CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 28, 1997

• 0915

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

[Translation]

This meeting of the Canadian Heritage Committee has been called to order.

[English]

We are here to consider our agenda for the coming weeks, following the discussions at our first meeting. I would like to review a few items that I'll bring up today.

You have the agenda, so the first order of reference is the millennium. I have consulted with the deputy prime minister in his office. They're now considering a framework for the millennium and the criteria that will guide the work of the government. After they set those criteria they would like us to work within that to bring up ideas and consult people and come back to them.

That is not ready as yet, so the officials of the committee will be liaising with the staff of the deputy prime minister as this work is being prepared. I'll get back to you as soon as we are ready and he lets us know they have that framework ready, because it's no good for us to do this; that's his assignment and his responsibility, and we've agreed that the committee shouldn't start working on it until we know what the framework and criteria are, which is pretty logical.

I'll keep you informed as we hear from them. I'm due to meet some of the people in the deputy prime minister's office during the week. I'll know more about the timing and everything else, but I imagine it will be a few weeks before they are ready to come back to us.

The second item on your agenda, which is really what we should concentrate on for our work schedule in the coming weeks, is the main estimates and briefing sessions.

The parliamentary secretary and I met with the clerk of the committee and our researchers to look at the agenda for the coming weeks. We suggest holding six meetings of two hours each, not necessarily in the order in which I mention them. The meetings would be to hear the minister, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, who is part of the ministry, and the Secretary of State for Parks, also part of the ministry.

A session on sports—

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, just for clarity, are you suggesting that those three happen in one session?

The Chairman: No, in three separate sessions. One would be with the minister, one with the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, one with the Secretary of State for Parks, one on sports, and two on the cultural side of the ministry. That would be six sessions.

I would suggest that under Standing Order 108(2), instead of confining the meetings to strictly the main estimates, we adopt a broader scope so that our questioning goes beyond that to look at all the facets of the ministry and not be stuck purely to estimates.

I am making this suggestion to you now. In doing so I should tell you that the ministry has suggested we start off by hearing the minister first. The problem is that the minister can't tell us when she's available, and it may be some time before she's available to appear. I would suggest that rather than wait, we should just start. I would be for starting off. There's no reason we can't have a session on sports or invite the Secretary of State for Parks to be the first. We'll just advise the minister that the committee has to get working.

• 0920

If the minister can be available soon, I agree it would be better to start with her. But if she's unavailable for a few weeks, I would suggest we look at the possibility of working on other items.

So I would invite your comments on the idea of the six meetings and how they would be distributed. If you have other ideas or you think we should have more meetings or should look at other subjects, feel free. The discussion is open.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm assuming that we will be conducting the six meetings, including the meeting with the minister, prior to the expiry date. In other words, there is a time when the estimates—

The Chairman: It's the end of December.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments or suggestions?

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification, I'm presuming that these general briefing sessions from the department would not delay the notion of putting some specific energy into a subcommittee thrust on the whole economic impact of the industry of sport.

The Chairman: Not at all.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Terrific.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have one final comment, and I'd appreciate your input on this. At our last meeting we discussed the distribution of questioning.

Mr. Chairman, could you just confirm what I think would be obvious, but just so it's on the record? In a case where we have the minister or secretary of state as opposed to a deputy minister or a civil servant in charge of that department, would your tendency be to give extra time to the opposition parties over the government members? Some of my colleagues in other committees felt the time they had with a minister was dominated by government members, almost to the point of the opposition being excluded from asking tougher questions of the minister. Would you see not excluding government members but perhaps giving some favouritism to the opposition side?

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, as you know, we adopted a resolution last week that each party be given five minutes to start with, and then in rotation members will ask for time and be given five minutes each, with the chair always retaining some discretion. I think we are trying to be as fair as possible here.

I'll tell you what my inclination has always been. First, we have five parties here and I'm going to make sure they are fairly represented and can put out their ideas, questions, and suggestions. Two, I'm going to give a chance to members to be heard. If I see that a session is dominated by government members or opposition members, I will balance it out so that people get a fair hearing and a chance to ask questions, tough or otherwise. I'm not going to make any rules right now, because we've already adopted a rule. At the same time, I'll use my discretion to make sure the meetings are as balanced as possible and not dominated by one section or another.

