Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 6, 1997

.1110

[Translation]

The Chairman: Order please! I call the meeting to order.

[English]

The meeting is open.

I would like to place on record that according to custom and our guidelines, we called the office of the whip of the Reform Party and advised them we have a quorum and we are ready to start. We've given them enough time. So there may be somebody from the Reform Party, but they've been advised that the meeting is due to start and given sufficient time to be here.

[Translation]

There are several items on the agenda. You know our clerk, Ms Hamilton, René Lemieux as well as Susan Alter, who worked with us when we considered a private bill. Mr. Lemieux invitedMs Alter in case we proceed with the proposal before us,

[English]

the suggested proposal for a study of culture. Ms Alter is a specialist and we would need her help, so we thought we would invite her to the first meeting in case this will proceed.

I have a few small items to deal with at the end of the meeting, but I thought we would start off with my memo to you of January 30, 1997.

[Translation]

I would like to start off with my memo to you of January 30, 1997, which proposes that we study the evolving role of the federal government in support of culture in Canada.

[English]

It proposes that we have a study on the evolving role of the federal government in support of culture in Canada.

[Translation]

As my memo explains,

[English]

I was in touch with the minister, of course, and had discussions with the parliamentary secretary.

[Translation]

I was in touch with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and had discussions with them to ensure that if we were to propose this mandate to members of the committee, we would have the support of the department and all of its resources. As you can see, the terms of reference are quite broad.

[English]

I realize this is a formidable task and it's impossible to do it overnight. The last such study, the Applebaum-Hébert study, took something like two years. Obviously now we have the benefit of that report and we have the benefit of a lot of work that's been done already. At the same time, this is not a short-term, fly-by-night study that we are proposing here.

I know members will ask me

[Translation]

what will happen if we start our work and an election is called in a few months or by the end of the year. We had to decide if we should submit the issue to members of the committee or wait until the next Parliament. We decided that it would be useful to start the work and go as far as we can before an election, whether it is called early or late in the year. The committee could at least start its work and prepare an interim report. This would be worthwhile because at the start of the new Parliament, the next committee could continue work that had already been started. There would be momentum to continue it.

.1115

We feel that it would be very valuable to start this study because a need exists. We could study several issues, including international treaties that influence culture today.

[English]

The whole thing is a very topical subject at the moment, and we feel we should get it going.

I'd like to open it to the members for discussion, because of course it is your choice, your decision. I'm sorry the Reform Party isn't here, because obviously it would be good to have their input on something like this. It has to be a committee project.

[Translation]

To carry out such a project,

[English]

we have to realize that our job is also to look at legislation that's coming up. I checked this out. There's only one piece of legislation that will come up in the foreseeable future.

[Translation]

I am referring to an Act to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential amendment to another Act,

[English]

the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.

[Translation]

This bill was introduced following a consensus we forged with the Quebec government, which is directly affected by the bill.

[English]

The two bills were introduced in both parliaments at the same time, in Quebec and in Ottawa, so it's a consensus law.

[Translation]

There is no disagreement on this bill. Everyone is in favour of establishing this marine park. This bill is very straightforward and we will probably only need one meeting to consider it.

So we could undertake such a project and study the issue of culture until the bill is passed on second reading.

[English]

When it receives second reading in the House, we could then just tackle it for one session. So it would not interfere. There's no other legislation before us.

I would like to open the discussion to the members.

[Translation]

I will start with Mr. Leroux, who can give us his reaction.

Mr. Leroux (Richmond - Wolfe): Having read the document you sent us, I can see that you were right in saying that the suggested mandate involves a considerable amount of work. I was wondering what happened. Did the government all of a sudden decide to tackle all aspects of Canadian cultural policy head on? You will recall the recent problems we faced in the case of DMX. Mr. Eggleton had problems with Ms Barshefsky in the United States. There is a lot of pressure from the U.S. and the technology is there. Mr. Manley had problems with Polygram. These were important issues. When a microprocessing company can set up shop in the Ottawa region, it is even more interesting. There is a lot at stake in these areas.

I have several questions on the scope of the task and I think I'm entitled to ask them.

I would like to start by turning to the experts. I had someone prepare a summary of everything government committees or commissions have done on culture. It is a summary that is not even complete, but I started with the Aird report in 1932 and I went as far as 1996, which was the last committee that Ms Copps asked Mr. Houle to chair to provide a statistical analysis on the pertinence of Canada's cultural policy on distribution. I noted that over the past ten years, tens of millions of dollars have been spent on publishing, magazines, and TV and radio production. A number of issues have been covered.

