. The new directives require that industry implement environmental testing of food contact surfaces to complement the end product tests they now conduct. The CFIA has also increased the frequency of its own verification testing of finished product and complemented this with verification testing of food contact services.

When asked if it was a mistake to eliminate environmental testing, which the Liberals did, and whether that testing could have prevented the outbreak, CFIA inspection supervisor from the affected Maple Leaf plant, Mr. Don Irons, told the food safety subcommittee “we could have possibly”.

Food safety is the CFIA's highest priority and the requirements for food safety are more stringent now than ever before.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the history lesson. I feel obligated to ask the member to look forward. When the chief public health officer for Ontario says, “the lack of coordination contributed to public confusion and created the impression that the outbreak was not being well managed, which affected public trust and confidence in the public health system”, the government needs to do better.

The chief public health officer goes on to say that it is clear “Canada has not yet implemented a national outbreak management strategy that incorporates all federal agencies and ensures coordination with provincial ministries”.

We need to have the food-borne illness outbreak response framework redone. Canada must remain a leader for food safety in the global realm and we can only accomplish this with more transparency and a more comprehensive framework for our regulatory system.

I call upon the government to do this now.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we indeed are moving forward, which is what I pointed out in my earlier remarks, and we continue to move forward. There are three lessons learned documents that have been presented to the public. We are reviewing these. We too want to improve the system.

The CFIA is committed to continuous improvement in the meat inspection system and implements necessary adjustments as warranted by science and best practices. The CFIA had taken action previously regarding enhanced requirements for the sanitation of slicing equipment, and its oversight of sanitation and equipment maintenance.

The agency also carries out an in-depth examination of the health hazard assessment plans implemented by the industry in all facilities that produce ready to eat meats.

We carry out an ongoing assessment of our programs and make the improvements required to preserve the health of Canada's food.

In my closing remarks, I will point out once again that the Liberals cut funding for food safety. We have increased funding for food safety.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this adjournment debate this evening in order to get a proper reply to a question I asked on February 25. I pointed out that, from Japan to Belgium, no less than 23 arts promoters from 17 countries had written to the Prime Minister asking that his government reinstate assistance programs that allow Quebec and Canadian artists to tour abroad. The Prime Minister did not even bother to acknowledge receipt of the letters. I therefore asked the Prime Minister whether he was going to respond to the arguments of these international promoters who are confirming how effective those programs are and re-establish the funding for those programs.

The last time I took part in an adjournment debate in this House with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which was last evening, he commented that it was just like Groundhog Day. He is absolutely right about that, and I would recommend that he see that movie again. He will then see that the way to stop the same day repeating over and over, with the same things happening ad infinitum, he himself will have to change his attitude. He will have to change his answers. He will have to change arguments and come up with the right conclusion, which is that artists and cultural organizations in all parts of Quebec absolutely need the programs that have been cut, particularly Trade Routes and PromArt.

In the House, the parliamentary secretary and the minister continue to repeat the same arguments. I will list them and ask him to not repeat them and to come up with other arguments if he does not want this evening to be another déjà vu straight out of Groundhog Day.

He says that Canadian Heritage has established $22 million in funding this year to help our artists on the international scene. That does not even come close to the truth. We do not have $22 million to help artists on the international scene. I went over the figures with cultural organizations. I went over the figures with experts. We looked at the programs one by one, but we did not find $22 million.

Furthermore, if everything is in place to help artists on the international scene, why does the Grands Ballets Canadiens have a shortfall of $150,000 in the budget for its tour of the Middle East in June? If the funding existed, they would have found it a long time ago in the department's or the Canada Council's programs.

The money is not there and this been very problematic for cultural organizations such as the Grands Ballets Canadiens, which does not have enough money for their tour. They will run a tour deficit. In fact, year after year, and under other governments—including Liberal governments that were less reluctant than the Conservatives—they received subsidies to pay for the transportation of 32 dancers, their luggage, sets and costumes. This time, they do not have that assistance because the government created a huge hole in the funding and there is not enough money to export cultural products.

Of course, he always goes back to the Bloc Québécois stimulus package, which obviously does not include cultural matters.These are all one-time measures that avoid creating a structural deficit. He is mixing apples and oranges.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour once again to be here in your presence and to respond to these questions.

Last time, I did refer to the movie Groundhog Day. That is of course when every day Bill Murray wakes up and it is the same day again, and the same song on the radio. The same song is kind of what I am getting at.

Every day it is the same thing from the Bloc Québécois, despite the fact that the member knows what the truth is on these issues.

I am going to speak a little bit on touring and promotion, and then I am going to come back to Les Grands Ballets, as referred to by the hon. member.

With respect to international promotion, I would say that my department's ongoing investment has involved since 2007-8 over $22 million to support Canadian culture abroad through its portfolio agencies and delivery partners such as the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, the Association for the Export of Canadian Books, the National Film Board and FACTOR/Musicaction.

The member also referred to the strategic review in the department. The member knows full well that the overall spending in the department has increased substantially. The member knows full well that the strategic review only affected the tiniest portion of the overall budget of $2.31 billion that flows into the Canadian Heritage portfolio.

However, once again it is Groundhog Day. It is déjà vu all over again. We are back with the same questions once again. The reason why I have to keep giving the same answers is because the member keeps asking the same questions.

I would love to give different answers. I would love for this to be more inspiring for the people at home, but when I only have this to work with, I have to go with what I have got.

With respect to Les Grands Ballets, I gave an answer to this question in the House today. The member mentioned how it had to raise money to go overseas. Many groups have to raise money if they want to travel overseas. I am very happy that Les Grands Ballets is going. That is fantastic news. However, the government has provided substantial support to Les Grands Ballets.

For example, I pointed out today in the House that in 2004-5 from the endowment fund, which is a fund that the government partners with arts groups, Les Grands Ballets in 2004-5 received $510,000. This year from this Conservative government Les Grands Ballet will receive almost $1.5 million. That is three times as much money in government support just from the endowment fund.

However, that is not all. From the Canada Council for the Arts, it is also receiving an additional $1.2 million. That is $2.7 million. With respect to touring, it also received a further $20,000 from the Canada Council for the Arts strictly for touring.

It is Groundhog Day again. I will be back with the same question and I will be back giving the same answer. The reality is that this government is the most supportive government in Canada's history when it comes to Canada's culture and arts promotion and arts in general.

The member knows this full well, but what she does not stand up and say is how the Bloc stimulus plan does not have a thing, not a thing, on the arts in it at all. Lucky for artists in this country that when this government came forward with an economic action plan, we made sure the arts got a big piece of that economic stimulus package.