Are there any comments or suggestions in regard to the work plan for the briefing sessions and the main estimates, in other words, the six meetings where we would hear the minister, the two secretaries of state, a session on sports, and two on Canadian culture? Is that generally acceptable?

• 0925

If so, I'd like to hear from you. Do you agree that instead of waiting we should get into it as soon as possible? Should we advise the ministry that we want to start almost immediately? Hopefully we can get the minister here to start it, but if not, we should start; otherwise the committee will be delayed in its work. Is that agreeable? If that's agreeable then the clerk will do the necessary work and you will be advised as to when we will start.

The third item on the agenda is the study of Canadian culture, which we agreed last week we should follow up. You received material from the researchers and the clerk. As I mentioned previously, I met with the parliamentary secretary, the researchers, and the clerk to see how we can structure this cultural policy study so that it is focused, doesn't take forever, and doesn't involve a huge budget. We have come to the conclusion, by looking at various models used by other committees, that instead of doing extensive travelling around the country we should have panels, forums, and round tables of experts rather than a huge range of traditional witnesses.

[Translation]

We could also hear a small number of the usual witnesses after we've heard the experts to complement the latters' testimony. The usual witnesses in this area, that you all know, always have the opportunity of submitting briefs and some have already done so, actually. We already have over 60 briefs in hand. As soon as they find out we're going ahead with the project, we'll be getting more.

[English]

As far as the panels go, they could be televised. We would ask in advance to have the TV room so that they could be televised for better public input. Experts and witnesses will be asked to address a number of issues and questions selected by the committee. The staff will prepare a discussion paper to facilitate the process. For instance, we could soon—you have received the papers now—start organizing these panels, forums, and round tables. It would be up to us to suggest experts that you might like to invite. I've been in touch with the ministry

[Translation]

and I asked him to assign to us an official who could help the researchers in their work during this project. The department is examining the request. This solution has been used by other committees where I have served and where someone from the department helped the researchers which provided us with a liaison allowing us to get access to the documents and information the department has in hand.

• 0930

[English]

Having a system of panels and round tables will avoid our travelling extensively. It can work very well. We have looked at the timing, and if we could start in the new year, we reckon we could conclude the work by June. In other words, we would want to have it focused. We would especially want to look at the two big items, which are the impact of technological change and the impact of new global trade patterns on culture in Canada.

The parliamentary secretary recommended that we look at what he termed “an ecosystem approach”. In other words, look at clusters and how they get impacted, so that the work would be much more focused.

You have received the documentation already, and if you have any comments or suggestions at this point.... Do you agree that we should use the panel, the round table process?

The idea would be that we would have one panel of experts before Christmas, a series of round tables and panels in the new year, followed by traditional witnesses, as required, in the early spring, and a report by the end of June.

I will open it up to your comments and ideas.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Could you define what an expert is? Who is considered to be an expert? On the other hand, what is a panel? And what is a round table in reality?

The Chairman: The model we're using is one that has been used by other committees. There are different formats. For example, you have panels where you have people who are coming in and are recognized unanimously as having comprehensive knowledge of whatever we might be examining.

Let's take films, for example. There certainly are experts in that area. Personally, I would consider as being experts people who make movies, producers, people who have any specific expertise in the area or people from the communications technology sector. There are a lot of people who have expertise and special qualifications. Naturally, we'll have to make a selection. Those people should be the most representative and the best informed about the matter. I think it's possible to agree on a panel of experts, depending on the subject matter, who could get the committee's consensus.

For example, let's say that we start by examining the matters concerning the impact of trade on culture. The other day, there was a symposium here on that very same question and they had people coming in who were experts in trade aspects concerning culture.

So we could use that pool of experts. The researchers will also be suggesting names just as the members of the committee are invited to do. Then we can agree on the experts we have coming before us.

