CHPC Committee Meeting

    Okay, we'll get started.

    Welcome to the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

    Today we are studying, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), the supplementary estimates (B) 2012-13.

    With the minister is Daniel Jean, deputy minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, as well as Robert Hertzog, director general, financial management branch.

    Welcome to all of you.

    I understand, Minister, that you have some opening remarks before we go to questions and answers, and according to the schedule I have, you and your departmental staff will be here for an hour, until 4:30 p.m.

    With that, the floor is yours.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you for inviting me to appear before Committee this afternoon to discuss Budget 2012 and talk about other subjects for which Canadian Heritage is responsible.

    You have already introduced my deputy minister and the director general of financial management.

    1 am pleased to take this opportunity to update the committee on our accomplishments and priorities as we look ahead to the 150th anniversary of Confederation, for which programming begins with Budget 2012.

    I would also like to thank the committee for its report on Canada's 150th anniversary, which we will continue to review over the coming weeks. I will be submitting my response to the report very shortly.

     When I appeared before this committee in May, I outlined how budget 2012 maintained our government's support for arts and culture. That commitment remains firm, and, indeed, this year we have many accomplishments to be proud of. I know that all committee members, and this is true across all partisan lines, share a view that arts and culture are important generators of jobs and growth.

    In challenging economic times, our government, in our two-year economic action plan, decided to make key investments in culture. Budget 2012 keeps those commitments moving forward. While other governments around the world and even in this country were making decisions to heavily cut their support for culture, our government chose a very different path. Our government is one of the few governments in the world that did not cut funding for arts and culture, that did not maintain funding for arts and culture, but made a deliberate decision to increase our support for arts and culture during the recession.

     Contrast this with the decisions other governments are making around the world. In the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts runs on less money now than it did 20 years ago. Many American states and cities have eliminated their cultural supports. Since the recession, Arts Council England has seen its funding cut by 30%. In Canada, we decided to increase funding for the Canada Council for the Arts by 20%, the largest funding increase for the Canada Council in decades, and Budget 2012 maintained that record level of support.

    Our government also maintained our support for our national museums. While other countries in the world were cutting back on culture and even closing museums, we increased our funding to all our national museums. In fact, we created two new national museums, and we have a third on the way. We created the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax as a Government of Canada museum, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, and the Canadian museum of history in Gatineau, which I will get to shortly in more detail.

    I think Canadians in all regions of our country are incredibly proud of our museums because, taken together, our national and local museums in communities all across Canada are some of the best in the world. We value our museums. They tell our stories. The collections that they house and the role that they play in our culture are invaluable. Because of this, in budget 2012 we continued our path of supporting our museums with continued stable funding.

    As a matter of fact, on top of the funding that we've protected for our museums, we've doubled the Government of Canada's indemnification program from $1.5 billion to $3 billion every year. This is basically the Government of Canada stepping in to support financially the costs museums incur in housing international collections or moving collections around the country to build thematics.

    I know that many of you, and perhaps all of you, met with representatives of the Canadian Museums Association this week. They were in town. This was their number one budget ask. We listened to their concerns, agreed with their top priority, and it is contained in the budget.

    Our government stood up for arts and culture when it was needed most, for our economy and our cultural organizations. We understand this sector's importance to ensuring that our economy remains strong. We believe that supporting the arts is essential to supporting Canada's economy and our quality of life.

    We know that governments in other countries have made decisions to cut — and in some cases cut heavily — their support for culture. Not us; not this government and not this prime minister. We chose a different path and we have stayed on that path, despite being in a period of economic uncertainty. As our path leads to 2017 and Canada's 150th birthday, we are firmly committed to celebrating our country's rich history and heritage. That is the priority I would like to focus on now.

    This year, 2012, marks the beginning of the five-year countdown to our nation's 150th birthday. It offers us an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate the things that define us as Canadians.

    It has already been a very eventful year, as many of you know. This year we are celebrating the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Coast Guard, Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, the 40th anniversary of Paul Henderson's goal in the 1972 Summit Series, 100th Grey Cup, which occurred last week, and yes, of course, the bicentennial of the War of 1812, as well as many more celebrations.

    We will be celebrating many more milestones over the next five years, including: next year's 100th anniversary of the first Canadian Arctic expedition; in 2014, the 150th anniversaries of the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences; the centennial of women's suffrage in Canada; and the 375th anniversary of the creation of the city of Montreal.

    Anniversaries like these connect us. They define who we are as Canadians. They remind us that we have much to be proud of.

    Canada's museums are going to play a key role in this undertaking. I've already outlined the importance our government places on national museums. We are the only government in the world, I repeat the only government in the world, that has created, during the recession, three new national museums while doubling funding for programs such as the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification fund and the Canada cultural spaces fund.

    Last month I was very proud to announce that our government plans to create the Canadian museum of history, le musée canadien de l'histoire. On Tuesday, we took the next step in creating this new museum by introducing Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

     This legislation would confirm the new name and mandate for the Canadian museum of history as well as the funding our government has committed in order to make this project a success. It would allow the museum to renovate over 50,000 square feet of its public space, roughly one-half of its permanent and temporary galleries.

     The museum's new mandate is outlined in Bill C-49. I'll quote the language of the legislation because it's important.

     When we started this museum, there were some, perhaps at this table, who instinctively came out and criticized the government. But I would encourage you to look at this legislation. We can have plenty of arguments, disagreements, and debates, and that's fine. We can have disagreements on what the priorities should be, but this is an institution which we think will certainly serve the interests of all Canadians. In my view, it ought to be beyond partisanship. It could be certainly a source of debate.

