[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
.1110 
[Translation]
The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln, Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis, Liberal): I call this meeting to order.
[English]
Mr. Leroux has advised us that he will be a few minutes late, but we will proceed.
As you know, the objective of the meeting today is to become informed about the report that has been put together, in the two languages of course, by the experts on the committee: Mr. Lemieux, Ms Alter and Ms Noel. That will give us the background we need for the study we're going to undertake on the federal role in regard to culture during the emerging century.
So I would like to turn the meeting over to Mr. Lemieux and his colleagues to introduce this report, and afterward open it to questions.
[Translation]
I should point out that we also have three or four business matters to discuss after we have heard Mr. Lemieux' report, and I would ask you all to stay after the presentation and question period so that we can discuss travel across Canada as part of this study.
So, without any further ado, I will turn it over to Mr. Lemieux.
Mr. René Lemieux (Committee Researcher): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Three weeks ago, Committee members asked our researchers to prepare some briefing notes with respect to the Committee's work plan. The intention was to allow members to familiarize themselves with the issues both before and during the parliamentary recess.
Over the past two weeks, Wanda Noel, who is sitting right here, joined forces with Susan Alter and myself to perform that task.
The two papers you have in front of you today - one entitled ``Study'' and the other providing a list of suggested witnesses - are the preliminary results of our work. The first one deals with a number of issues set out in the work plan, and the second, as I already mentioned, is a list of proposed witnesses.
As you can see, these papers are incomplete, since the document entitled ``Study'' is missing Table 1 on page 4, Table 2 on page 5, and the final section entitled ``Social Change''.
This material could also be considered preliminary in the sense that the issues are not necessarily covered as thoroughly as they might be.
However, we believe they contain sufficient materiel to launch the discussion today and to suggest areas or issues you may wish to explore further.
.1115
You will probably want to come back to those parts that are as yet incomplete after the parliamentary recess, or today, if time permits.
The first two issues that we will address today are the ones that are of greatest concern to Committee members, specifically the impact of international trade and technology on cultural policy and support measures. Mrs. Wanda Noel, who is with us today, will be making a presentation on those issues.
Another concern for Committee members was obtaining an overview of cultural policy and support measures currently in place. That aspect of our study will be presented by Susan Alter.
Finally, I will be discussing the socio-economic impact of some of these policies.
Mr. Chairman, in order to stimulate discussion, I would like to suggest that members be invited to ask their questions after each of the presentations, rather than waiting for all three to be completed.
The Chairman: Yes, that makes a lot more sense. Could I just ask you one question before you begin, Mr. Lemieux?
What are you intentions with respect to those parts of the report that are not yet completed - such as Tables 1 and 2 and Section 2.4? Are Mrs. Alter and yourself going to be completing them later, or are you just going to provide us with some other material?
Mr. René Lemieux: Our intention was to complete that work during the parliamentary recess.
The Chairman: So, you will be providing us with follow-up material. Great. We agree.
Mr. René Lemieux: Yes, that's correct.
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, do you have a question?
[English]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier, Lib.): I'm probably mistaken, but I was under the impression that part of the work that was to be done was to give us an overview of past looks into cultural policy by various commissions and individuals. That was so we would have a sense of how various efforts in the past have brought us to where we are today. I'll wait for that if it's coming, but from the presentation and from a sense of what is not yet completed, I didn't get a sense that it indeed was coming. I would like some clarification on that, please.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Lemieux.
Mr. René Lemieux: Tables 1 and 2, which are not yet complete, should provide you with an overview of existing policies and support measures in the field of the arts and Canadian heritage.
The other tables you see - Tables 3.1 and 3.2 - cover existing cultural policies and support measures in the cultural industries.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It seems to me that is not what we discussed in Committee.
The Chairman: Yes, I see what you're getting at. I believe Mr. Bélanger is talking about all the studies that have already been done, some of them very recently.
What has happened? Can we be given a compendium of those studies? Have some simply been shelved? Has there been any follow- up? Are we going to be referring to these studies or are we starting from scratch? I think we have to pay special attention to that.
Mr. René Lemieux: We have only addressed that in our treatment of the issues to be discussed today, namely trade and technology.
The Chairman: You may finish, Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I just want to point out that the Committee even passed a motion on this. I will verify that.
We specifically asked that the work of all royal commissions or other groups appointed by previous governments to look at Canadian cultural policy matters be reviewed.
.1120
I believe everyone around the table agreed with that request for information. We believed that information to be crucial at the time, and I must say my view has not changed since.
If that review is not going to be carried out, it's important that we be told that now so that we can do it ourselves. I would have preferred to have someone prepare a summary of all that material for us, and I would like to know whether we can still hope to receive it, and if so, when.
Mr. René Lemieux: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the Committee asked us to address the work plan, and specifically, items 1, 2, and 3 of the work plan. They do not include the issue you have just raised.
To my knowledge, the Committee asked that we provide an overview of all existing policies and support measures, so as not to reinvent the wheel, except for Tables 1 and 2 that will be presented today.
The Chairman: I just want to point out, going back to what Mr. Bélanger just said, thatMr. Leroux initiated a discussion the other day regarding the many recommendations made previously, saying that we should take care not to duplicate that work. So, it would be better to make use of those studies that have already been carried out, rather than starting from scratch.
