Bill 33 could limit Native funding

Page 10

Bill 33 has the potential to limit, even remove, vital funding for the ethnic projects and programs, including those of Native groups which often rely on cultural grants.

The Alberta Cultural Heritage Amendment Act received third and final reading on June 4 and will soon be given legislature assent. It contains amendments that will dissolve the Alberta Cultural Heritage Foundation and the cultural heritage division of Alberta Culture, which is to be replaced by the Alberta Multicultural Commission.

The act has become particularly controversial in ethnic circles and has raised doubts and specific concerns about how much it will impact ethnic grants and programs. Both the ethnic community and opposition politicians have criticized the act because it is being rushed through the legislature without community input.

A group of high profile and concerned proponents in the cultural field attempted to thwart and delay the bill by lobbying the culture minister, Dennis Anderson. "We asked him to postpone the bill until the next sitting of the house," said Bill Pidruchny, a former chairman of the Foundation.

Pidruchny claims that the bill raises many questions and that Anderson "does not have a game plan, does not have a strategy, etc. We're not necessarily against the bill," he explained, "but we haven't had a chance to talk about it."

Despite the protest Anderson has refused to postpone the bill. Pidruchny objects to "the way it was prepared, in particular because it was done without consultation and it was done secretly and sprung on the community" after the fact.

Just prior to the third reading, a public meeting of the Edmonton Multicultural Society expressed similar concerns to the minister, garnering at least one concession from Anderson. "He's agreed to put (the Heritage) council funding back in as an obligation of the foundation into the act," Pidruchny said.

But Pidruchny questions the money angle because the new act will put all the money into the Multicultural Fund to be created, but "only the minister or his employee have the right to spend the funds."

The lobby group also questioned the minister's foundation funding dissolution when other cultural bodies like historical resources, fine arts, performing arts, are untouched. These groups are not being taken over or dissolved, Pidruchny pointed out.

The money, grants and departmental, is to be pulled now and could be used at the minister's discretion, perhaps to fund the Institute of Multicultural Resource Development in Calgary, which Alberta is hailing as the first such organization in Canada.

The money pot "loses its identity. There's no longer a specific allocation for grants" and theoretically 100 per cent of all monies could be spent on departmental purposes only, said Pidruchny.

Another bone of contention is that the act gives preference to projects and programs pursuant to the act, while grants to community groups take a back seat. "This is of great concern to the community ... because every community's been getting grants and the question is: will they continue, in what amounts, who will spend the money, what are the granting guidelines?"

All of this has been worked out before by the foundation, said Pidruchny.

Conversely, assistant deputy minister Beth Bryant claims, "The amount of funding is still the same and has little or no impact on community groups. "The minister has said that the money will not decrease in going to the community."

The chairman for the council, Orest Olineck, concurs. He says he cannot share some of the concerns of the community. "I'm led to believe that all the granting structures are going to remain the same. The administrative functions will be different."

Both Olineck and Bryant also allude to review committees and public hearings that are proposed and should help to further the objectives of the new bill.

Bryant says the minister indicated "that what he was putting together was what he called a 'bare bones' sructure, and that there would be a series of public meetings held during 1988 throughout the province so that communities would have the opportunity to have input as to what and how the commission might function" to serve ethnic interests.

Olineck expressed "surprise" when he got wind of the new act and its details. However, he states that one positive aspect of the bill "is that there is specific mention about guaranteeing language programs, which is something we've been fighting for."

At this stage, little can be done to prevent the bill's assention. It has already gone by three readings and will undoubtedly be given official assent in the near future.

By the same token, it does not necessarily spell the gloom and doom evinced by ethnic groups. Something can be salvaged, Pidruchny maintained.

What groups and communities should now focus upon is to prepare themselves for the anticipated hearings at which they can put forth their concerns and suggestions or recommendations, he said.

Pidruchny is of the opinion that the minister would be committing policial suicide if he did not provide this opportunity for expression and if he were not to give careful consideration to constructive suggestions.