     This is the exact new mandate of the new Canadian museum of history that we've put forward in the legislation. I think you'll find it agreeable. It reads:

    We want this new national museum to truly reach across Canada as well and to connect together Canada's museums all across this country, as well with our historic places. For that reason, part of the funding we've put forward, this $25 million, will be used to create partnerships between the new Canadian museum of history and museums across Canada that have the same or similar mandate, but they'll do it on a local level.

    As you know, the Canadian museum of history, currently the Museum of Civilization, is the largest museum in Canada. It has 80% or so of its collection currently in vaults. We want that collection to get out and move across the country—there are great Canadian stories to be told—so that local museums can have access to the vaults and to the collections that are in this museum and to house them locally.

     We've doubled the indemnification program from $1.5 billion to $3 billion so that we can get these collections moving around the country to help local museums host these items that are currently in the national museum, to have them in their local museums so they can build local thematics and tell great Canadian stories with a local context. It will help local fundraising. It will breathe new life into local museums.

     I think about the Port Moody Station Museum in my riding. It has a great collection. It's a really charming museum, but when you go there, you realize that everything on display has been on display there for about the last 25 years. If they had the opportunity to have access to the new Canadian museum of history's entire collection and to host things as they choose with assistance from the Government of Canada, it would allow them to rejuvenate and to re-energize their mandate and to offer new things to local museums and local audiences. I think this is a very good thing.

     As official partners, these local museums will have access to that. There are three-and-a-half million items, by the way, that are in the holdings of the museum. These museums will have access to that. The local museums will also have the opportunity to work with other museums around the country to build thematics, share ideas on best practices, and build regional thematics that make sense for them. This will become the pan-Canadian infrastructure for all of our museums that we're all very proud of in all of our communities, to work together and to be a pan-Canadian infrastructure for telling Canada's stories one to another.

    Canada's history is far from dead. It is all around us. It just needs to be told. It needs to be championed. It needs to be celebrated. I am determined to ensure Canada's story is told to Canadians as we travel on the road to 2017.

    I would now be very happy to respond to any questions, whether about this specific subject or more generally about something of concern to you in relation to Budget 2012.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Minister Moore.

    Now we'll move to our round of questions and answers.

    First up we have Mr. Young.

    Thank you, Chair.

    Thank you, Minister, for being here. Thank you to Mr. Jean and Mr. Hertzog as well.

    Minister, the opposition has been highly critical of our government's decision to change the name and the mandate of the Museum of Civilization. Can you tell the committee what feedback you are hearing from stakeholders and from Canadians? Will this change come at additional cost to the taxpayers?

    Thank you very much for the question, which obviously is a very good one. I'll be frank. This is a project that I've been working on for some time, actually since just after the last election campaign, so for about 18 months. I thought about it prior to that, and it's my initiative. When we launched the museum, we started talking to people about the idea of the museum. Any time there's change to anything—and we're talking about changing Canada's largest museum—there's always a little bit of hesitation.

    When I outlined what it is we plan to do, how it is we plan to change the mandate, and the amount of the investment we were talking about, there was instant buy-in. I understand the nature of question period and politics and criticizing priorities and people saying we should do this instead of that. That's fine. That's the nature of democracy. It's not a big deal. However, I think on its own, this proposal has had the support of many, among them, Yves Fortier, who is a member of the Historica-Dominion board of directors, Michael Bliss, and John McAvity of the Canadian Museums Association. People all across the country have come out very enthusiastically and aggressively. It has the endorsement of all of Canada's major national daily newspapers which have all come out and supported this.

    I frankly have encountered no opposition. The only opposition to this idea comes from those who would suggest that this money should be spent on other priorities. Again, that's fine. But I think, taken on its own, it's hard to imagine that this country ought not to have an institution that is equal in quality, value, reach, and mandate to the Smithsonian in the United States or the German Historical Museum in Germany or other institutions like those around the world.

    Whenever I give speeches on culture, I often remind people that Canada is the second largest country in the world, but in terms of population, we're actually the 34th largest country in the world. We have a lot of divisions, and we know that in this country: east and west, north and south, French and English. There are all kinds of divisions that have always been a challenge in the governing of this country. I've always been a firm believer that these divisions can never be overcome unless we understand each other's individual and shared history.

    That's what the opportunity from now until 2017 is all about. We have to have institutions that have a structure at arm's length from government, that are free from partisanship, and that are free from interference. The Museums Act guarantees that. But institutions can have those dialogues and have those debates, and that's what this is about.

    Your question of cost is an important one, because we're talking about the budget. The $25 million that we're investing in this is a one-time investment from the Government of Canada. That $25 million is not being taken out of anybody else's pocket. As you all know, we have reduced the budget of the CBC. There is no CBC money going to this museum. This is separate money and is not from that. This is money that was earmarked back during our economic action plan towards events that would speak to Canada's priorities for 2017. This is not money that's coming from other people's pockets.

    Thank you, Minister.

    As a former member of provincial Parliament for my riding of Oakville, I've always been concerned, as are people in my riding, with the general lack of knowledge and understanding of Canadian history, especially among our young people.

    I wonder if you could comment as to whether you agree with that and as to what our government might do to further promote understanding of Canadian history.

    We see it every year. Usually around Canada Day, or sometimes around the new year, the Historica-Dominion Institute—and I guess now the Macdonald-Laurier Institute will do them as well—do surveys and polls, particularly with young Canadians. A third of them know who John A. Macdonald was, but nobody can name who Canada's second prime minister was. It's frustrating, embarrassing, and unnecessary.