I would like to know whether you have reflected everything that has been done previously in your presentation. How are we to know what commissions have examined the issue previously and the recommendations they made?
Mr. René Lemieux: I have to admit the historical work has not yet been done. However, you do have an extremely detailed, albeit incomplete, list of all existing support measures and policies. Personally, though, I don't really understand why you want to know the history behind these recommendations.
Preparing an historical review is a considerable amount of work. You are talking about going back to 1945 or 1947, when the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences was established.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Well, it may not be clear to you, but it certainly is to Committee members.
Mr. René Lemieux: I was asked to present an overview of policies and support measures currently in place, not to do a history of them. If you want that historical background, preparing it represents a considerable amount of work, and I don't think that could be accomplished in the space of a few weeks. That's impossible.
The Chairman: Before I recognize you, Mrs. Phinney, I just want to say one more thing. Here we have the results of various measures taken by the government. We have an inventory here, and I think that's essential for us to get our work underway.
I recognize as well that if we wanted to have historical research done going as far back as 1947, that would be a considerable task. But perhaps we could go back a reasonable amount of time - say five, six or seven years - and look at the work of important royal commissions that made recommendations that were never acted upon and that may still be valid. That way, we could avoid duplicating the work that has already been done. If those recommendations have not yet been translated into legislation or regulations and if they are still available today, could we ask you, not to prepare a whole history going back 50 years in time, but rather an inventory of the work of the most important groups or commissions, such as the Parliamentary Committee, for example?
.1125
Mr. René Lemieux: You're asking me whether it would be possible for me to do that? I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Do you want us to review what has been done in the last five or six years, or in the last 25 years? It's not clear in my own mind.
The Chairman: Well, perhaps you could tell us what you would be in a position to do based on your available resources. I believe it was quite clear the last time. We are not going to have that discussion all over again.
Mrs. Phinney, you have the floor.
[English]
Ms Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I don't think we want any particular work done. What we're asking for is the work of any groups that have already sat and done the same thing in the past that we're doing now. We're not asking for a historical review, as the researchers keep mentioning. We're asking for studies that have already been done, with a synopsis if possible, but not for a brand new thing. Could we have copies of what they did? If not, can we find out where we can get them?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): I personally do not think we need to be given information about everything that has taken place in the past five or six years, but rather on the most important elements - in other words, the introductions and findings of the main reports they submitted.
So, it would simply be a matter of collating the appropriate material from the main reports: the introduction, which allows you to understand the context in which the study was conducted, and the findings, which tell you what the recommendations were. The only thing that would remain would be an assessment of the findings. It would be a lot better to focus on the pivotal periods, such as the years from 1968 to 1972 during the first Trudeau government, where the choices made may have had an even more significant impact than measures introduced in recent years.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm trying to remember the details of our discussion. It seems to me it was along the lines just described by my colleague. In another words, we would have to know exactly when government initiatives were taken in this area. I really think we should begin with the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. I think that would be a satisfactory starting point, and then we could have a look at the key periods that followed, which would give us a good overview.
I really think we would be going into this whole thing blindly if, as is proposed today, we were to begin our discussions without that historical overview.
The Chairman: I just wanted to say, Mr. Bélanger, that I don't think we should be too extreme in terms of our conclusions. After all, the purpose of our study is to determine what is already in place and the kind of improvements that need to be made, particularly as a result of the impact of technology. I don't think all this work has been for naught. On the contrary, it will be very useful.
What you're suggesting will definitely help us to have an overview and to see what has been suggested and what has yet to be done. All that information will be complementary.
I think Mr. Lemieux now knows what we want and can tell us how much time he will need to do that work, if we decide we want to begin with a review of the last six years, as Mr. Crête suggested.
.1130
Mr. René Lemieux: Would the Committee like us to collate existing information and then make it available to you, or do you want us to prepare a synopsis of all the recommendations made by these groups?
The Chairman: Perhaps we could begin by collating the information. At that point, much of the work will be done, and we can see what we still require.
Mr. Paul Crête: I want to mention the Aird, Sauvageau-Caplan, Laurendeau-Dunton and Applebaum-Hébert commissions, as well as others that may be significant. How many are there? Twenty, twenty- five or possibly thirty?
Mr. René Lemieux: I would say there are certainly between fifteen and twenty.
Mr. Paul Crête: Fine. Could you then begin by collating the introductions and findings, which will allow us to get a good idea of what we're dealing with?
The Chairman: Perhaps we could ask Mrs. Noel to begin.
[English]
Ms Beth Phinney: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if whatever we're going to have now wouldn't be better received and better understood and appreciated by us if we had the other material first. Specifically, we had asked to have that other material to read over during our two-week break so that we would have a background in our minds when we're hearing whatever is proposed here. I'm wondering if we should adjourn now and have a chance to have that material before we continue.
The Chairman: Ms Phinney, I don't see anything in there that's contradictory to what we would get. What this does is tell us what we have now. At least we should find out what we have now. I don't see how this is going to interfere in any way with what we would be getting in the future.
