CHPC Committee Report

Dissenting Opinion

It is the opinion of the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that the above report, including the conclusions and recommendations contained within, are not a true reflection of the testimony given, and do not truly reflect the facts presented during the study.  Only a fraction of the story was heard during this study, the premise is not a true reflection of the facts surrounding the re-allocations and decisions made by the government, the assumptions are misleading and the recommendations are far reaching above what was primarily discussed during the study. 

This dissenting report will not be a substantive examination of all the shortcomings of this report; the Minister of Canadian Heritage will have the opportunity to do that in detail in the forthcoming government response.  That being said, it is incumbent upon the minority to take umbrage with the manner in which the study was undertaken and the premise upon which the recommendations are based. 

By casting a narrow scope of discussion the committee was only able to hear the story of those negatively affected by the strategic review process.  There was no mention of the programs that benefited, no witnesses from organizations that received budget increases from this government and no talk of the new programs created because of the decisions made by the Conservative government. 

The Conservative government was first elected on a promise to restore a measure of fiscal accountability to Ottawa.  We were given the task of ensuring that the hard earned money of the Canadian taxpayer is spent responsibly, that programs are effective in achieving their stated purpose, that they do so efficiently and that the needs of the Canadian public continue to be met by them.

This is not a responsibility that the Conservative government has taken lightly, nor is it a task that can be ignored for political expediency.  That is why, as part of the Budget 2008 process, several government departments were mandated to perform a strategic review of programs and spending.  The Department of Canadian Heritage was one of those departments. 

The result of that review was not, as the opposition continues to claim, drastic cuts to the arts and culture budget at the Department of Heritage.  Rather, the result of this strategic review exercise was the reallocation of funds within the department so that the greatest benefit for the Canadian public could be realized.  It is this misconception on the part of the opposition that makes this dissenting opinion necessary.  It should also be re-iterated that the government only chose to re-allocate 3.4% of the funds, and not the full 5% as requested.

It is not a difficult task to discover that overall funding for the arts and culture sector, not to mention the budget at the Department of Canadian Heritage as a whole, has been increased by this government year after year.  In fact, this government has increased support to this vital sector to levels never before seen, not even prior to the cuts made by the previous Liberal government in the mid 1990’s. 

We have committed this funding, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, because we know the value of a vibrant cultural sector.  We understand the economic benefit that stems from having an artistic and cultural sector that is recognized as being amongst the best in the world.  The benefits are worth the investment.

However, that does not enable the government to abdicate its responsibility to review program expenditures and ensure that maximum value for dollar is attained.  That is why this government sought to streamline the operations of these programs and maximize the benefits to the Canadian public who have paid for them. 

For example, the Canadian Memory Fund, which encouraged federal agencies to digitize their cultural collections and make them available online, had an annual budget of more than $11.5 million, equalling about one quarter of the overall re-allocation of funds.  Developing web sites and online documents containing digitized works is now common place within federal agencies, and changes in technology over the past decade have made this activity infinitely easier, exponentially less expensive, and less time consuming to complete.  What is the raison d’être of a program whose objective has been achieved?

The $2.1 million per year Northern Distribution Program to upgrade broadcast services in the north is another program will surpass its usefulness and become redundant following the transition to digital in 2011.  Should the government not be expected to reallocate that funding to a program that has not yet realized its goal?

The elimination of the $7.1 million a year Trade Routes program was the focus of much attention and debate during this study.  This organization was created to promote Canadian culture abroad.  However, of the $7.1 million in annual funding allocated to them, only $2 million was earmarked for direct support to artists while the remainder was put towards administrative costs.  This has been acknowledged by more than one witness as a wasteful aspect of the program. 

It should also be noted that while this program has been eliminated, the international promotion of Canadian art, artists and cultural exhibits will not end.  In fact, there are several programs that will continue to perform these duties but this fact was not acknowledged by the committee in this report.  For example, diplomatic missions, cultural attaches and trade commission offices abroad will continue to promote the sector as part of their mandate, as will the Trade Commissioner Service across Canada .

While the committee discussed the elimination of Trade Routes at length, there was no discussion of the $181 million budget of the Canada Council of the Arts.  There was no mention of the nearly $30 million increase proposed by this government and approved by the House of Commons.  There was no recognition of the $13 million given by the Council to directly support the international promotion of Canadian artists and their craft or the additional $9 million provided for international outreach by government delivery partners consisting of the National Film Board, Telefilm, Factor/MusicAction and the Association for the export of Canadian Books.  Although these organizations had similar mandates, functions and duties only the organization that saw a reduction in funding was called before the committee.

While the opposition was criticizing the government for the elimination of one program, the Chair of the Canada Council, Mr. Joseph Rotman, was praising the government for our investment in another.  In December of 2008 he was quoted as saying, “proof exists that the federal government supports the arts, through its funding to the Canada Council” (Le Devoir, December 2008).  Yet Mr. Rotman was not called to present his story to the committee.

Without a doubt some organizations had their federal funding eliminated or reduced and the government had difficult decisions to make in that respect.  What this report fails to recognize is that this government has increased support to the sector to record levels.  More organizations are receiving more money than ever before.  This record of this Government is admirable in this regard and deserves recognition in this report. 

Rather than engage in a debate about the decisions made during the strategic review process in 2008, opposition members of the committee have decided to focus solely aspects of the strategic review they do not agree with, without acknowledging the governments effort to provide fiscal responsibility to the tax payer, while streamlining funding to the maximum benefits, which is the reason for the strategic review process.