Jim Abbott

[June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government is not really interested in taking lessons from the Liberals on arts because it has done more for the arts community in the last year and a half than the Liberals did in 13 years.

When we formed the government, the Canada Council of the Arts was in need of more funding and we delivered $50 million.

In terms of festivals, the Arts Presentation Canada program supports some 600 festivals and series in 225 communities each year.

Our budget this year announced an additional $60 million over two years for festivals and this new program will be ready to go in the fall.

Then there is Cultural Spaces Canada, $30 million annually, 408 projects across the country; Endowment Incentives, the money requested growing from $8.2 million to $25 million over the last five years, which has leveraged $74 million in donations to endowments from the private sector. The government takes art seriously.

[June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for 50 years Canada's national arts funding agency has been providing support for professional Canadian artists and arts organizations. Canada's new government believes firmly that artists and art are an integral part of our national identity. Also, the government believes in the important role played by the Canada Council.

I know and this government knows that artists and arts organizations make an essential contribution to the social and economic fabric of our communities and our country, and the 5,780 grants provided by the Canada Council in the last complete fiscal year, 2005-06, have played a key role in supporting that contribution.

Over the past year the minister has met with artists and arts organizations around Canada to identify the priorities in the arts. She has worked tirelessly to optimize the role of the federal government.

The council has received the first $20 million of the $50 million announced in the 2006 budget. It will receive $30 million for 2007-08. This will raise the council's total parliamentary appropriation to $181 million, a large amount of money which benefits artists and arts organizations in all parts of the country.

I am pleased that the Canada Council has set clear priorities for these new resources. The budget included an announcement of $30 million each year for the next two years to strengthen the cultural experiences of Canadians through events celebrating local arts and heritage.

Access to the arts is also improved by upgrading our arts infrastructure. That is why we announced in December an additional $100 million for our national cultural institutions to address their urgent infrastructure needs.

The budgets presented by the Government of Canada have contained a long term plan for infrastructure. This includes a building Canada fund valued at $8.8 billion over seven years, with spending allocated among provinces and territories on an equal per capita basis. It will support investments in a broad range of infrastructure, including cultural facilities.

Canada's new government is committed to ensuring that the work of arts organizations takes place in a more stable and sustainable environment. One of the ways we are working toward this goal is to make it more attractive and easier for individuals in corporations to contribute to the arts.

In our government's first budget in 2006 we did just that. We removed the capital gains tax from gifts of publicly listed securities to charities and in budget 2007 we have gone even further, building on this initiative by extending the elimination of capital gains tax on donations of publicly listed securities to private foundations. I am confident that this will benefit the arts as well.

While many factors influence the donation of listed securities, it is estimated that the elimination of the capital gains tax on these donations to charities has resulted in more than $300 million since budget 2006, of which $20 million has been given to the arts. This is good news.

It is because this government believes in the contribution made by the arts that it is making these substantial commitments to Canada, supporting the arts in Canada. I can assure the House that the minister will continue to work with the arts sector and other partners to ensure that it has the necessary resources to do its important work.

[Festivals and Special Events, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous administration, our government takes taxpayer dollars very seriously. We will ensure the program is well designed and is properly under control.

However, I would point out again that in 2006-07, the government has funded 247 projects in the province of Quebec. We have given $13 million to events and festivals.

The money under the current programs is flowing. We will get the new program right and ensure that Canadian taxpayers--

[Festivals and Special Events, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, my minister has stood in this House time and time again pointing out the fact that we have committed $60 million over the next two years which is new money, new money that requires the ability of being able to track it and ensure it is going to the people who need it. It is that simple. It is new money. The money that is presently flowing is from the current program.

[Douglas Jung, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago on June 10, 1957, Canada's first Asian Canadian was elected to Parliament. As a Conservative, Douglas Jung was nicknamed the “Giant Killer” when he took out the Liberal minister of defence in that election. It was just one milestone in his notable career in Canadian public life.

Born in Victoria in 1924, the two term MP was the first Chinese Canadian to argue a case before the B.C. Court of Appeal and serve Canada at the United Nations. Despite not being recognized as an official citizen of Canada, Douglas Jung enlisted in the Canadian Forces in World War II.

The patriotism that he and his fellow Chinese veterans displayed ultimately paved the way for the repeal of the Chinese exclusion act, and to full citizenship rights for Chinese Canadians. Chinese Canadians continue to be leaders in many fields of Canadian life.

I call on members of the House to join me in celebrating the achievements of Mr. Jung in this place five decades ago.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I have a tremendously high regard for the member and I know he is very passionate about the things of which he is speaking, but I am wondering if there is relevance to the bill that is under debate at this point.

[Festivals and Special Events, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I can only restate that I do not understand the question coming from the Liberal Party. I just do not understand when that party stands four-square against the budget, the budget that is going to be providing the funds.

How does the member not see the size of the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party on this particular question?

[Festivals and Special Events, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting question coming from the Liberals, particularly considering this is $60 million of brand new money over two years that is covered in the budget.

It is the budget that she and her colleagues are going to be voting against. I cannot imagine the size of the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party.

[Festivals and Special Events, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government has announced new funding of $60 million over two years. We are in the process of developing the framework to ensure the funding gets to the people who deserve the funding and who require the funding. It is that simple. It is a work in progress. The funding will be available once we know that we have proper control over the people being able to get the funds.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am going to have to take back my feeling that the Liberals would not possibly support this motion on the worst day. This must be one of their worst days. I suggested to some of my friends on the other side that when they moved from this side of the House to the other side of the House they must have had lobotomies if they are going to be supporting this motion.

I put it very directly to the member that as a former cabinet minister, surely he would be able to answer this question. If we were to propose to the United States and Mexico that we open the NAFTA this one time for this one issue, does he not realize that by asking to open the NAFTA, it would open all of the NAFTA? Does he realize that we would be putting $600 billion a year of trade between us and the United States at risk by doing so?

Surely as a former cabinet minister, I would anticipate his answer to be in the affirmative, that in fact by supporting this silly, frivolous motion and opening the NAFTA, we would be putting our trade at risk, because it would open up all parts of the NAFTA. Is that not correct?