What we're going to be getting in the future would certainly help us find out what we should have done maybe that we haven't done. It will give us an overview for sure. This certainly gives us a pretty significant overview into trying to find out what instruments we have today and what the actual position is in regard to what the various ministries have as instruments to promote Canadian culture and protect it.
Ms Beth Phinney: So we're just going to go over this?
The Chairman: I think we'll just leave the researchers to put it across as they see it themselves. If we feel that's not enough, then we'll.... I think we should use this opportunity to listen to them for sure.
Ms Noel.
Ms Wanda Noel (Consultant to the Committee): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's very nice to be back and see all of you again. I was very pleased to be asked to do this work. I thank you for asking me to do it. It was quite challenging.
We divided the work up. I was asked to prepare two issues of what were called issue papers. The first was on technological change and the other was on trade interdependency. Before I highlight the documents that have been produced on those issues, I'd like to begin with a historical perspective or anecdote, if I may. I think that probably was a wise choice in light of the discussion that has just taken place.
I think the first thing so as to put this whole study into some focus is to point out that technological change has always challenged federal government legislators. When we talk about technology, it seems that we say that's a 1990s issue, and that it's something current only today.
I think that's not so. I think that issue needs to be put into historical perspective.
I'd like to ask you to go back for a few minutes to the 1930s. At that time, Canada was a country with a very infant broadcasting industry. Television was only on the horizon and most Canadian homes didn't have a radio.
.1135
In the 1930s, the federal government and legislators, just like the members of Parliament sitting around this particular table, were asked to look into a crystal ball and envisage what the impact of television was going to be on Canadian culture and on Canadians. How many legislators do you think could envisage in the 1930s the impact that television was going to have?
As legislators, technology is challenging you with much the same issues and in much the same way. Today, in 1997, the technology you're pondering as you gaze into the crystal ball is not radio or television, but the Internet, direct-to-home satellite, and the convergence of cable companies and telephone companies.
Those legislators back in the 1930s, gazing into their crystal ball, did some pretty important things for culture in this country. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - it wasn't called that back then - was created in 1930. That was a pretty forward-looking gaze into the crystal ball.
What followed in succeeding generations has been outlined in the charts: the Broadcasting Act, Canadian content regulations, and foreign ownership rules. All of these supported the initial gaze into the crystal ball in the 1930s. So the challenges that technology presents to federal government cultural policy makers and legislators are not new ones.
The work ahead of this committee is not new. The only thing that has changed is the technology you're asked to examine. The overlying premise back in the 1930s has been stated by Minister Copps. She used a very simple expression - I thought it was very catchy - about ensuring that we, as Canadians, are able to tell our stories to ourselves. That was the underriding assumption in the 1930s, and it's still what legislators are trying to achieve today.
With that historical perspective in mind, we can go through the paper on technological change. I'd like to talk to you a little bit about some of the technologies.
Look at the document that was handed out to you. The first issue concerns item 2.1.2, on page 11, which is called ``Information Highway''. Everyone in Canada has heard about the information highway, but I think all of us still wonder just exactly what it is. I'd like to try to explain it to you in two ways, first by example, and second, by a general description of what it does.
First the explanation by example. When you read a newspaper on a computer screen, you're using the information highway. When you get e-mail from across Parliament Hill or across the world, you're using the information highway. When you go to the ATM machine at the bank or in the corner grocery store and you get cash, you're using the information highway. When you buy a ticket to an Ottawa Senators game or you go to buy a ticket to a concert at a commercial kiosk, you're using the information highway.
When I bought gas this morning for my car and put my credit card into the gas pump, I was using the information highway. When I download files that are electronically transferred to my office, sometimes from across the world and sometimes from across the city, I'm using the information highway. When I make a call on my cellular phone and when I participate in a video conference, I'm using the information highway. It's all around us.
What is it? It is a merging of once-separate communications systems and computer systems. It's a merging of all those networks into a network of networks. It's all the content that travels all over those networks. It's the way we, as users, can navigate through those networks to get what we want: the hockey ticket, the cash out of the machine, and the electronic file that I want from Ms Phinney's office.
In cultural terms, what it means in terms of the work that this committee is undertaking is that we have at our disposal better, faster, and less-expensive ways to distribute cultural products. New products can be created using the new technology. It's a very good way to distribute the traditional forms of cultural production: movies, music, books, newspapers, and magazines.
.1140
This is going to become more and more significant. By 1999, only two years away, it's expected there will be 200 million global users of the Internet.
In terms of cultural policy, the important overview to take from all these technological avenues or pathways is that it's a two-way street. The information highway runs out of Canada. In cultural terms, that's an enormous opportunity, because we can put our books, films and movies on the highway and send them out, and we have new customers to whom we can sell our products.
But it's a two-way street: the highway also comes in. This means that foreign cultural products have a multiplicity of ways to come into Canada. So it's important to note that the highway is both an opportunity and in some ways - ``threat'' is too strong a word, so I don't want to use that word - an obstacle that may challenge some of our existing cultural policy measures.
If you turn to page 12 of the document, the federal government has given itself a report card in terms of Canadian content on the information highway. I put that report card in there to show you that the federal government is already active in taking initiatives and is a winner in the need for Canadian content on the information highway. Some of the action has been taken, and some of it is upcoming. The report card provides a very good checklist for you to get some perspective on where we have been and where we're going.