    We live in a wealthy country. I come from a family of teachers—my sister, my mom, my brother-in-law. We have some brilliant teachers in this country and great schools. There's a great appetite, I think, among Canadians to know more about Canada's history. When Richard Gwyn puts out books on John A. Macdonald, they win awards and they sell out. Pierre Trudeau's biographies and his memoirs were national bestsellers. Canadians want to know about our history, not only the political history but all of Canada's history. When Champlain's Dream came out, there was a second run, and when it came out in paperback with a new section in it, Canadians gobbled it up. They ate it up and they loved it.

     Not only is there a market for it, there's an appetite for it. More importantly, Canadians want to learn more about our history. We've done public opinion research internally within the department about priorities of Canadians. People want their kids to better understand Canada's history and their past, because there are some incredible stories there.

    I know there are those who have chastised our government's investment into the War of 1812. Again people can question priorities, and that's fine, but when tens of thousands of people come out, and not to out him, but when Evan Solomon drives down to see the re-enactment of the death of Isaac Brock and the battle there, it's heartening. We see it all the time. He sent me an email showing this picture of thousands and thousands of people who have come out to take part in these re-enactments of Canada's history. There's an appetite there, but we want to give it some structure, structure through the history museum, and structure through investments into events and celebrations about Canada's history. This is something for which I think there's a great appetite.

    Thank you, Minister.

    Can you tell us how the creation of the Canadian museum of history would help coordinate with the country's celebrations of our 150th anniversary of Confederation?

    It will be important as well, because there are a number of celebrations coming up.

    We had the anniversary of British Columbia joining Confederation recently, the 325th anniversary of Montreal, and the 400th anniversary of Quebec City which took place only a couple of years ago. What we find with the centennial anniversaries, such as happened recently in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, is the appearance of some very long lists of cities and towns that incorporate right after. It amounts to hundreds and hundreds of towns and cities across the country.

    There isn't enough money in the world, quite frankly, to fund all the aspirations of all these cities and how they want to celebrate their centennials and their incorporations, but what we can do is to link them together with the national history museum and allow them to have access to the archives and collections of these national museums, and to tell stories and thematics that make sense to them. It could very well be that they want to do a local story on the importance of women in sport, or great scientists, or great performing arts events, and they want to have access to a national archive of items and collections that will help them build around that theme and tell a story that's important to them.

    Far be it from me, as a guy from Vancouver who is Minister of Canadian Heritage in Ottawa, to tell somebody who lives in La Ronge how they ought to celebrate their centennial. Far be it from me to suggest to the City of Regina how they ought to celebrate things as they celebrate their 125th anniversary. They should decide that. However, the best way for us help them, to support how to best make that a great experience for them, is to give them the keys to the vault and allow them to have access to it and to share these things. That's what the Canadian Museum of History will do.

    Thank you, Mr. Young.

    Next, for seven minutes, Mr. Nantel.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Jean, Mr. Hertzog and Mr. Moore, thank you for being with us. We are very pleased to have you here and be able to ask you some questions.

    However, I would first like to tell you my reaction to the announcement about the museum. You have referred to our inconsistencies, in Parliament. But I am somewhat puzzled, because this museum and this announcement were clearly connected with Canada's 150th birthday. You said, simply, that when you were elected in 2011, you already had a vision for the museum. It was that, specifically, to which the opposition responded.

    At this committee, we have spent 100 hours or so, talking about how we see Canada's 150th birthday. And then you came in with this proposal, which gave us the feeling we had spent 100 hours talking about something and not been heard.

    You say you intend to respond to our report, and that is very good news. I am glad and I hope we will get more information about your idea of sending part of the permanent collection of the museum that was originally called the Canadian Museum of Civilization out to the other Canadian museums. We had in fact just considered the idea of announcing the good news in the report on the 150th anniversary.

    Less than a half hour ago, we had a discussion in the House. You said we should do a study on Library and Archives Canada, and to that end we should ideally hear from its director and its employees. I would like it very much if we could address that subject at a meeting, which could be held in camera. Since it came directly from you and the subject was raised less than an hour ago, I think that would be useful.

    You undoubtedly know that a number of organizations in the Canadian Heritage portfolio have not sent the parliamentary budget officer the breakdown of budget cuts and positions eliminated, although they were asked to do that.

    Are you going to make sure that those institutions submit that information?

    Yes. We are open to the idea no matter who wants to obtain information, including about how organizations are fulfilling their obligations, and not just Canadian Heritage, so that people have the information they need.

    Allow me to go back for a moment to what you started to say about the 150th anniversary. That is one of our announcements on that subject. It is not the only one and it will certainly not be the last one. With respect to the new Canadian Museum of History, there will certainly be announcements in future. We will have much more to say about that in future. We believe our programming for the bicentennial of the War of 1812 and the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City is also part of this.

    Certainly there will have to be an umbrella, if I can put it that way, to promote all of this, when we talk about Canada's 150th birthday. We are certainly going to opt for that approach when we make the announcement early next week.

    The Canadian Museum of History is our first focus, but it will certainly not be the last.

    We will be following both the story and the history.

    Concerning the cuts to personnel, Canadian Heritage has not given the parliamentary budget officer any information. Your deputy minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. He told us about 300 reductions, before the budget, that were intended to wipe out a structural deficit, 38 reductions coming from the budget, and 242 reductions also intended to wipe out a structural deficit.

    Why — and he would perhaps like to answer himself - can he provide the information, when you fail to do it when the budget officer asks you for it?

    I am going to let Daniel Jean answer that question, but I think the PBO has expressed his confidence in our department. He has all the information he needs.

    Mr. Jean can tell you a little about how we do our work.

    The information we sent to the PBO falls within his mandate, which says that he is entitled to the financial information. As we understand his mandate, the other questions asked do not come within his mandate. When you ask us this question, you are entitled to an answer, and that is why I have answered this morning.

    Right.

    The thing is, among the information that Canadian Heritage gave the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we noticed that the reductions targeted the arts and culture industry.