Are the conclusions reached by these committees and these commissions over the past 10 years not sufficient to finally see some convergence? From what I have seen in my analysis, and I tried to examine each aspect briefly, there is a rather clear convergence in the work on the whole, which recognizes the need for extensive cultural protection in Canada if we want some vitality and investments. Everyone agrees that cultural industries are essential links. If we truly want a Canadian culture, like the Quebec culture, we must acknowledge that protection mechanisms must be implemented.

.1120

I read International Trade's interim report on Sports Illustrated and it included the following closing remarks:

[English]

[Translation]

When decisions are made on the international stakes with respect to cultural identity, I wonder if we're also talking about cultural industries. As part of the ambitious plan you are proposing, would it not be a good idea to immediately tackle a sector that has not been studied as much as the others: new technology and international agreements? That is an issue that has not been studied as much by all of the other commissions.

I am also concerned that our schedule will probably include an election. I agree with your comment that the possibility of an election in a few months should not prevent us from working or advancing certain issues. I agree with you; we are here and we have to work and advance certain issues, substantive issues. That is a substantive project.

However, I wonder if it is necessary to undertake such a broad mandate on the issue and if, over the past 10 years, some committees and commissions did not reach conclusions that would still be valid today.

Like Mr. Houle concluded in his 1996 report, we have to ensure we have a strong national sector for the distribution of Canadian property if we want funding commitments and a dynamic audio-visual production industry in Canada. So he is talking about Canadian policy, and the results of his study are valid, well founded and verifiable.

We can surely draw a number of things from the studies that have been conducted by the commissions over the past 10 years. However, I did not find much on new technology. At the dawn of the 21st century, new technology is an issue; we saw that when we studied Bill C-32.

Moreover, on several occasions, our colleague Mr. Bélanger talked about the economy and culture in the 21st century. New technology will be an issue and we will have to study intellectual property in that light. These aspects have not been covered to a large extent.

Do the experts feel that by undertaking such a vast project, we will discover something new or that we will reach the same conclusions as all the other commissions over the past 10 years?

The Chairman: Before going to the experts, I would like to explain how this work has evolved. I would like to start by clarifying that it has nothing to do with Mr. Eggleton's recent comments. It all started a long time ago, when Ms Copps was appointed Minister. She told me that she wanted everything we have on culture to be coordinated. It is true that there have been a host of commissions and studies. We could discuss that. And recently, an exhaustive study was conducted on CBC and Radio-Canada. I do not know how many there have been in all.

In looking at the work plan outline, especially points 1, 2 and 3, you will note that we are proposing to draw up an inventory of all the instruments we have. We would profile the national institutions, heritage bodies and cultural industries. We would also examine existing legislation and regulations, subsidies, Crown Corporations, and other policy instruments. We would look at what we have, including the studies you mentioned, so that we do not try to reinvent the wheel and repeat the same thing. After that, we would look at impacts.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that we must look into technological change at all costs, and the whole issue of trade and the globalization of markets.

.1125

We could divide the work plan outline into two parts. First of all, the researchers could draw up an inventory on their own time and present an overview of what is already in place today, what we already know and the conclusions that have been drawn on all kinds of issues.

We will certainly not study the CBC again. Mr. Juno and his commission have already dealt with the issue. We will look at all of the tools that currently exist in cultural industries and everything that has already been done. We will prepare, for the committee, an inventory of everything that is already in place, and after that, we will study the impact on the evolution of our policy in light of the next century. We will study socio-economic impacts, the impacts of interdependence on world trade, and the impacts of technological change. We would also like to do a comparative study of developments in other countries or groups of countries that are facing the same circumstances we are.

France, Switzerland and Germany are experiencing problems that are common to all of us today. There is the invasion and sheer size of the American market, and American culture in film and publishing that is swallowing us up. For example, an American university is using English on its Internet site in the French market.

They are facing the same circumstances we are. What lessons can we learn from them? What are they doing? We could do this type of comparative study.

I know that it is a very broad undertaking. However, I think that by using the tools we have today, and what has already been done, as a starting point, we could look at the impacts, especially with respect to trade interdependence and technological change, and we can look at what is being done elsewhere. These are the instruments the committee would use.

Mr. Lemieux and Ms Alter would perhaps like to comment.

Mr. René Lemieux (committee researcher): Mr. Leroux, I think that you very accurately described the context as well as the knowledge we are lacking on new technology and the impact of international treaties.

We need to integrate our knowledge. Like you said so clearly, this is precisely what the committee could do.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Just by looking at this, and from what you have just said, it looks like topics 1 and 2 are lists of things. I don't know how soon we would be planning to start, but we would probably have to have that list for our reference before we start. It could take several people a long time to get that list together -

The Chairman: That's correct.