The second issue I've raised in the briefing notes we prepared for you is the danger or the fear from many of the commentators about Canada watching its policies so that we don't create a society of technological haves and have-nots. One of the premises of Canadian cultural policy since the 1930s has been that all Canadians should have equal access to Canadian cultural production, products and services. The information highways means that all Canadians will need to have the equipment and the skills to use that equipment if they're going to continue to have equal cultural access.
There has been a federal program created already called the Community Access Program, which is aimed at this very issue. Recently, in a beautiful photograph in the newspapers, we saw Inuit children on the Internet surfing around the world. That equipment was provided, in part, because of the money from the Community Access Program.
Another issue we identified was the ability of technology to permit the circumvention of cultural policies. I provided two examples. The first one is direct-to-home satellite services. Most of you probably don't live in rural areas, but I do. It's quite easy to use a non-Canadian address, an American address, and access a direct-to-home satellite service from the United States that's not authorized by the CRTC. So with a technological method you can get around existing cultural policies related to the reception of direct-to-home satellite services.
The second example I provided for you is the Sports Illustrated case. All of us are very familiar with split-run magazines. Here, technology allowed Sports Illustrated to not violate the Canadian customs tariff against importing split-run magazines. That's because they simply didn't import the magazines; they beamed the editorial content electronically to the Canadian printer, who printed them in Canada.
That's another way in which the ability of technology, first of all, challenges existing cultural measures. Second, an acid test for any new measures that may be developed is the ease with which they can be circumvented because of technology.
Item 2.1.7. deals with the technological impact on heritage institutions. New technology is having both a positive and a negative impact on these institutions. It's positive because it provides new ways to reach wide, new audiences.
A very good example of that is when the National Archives of Canada, about a year ago, entered into a contractual agreement with Corel Corporation to produce 10 CD-ROMs that brought the collections of the National Archives into CDs that are sold through Corel's network. Many of the treasures in the National Archives would never have been seen except that they are now available on Corel-produced CDs.
.1145
So it's very positive in the sense that our national treasures in our heritage institutions are getting out to whole new audiences who never would have seen them before.
The negative impact is a fear that attendance at heritage institutions may go down because you can access those collections remotely through your computer.
The paper on technological change ends with a series of questions on pages 15 and 16. These are intended to be thought-provoking issues that you can ponder. I think they would be the kinds of things you might like to explore with many of the suggested witnesses on the witness list.
The second paper I was asked to prepare dealt with the issue of trade interdependence.
What the literature has revealed is that trade and culture are becoming more and more linked. It seems there are lots of reasons for this to have happened.
The first one is that Canada, without question, is a trading nation.
The second one is that the federal government's cultural policy in recent years has moved from support for the encouragement of Canadian cultural products for the consumption of Canadians to selling these products abroad. This provided that link to trade.
The third one is that the world is becoming a much smaller place, not only for Canada, but for every country in the world. Since 1989, say eight years ago, we have entered into the following free trade agreements: the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was revised, the General Agreement on Trade in Services was entered into, the Information Technology Agreement and finally, just in February of this year, the new Agreement on Basic Telecommunications.
That's an awful lot of international agreements in a very short period of time. It's illustrative of the fact that Canada, as a trading nation, is participating in the world trading arena.
The first topic I broke out of this general trade and culture literature was what I called ``Globalization''. When I first ran across that term, I was sort of struggling to try to find out what it is. It's a buzzword, and it's used, but what does it really mean?
It refers to the fact that the world economies are becoming integrated. In the past, in cultural policy, the federal government introduced all kinds of measures. But what these were designed to do was support Canadian cultural production. There was a shift about seven years ago in that policy to continue that so as to have policies that supported promoting those cultural products outside of this country.
I think it's fair to say that our cultural policy is now a very important and integral part of foreign policy of this country, so much so that the future growth of the cultural sector is seen by the federal government to be dependent upon the success of our cultural products in foreign markets. That's a pretty far-fetched statement in some senses, but I think you can see that trend through the policy developments when you step back and watch the programs that have been instituted by the federal government.
The third issue I looked at was what I called ``Cultural Exemption in International Agreements''. This permits a domestic or national government to adopt measures to promote culture in their country that otherwise would be in violation of a trading agreement. The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA and both of the GATT agreements all have cultural exemptions. This has been in the news quite a bit recently because the WTO, the World Trade Organization, recently ruled in a Sports Illustrated case that the excise tax on advertising in split-run magazines was in violation of GATT.
.1150
Much of the commentary I read on this WTO decision has viewed this issue, when it's elevated to its highest level, as a confrontation between two opposing points of view.
The first one is that cultural products are just like any other product. It doesn't matter if it's a chicken or a coffee bean, you trade books, magazines, and films just like you do chickens. There's no difference, as they're just goods to be traded, they're all within the international trading system, and the same rules should apply. Business is business.
The second would take cultural products completely out of the international trading system and say, because of their support of national identity, that they shouldn't be subject to those rules at all. This is a conflict that's relentless and that's going to continue and become more and more strident, as the recent example of the Americans taking the Sports Illustrated case to the World Trade Organization illustrates.