    Could you give this committee the details concerning the proposed reductions for each fund and program for which Canadian Heritage is responsible?

    In the context of the deficit reduction, we are talking about 38 positions eliminated in the department as a result of the abolition of programs.

    Right. Thank you.

    I am going to ask a question that Mr. Moore may want to answer. It concerns the European Union.

    In the last few days, some documents relating to the economic agreement with the European Union have surfaced. They indicate the negotiating positions of Canada and Europe on various issues. Those issues affect culture, among other things. They have been made public.

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    Point of order, Mr. Calandra.

    I'm not sure if you can tie that into the estimates.

    Mr. Nantel, I noticed this the last couple of questions. The minister and departmental officials are here on the supplementary estimates (B). We allow a little bit of leeway, but let's try to focus on the supplementary estimates. That's what they're here to speak to.

    I am getting there.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Can you assure us that under your proposed budgets, there is going to be an adjustment, a connection with those negotiations, that will protect our cultural industries?

    Not directly. We invest in the Canada Media Fund, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and festivals or cultural events all around the country, and we are going to continue doing that. That is not because of any agreements with Europe or any potential free trade agreement. It is not jeopardized by either of them. It is something completely different. Nowhere does it say what will be allowed and what will be jeopardized if there is an agreement in future.

    Thank you.

    I was with you on Monday at Rendez-vous 2012 — Montréal, Cultural Metropolis. You spoke at length about the 375th anniversary of Montreal, but you did not give any details. The city of Montreal has made very specific requests, including expanding the Pointe-à-Callière museum. The provincial government has made commitments in that regard. There are now five years left. Are you going to support the city of Montreal in these efforts?

    Are you talking about the Pointe-à-Callière museum or 375th anniversary of the city of Montreal?

    I am talking about the Pointe-à-Callière museum as part of the 375th anniversary.

    With respect to the Pointe-à-Callière museum, the investment has already been made, but that is not the case for the 375th anniversary of the city of Montreal. Mayor Tremblay, at the time, said nothing to me about that. He sent me a letter in which he said, generally, that we should do something and we should work together. We know that. There was no specific request. In the campaign for the election of the next mayor of Montreal, that will undoubtedly come up in debates during the leadership race. After that, we will be prepared, as a government, to work with the people at the City of Montreal.

    On Monday, Mayor Applebaum was there, and I told him that discussions on this subject could be initiated between his officials and ours. It is important that the celebrations of Canada's 150th birthday include the city of Montreal, but it is undoubtedly also important for the people of Montreal to celebrate their 375th anniversary independently of the celebrations of Canada's birthday. We can certainly respond to requests in that regard.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

    Mr. Simms, go ahead for seven minutes.

    Thank you, sir. Thank you, Minister. It's good to see you again, and the deputy minister as well.

    I want to turn my attention to the CBC. The hearings are ongoing right now at the CRTC to discuss our national broadcaster. One of the things they've mentioned is that they're worried about not fulfilling the mandate given to them by Parliament by the act itself.

    According to the supplementaries we have, what normally is $60 million is now down to just over $30 million, $32.2 million to be exact. They have said the reduction of $100 million over that three-year period is going to be hurtful. Now with the hockey strike, it's likely to be devastating.

    It’s a lockout.

    Lockout, strike—there's no hockey, pal. Let's be honest.

    It matters what side you're on.

    I guess so.

    One looks at this and thinks, our public broadcaster is in big trouble.

    You said earlier that you separated the two, of funding between the CBC and what was in your action plan. I don't think that's really the case. I think you have to take a serious look again at what is going to happen to our public broadcaster in light of the financial restraints they're under, and what effect this is going to have on local broadcasters in relation to specific CBC sites.

     There are things we can control and things we can't control with regard to the CBC. We don't direct the CBC. The CRTC—

    But, sir, this you can.

    Agreed. Let me point out, though, the broader dynamic.

    Things we do control, the CBC's pay budget, yes. We control the sunsetters, yes, which is reflected in the budget that you're referring to. We also control the Canada Media Fund, which is now A-based in our budget as of last year's budget. It is $100 million per year by the Government of Canada, leveraged by $262 million last year, $362 million in money that was going to disappear, $362 million of which more than a third goes to the CBC. That has to be factored in as well. By the way, that amount, frankly, almost offsets the reduction, if you compare apples to apples. They were receiving money from the Canadian Television Fund before, but that money being A-based now and being a permanent part of the infrastructure is something that CBC can now forever count on. That's very important.

    We don't control the CRTC's licensing requirements of the CBC. We do not control the CRTC's decision on the local programming improvement fund and what consequences that has for the CBC. We don't control the NHL, their labour issues, and what that means for the ad revenue for the CBC. We don't control the general economy and the ad revenue market for the CBC all together. We take all those things together—

    No, but Minister, you can't walk away from that part of it because, ultimately, you are the person who has to look after the Broadcasting Act—

    Let me finish my—

    You have to make sure that the mandate is fulfilled for Canadians.

    Let me finish my point, though. Of those things that we do control versus those things that we don't control, the things that we don't control are by far the greater challenge to the public broadcaster. They are by far the greater challenge.

    Those things that we do control, having worked with the CBC—and, again, we didn't reduce funding for the CBC overnight. We didn't drop it off a cliff and say, “There you go, now deal with it.” We worked with the CBC for months and months on how they would do their share to help Canada arrive at a balanced budget. We've seen pretty aggressive language in Parliament from both your party and the NDP about the importance of balancing the budget this week. We worked with the CBC for months on how they could do their part to balance the budget while still achieving their mandate in the Broadcasting Act.