Ms Phinney: - which means we wouldn't be able to start on the other work until that list is put together.

What is your opinion? My guess is that a couple of people would take a month to get that material together. Maybe it's not that much work, but I've been thinking about where you'd have to go for all that material to actually find out...topics 3, 4, and 5 are well worth it. I think each of them maybe could take six months for us to work on...I don't know if we're just glossing over things or if we're -

The Chairman: No. I don't think we should gloss.

Ms Phinney: I think each of topics 3, 4, and 5 would take several months. I'm just trying to be realistic about timeframes here. I looked at this and I thought this was a marvellous idea, but then I started just letting it float around in my head and I thought ``It is going to take a long time to do a serious study''.

The Chairman: I think your point is very well taken, Ms Phinney. I think this was the subject of our meeting with Mr. Lemieux and Mrs. Hamilton yesterday or the day before, just to see how we could make this work in practice, because we have two problems.

.1130

We have the problem you mentioned. We must have time to collate all this information, make it available to the committee members, and be able to answer their questions. It takes time to put it together and it takes time to make everybody aware and informed of all of it. It's the base of our work, and without knowing that we can't start. I agree.

We have a second problem. It's very obvious that we're not going to do something like this by ourselves. It calls for people to be heard, and we also have to decide...one of the members called me and suggested that we can't really say that we would have a study like this without going to other parts of the land to hear people. It would seem that we can't confine ourselves to Ottawa. That's another question.

If we're going to invite people, I think we can do it in two ways. When this work is known, we could invite a lot of Canadians to appear. We could tell them to let us know if they want to be invited. There will be a lot of people interested. We'll have to cull that list.

In addition, I think, we'll need to have a starting list of people who we ourselves decide to invite. In other words, the large institutions that have appeared before us on Bill C-32, the big block of artists and publishers and so forth...they are obvious witnesses. We would have two groups. We would have one group from a list that we will draw up, and we will invite them ourselves. The other one, I think, will be a list of individual Canadians who want to appear. They will signify their interest to us.

It takes time for this to become known, so I'll first of all suggest an outline of work to you about what weeks are available, because there are some weeks that we have a break in, like Easter. Then, from there on, we can start by saying how many hours we need. Mr. Lemieux can tell us. He has already worked on how much time it would take to invite people, receive invitations, and be ready with public hearings. We know that. I think we have a fair idea of that. Also, he can answer us in regard to how to deal with topics 1 and 2 especially.

Maybe it's time to start that so we can clarify these two points.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: I would like us to agree on the content before discussing the means. Having listened to Mr. Lemieux and your previous comments, as a member of the Official Opposition and vice Chairman of the committee, I am completely open to the idea of starting by integrating what already exists. That seems fundamental. It is true that there can be a lot of studies and commissions and that several people may have an idea of each of them, but if no one has ever been clever enough to put everything together to see the impact... I agree entirely. Once we have the integration we can define new areas to study, and as Mr. Lemieux mentioned, we can tackle new technology and international treaties. It seems to me that until we have reached that stage, it is premature to establish our needs in terms of witnesses and subsequent work. I do not know if we agree in substance.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Leroux: Have our experts already started to assess the time frame needed to integrate what exists and define new areas of study? Has any kind of assessment been done already? If not, can we agree for it to be done before we start talking about setting deadlines, etc.?

As Mr. Lemieux also mentioned, it seems to me that there is a considerable amount of groundwork that needs to be done. I'm referring to the integration, which is a big part of it. The field of study will have to be clearly identified so that we don't have to start over. People must have already told you, as they have me, that they want to be heard. People know that we are going to start this study. We are already receiving calls from people who say they want to appear. Are we going to do another study of the socio-economic impact of the Canadian cultural industry even though, over the past five years, several committees and commissions have done so? That is why I'm trying to see what agreement there is in substance.

.1135

The Chairman: I will recognize Mr. Bélanger. Then,

[English]

I would like to suggest that maybe we should have a feeling from each member as to what you think about the substance of it. Are we agreed to start with that? If we're not, then we don't start. If we are, how do we start?

Mauril.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): I essentially agree with the idea of undertaking this adventure, knowing that it may be very long and arduous.

I think that our committee should travel to add an element of credibility and liven up our deliberations. We should go to different regions of the country and hear not only from experts and institution representatives, but also cultural consumers. We are all cultural consumers; every Canadian man and woman is a cultural consumer. We should try to obtain the instinctive views of the average Canadian and gauge the people's views. Let's not forget that aspect. Your work plan outline does not mention cultural consumers; I do not know if there's a technical term to describe them. We should go to those people.

