Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

Observations on the mandate of Telefilm Canada
(Chapter 8 - November 2004 Report of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Canadian Television Fund
(Chapter 23 - 1999 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, and
Chapter 1 - April 2002 Report of the Auditor General of Canada)

Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government
(Chapter 6 - November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada)

8 February, 2005

Sheila Fraser, FCA
Auditor General of Canada

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to come before the Committee to discuss our observations on the mandate of Telefilm Canada, the governance of the Canadian Television Fund, and the protection of cultural heritage in the federal government. With me today are Mr. Richard Flageole, Assistant Auditor General, Ms. Ginette Moreau, Principal, and Mr. Richard Gaudreau, Director, who are responsible for auditing the protection of cultural heritage in the federal government.

Telefilm Canada

Our November 2004 Report included an audit observation concerning Telefilm Canada. The mission of this Crown corporation, established in 1967, is to foster and promote the development of the feature film industry in Canada. Over the years, the federal government has extended the Corporation’s activities to include the television sector in 1983, the new media sector in 1998, and the music sector in 2001, with memoranda of understanding and contribution agreements with Canadian Heritage. In my opinion, the Corporation's activities in supporting the development of the television, new media, and music industries are not consistent with its legal mandate. I have recommended that the government clarify the mandate and powers that it wants Telefilm Canada to have, update the Telefilm Canada Act to reflect the changes, and obtain parliamentary approval.

Since our Report was tabled, the government has acted quickly on our recommendations by introducing Bill C‑18, An Act to amend the Telefilm Canada Act and another act (i.e. the Financial Administration Act). On December 1, your Committee examined the bill and discussed it. As you are no doubt aware, the House of Commons passed the bill on December 13, 2004, and it is now before the Senate.

Canadian Television Fund

We examined the governance and accountability regime for the Canadian Television Fund and published our audit results in Chapter 23 of our November 1999 Report, “Involving others in Governing: Accountability at Risk,” as well as in Chapter 1 of our April 2002 Report, “Placing the Public’s Money Beyond Parliament’s Reach.” In our second audit, we found a number of improvements in the Canadian Television Fund governing framework, notably a provision for an annual report on the Fund as a whole, including financial reporting, as well as the adoption of audit and evaluation frameworks. However, w e considered that there was room for further improvement, notably in the information reported to Parliament, and in key accountability mechanisms, including an external audit regime.

We are currently conducting an audit of the support that Canadian Heritage gives to the cultural industries of feature film, television, publishing, and music. We are examining a number of contribution agreements that the Department has signed with third parties—i.e. with Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund—to help film and television producers. The results of the audit will be included in our November 2005 Report.

Protection of Cultural Heritage

Our November 2003 Report included a chapter entitled “Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government.” Our objective in this audit was to obtain an overall picture of the federal government’s protection of cultural heritage. This audit focussed on built, archival, and published heritage and some collections of federal departments. We examined the relevant protection regimes and management practices of the main organizations responsible for heritage protection: the Department of Canadian Heritage , the National Archives of Canada , the National Library of Canada, the Parks Canada Agency , the Treasury Board Secretariat, and others.

Our audit revealed that cultural heritage under the protection of the federal government is exposed to serious risks of loss. This is notably the case with the National Archives, the collections of the National Library of Canada, and several national historic sites. If nothing is done, generations to come may not have access to key parts of their heritage or may have to bear higher costs to preserve them . Once a piece of our history is lost, it is lost forever .

We have recommended that the government review the objectives of protection and the available means, with the participation of public and private partners; reinforce the regimes for protection; and ensure that federal organizations responsible for heritage protection improve their management practices .

An overall review is necessary because adding resources on an ad hoc basis and improving management practices will not be sufficient to guarantee the protection of cultural heritage in the long term. The current protection regimes have reached their limits. The time has come to adopt a more strategic and global approach to the protection of cultural heritage , because our heritage continues to increase while our resources are limited. We must rethink how we do things and even what elements of heritage are worthy of preserving.

The Department of Canadian Heritage can and must exercise stronger leadership in the search for a more strategic and global approach to heritage protection .

The management of heritage protection is fragmented. The recent transfer of responsibility for the Parks Canada Agency to the Minister of the Environment underlines the need for more concerted and better co-ordinated efforts within the protection regime. There is a need to clarify federal organizations’ responsibilities and accountabilities for the management of government information, the management of collections, and the protection of national historic sites and federal heritage buildings not owned by the Parks Canada Agency.

There is a need to ensure a better balance between the mandate and responsibilities for heritage protection and the resources made available for this purpose. Currently, Library and Archives Canada and the Parks Canada Agency are having difficulty fulfilling the heritage protection aspects of their legislative mandates.

All of the responsible organizations, including the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board Secretariat, accepted the recommendations in our Report. However, they will succeed in implementing the recommendations only if a shift to a culture of heritage protection takes place within the federal government, and co-operation among all entities involved is strengthened. Effective management tools need to be developed as soon as possible, particularly to identify and collect national archival records and obtain information on the nature and the condition of our heritage.

Since our audit, the organizations responsible for heritage protection have started the process of implementing some of our recommendations. The Parks Canada Agency has announced the creation of tools for the protection of built heritage, i.e. the Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund and the Canadian Register of Historic Places. However, it is too soon to evaluate these measures.

Your Committee could play an active role in supporting federal heritage organizations in implementing our recommendations and in strengthening the overall protection regime.

For example, you could ask these organizations to provide the Committee with action plans and implementation milestones. This would help the Committee in discussing such actions as the ones taken by the Department of Canadian Heritage to undertake a global review of the results the government wants to achieve for heritage protection and the means of protection available, or actions taken by Library and Archives Canada to modernize their regime of records disposition authorities.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.