    The president and the board of directors of the CBC put together their 2015 plan, which does respect their obligations to the Broadcasting Act. They say—and they still say—that they can achieve their mandate in the Broadcasting Act with the funds that are contained in this budget. For sure they're going to make an argument—

    I have to disagree with you there.

    That's fine, but the CBC doesn't agree with you.

    No, that's not true. That's not true at all.

    For sure the CBC will make their argument at the CRTC to have a little bit more leverage to have access to the ad revenue on the radio side that they're asking for. For sure they'll make those demands and, of course, they'll say they're very close to the line, and I don't doubt that they are.

    I have a tremendous amount of respect for Hubert Lacroix, his abilities and his assessment of the broadcaster, but in terms of the things that we can control, having worked with them, arriving at budget 2012 and this three-year plan, it works simpatico with their plan for 2015. We are working together on this, which is why Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, said that they will review their approach in a way that does not compromise their 2015 plan. That was his direct quote coming out of this budget, which is the 2015 plan, which is their mandate in the Broadcasting Act. He said that the budget will not change their path for their 2015 strategy. We're working with them, not against them.

    Minister, we both know what's going to happen down the road. There are going to be some devastating cuts to our public broadcaster. They just don't have that choice. A lot of the stuff they were banking on and counting on. I don't expect this person from a crown corporation to walk up to you and say that you're making a huge mistake.

    Believe me, they're not shy.

    They might be in this particular case. I would be, certainly.

    Well, look—

    When you think—

    Carry on, sorry.

    No, please finish your sentence. I interrupted you. Go ahead.

    I don't have a lot of time left, do I?

    You have about a minute and a half.

    Take a run at me, and I'll try to respond.

    No, you're bigger than I am.

    I do want to move on to something else, though.

     I want to look at some of these expenditures. All these celebrations that you're talking about, all these individual things, do you not find that the costs are starting to run away in certain areas? How much did we allot to the Grey Cup celebration in the beginning?

    For this year it's $5 million, but that was a specific item in the budget.

    With the celebrations that are coming up, do you not find that you can't really peg.... Are you budgeting a certain amount of money for this, and we can't overrun that whatsoever?

    You're talking about for 2017 or for—

    At the beginning of your statement, you talked about these celebrations coming up over the next five years, taking us right up to the 150th celebration.

    Yes.

    Do you not think that there will be cost overruns? You're coming in here looking for extra money for this, that, and the other thing. Don't you think some of the costs for all these celebrations will run away?

    No, because we're pretty prudent. The money goes out. We don't give out credit cards for people to run up the costs and then we get the bill. People apply for funding specifically itemizing what it is they're asking for funding. They qualify or they don't. They provide receipts and they get reimbursed. That's the accounting process. We don't just allow people to run up costs and send us a bill. That's not how it works.

    As a matter of fact, I would look, for example, at the 400th anniversary of Quebec City. There was a budget for that; it came in under budget, and that money was returned to the treasury. The way in which we have accounted for these things has changed quite a bit over time in a way that I think works well.

    Thank you, Mr. Simms.

    Mr. Gill, for seven minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today.

    Minister, I see there is a small amount in the estimates that is allocated to War of 1812 advertising. Could you please explain to the committee why it is important that Canadians be aware of this very important time in our history?

    Sure. It's funny. I've heard it said by those who are critics of our investment in the War of 1812 that this is a war that people have forgotten, so why are we spending money on it? The question answers itself, doesn't it? That's the point.

    The War of 1812 was one of the most important things that happened pre-Confederation that led to Confederation itself. The War of 1812 defined Canada's territorial boundary with the United States. We were invaded. We repelled the invasion and we endure. Because of the outcome of the War of 1812 aboriginal Canadians had a very different future than did American Indians. Because of the War of 1812, francophone Canadians, and in particular the province of Quebec, have had a much more respectful future than they otherwise would have had, and the French fact in Canada has indeed flourished in ways that otherwise certainly would not have been the case. And, of course, it paved the way for Confederation itself in 1867 with the Quebec and Charlottetown conferences in 1864.

    It's a critical moment whereby had the outcome not been what it was, our country frankly wouldn't exist. Therefore, when people say we ought not to celebrate this because it's something that people have forgotten, I think they make the point themselves without knowing it.

    Also, as members of this committee know, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is slated to open in 2016. Could you take the opportunity to give the committee an update on the status of that targeted opening date?

    This is actually a very important issue, particularly for those in Winnepeg, but it does have pan-Canadian consequences because this museum is a really important one.

    The Canadian Museum for Human Rights process was started some years ago. It started under the previous Liberal government. Verbal agreements were made by Prime Minister Chrétien. Monetary commitments, and political commitments, for lack of a better word in the right sense, were made by Prime Minister Martin. We said that if we won the election in 2006, our government would honour those commitments and move forward with the museum, and we have done so.

    When we decided to support the creation of this museum, it was a $100 million capital investment by the Government of Canada. At the time it was originally $20 million a year to operate it, I think. The money to operate it has now been increased to about $21.7 million, but the $100 million capital to build it has remained the same. The museum has encountered many challenges going forward on the cost of building it.

    The original budget to build the building itself was $240 million and it's now $351 million. Many of those costs were, frankly, unforeseen, particularly the cost of steel. There were also some issues with the ground and the weight of the museum and architectural design. There were some challenges. It's one of those things that taxpayers get frustrated about very quickly. Unfortunately, it is what it is, but we have done our best to mitigate the costs. We have come up with a solution to this that maintains the budget of the Government of Canada and our commitment to the museum without putting new costs onto taxpayers.

    The $100 million hard cash commitment to build the museum remains what it is. The $21.7 million per year cost to operate the museum remains what it is. What we have done, and this is reflected in the supplementary estimates, is to ensure the museum will open on time as planned, which is at the end of 2014, if memory serves. The original plan to have the museum open when it was planned to open will be maintained.