Another trend that was identified is what I called ``Building Alliances''. Canada is not alone in being a small country that is being inundated with cultural products primarily from the United States. There's a strategy that has been adopted recently by the federal government to seek alliances with other countries in exactly the same situation. Smaller countries have been sought out by Minister Copps in the hope of developing an international strategy dealing with culture and trade. It's not a new issue in the federal government policy area, because for several years we've had things like international co-production agreements for films. But building alliances is on a broader level with other countries so as to promote it on a broad-scale, international level.
The next issue I tackled was what I called ``Limitations on Foreign Investment''. In the cultural sector, the federal government has legislated in several areas to ensure that the production and distribution of cultural products remain in Canadian hands. Three examples are the Investment Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, and the Telecommunications Act. They all restrict foreign investment in one way or another.
I entitled the final area with which I dealt: ``To Trade, You Need Something to Sell'', which is a kind of colloquial title, but in my own way, I found it very descriptive. To participate in any international trading system, you need to have products to sell.
In Canada, what this means is that we need to have a secure domestic market in cultural productions to provide the products that are going to be sold abroad. So this is a two-pronged cultural policy in the sense that, first, it serves Canadian cultural needs to have a secure domestic market, and second, it allows those same products to be sold abroad, which promotes our trade interests.
The section lists some of the measures that have been designed over the years to support this production, which has the secondary effect of being able to have these products to sell abroad. Those are listed on pages 21 and 22.
As in the first paper, I ended with a series of questions that were intended to focus some thoughts and thinking so that when trying to digest all this information, you will be able to see how you would interact with the witnesses in trying to probe some of these issues.
So that was the extent of my contribution to the project. I shall turn the microphone back to the chairman. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, do you have any questions after this first presentation?
Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, I want to talk about technology. Of course, there is some discussion of content, but the paper really provides no indication of what impact this might have on the two official languages in Canada.
.1155
The information highway is one technology that will have a very different impact, depending on the language involved. If part of a Canadian vision involves promoting both languages, perhaps you could tell me whether differences in impact have been studied?
I think we'll probably find the same things we found with respect to television. In the case of Quebec and the rest of French-speaking Canada, there is a sort of natural barrier that allows local culture to play a more prominent role, whereas English Canada, which doesn't have that barrier, is facing far more complex problems. In preparing this paper, did you explore or develop any means of determining the kind of impact this might have on the development of Canada's two languages?
[English]
Ms Noel: Yes, we were aware of the issue, and we did talk about it among ourselves quite extensively. Our research did not reveal any targeted programs that dealt with the issue of language. Certainly, in some of the materials, you will see that we have broken out French and English, particularly in the television sector, because, as you quite rightly pointed out, the impacts are very different. It's an issue, I think, that will require targeted programs on the part of the government, because the needs are different in English and French.
But to date, although we were aware of it and we've pointed it out in the documentation, we weren't able to identify anything in particular that dealt with the issue. So it's not that we weren't aware of it, it was that we really didn't find anything.
But I should have mentioned it. You're right.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I believe you based yourself mainly on existing television programming. What that means, then, is that as far as the information highway is concerned, there is no sort of vision aimed at ensuring linkages between Quebec and the rest of the Francophone world, or between the English-speaking provinces and the Commonwealth or the United States. I'm talking about information exchange networks. So, you haven't been able to determine whether technology and existing operating systems and networks foster the development of communications in the English language, rather than in the French language, or whether this is really a completely new field that really can't be assessed at this time. Is that right?
[English]
Ms Noel: The answer to that is yes, it is brand new. Susan has just advised me that some measures are in development at the moment, and we certainly can provide a note for you on what's being considered.
In general, Canadian content on the information highway, period, is an emerging issue. Breaking that down even further into initiatives for different languages is a subset. In terms of policy, we haven't even tackled the broader issue yet.
But certainly, if I were asked to look ahead to tell you what I see, I would say that in the area of building allowances in terms of smaller countries with particular needs, be they language needs or cultural needs, or forming alliances with other countries that have the same language or the same cultural needs, is a very good avenue. I believe some work has already been done on that in terms of the international trading system and technology.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: May I interject briefly to pick up on what Mr. Crête brought up?
Say we take it for granted that language and culture are intertwined and that we know, for instance, that it seems to be a fact that it's much harder for the French language in Canada to have the sort of impact on the information highway that English has because the United States and so forth has a far readier impact.
.1200
If we then say that the information highway is going to dictate a lot of what our future culture is going to be, then when you talk about the 200 million people who are going to be impacted, how do we make sure in our country that the minority language, which happens to be French, has the same chance? In other words, how do we make sure the impact on culture will be a balanced one? I think it's a big issue that we should be addressing.
Ms Noel: Absolutely.
The Chairman: In other words, Canadian content is one thing, but surely, that is part of Canadian content.
Ms Noel: Yes. And it was very eloquently explained as well in terms of how you broke it down.
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Noel: I totally agree. As the interaction with the witnesses continues during the course of the study, perhaps witnesses might be invited to come up with some very concrete ideas about exactly how that could be accomplished.
The Chairman: Maybe that is one of the questions that should be included.
Ms Noel: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In regard to cultural exemptions in international agreements, there seems to be some confusion in the minds of different elected officials relative to whether we really do have a cultural exemption.