To do this, I may have a suggestion that could help both these people and the institutions as well as us. We could prepare a discussion document, or even a questionnaire, to obtain their views and reactions. It could be distributed on a fairly large scale. If we had a synopsis of points 1 and 2 on your agenda, we could include it, or if not, send it out later. The issue is so broad that we should try to target the issues we want to discuss in as much detail as possible.

In the meantime, I could suggest some other things the committee could do, but I'll come back to that.

[English]

The Chairman: Now it would be good to have your feelings. I have spoken to Mr. Arseneault as parliamentary secretary. In fact we had a conference call with him and the minister on the idea, so I think he's well versed on what we're trying to do.

Mr. Arseneault, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): Time is essential, as we all know, and the idea of an interim report is good. Numbers 1 and 2 can be done outside of the committee hearings, but once that's ready, we would need maybe a session for a complete briefing on that material.

Number 3 could be started sooner rather than later, because we wouldn't need numbers 1 and 2 to start 3 in this case, the socio-economic impacts of Canadian culture. We could start working on that.

The meat of it, as Mr. Leroux has pointed out, is the new technologies and the impacts on the international scene, on culture, and on where we're going with that. That hits number 4. That would give time enough for people to prepare by the time we get to number 4.

There could be time enough for us to complete numbers 3 and 4 before the election and issue an interim report. Especially the number 4 issue to me is very important, and we can do number 3 fairly quickly as well.

We're on the right track. It's quite a challenge, but it can be done. As you say, if we don't complete it, that gives an indication to the next committee as to where to go, how to complete it, and when to complete it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As many of my colleagues have said, this is a very interesting and exciting project. When I looked at this, my first reaction was it would be really appropriate at the start of a term of a government, shortly after an election. That would probably be the ideal time.

That's not where we are. We're right near the end. So I guess I look at how we dive right into it. Do we go from the general to the specific and immediate or, as I seem to hear Mr. Arseneault saying, do we jump right into the most relevant and immediate concerns now present in this field and try to do something with those? In my opinion, that might be the more practical way to go.

.1140

In terms of travelling, I very much agree with my colleagues who have said that it's necessary. Again, given the realities right now, however, we're moving towards election time and I think we'll have to schedule travel very carefully. I know I have mounting commitments in my riding - as I'm sure we all have - and so although I agree that we need to do that, the practicality of it may pose some problems.

Those are some of my overall thoughts. I very much enjoy participating in this. I just think the timing of the election, whenever that is, is obviously going to have a big impact on what we can do. If we can carve out something that we can really achieve if we're looking at a June election, I'd rather see us carve out one of these areas on which we can make a lot of progress, rather than setting an impractical schedule for ourselves and just never getting to it.

The Chairman: Ms Phinney has asked me for the floor, but I will hear from Mr. PeriG first.

Mr. PeriG (Cambridge): Mr. Chairman, as we are aware, time is very essential. I don't think I have anything else to add to what we've heard so far. I would totally agree with the comments from our colleagues: time is very short. If we do start, where are we going to start? Of course, we can't just sit here. We cannot ignore the consumer of Canadian culture, so the travelling should be scheduled. We had an opportunity to hear from cultural institutions through Bill C-32, but there's a much wider range that we have to tackle. That takes in the consumer of Canadian culture, and it's going to take time. We should travel for that, but do we have a budget for it?

The Chairman: These are the things we are going to discuss.

Mr. PeriG: I have nothing else to add.

The Chairman: Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney: There was some comment about doing an interim report. I'm not exactly sure what that means. If that's what is normally done halfway through a study, I don't think we'll get halfway through it. If you look at it as being the introduction in the book, I see our work on number 3 - and perhaps we could say the same thing with number 4 - as being the first chapter, and that's all I can see us doing. In a broader sense than what's on here, though, we're almost saying, ``Here's what we're going to be looking at, and here's what four or five people or groups have said''.

Some people have suggested that we do no travelling at all until some time in the future - October or something like that - that we should just sort of open the issue and expand it to say we've talked to ten people we have called in on this, but we still have to... This would just present the areas we're going to hit, what we've found to be the most sensitive areas, the most important areas. In looking at the timeframe and in being realistic, I think our report would only be touching on what we are going to do.

I think this will take up our time, and it should be almost an introductory report. ``Interim'' sounds like it's presenting what you're doing halfway through or three-quarters of the way through, that you're not quite finished but have to get something out for the public. I don't think we're even going to get that far before we're recessing for some reason or other.

Mr. Arseneault: The election will be in the fall, so we have lots of time.

Ms Phinney: Well, June's coming.