     What we have done is we have taken the $21.7 million in operating costs, an annual cost that is part of the A-base funding of the Government of Canada—so it's simply another national museum with its annual cost—and we have taken its operating costs for the coming few years and we have cut them in half. We've taken the half of operating funding that was going to be in the coming five or six years and lumped it together into one sum and paid it forward, essentially. In the years going forward—the coming five years—its operating cash is going to be cut in half, but then it will spike back up once we get to the year when the advances are all paid.

    We thought it was a responsible way to deal with an unforeseen challenge without putting new pressures on Canada's fiscal situation.

    The museum will open on time with the mandate that Parliament has given it, with no new cost to taxpayers, and the museum can go forward. Again, this is a museum. It's a pretty remarkable financial success story. About two-thirds of the cost of building the $351-million building are not being borne by the Government of Canada, yet it's a Government of Canada museum. Most of those costs are being borne by the private sector, by those who believe passionately that Canada should have an institution that talks about human rights both at home and abroad. Support has come from the City of Winnepeg, and the Province of Manitoba. Other provinces as well have kicked in money for this. The Friends of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights have done a brilliant job of fundraising and making sure this is a success.

    It's an important topic and I thank you for raising it because I know a lot of people, when it comes to the museum, the funding and what's going on, it's a pretty intense debate. In Winnepeg people have a clear understanding of what we've done and why, and it's been well received. The NDP provincial government has been great to work with on this project, as has Winnipeg's mayor and city hall.

    I also know this is an issue that all Canadians want to see fixed and remedied to a successful outcome when it opens in two years, and I think we're there.

    How much time do I have?

    You have 50 seconds.

    Can you talk about the value of arts and culture in terms of jobs and economic growth?

    Can you say that again?

    Can you talk about the value of arts and culture in terms of jobs and economic growth?

    I can. I have it memorized, as a matter of fact, and I have it on my quarterback cheatsheet wristband.

    I'm glad you gave me the opportunity. We should all remember these numbers: arts and culture represents $46 billion in the Canadian economy and 630,000 jobs in Canada. It's three times the size of Canada's insurance industry, twice the size of Canada's forestry industry. Any government that has a plan for economic growth but doesn't have a strong plan for supporting the arts is a government that doesn't have a plan for economic growth.

    Thank you very much.

    You're out of time. Thank you, Mr. Gill.

    Mr. Cash, we are now into five-minute rounds.

    Thank you.

    What is the total cost of the War of 1812 celebrations?

    It's $26 million.

    Twenty-six.

    It's $28 million, sorry.

    Maybe you can clear some things up, then, because you were quoted in Le Devoir last December that it was going to cost $70 million, and then the Library of Parliament research in September pegged it at $85 million. What's the discrepancy there?

     I can't speak for the Library of Parliament, and I sure don't speak for Le Devoir, but I can tell you that investment by my department is $28 million.

    I'm talking about the total investment in the War of 1812. I understand the figure for your department, but what we're seeing here is that the Government of Canada is spending $85 million. Can you confirm that?

    The $28 million, as my deputy just said to me, is what we're spending. It's the amount of money that my department has for the War of 1812. But, for example, you've seen the ads on television from the Royal Canadian Mint. They have an ad which they do every year. This year they've chosen to do the War of 1812. In previous years they may have done the Grey Cup or the 100th anniversary of the Stampede. I don't speak for the Mint, but the portion of their budget, whatever it is that they've decided to invest into ads, is their budget. You can bring them here to ask them what it is that they're spending on it. But that would raise the number, too. It's about $70 million all told, but those are all with existing budgets, not new budgets.

    Okay, so $70 million all told.

    Yes, but not from Heritage.

    I understand. It's $70 million. Again, we've got research from the Library of Parliament saying that it's $85 million. Can you clear up where that extra $15 million is?

    Look, I don't know. I haven't seen the paper you're talking about and I don't know where they got their research.

    You've spoken quite a lot about your views on the importance of changing the mandate—in our view narrowing the mandate—and changing the name of the Museum of Civilization. You've spoken about how important it is to give a greater sense of Canadian history, but here you've got a budget for one event in the history of Canada on which your government is spending $85 million, and you're investing in Canada's museum and that's $25 million.

    You've got three times the investment in one moment in Canadian history as compared to what you're investing in the museum. Doesn't it seem that the priorities are flipped around there?

    If I accepted the way in which you present the facts, yes, but that's not the way it is.

    For example, when the Mint—

    The numbers are the numbers, right? The numbers are there, right? You've got $25 million for the museum, and $85 million for the War of 1812.

    It's not $85 million. It's $70 million, as I described.

    Even if it's $70 million, it's still three times the price tag of the museum for one event in Canadian history. It just strikes me that this is a strange sequence of priorities for the Government of Canada.

    I wish I had brought with me the letters from two of your colleagues from the Hamilton region who wish we had spent more on the War of 1812.

    Listen, I'm not saying that we shouldn't commemorate the War of 1812. I'm talking about the government's priorities when it comes to spending money.

    Sure. A full sentence would be great.

    The War of 1812 is not one event; it's hundreds of events all across the country. Of the $70 million that we're spending, by the way, a lot of that money is going to be recouped. I mentioned the Royal Canadian Mint. They're going to make money. This gives us a revenue generator, not a cost for the Royal Canadian Mint. You've seen the new Tecumseh ads, and what they've done for Isaac Brock and Laura Secord. They're going to make money and support the Government of Canada's fiscal framework by, at the same time, supporting Canada's history.

     I'm pleased that you now seem to be supporting the Canadian museum of history. That's great. The $25 million will go a long way.