I'm going to phrase this in a way such that it doesn't compromise your position as an independent expert or witness. Could you give us your take on whether, in the negotiations of the free trade agreement, NAFTA and GATT, but particularly NAFTA, there indeed truly exists a workable cultural exemption, one that really does work, or is it more window dressing?
Ms Noel: I probably should run from that question with a 10-foot pole.
In my research and in the conversations I've had with people on this issue, I retreat into my lawyerly training. Any exemption, be it one in the Copyright Act that we explored for months last fall or one in an international trading agreement, they all amount to the same thing. The scope of the exemption is defined with precision in the agreements, and things fall within the exemption or they fall outside of it.
One of the issues, as you will see when you can read the papers with a bit more leisure, is that the scope of the existing cultural exemption in NAFTA and GATT is a preliminary to the next round of negotiations of GATT, where, I would predict, the Americans are going to put that whole issue back on the table again. They'll be quibbling about the scope of the cultural exemption.
The question you asked was: is there or isn't there? I don't think that's the question. I think the real issue is: how wide or how narrow is the exemption? That's the real issue that has to be dealt with. We have one that we've seen in the case of the WTO, which was the preliminary ruling on Sports Illustrated. In some aspects, it was found that the cultural exemption was not helpful, but it was on other issues as well in GATT, not just the cultural exemption.
When we go into the next round, we are going to be devising perhaps another exemption. How we craft it or negotiate it is going to define the degree of latitude Canada and other members of the World Trade Organization have to protect their cultural industries outside of the rules that are provided in those agreements.
I'm not trying to duck your question. I'm just saying that perhaps you didn't ask the question in a.... How's that for a good lawyerly answer?
Mr. Jim Abbott: I appreciate it. I'm asking for your expertise on this. If I were to translate it into my unlawyerly language, are you basically saying that although the cultural exemption is in both the FTA and NAFTA, its scope is not clearly defined and is perhaps open to interpretation by both parties?
Ms Noel: That's one aspect of it.
.1205
Another aspect is that words sometimes mean different things to different people. So the scope of the exception itself is unclear, as we saw with the exemptions in the Copyright Act.
We had witnesses who came before this committee. With the same words, there were two wildly different interpretations. This is what has happened with the cultural exemption in those agreements.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Do you have any questions, Ms Phinney?
Ms Beth Phinney: No, I don't right now.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to follow up on Mr. Abbott's question. I agree with you to a certain extent that it may not be a question of whether the cultural exemption exists and how wide or how narrow it is. I think it could also be put in another way. The narrowness or the width of the cultural exemption can depend largely on its relationship to commerce.
This is what I'm concerned with. If there is a commerce factor, trade factor, or competition factor, then the cultural aspect is diminished. There is beginning to be a pattern under the Copyright Act. I still think there's a problem there and here as well, and I just wanted your feelings on this.
Ms Noel: I couldn't agree with you more. I think we can look at the cultural exemption and some of the issues in the Copyright Act, as you quite correctly point out, and look at the same provisions in legislation or in an international trade agreement. We can look at these and take from them completely different interpretations.
If you look at it by saying that business is business, you come to one conclusion. If you look at it as a cultural policy issue, you come to a completely different conclusion on the basis of the very same words.
I characterize this as a relentless confrontation between two points of view. It is happening at the international level. I don't think it is going to go away. I think it is going to continue relentlessly. I can't see it ever ending.
Countries like the United States that are exporters of cultural products and want all the world markets open and completely unrestricted are going to continually challenge measures like our legislation on split runs. We say it is a cultural policy measure. They disagree, saying to us that they are protecting a national industry and it is a commercial issue. This is not going to stop.
It is important that, at the international level, appropriate arbitration systems are put in place so both points of view can be heard. Then of course, the wording of the cultural exemption also factors very importantly into this mix. So I agree with you.
Mr. Russell MacLellan: I have just one more point. When it comes to dispute mechanism provisions, I sometimes wonder whether we're getting proper reasons for decisions.
I'll just put it in the legal context for a minute. When you have a court case, the court will set down in very definite terms why they find in a certain area.
Do you feel that in these dispute mechanism review panels, or whatever, we're getting this kind of reasoning? With the dispute panel decisions, are we going to be able to develop and compile a body of knowledge that will allow us to read and be able to predict future decisions and future outcomes the way we can in the common law?
Ms Noel: This is a very good question. I've never thought about it in those terms. I do not think we have enough history to really be able to make an informed assessment or judgment. But I guess the structuring of those panels is one of those framework issues or infrastructure issues that is really critical, because it is like anything else: your legal system, including your court system, is dependent upon how good your judges are. If the judges are no good, then the body of legal history is not going to be any good either.
This is a very good issue to explore at the international level. We have to make sure the infrastructure is there and the appointments that are made are good ones. We need people who are able to provide this history and do this precedent-setting so there are things that can be followed by the people who come after. It's a very good point.
.1210
Mr. Russell McLellan: It's not only that. The United States is in a position where they can wear us down with respect to shakes and shingles and so on. When the dispute is brought, they could lose and then bring the same dispute again, as has been the case. I'm concerned about the whole future, even where we're on good ground.