Mr. Arseneault: It's August actually.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, then Mr. Leroux.

.1145

Mr. O'Brien: Just briefly, I agree with what Ms Phinney said. It kind of took one of my thoughts a little further. I certainly agree that for this kind of study you have to travel; you have to go to all of the regions.

Maybe what we ought to do now is just say, look, realistically, let's keep ourselves in Ottawa and do on this list what we can do in Ottawa. I don't know if we need to travel to Quebec City or Vancouver or Halifax to look at 4(a) and 4(b). We can probably do that kind of in-house.

If we get that done and we have some more time, then maybe we could go to the next, but I sense we should really just set up one sensible goal and knock it off, and then if we have more time, go to the next sensible goal. That's just a thought, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Leroux.

Mr. Leroux: What I am hearing from Ms Phinney and Mr. O'Brien are comments that give precedence to the task we have before us. Basically, I think that first of all, we should proceed with the initial integration before starting something else.

Regarding point 3 on socio economic impacts, several studies from the academic community and Statistics Canada have given us indicators of the economic impacts. There is a lot of work to do on the first three topics. Basically, we have to start by tackling points 4 and 5.

We want to move things along, but we are also in politics. So I can see the Minister wanting to make it an election issue. We have to bear in mind that it will have an impact on culture. I do not necessarily want the interim report to be an issue in the government's next White, Red or Blue book. Last time, it was Red. That should not be the sole purpose of our work.

I have nothing against election issues, but there is something in it for us, because government support for cultural protection helps support culture in Quebec. We are all aware of that. In that sense, I would like us to proceed with the work, and that if there must be election issues in the interim reports, that they be dealt with separately.

As for the means to do this, Mr. Bélanger talked about interesting pedagogical tools for making things more interactive, etc., but these means need to be defined according to what subjects we decide to study.

You are already quite advanced in your preparation because you circulated a schedule that takes us to June 8. However, I don't know if we should just go ahead and jump in with this schedule. I'll give my support to the committee for the substance so we may first go ahead with integrating our knowledge.

The Chairman: Mr. Leroux, the points you and your colleagues have raised are quite valid. First of all, I'd like to say that whatever we may think, there's no link between that and the government party's platform for the election. It's quite another matter that's being looked at by the normal committees working on that.

The interim report comes from the suggestion made by Mr. Lemieux who went through something similar himself. If you don't have a kind of a document at a given point in a committee's work, then there will be no follow up whereas if you do have an interim report it means that you need some follow up and that somebody else must carry on with the continuation of the work during the next Parliament. I was told that some committees even come up with two or three interim reports on different subjects. We have a lot of latitude in that respect.

So he suggested quite clearly that we should look at that option, seeing that before summer, even if there are no elections, maybe we'll decide we have enough on our plate to carry on. It will be our decision. The schedule I've suggested is very preliminary and is only there to give you an indication of how many weeks' work we have left. Rather than being too fuzzy about his, I'll askMs Hamilton

[English]

if she could just look at this.

.1150

The idea of this suggested timetable was just... I suggested to Mrs. Hamilton that it would be nice to have an idea of how many weeks of work we have before us, because there's a one-week break in February, there are a couple of weeks at Easter time, and I wanted to know between now and the adjournment of the House in June, whether there is or there is no election - pardon?

Mr. PeriG: You're sure it's June, not April?

An hon. member: It's June.

Ms Phinney: It might be September or October.

The Chairman: Maybe you know things I don't know.

Mr. O'Brien: If he knew that he could win some money.

Mr. Arseneault: We shouldn't be put off our business because we think there might be an election this year. The mandate of the government goes to 1998.

The Chairman: In any event, I asked Mrs. Hamilton to prepare a suggested timetable up to the time we would normally break, around the week of June 8 - it would be around June 15 or 20, somewhere around there - and show us how many weeks of work we will have.

If you look at this, we are already past the week of February 2. That week is gone. Next week, if we agree on the project, the minister has agreed to appear before us to tell us her view of all these things we've been discussing. If we agree on the project, she would come and say, this is the way I see the ministry evolving, this is the way I see it for the...and just give us her view.

Then, next week we would finalize a work plan. Mr. Lemieux and Madam Alter would suggest to us a witness list. We would circulate the list of witnesses that we would invite. Of course, once a communiqué was issued we would receive a lot of phone calls and so forth about people wanting to appear. We thought maybe the week of February 16, Bill C-78 will come through, or one of those weeks, and we'll have to spend some time on Bill C-78.