    The question is about priorities here. If you're talking about the importance of Canadian history, and you're investing in a museum to the tune of $25 million, and your government is investing three times that amount in one part of Canadian history, does that not seem that the priorities are skewed? I think it would strike Canadians as odd.

    That's what I'm talking about. We're not quibbling about the importance of the investments.

    You have a strange way of looking at the numbers.

    The $25 million is a one-time investment to refit the Canada Hall and to build the pan-Canadian network that I described. You also forget that the museum has an annual budget of about $57 million on top of that every year to do their mandate.

    You say it's $70 million versus $25 million. No, the $70 million is across the government. The commitment from my department is $28 million. The budget for the museum for the coming couple of years is going to be far in excess of what we're going to be spending on the War of 1812. So it's not quite true.

    If you add into this the fact that the mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, soon to be the museum of history, also includes the War Museum, and the things they're doing to talk about Canada's history between now and 2017, the investment we're going to have for Canada's 150th birthday and all these events related to our past is going to be very substantial. It's going to be very substantial.

    Therefore, it's not skewed and it's not imbalanced. It's quite appropriate. I think your colleagues who have written me asking us to spend more would disagree with you.

    Thank you, Mr. Cash.

    Mr. Hillyer.

    First of all, Minister Moore, do you feel as if you didn't get a chance to address the distortion of those numbers? Do you need any more time on that?

    No, I think it's good. As I said in the beginning when I made the pitch for the museum, there are reasons to disagree on priorities. That's fine, but let's disagree with priorities by having an apples-to-apples debate about the numbers. If we look at everything the Government of Canada is investing with regard to Canada's history, which includes the War of 1812, the idea that we're spending money to celebrate history and then spending money on the War of 1812, these are actually the same thing.

    Included in the money we're spending for the Canadian museum of history will be things for the War of 1812. Included in things that count as part of the money that we're spending on the War of 1812 will be things being done by the museum of history. These things overlap. They are in fact one and the same. You can't pit dollar against dollar when it's actually the same dollar, although some can try.

    I want to talk about the CBC. The estimates show reductions in funding.

    I come from southern Alberta where there are some people who think that any funding is inappropriate. I don't share that view. I'm a southern Albertan who sometimes gets mocked for enjoying the CBC. I actually enjoy their programming, not just their value for Canada.

    Can you tell the committee why the reductions were necessary? Can you explain the need for the government to respect taxpayers' dollars while continuing to accomplish the goals of the CBC?

    I agree with Scott Simms on this. I don't doubt there are going to be some difficult choices being made at CBC. I know them very well because we've been a part of those discussions about how they plan to move forward and fulfill their mandate. If you look at the cost of running the CBC 20 years ago versus the cost of operating the CBC today, it's a dramatically different universe. There used to be eight unions at the CBC, and now there are five. The unions have been great, I think. I am working with the management at CBC to find a way to protect the public broadcaster to fulfill its mandate while finding cost savings and doing so responsibly.

    We give the example that's been trotted out again and again. We as politicians know you go to an event and you see Radio-Canada Television, a Radio Canada reporter, Radio Canada sound, CBC Television, CBC reporters. You see two or three vehicles roll up and they all go back to the same headquarters and file their stories. It seems odd. Those days are pretty much over. The way in which CBC has become streamlined has been really effective. As a result of challenging the CBC to be more responsible and more fiscally accountable, they've arrived at some very effective solutions.

    On top of that, the CBC's embrace of digital media is quite outstanding. It's second to none among broadcasters in this country. If you look at 2.TV, the CBC television app, CBC music, and all the things they're doing to embrace digital platforms to maintain their younger audience, these are things to be applauded.

    Many times it operates as a bit of a trial and error for the private sector broadcasters that want to see how much audiences are migrating to iPad apps to watch television and whether or not it's working. The CBC is operating as a bit of an experimental stream for television broadcasting to see if the numbers they have on traditional media are migrating onto digital platforms. They are looking at what can be learned by that, and other broadcasters are learning from them.

    CBC is actually contributing to a better understanding of the digitization of media across all platforms, and everybody is learning from this. The way they're doing business is very good when it comes to digital media and approaching the challenges of reaching new and better audiences.

    Broadly speaking, I'm Minister of Canadian Heritage but also Minister for Official Languages. I often make the argument that we need to remind ourselves that the CBC broadcasts in eight aboriginal languages in the north. They're the only broadcaster that operates in both official languages in every region of the country. If I'm away from Parliament for a while and I'm away from speaking French and I want to maintain my ability to communicate effectively in both languages, the only place to go is CBC. It's the only platform that exists in both languages, and it's important for that reason alone, for the sake of national unity and respecting our official languages.

    Thank you for your input.

    Thank you, Mr. Hillyer.

    Next we have Mr. Dubé.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to thank you for being here with us, Minister, even though it is only for an hour. I hope you will appear before us again very soon.

    Mr. Nantel asked a question about the agreement between Canada and Europe. I think this is relevant when we are talking about the budget, given that what we are talking about here is Canadian Heritage's funds and the repercussions that might have.

    Can you tell us whether the government's position is still to preserve the culture exception in the Canada-Europe agreement?

    As you know, it was the previous Conservative government that created the culture exemption in the North American Free Trade Agreement...

    So you are going to preserve it this time?

    Let me finish my sentence.

    As you know, it is the government of Quebec that is in favour of free trade with Europe in principle. If we get to that point, we are certainly going to come up with an agreement to genuinely protect our cultural communities and their needs.

    We also hope that this will be an important element of the agreement.