Ms Noel: So there is the importance of the structure and the precedents that are set.
Mr. Russell McLellan: Yes, we need the precedents so we know why the decision is being given. I would hope the department and the government are watching this to make sure we are compiling reasons and precendents as to why certain decisions are the way they are.
Ms Noel: It's a very long-term view, but it's very important.
Mr. Russell MacLellan: We're in this for the long term. I don't see them as being short-term measures.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms Beth Phinney: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask Mr. MacLellan if we are allowed to go back after a settlement is made and ask for a better explanation? Can we do this? I don't know whether we can in those dispute settlements.
Mr. Russell MacLellan: I don't know. I don't think it's been tried. It has not to my knowledge been tried. There is no appeal process. The decision is given and that's it. I don't think a lot of attention has been given to this aspect. This is my feeling as to the reasons.
Ms Noel: There's also the precedent value.
Mr. Russell MacLellan: There's also the precedent value, so each time, we are really at square one on each of these dispute mechanisms.
Ms Beth Phinney: Who in our government should be negotiating to make sure explanations are more specific? Where would this be done?
The Chairman: I think the appeal law is being conducted through the Minister for International Trade with all the expertise of the Department of Justice and so forth. But International Trade does an appeal on behalf of the government. Isn't that so, Ms Alter?
Ms Susan Alter (Committee Researcher): There is an appeal mechanism in place. I don't know if the government has announced yet whether it's going to appeal it.
Ms Noel: I believe it has.
The Chairman: I think these questions should be followed up, for sure.
Ms Alter, could we turn it over to you?
Ms Alter: I'm going to be very brief. I'm just going to explain to you how the tables work. As René mentioned at the beginning in his opening remarks, when the document is complete - this is still a draft document - there will be four tables. Right now, there are two tables that are complete, and these tables list the current federal cultural support measures in place.
What I'd like to do is take you through the two tables that are ready just to give you an overview of what is in them. Table 3.1, which you'll find on page 6, lists the support measures in place for some of the cultural industries, including film, video, sound recording and publishing. Then you'll see in table 3.2 the remainder of the cultural industries, which is broadcasting and distribution undertakings. The only reason I split it into tables 3.1 and 3.2 is simply that it couldn't all fit into one chart.
Table 1 and table 2, which aren't complete yet, will list support measures in place for the arts. In other words, this would cover the performing, visual and literary arts. It would also include support measures for heritage preservation. This would cover museums and galleries, historic sites and buildings, libraries and archives.
If you go back to page 6, you'll notice that the column in table 3.1 on the far left is shaded. This column lists support measures, which have been broken down into 10 subcategories. This column of support measures will be the same in every table. So the 10 subheadings or support measures that are listed include public infrastructure, direct funding, and financial incentives. Then moving along in this table 3.1 to the next page, we have levies, Canadian ownership rules, Canadian content requirements and legislated rights and protections.
.1215
On the following page, we again have international agreements, public services, and last, policy under development. This captures some of those areas such as those we were touching on with the information highway and French-language content issues. There may not be measures in place for those right now, but something is in the works. So that's the last row.
In terms of reading the tables without going into the details of everything listed there, if you turn back to page 6, under the cultural industries table, look at direct funding, for example. You can read across the table to see all the direct funding measures that are in place for those three cultural industries at the top: film and video, sound recording, and publishing.
The other way you can read the table is down. For example, if you wanted to look at all the federal cultural policy support measures identified as in place for publishing, you'd just go to your publishing column and read down the column. You can see everything from public infrastructure at the top, on down to direct funding. That continues through all those pages I just took you through.
So with publishing, for example, please go on to page 7. I wanted to mention one thing to you about what we were talking about with the WTO decision. There was mention of the customs tariff that prohibits the physical importation of split-run editions. Well, that's listed under levies as a policy measure. It's in question now, but it's there, as is the 80% excise tax on split-run editions.
As you go through these charts, you'll notice there are a lot of abbreviations. I apologize for those, because I know this means you have to refer back to the list of abbreviations that precedes the tables. This was necessary, however, simply because of space considerations. I tried to keep the charts short.
I want to tell you what the charts don't provide. They don't provide you the details on all those various programs and measures. They just give you the names, take you to the departments they're linked to, and provide a rough sort of description of what the measures are. If you require more details or are interested in knowing more about a certain policy measure, it may require that we provide you with further documentation.
The other thing the tables don't provide you with is any kind of analysis or comparison of the impact or effectiveness of these measures. This is really just simply an inventory that's been put into a structure in order to help organize. When you look at it at a glance, you can get a picture of the support measures in each of the cultural industries, for example. And when the arts table is ready, you can give it a glance to see what's being done for visual arts and that sort of thing.
The Chairman: Ms Alter, before I pass on to questions, I wanted to ask you to refer back to what was being discussed earlier about recommendations for potential change.
Let's take the example of broadcasting. Looking at policy under development in the broadcasting column, you have ``copyright in a communications signal (Bill C-32 amending Copyright Act)''.
I think what the members were trying to drive at this morning was.... Just take the example of the Juneau report. Did the Juneau report make any significant recommendations that may not be under policy development now but should be? Should we add a column here for main recommendations that should at least be considered? It seems to me that this is what we have to get into.