Between now and February 23, when we adjourn until March 2, all this time would be taken by the experts and the researchers to collate all the information relating to items 1, 2, and possibly 3, so that maybe during the week of February 16 we would sit with them and whoever else from the ministry, and they would define for us what they have put together - what kind of material they have collated - and give us a background paper that could then maybe serve as a kind of document. Part of it could serve as the document Mr. Bélanger was talking about, to send out to the public.

After discussing it with Mr. Lemieux, we had suggested that by March 2 we could start some public hearings, but you may feel that's kind of premature.

Anyway, look at this and give us your suggestions. It's purely an outline of what weeks are available and what we can possibly do between now and June. It's obviously just an outline, a suggestion.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, it's an interesting tool. We can see the weeks that we have in front of us. But if we agree on the substance, are we also agreed on the scope of the study? What is it?

The Chairman: The scope will be in numbers 1, 2 and possibly 3.

Mr. Lemieux, do you have a comment? Go ahead.

Mr. Leroux: If I understand this, the scope already includes numbers 1, 2 and 3. We have to collect things. So we won't have any witnesses coming on that.

The Chairman: No, no.

.1155

Mr. Lemieux: During February, we can have a look and see what we already have. I hope that within the context of the work preparing for the department's round table that the latter will have prepared some sort of integration of the knowledge in the areas we're interested in. I don't know because I didn't ask for it, but if the committee decides to go ahead it's the first thing I'll be doing. Based on the work already done, in view of our task, at that point we could make additions as needed and submit a document to the committee.

It's not impossible to collect things. However, it would be impossible for us to start from zero and complete work like what's set out in number 3, for example. I couldn't undertake work on socio economic impacts from square one; so you couldn't then expect that I'd be able to submit a report within the time frame we're allocated.

The Chairman: Mr. Lemieux, is it realistic to think that concerning numbers 1 and 2 and using the conclusions drawn by previous committees we might be able to complete the work by the end of February?

Mr. Lemieux: It's possible if some work has already been done by others. If it were to be done based on all the reports that already exist, I think it would be a bit tight. It would be tight.

The Chairman: Wouldn't it be wiser to provide a bit more time for this fundamental work?

Mr. Lemieux: If you want to give us the time, I'll take it willingly.

Mr. Leroux: I think it has to be done that way. What you're saying is quite right. You can't start back at square one, but there are already data for part 3. We know that a lot of people point out the cultural industry's economic impact and a lot of figures are bandied about, but you're going to have to collect all that.

Mr. Lemieux: Probably paraphrasing someone, I'd say that doing 1, 2, and 3 would be a doctoral thesis. We know how long it could take.

The Chairman: Let's say we went until mid-March or something like that, would that be enough? I'd like you to feel comfortable. You have the necessary tools.

Mr. Lemieux: If you give me that long, I think it will be enough.

The Chairman: Do you have enough resources? Do you and Ms Alter need additional people?

Mr. Lemieux: To answer that question properly, I'd have to consult both the department and other resource people.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney: I agree that they need more time, and I think we need more time, because once they prepare the material, it's going to take an awful lot of reading or at least glancing through so we know what's there. I don't know if they'll make some kind of index, but if we have a pile this big and we want to talk about something, we want to know we can go tonight to this and if we have somebody else the next day we can go there. We have to know what the material is.

As to your comment that we would go until the middle of March, we are then on two weeks' break. No, it's March 23, so we would have one week and then be on two weeks' break. I don't know about other people, but my two weeks' break is already full. I'm just letting you know, because it says there's a possibility of sitting here for those two weeks.

The Chairman: I would agree with you that we might as well give them the whole time, right up to the break.

Ms Phinney: Yes, and they wouldn't have the witnesses, so it really would mean you'd almost have to start on April 6, the first week after. I think it would have to be then.

The Chairman: Then we'll have only one month.

Ms Phinney: We still have until September or October at least, or next spring.

.1200

The Chairman: Mr. Lemieux was just mentioning something to me that makes a lot of sense. We could ask him for a document prior to our two-week break. Admittedly, we have a lot of stuff planned for our two-week break, but all the same, it would seem to me we could make the effort to find a few hours every day or an hour or so every day to read the stuff, so that by the time we get back here after the adjournment we're ready to start the real work.

[Translation]

Ms Phinney: Great idea.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, great.

[Translation]

Very good French.

[English]

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Bélanger: On the same line of thought, the week of 16 March we're sitting. If we had that document, we could perhaps meet -

The Chairman: Once.

Mr. Bélanger: Once on the 16th to receive the document, glance it over, make some suggestions, and perhaps at the same time approve a questionnaire or document to generate some discussion. Perhaps until then we could feed in to Madam Hamilton names and addresses of people or groups we'd want this questionnaire sent to.