As for the round tables, I personally was a participant in two or three round tables on subjects as complex as biotechnology or types of biotechnology and genetic processes. These round tables were held by the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. We invited a whole slew of people, academics, industrialists, all kinds of people working in that sphere.

• 0935

The round table was made up of all those people from different sectors and members of the committee. The advantage of the round table is that you're not on opposite sides of the table as members of the opposition parties or the government party but rather we're all just participants together with the experts which allows for more free wheeling discussion and gives the general public a better idea of what we're looking for.

We managed to come to some rather interesting conclusions. We also successfully wrote up a report as a result of all those panels and round tables. But we're free to decide on the format we prefer.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If I'm not mistaken, then, a round table is more of an informal discussion whereas a panel is more structured in nature. Is that it?

The Chairman: The panel examines a more specific question, but round tables can also happen around a panel. I think the discussion might be perhaps much more free wheeling with a round table rather than a panel where you have three or four experts appearing and being questioned on a very specific matter.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We shouldn't go reinventing the wheel. Many studies of all kinds have been undertaken by experts, so-called experts, and reports have been tabled on the convergence of new technologies and this or that. I'd like to know exactly what our role would be and if this role is described anywhere.

The Chairman: We have a work plan that was sent to us and we've also drawn up a work plan modelled on that of the previous committee. We'll be looking at it to make sure that it's still up to date and that we'll have the time to examine everything that's indicated and we'll then submit it to you for your approval. I think you can get an idea of what we want to examine if you look at what was sent to you on what we've already done.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): So far, we haven't received any documentation.

The Chairman: You haven't received any documentation?

Mr. Mark Muise: No.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): This thing here.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: This was from the last meeting; that's right.

The Chairman: I believe you all received it, and last time we gave you the outline, the work plan. Now that you have it perhaps you could come back to us with ideas, if you don't want to decide on things today. We could set up the first panel of experts before Christmas.

• 0940

[Translation]

To answer Ms. Tremblay, I think we're quite conscious of the fact that we don't want to reinvent the wheel. Actually, we're working quite closely with the department to make sure that we'll be looking at questions that need answers, particularly the question of new technologies and global trade.

I'll give you a striking example of something that we're looking for answers to. At this moment, as you know, the Canadian government is negotiating a multilateral agreement on investments (MAI) that's going to directly affect the whole cultural question. The negotiations are ongoing right now within the OECD. So, on a subject like that, we could help clarify things for the department by asking ourselves how we might go about protecting our cultural institutions. Should we protect them and on what basis? Then we could make recommendations to the Minister of International Trade who is in charge of these negotiations. There's a striking example of what we could do.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): With respect to the multilateral agreement on investment, Mr. Chairman, there is a subcommittee that I understand will be having hearings in the second or third week of November. I believe the committee should have some impact there because certainly culture will be discussed at that time.

I see we have it on our agenda here. If the subcommittee on the MAI is meeting the third week of November, as I understand it is, we should have some impact even in the sense that we refer to that committee certain witnesses whom we have here to address culture. Certainly the Canadian Conference of the Arts is working on a working paper right now with respect to the MAI, so perhaps we can have some kind of a liaison there.

It would be a shame if this committee somehow isn't involved when the hearings are going on in the second or third week of November. We shouldn't miss that opportunity.

The Chairman: That's a very good point.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I've been asked to sit on the subcommittee of international trade. That's why I happen to know it's the third week of November.

Mr. John Godfrey: That's perfect. We're covered if you're there. Would it be useful just—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: But we're not really covered for that!

Mr. John Godfrey: No, no. There could be an informal or formal discussion if you wish between our chairman and the chairman of that subcommittee to ensure some sort of a liaison that would allow each party to know what the other one is up to.

[English]

The Chairman: One way would be for us to suggest to the subcommittee, for instance, that they have a joint hearing with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when they deal with the cultural issue.

When you talk about the MAI as one example, some time ago there was a briefing of members of Parliament that very few of us attended. We were surprised how far this had gone with very little input from parliamentarians.

If it's going to take place in November, first of all, when they discuss the cultural protection element I will talk to the chairman of the committee to make sure our committee joins in. We could have a joint session on this particular question. Perhaps this is when we could join in with some experts that would help us shed light on it.