    We talk about the War of 1812, but a fourth figure has not been mentioned earlier: our francophone officer Charles de Salaberry. And he comes from our part of the country. In Chambly, I had the opportunity to meet Jacques Lacoursière, whom you must know very well. He is an historian who has received the Order of Canada, for example. He asked me whether this French historical figure who is so important would be honoured in some way. Since we are talking about budget issues, I will use this occasion to ask you the question. Perhaps this war will be marked very broadly, but it is still important.

    Will the leading francophone figure in that history be in evidence next year? October 2013 will be the anniversary of the Battle of Châteauguay.

    Not if the NDP members have their way.

    The short answer is yes. If you go to the website at www.1812.gc.ca, you will see that it give equal time to four major figures: Laura Secord, Charles de Salaberry, Isaac Brock and Tecumseh. These are regional stories, personal stories and various other stories. It talks about these four individuals as heroes of the War of 1812.

    Even Mr. Lacoursière asked the question. As you say, the four figures are of equal importance, but up to now, we have not seen very much having to do with recognizing the one from our part of the country, the francophone in the story. Is that going to be done soon? Is there funding arranged for it?

    It is also important to us. As you know, in the Niagara region and southwestern Ontario, the stories about the War of 1812 are well known. However, the farther you get from those regions, the less people understand the importance of the stories. I think it is very important that Quebeckers, as well as people in the West, including British Columbia, understand the importance of that war. There are certainly going to be some special events on that theme.

    It may be a partisan comment, but you are going to have to fight it out a little with your colleagues in the NDP, who want to cut the funding related to the War of 1812.

    You are the ones in power, and you have a majority. If you have made a political commitment in this regard, there will be no problem.

    With respect to the abolition of the Katimavik program, you have said it was the easiest decision you have had to make as a minister. My colleague Ms. Borg, who has done a lot of work on that issue, told me that the excuse that was constantly cited was the redistribution of funds. The mission of the Katimavik program was truly unique, however.

    Are there going to be new investments to create a unique organization that could perform the same mission? That program provided an opportunity to get to know not just the history of Canada, but its present, as well. Are you planning to do that? These are such important investments.

    Yes. That is what we are doing now. Just a few months ago, we signed a five-year agreement with SEVEC, an organization for young people whose mandate deals primarily with official languages, but it also has the goal of bringing young people from all regions of the country together so they can share ideas and talk about the future of Canada, in both official languages.

    We are also going to continue our commitment to the Forum for Young Canadians. A new program has been created for young people so they can develop projects themselves, and what they produce can then be handled in the regions where the young people live. We are certainly going to continue to support them.

    Canadian Heritage invests about $100 million in youth programming. The Katimavik program was one of those programs, but it was certainly not the only one. That also does not include the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada programs for youth. There are more programs than ever before for young people. Yes, the Katimavik program has been abolished, but...

    You do not think it was unique?

     Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

    Katimavik had received tens of millions of dollars since 1977. One third of the young people initially enrolled in the program dropped out. It cost a lot of money, but the results were not worth it.

    Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

    You have two minutes, Mr. Armstrong.

    Thank you, Minister, for being here.

    To meet the NDP's demands, are you first going to cut the money you've allocated to the War of 1812 and then later increase it, or are you going to increase it and then later cut it?

    I'm pleased to have a mandate from Mr. Dubé to go forward and to continue to invest in the War of 1812.

    Minister, I will roll quickly because I know we are short of time. I'm very interested, as a historian myself, in the support of local history museums across the country. For those of us from rural parts of the country where there are many small museums, this is going to be a fantastic opportunity for them.

    Could you expand on this opportunity and especially touch on how it's going to support small museums in rural communities?

    These museums around the country are often faced with really difficult challenges. I have to say municipal governments around the country do a pretty great job of supporting local museums. Many of them don't charge property taxes, and they promote them and support them through their municipal budgets. There are some pretty great stories to be told. That said, a lot of these museums are operating on volunteer effort. I don't think it's an unfair generalization to say a lot of young Canadians aren't engaged in celebrating and supporting history. I go to museums all across the country all the time. You meet boards of directors and volunteers who do a great job with these museums, many of whom are getting on in years. We don't have that new energy. There's a real need across the country to boost our local museums. A number of the ways we do that is to support them, to support municipal governments that are helping them, to allow them to refresh their collections, to have access to the national history museums so they can have access to collections.

    As I mentioned, you can imagine being able to host items related to the 1972 Summit Series, having Paul Henderson's jersey, Phil Esposito's stick on display. There could be a sneak preview of these things at an evening reception. They could charge people $150 a ticket and get a little cash into the till. Again, it would be at no cost to the local museum. Indemnification pays for it. The local museum could get these items. It could host a fundraiser. People could come in and put a little money into the local museum. They could do another event a few months later. We need to get collections moving around the country.

    It's great to have the big, beautiful, iconic national museum here in the national capital, but it shouldn't just be about the national capital. All our museums should benefit from this great institution. That's what we're trying to do.

    Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.

    Thank you, Minister. Thank you to your officials who've joined you. We'll dismiss you guys, and then we have some votes to take on the supplementary estimates.

    Everybody should have the documentation for the supplementary estimates (B) 2012-13 in front of them. A series of votes is normally taken. We'll begin those now.

    (Votes 1b and 5b agreed to on division)

    (Votes 15b, 30b, 50b, and 90b agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall I report the supplementary estimates (B) 2012-13 to the House?

    Mr. Simms.

    This has nothing to do with that. It's an entirely different subject, but I would like to congratulate my colleagues. Today is November 28. I'm participating in Movember. There are two colleagues over here who look as if they could fence each other, and there's one colleague over there who looks as if he could hold up a stagecoach. Anyway, congratulations, guys, and good stuff.

    Shall I report the supplementary estimates (B) 2012-13 to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: We need to go in camera for a minute for committee business.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]