Ms Alter: These tables are simply a status report of what is currently in place. That was the number one item on the work plan of what the committee wanted.
The Chairman: I understand that.
Ms Alter: To take it further, I'm not sure I'd put it in these tables, because I think it's another discussion and kind of analysis. This is just a snapshot of what exists. That's all it was intended to be.
The Chairman: Do you have a question, Ms Phinney?
.1220
Ms Beth Phinney: No, but I want to thank Ms Noel and the researchers for what they've done here. It's very good. I've never seen it laid out like this before. This is very good. It certainly would help our discussions if we could have what we asked for earlier, which is a look at what has been recommended before, so that we will know where we're going and whether we're just repeating the same thing. But this is very good.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Lemieux, perhaps you could pick it up from here.
Mr. René Lemieux: Just to give you an example, we have a heading for broadcasting in Table 3.2. Under that heading, you can see the series of measures currently in place in the broadcasting sector, under the heading ``Support Measures''. One of the questions the Committee included in its work plan was whether these measures had been truly effective and had yielded positive results.
So, I took a closer look at that, which involves describing the socio-economic impact of some of these cultural support measures and policies. On page 28 of the English text, there is a small chart that I want to discuss in that very context. You can also go to paragraph 2.3.4 of your text. The numbering is the same in both English and French.
Here I describe the impact of measures currently in place on the broadcasting sector. There are a number of other ways of measuring that impact, but this is one of them. You can see here that on average, Canadians watch 23.2 hours of television per week. Television viewing is thus an activity that takes up a considerable amount of Canadians' leisure time.
And yet, despite the support measures and policies now in place, Canadians - and this answers one of the questions raised by Mr. Crête, because this is where we see a clear demarcation between the two cultural or linguistic groups - watch a significant amount of foreign programming. In the case of English-speaking Canadians, it's American programming.
If you have a look at the table that sets out these results, you'll see that among Anglophones, 71% of viewing time is devoted to foreign programs, whereas among Francophones, it's exactly the reverse: only 33% of their viewing time is devoted to foreign programming. This can be more closely analyzed, however, and when you take that analysis a little further, you see that the results change considerably.
In a very short paragraph that follows that table, I make a distinction for dramatic programming, which would include variety shows, films or series. Here we see that Francophones spend almost 60% of their time viewing foreign dramas, while Anglophones spend 95 per cent. One of the questions raised by the Committee, Mr. Chairman, was whether current policies and support measures in specific cultural industries were effective.
.1225
As I mentioned, there are a number of ways of measuring the impact of those policies. I just want to give you an example of the kind of analysis that can be made of cultural measures and policies. If we had more time, that analysis could be made on the basis of a number of other measures.
A little further on, in paragraph 2.3.6, I give some statistics that illustrate the impact of cultural support measures and policies in the film, publishing and sound recording sector. I'll leave it to you to determine how effective current policies actually are. We have noted the following:
- 92% of Canadian movie screens are showing foreign films;
- 60% of Canadian bookstore shelves are occupied by American books; Canadian book sales
account for only 35% of book sales;
- 81% of English-language consumer magazines on Canadian newsstands are imported;
Canadian magazines account for only 14% of newsstand sales; and
- 88% of new sound recording released consist of foreign content material; Canadian sound
recordings account for only 9% of sales.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Lemieux, if we take the example that you gave at paragraph 2.3.6, on page 34 of the French version, and transpose it for the English-language market, I think the results for the English language would be completely different from the results for the French language.
Mr. René Lemieux: You're right, Mr. Chairman. For the most part, the information we have provided in this paper is already available. So, that information exists and could be provided for both linguistic markets.
[English]
The Chairman: Ms Phinney.
Ms Beth Phinney: I just want to mention that seeing this information makes all the effort we put into the copyright bill seem worthwhile.
The Chairman: That's for sure.
Ms Beth Phinney: It emphasizes the need to have done that work.
The Chairman: It really shakes you up when you see it that way. It's very dramatic.
Ms Beth Phinney: Yes. It's quite amazing. People worry about the little bit of money we give to the CBC.
The Chairman: For your information, Mr. Lemieux just gave me a copy of a press release dated March 14 from the office of the United States trade representative. Ambassador Barshefsky said:
- While we are supportive of efforts to promote national identity through cultural development,
we cannot allow Canadian entities to use ``culture'' as an excuse to provide commercial
advantages to Canadian products or to evict U.S. firms from the Canadian market. We will
continue to vigorously oppose actions of this type that harm U.S. interests, whether taken by
Canada or by other countries.
The Chairman: Yes. So it's very obvious that this is going to be an ongoing battle, if not war.
Unfortunately, we don't have a quorum in order to discuss business matters. What I would suggest to the members who are here is that we study the suggested list of witnesses and look at this document again. We've given the researchers our suggestions for keeping this up.
.1230
The next meeting will be on Thursday. We are going to try to start half an hour earlier to look at the business issues we couldn't tackle today because of lack of quorum.
Ms Beth Phinney: When is that meeting?
The Chairman: It is going to be on Thursday this week. We'll meet the Auditor General.
Anyway, we'll be in touch with you. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.