I'll follow it up right away with the clerk.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speller is the chairman of that subcommittee. I believe the hearings are scheduled to take place on November 13, 14, and 15.

The Chairman: I think our clerk is going to be the clerk of that subcommittee.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Perfect.

The Chairman: Your point is very well taken. Thank you for the information.

We have to hear the ministers and set up meetings with the officials. It always takes longer to organize than we hope, to find dates that are suitable to the right officials, the assistant deputy ministers and the deputy minister, and so forth. It's not easy.

• 0945

If you could give us your ideas as to whether we could convene a panel of experts in the meanwhile on some of the subjects we are discussing in relation to the study, we could start right away. We don't have to wait. We can organize it as soon as possible, if you agree.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I have just one question, if I may.

[Translation]

We've just heard, by chance, of a meeting of the Subcommittee on investment. Are there any other hot topics having to do with culture that we should perhaps inventory to make sure that we're not missing anything? What we've just learned came to us by chance and I'm quite happy of it, but we shouldn't leave our finding out about these things up to chance. Would there be any other matters being debated presently that have a significant cultural impacts on things and that we should perhaps look at as a priority?

The Chairman: We'll ask around. I can't tell you, of the top of my head, if it's the case or not. We'll have to find out about what's going on in the other committees. The only subject I can see has to do with the whole matter of communication, more importantly about the information highway, but I don't think that will be happening very soon.

Mr. John Godfrey: Because of the fact that we hold certain matters in common with the Department of Industry, especially in the area of cultural industries, it's quite possible that we would undertake examinations and so on.

It seems to me that through the Department of Canadian Heritage we should sniff around a little to see if there are still some hot subjects like multimedia, for example, or others. Unfortunately, we're in a system where we've divided culture up between Industry and Heritage. So we'll have to be vigilant. Personally, I'll commit to doing what is necessary, especially concerning the Department of Industry. I'll work with the senior officials of the Canadian Heritage Department.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think there are two important questions and you could perhaps do a follow-up with the Department of Industry.

When we were condemned by the WTO last summer about split runs, we were given 15 months to come to an agreement. Six months have already gone by and there are nine left but there's still no solution on the horizon. In this case, maybe it would be a good idea for the Heritage Committee to examine this question to try to find a solution.

The other one has to do with the Polygram suit.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think those are two excellent questions we could put to the Minister when she comes, simply to look at the question and look into it further after. I am taking due note of this.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That wasn't quite what I was trying to get at. The Minister is going to tell us what we've already read in the newspapers, or just about, or what she knows herself from what she was told. The crux of the problem is to get exact information. When people come and see us, for example those who have questions like Mr. de Gaspé Beaubien, and tell us they are working very hard trying to find solutions but they can't find any, I find that very disturbing. So it's interesting for Parliamentarians to know where the real problems are.

So I don't think we should wait for the Minister to come before us to put our questions to her. We should send her the question in advance asking her to come here with specific answers.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'll do what has to be done immediately.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think it's important because she's going to have to bring along some people as the question isn't as simple as it may appear.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have just one small piece of fine tuning that might end up being important. Each of us as politicians representing ourselves, our constituents, or our party obviously can enter into any discussion and expound on any position we choose. I just think we have to be careful.

• 0950

If we have a joint committee of trade and heritage, that's fine; everybody and all points of view are exposed. If we have a member of the heritage committee who is sitting on this other committee, again she or he can do their thing. But I think we have to be careful that they are not seen as being representative of this committee. This committee has to arrive at either a majority conclusion or a minority plus minority conclusion, but they can't be seen as being representatives of this committee. That's just a small piece of fine tuning that could become important.

The Chairman: I appreciate that point of view. I agree with you, but I think it's kind of useful when we have members here who can report on what's going on. Obviously they'll represent the committee as such.

On a practical basis, we've agreed now that we are going to have six meetings as soon as possible and start with whichever section of the ministry is available, but it will take a little while. Do members agree that maybe we should strike a panel? We have subjects that we could tackle right away.