The Chairman: That's a very good idea, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Bélanger: So when we come back in April we can get to it right away.

The Chairman: We are getting somewhere. Can I suggest this in summary of what everybody has said?

We will give the researchers up to the week of 16 March. On 16 March we will have one or two sessions, whatever is needed, to do the following.

One, we will be introduced to the material, which the researchers will explain to us. If there's a need for other experts from the ministry to join them, they will organize that. So we will have a session of questions and answers and be introduced to the material.

Two, we will look at the idea of a questionnaire that they would draw out of this material and propose to us, so it could be made available to the public.

And three, we will also review an invitation list for witnesses.

That would give us a starting point for the study. We would know where the researchers were coming from. They would explain the material to us, which we could look at during the two weeks of the break. It would also give Madam Hamilton two weeks to invite people and so forth, which is a good time, so really when we return on 6 April, we can start hearing people at that time. That would back up the studies that had been done.

Mr. Bélanger: And if we're still around in May we can travel.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: That can't work with the witnesses. First, we have to know how to target the witnesses we want to hear on such or such a subject. Secondly, our experience with Bill C-32 has helped us to understand that some witnesses, to prepare their own brief, were also requesting time to do some research. That would specifically be the case if we start looking at such important subjects as the new technology and international treaties. Some briefs will have to be examined by future witnesses and I don't think they could prepare in two weeks.

Mr. Bélanger: During that time, we can start clearing out some underbrush. If we're still here in May, we'll either start inviting people here or going off to see them.

The Chairman: Mr. Leroux, here's a suggestion. The minute we make the work public, I think there will be strong interest shown. At that point, if you know the organizations you want to invite as witnesses, they'll already have a lot of subject matter and all kinds of documents to consult in that area. They'll be able to do the same work we're doing, in other words collect what they already have. I think that early on you're going to see that a lot of organizations will be getting that work underway. I think those organizations will have to do this at the very beginning instead of waiting for the committee's formal invitation.

.1205

[English]

Could I have some other thoughts about what Mr. Leroux brought up? It's a big point.

Mr. Arseneault: You've explained it quite well, Mr. Chairman, and we should go ahead with it. We've gone around full circle and full circle and full circle. I'm ready to accept what you've proposed.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: I understand from what the Chairman has just explained that between 9 February and 16 March we'll have to produce a first summary document, a synthesis of the knowledge. This document will be given to us on March 16 and as Mr. Bélanger was saying, we will then be ready and we'll already have had a list of witnesses and proposals and so forth. That's what I understood.

The Chairman: We could even do that in the meanwhile. If we have lists and proposals, we won't wait until the 16th. If you have a list, Mr. Leroux, give it to us as soon as possible. At that point we'll be ready to take off again on April 6 and start hearing witnesses.

Mr. Leroux: How about the Minister? Will that be on April 6?

The Chairman: I think it would be useful to hear the Minister at the outset, as soon as we make our announcement. That will mean some publicity for the project.

[English]

The minister is prepared to come on February 13, either at 10 a.m. or at 3:30 p.m.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: As for the extremely important matters of international trade, treaties and industry, will we have the three Ministers appearing, Industry, Canadian Heritage and International Trade?

The Chairman: It's up to the committee...

Mr. Arseneault: I'm already at number 4.

Mr. Leroux: I'm at number 4 also.

The Chairman: As we're the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we're going to invite the Minister to tell us... I've already discussed that with her.

[English]

just to give them an idea of the overall thrust of it.

[Translation]

Are we going to try to have the meeting televised

[English]

for the minister's appearance? Ms Hamilton is trying to negotiate it for 10 a.m. It's already booked for 10 a.m., but I would imagine people prefer 10 a.m. rather than 3:30 p.m., so we'll try to confirm it with the minister for February 13 at 10 a.m. That's your first choice, I take it.

[Translation]

It will be on February 13, next week.

[English]

Could we all agree on this so far? Everybody is agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So we'll carry on on this basis and we'll keep the Reform Party informed.

Next week we will have the minister. Besides the minister, we will let you know if Bill C-78 comes up or if there's any other item in between. We'll let you know. But count on the minister's appearance next week.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: I have two comments. The first is about what we've just discussed and the other is about other things.

I'd like to get back to the issue of committee travel. If the House is still sitting in May, it may be a good opportunity for us to take the month of May or the weeks during which we are sitting to travel to various places across the country. That's my first comment. To do that, we'll have to see if we have the necessary financial resources.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, I don't want to interrupt you, but I will ask Ms Hamilton to examine the budget. We have a bit of money left from what had been budgeted for the examination of Bill C-32. So we will look at that and come back to it next week.

Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if the committee wanted to think about it, if we have time between now and the week of March 16 and if the committee agrees, I would have a suggestion regarding the witnesses.

.1210

The Chairman: That is not what we are discussing.

Mr. Bélanger: It's not on that topic, but if there's any time left, I would like us to invite Téléfilm and the people who manage the cable companies production fund. My personal intention is to see how the criteria of these organizations restrict the participation of francophone producers from outside Montreal, because outside Montreal, you might as well forget it. If you're not in Montreal and you're not at Téléfilm, you don't have much of a chance to get any assistance for independent production. If the committee agrees, I would very much like us to ask these two organizations to meet with us so that we can find out about their intentions in this regard.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I just feel on March 17 you should throw a massive St. Patrick's Day party. It's Canadian culture.

An hon. member: I support that.

Mr. O'Brien: I'll bring some of the beer.

An hon. member: All right!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Hold it now. Before you leave, we have to make a decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: Mr. Bélanger's suggestion is an excellent one. The decision to establish the cultural production creation fund and a board of directors that was to develop an analysis grid for the acceptance of production scripts has had an impact. We see that a number of people are uncomfortable with the way that operates. It seems that it presents certain problems and it would be important to assess that. I support my colleague's proposal.

Mr. Arseneault: I'd like to say that there are no major problems, but rather a few minor irritants and I think it is important that they be pointed out and that we ask these people to testify before us as soon as possible.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, since most members of the committee seem to be in agreement with your proposal, I would ask Ms Hamilton to examine our schedule. I think a two-hour meeting would be sufficient. We will settle that and discuss it again on the 13th.

I would like to talk to you about two or three minor things.

[English]

I have to do it; I'm sorry.

I'll advise you on Bill C-78, and also Mr. Desautels, the Auditor General, has published a report regarding Parks Canada, which is in our purview. He has gone to the trouble of writing to me and pointing out the report, which has to do with the ecological integrity of the parks. There are many recommendations in there. I said to him I would advise the committee and point it out to them.

So I would really refer you to chapters 31 and 32 of his report on Canadian Heritage and Parks Canada. If you don't have a copy, I'll get Ms Hamilton to send you one. The copies have been distributed, so I would ask you to read them, because it's really important in regard to the evolution of parks and the creation of new parks in Canada.

The second thing is I received from two MPs a request to convene the CRTC to discuss the complaints and concerns of constituents regarding CFMT-TV, channel 47 in Toronto. This is how I replied to them:

.1215

I made it clear that from all the information I've obtained, the committee has never decided to act as some kind of an arbiter in matters related to the CRTC.

Mr. Bélanger: I move that we support the chairman's decision, that we carry ourselves as tradition dictates.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: I will advise them accordingly.

Mr. O'Brien: On Mr. Desautels, is there thought that we might have him in future as a witness?

The Chairman: That would be a very good thought. I think it's an important subject.

Mr. O'Brien: Yes. I served on public accounts in my first session, and as we all know, he's the sort of regular witness, and he's a very informative regular witness. I think he would be a useful person to have come here.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, I think it's an excellent suggestion. I think we have time between now and March 16. After all, our committee is there to work on behalf of citizens, so I think it's a good idea. If members agree, I'll look at the timetable to bring it up.

One last thing. I get these letters, so I can't just... This is a letter from the president and CEO of the CBC-SRC:

If the members are interested in doing this, would you let me know so that I can contactMr. Beatty and advise him?

Ms Phinney: In Ottawa?

The Chairman: Well, no, I think he wants to take us to one of the very big stations to show us the technology there.

Mr. Arseneault: If we could time it to coincide with the Stanley Cup or something...

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: It's right next to the Forum.

[English]

The Chairman: Anyway,

[Translation]

I would suggest the following.

[English]

I'm going to ask the clerk to contact your offices a little later to find out who is definitely interested, whether you have time to come, and set up something in Montreal or Toronto.

Ms Phinney: We could put it together with a Céline Dion concert.

The Chairman: All right, we'll see. We'll see what there is. Jokes aside, maybe we can set it up on a day where we could attend something else in Montreal.

Ms Phinney: Put it together with a concert.

The Chairman: Yes, it would be a good idea

[Translation]

to do that the same day as a concert which we could attend.

Mr. Leroux: Mauril wants to go to a hockey game and you want to go to a concert. This is going well! Unless it's a concert at the Molson Centre...

Mr. Bélanger: We received mail from two people regarding the National Arts Centre Orchestra. Are you going to answer them the way we answered our two colleagues, that is, that we cannot get involved since there are negotiations underway?

The Chairman: That's right. I certainly can't get involved in that. Thank you very much.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;