We are going to see how we can link up with the subcommittee on MAI. We might want to have experts come and give us information on the MAI from the point of view of culture before we meet with that subcommittee in a joint meeting. I would really appreciate that myself. That might be a good starting point.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, I have a recommendation. I know the Canadian Conference of the Arts has been working on this study. They have their working group together, which I understand is not going to get their report in until December. Certainly we could make a call to Keith Kelly at this time to bring him on board. They have their own research staff working on that. I would think that's one of the first people one would think of calling who's truly an expert in this area.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think for those of us who came to this fresh and looked at the work plan and realized what a tremendous amount of work had already been done and what interest there was here, the danger is that if we're going to produce something that is ultimately useful to ourselves and useful to the government in policy terms, it has to go beyond generality. That is to say, we can all agree—and we could probably write the report right now—that we want more Canadian space for Canadian voices and Canadian faces and all the rest of it. There's nothing to dispute there.

The difficulty in being supply driven, which is what the witness list looked like, is that we simply spend so much time rounding up the traditional and the usual suspects, including Mr. Kelly, who is the greatest of all traditional suspects, that we don't have time to figure out our own approach to this issue. It seems to me that the danger of a study that deals with such generalities as the impact of international trade or technology or indeed demographics, which is part of what the background study is, or a greater trend towards commercialization in the arts, is that it impacts very differently on different sectors. International trade in the MAI will have hardly any impact on the art galleries in this country when you think about it.

The thought was that the first panels you might want to get would be people who were experts on things like the evolving international trade pattern, people who can give us a sense of how it's going to affect different sectors differently, not just in a general way but getting down to cases like film distribution or magazines, split runs, and all the rest of it. The same would be true of new technologies, which are going to have a very different impact for broadcasters than they are for theatre.

Then you would move to what I'd call dynamic cultural ecosystems, which have their own logic to them. Symphony orchestras in this country don't behave the same way as ballet companies do. Depending on the nature of the beast, publishing in French Canada is different from publishing in English Canada.

In order to have any useful sense of what our policy and our results have been, you have to go back over the last 25 years to see how they've evolved and then understand how these new challenges are going to impact differently on different sectors and even in different parts of the country. Then we have to come back at the end and ask ourselves what would be the general policy rules we can draw. These are the four sectors that trade is going to impact; these are the three that technology is really going to have.... We have to come up with some common policy.

• 0955

So you start with some general impacts, go to the ecosystems, and then return at the end to some general conclusions that will have an impact on policy. You do this rather than starting with the endless list of witnesses, all of whom have axes to grind. We should set the questions we want answered, rather than them telling us what they want done.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I think I happen to be in agreement with what Mr. Godfrey has said. He said it so eloquently I got lost half way through it.

The Chairman: So did he.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we're kind of rushing into things here from the point of view of putting together a panel.

What are they going to be discussing along the lines of what the parliamentary secretary was just saying? What is the purpose of the panel? What are they going to be discussing? What is the resulting information we are looking for?

I think we need to discuss that before we say, well, let's do a panel. Let's find out what it is specifically. Saying we're going to do a study on Canadian cultural policy is motherhood and apple pie. What we need to do is say this first panel is going to attempt to answer the following questions.

The Chairman: A work plan outline has been sent to you that we discussed in the previous committee, and it's pretty precise.

I think your point is well taken, and so is the point of the parliamentary secretary. I would like to propose something. We're going to draw up a possible schedule of panels and round tables, starting whenever—whenever we can agree on it. We'll send it to you for approval or discussion at the next meeting we have.

I'm hoping that sooner or later we read these documents and we agree to get going, because otherwise we'll be spinning wheels. I don't want to rush into things. At the same time, I think we only have so many weeks of work available to us during the parliamentary session.

If the ministry is not available to meet with us...we want to question the right officials for a few weeks. We want to be able to use the time we have at our disposal. That's what I'm suggesting. So if very early, within the next few days, we can suggest a definite timetable to you with panels, round tables, and subjects....

I hope next week when we meet, or on Thursday, we can agree and get going, because we have to book rooms, advise people, invite them, and it just can't be done overnight. We have to be ready in time.

I hope we can at least give some sort of authority to the clerks and the researchers to start working on this outline anyway, which is the basis for it.

Mr. Abbott, do you agree with that?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. So in specific terms, the clerk will get on to the ministry right away to see how soon we can hear people from the ministry. For instance, in areas such as sports, it seems to me it would be easier than, of course, getting a date with the minister or the two secretaries of state. Maybe we can start hearing ministry people very soon. Meanwhile, we will send you an outline of panels and round tables. The dates, of course, will have to be left open until we know exactly where the ministry sits.

I hope that maybe we can have a meeting Thursday or next Tuesday to decide and go ahead with the stuff; otherwise, we are going to be spinning wheels.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Chairman, along that same thought process, just over the last few days I've been sensing some interest, and actually in some instances enthusiasm. This is on the part of other members who are sitting on other committees who want to assist in this whole focus of the industry of sport in the broad spectrum, with a special emphasis on our national sport.

• 1000

I would really like to begin the process of pulling together the machinery that has to get going on this. You yourself just mentioned that to set up a structure, to send out invitations for briefs—giving people time to organize proper substantive briefs—all of this does take time.

We have a break coming up a week from now, and the next thing you know we're going to be into the new year. So if the committee is amenable to this, I'd like to capture some of the enthusiasm that seems to be out there right now and get going.

The Chairman: Mr. Mills, at the last meeting you suggested a subcommittee on sports, and I think you got general agreement from the members that it would be a good idea. Have you put together any terms of reference or a particular mandate you could suggest to the committee?

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Yes.

The Chairman: In fairness to the members, especially of different parties—

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: I'll bring that to the next meeting.

The Chairman: Could you bring us an outline of a mandate or terms of reference with suggestions as to how many people you need on the committee, how you would get representation from the different parties, whether you contacted them, who is interested, who is not interested. Then we can look at specific—

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: At a specific work plan, absolutely.

The Chairman: —work plans—and decide on what basis we'll go ahead: timetables, budgets, everything else.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Okay.

The Chairman: If you could be more precise, then we submit it to the members and we go from there.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: We don't want to keep this committee going just for spinning wheels and talk.

I would like to conclude by saying that Mr. Mills is going to submit to us details of a potential subcommittee, terms of reference, etc., for us to look at.

Mr. John Godfrey: By Thursday, did I hear you say?

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Yes.

The Chairman: The clerk, researchers, the parliamentary secretary, and myself will work on some sort of an outline for panels and round tables, with specifics, which we will submit to you as soon as possible. Maybe we can have an authority to go ahead and start organizing for them and contacting people.

We will give you a report on where the ministry sits. If by any chance we can get ministry people to come as early as next week on some item of the briefing sessions or estimates, then of course that's what we're going to try to do.

[Translation]

If you have any suggestions to make concerning the people who could take part in a round table or a panel of experts for the work plan we've sent off, please don't hesitate.

[English]

If you have any suggestions to make with regard to people we should hear, please do so, and send them on to the clerk or phone the clerk's office, so we can invite these people or refer a list to you for approval next week. So it's Thursday or early next week.

If there is no further business, we'll adjourn.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, I'm sorry.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's a technical question. Do you have any answers on the timing of the meeting?

The Chairman: Not yet. We made the formal request to change the time of the meeting and set it at 11 a.m. They are trying to reorganize everything. It's quite a problem. There are so many committees at this time that we can only hope it's going to work. I'm sorry, once again, Ms. Tremblay.

I forgot to inform you that the Canadian Conference of the Arts is inviting all parliamentarians to a breakfast where artists and cultural institutions will also be in attendance. It's an informal breakfast on November 7, 1997, from 8:30 a.m. until 10 a.m. Unfortunately, November 7 is also a Friday.

• 1005

[English]

We've asked them to try to change the date and the day of the venue next time, because a lot of MPs are not there on the Friday, but if you are there on the Friday we'll send you the notice. If you can attend, I think it would be very worthwhile for you and for the committee. So we'll distribute this invitation to you.

If there's nothing else, I'll call the meeting adjourned.