CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 30, 1997

• 0906

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): The meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is now open.

[Translation]

The Committee will consider its future business.

[English]

To start with, I have a few announcements for the members.

The minister is confirmed for Wednesday at 3.30 p.m.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): This Wednesday?

The Chairman: Wednesday, November 5. We can start things off with Minister Copps on Wednesday at 3.30 p.m.

For Thursday, we're negotiating with the ministry to have the sports division of the ministry here. That would tie in with what Dennis Mills is trying to put forward.

That's not confirmed as yet because Bill C-7, which is the bill on the Saguenay Marine Park, is now before the House, and presumably the debate will be finished. From what Mr. Abbott was telling us from the official opposition side, it's not going to be a long debate. We think there's a good chance that it will be up here on Thursday, in which case we would look at Bill C-7 on Thursday. As a back-up, if Bill C-7 is not ready we'll try to fit in the sports section of the ministry.

The week after that the House is not sitting. On Tuesday, November 18, we will hear from Hedy Fry, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women. We're trying to see if on November 20 we can have Andy Mitchell here. That's not confirmed.

The clerk will be typing this out and sending it on to you.

Just as an item of information, in case you haven't heard, the minister appointed Dr. Shirley Thomson as the new director of the Canada Council. She replaces Mr. Roch Carrier. If you want to invite her to appear at a later date, that's of course your prerogative

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): I believe, sir, she starts on January 1.

The Chairman: Yes, I believe it's effective January 1.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Whenever it's convenient following that date, I think that would be a great idea.

The Chairman: Sure.

As the members will recall, we discussed our work plan for the cultural study. We have documents we're going to send to you that we didn't have time to send between Tuesday and Thursday because they had to be translated and so forth. We're just passing them on now.

• 0910

I'm going to ask Mr. Lemieux, our researcher, if he will give us an outline of the document through a slide projection, which will make it much easier to follow as he explains it.

[Translation]

Mr. Lemieux.

Mr. René Lemieux (committee researcher): I would like to apologize to the members of the committee for having submitted this to them at the last minute. Despite all our efforts...

The Chairman: Are the French and English versions available?

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Isn't it in English?

The Committee Clerk: Your note is in French.

Mr. René Lemieux: Mr. Plamondon, the problem is that I cannot show the slides in French and English at the same time.

[English]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Why can you project only in English, and not in French?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lemieux, I would suggest that you show each page in English and then in French, then vice versa.

[English]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: If you can't project in my own language, don't project it. We will all wait.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Listen, we are not going to argue on this. We will show the first page in English, then the French version of the same page, and vice versa. We will then start with the French version, followed by the English version. All right? We will show both versions.

Very well, Mr. Lemieux, you may go ahead.

Mr. René Lemieux: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You have before you, on the screen and on the document that was handed out, a proposal for hearings in the context of the study on cultural policy. We have before you a proposal, and that is just what it is, just a proposal, nothing more, nothing less. It has been put in writing in order to facilitate debate and to offer concrete suggestions.

The model that is presented to you has been divided into three parts. The first of course is an introduction. The second part deals with the hearings proper, where the intense work is done. The third part proposes a setting to fill in any gaps and to see if certain aspects might be contradictory. This is a fine tuning session.

In the first part, which is the introductory work, we suggest offering you briefings or holding panels of experts for the main purpose of giving you the broadest overview possible of the main issues in the area of cultural policy. As I mentioned earlier, the goal would be to bring us toward the more intense work, the sector- oriented work.

• 0915

Let us go on to the next page. With a view to giving you an overview of the main cultural policy issues, we suggest that the Minister of Canadian Heritage appear first; she would be followed by two panels composed of recognized authorities in the area of cultural policy. We have given a few examples of well known people in this area. You are free to change these names or to propose others.

This could be followed by a panel of experts that would give you an idea of the demographic changes in Canadian society and the possible effects of these changes on the development of cultural policy. I'm thinking, among other things, of the aging of the population and changes in the ethnic composition of society. These aspects can have an impact on cultural policy.

Finally, still in this introduction, we suggest a series of briefings given by departmental officials. The purpose of this is to provide concrete and specific information on the roles and responsibilities of the various departments involved in the cultural sphere, but from three quite different perspectives.

The first perspective, the cultural perspective, would be given by the Department of Cultural Heritage. Another perspective, the technological perspective, would be presented by the Department of Industry. Finally, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would give you the trade liberalization perspective, that is, the international commercial treaties.

[English]

The Chairman: Does any member want to see the slide in English, or can you follow in your own documents? Okay.

Mr. René Lemieux: We move into the rather intense work where you, the members, will be far more involved than in the first round, the introductory round. Here we are suggesting panels and round tables.

The panels, as explained in your text, would be composed of between three and five experts or recognized persons in each sector or industry, and each panel would be followed, either closely, at the same time, or far apart, by a round table composed of people who work in the industry or the sector in question. The members would be involved in both the panels and the round tables, and in order to make these panels and round tables as effective as possible, in order that they be focused, the panels and the round tables would be asked to comment, if at all possible, on the key issues before you.

The key issues before you are found in the committee's work plan. On this page, we are proposing five key questions. With your agreement, if in your view these are the five key questions, all of the people who would be invited before this committee would be asked to comment on these questions. I could go over these five questions, if you wish.

• 0920

First, what should be the role of the federal government in supporting culture? There are various roles and a few are listed here as examples. One role of the federal government is to be a legislator, a regulator. Up to this day in time the federal government has also been an owner and operator of national institutions.

The federal government has also been a partner with either a private enterprise or a partner with a non-profit arts organization. The federal government has also been a patron, where money is given out without any strings attached. There are no doubt other roles that you may wish to see addressed in the context of these hearings.

I've mentioned here that the concepts of privatization and commercialization could be addressed under a discussion of roles. When we're speaking of an owner and an operator of national institutions the counterpart to that is privatization. When we look at the partner or the partnership role one can also think of this not at the other end of the spectrum, but as one variant. One can think in terms of commercialization. How far do you push partnership toward a full commercialization of culture?

These are questions that can be raised under the heading of the role and responsibilities of the federal government.

The next one is fairly straightforward. It comes right out of our work plan. What federal cultural support measures have worked well in your sector or industry? Remember we're talking in terms of sectoral panels so we'll have people in only one type of industry at one time.

If we ask them what support measures have worked well or have not worked well in their industry, we would hope to get useful information out of this type of debate.

What are the major impacts of technology on your sector or industry today and in the future? This is the third question. I don't know whether most people will be able to answer that, but they may certainly be able to answer that far better than we can. I'm hoping that through the panels of experts and the round tables we can get a handle on this.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): After he's finished the five points, Mr. Chairman, I want to say something about the five points.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. René Lemieux: The fourth one is what the major impacts of trade liberalization are on your sector or industry today and in the future. Some sectors and industries, of course, will be able to tell us what the impact is or has been in their sector or industry. Others who have not been impacted so far may fear that this will be the case in the future. So this is the time to address that question.

Then of course we've added this one dealing with changing demographics. In some sectors or industries changing demographics have no bearing whatsoever. In others, indeed, they are very much so. Think of television, for instance. Television is very much dependent on demographics. Reading, attending performing arts events—there are sectors and industries where changing demographics are indeed very important.

On the changing composition of our society, there's a greater ethnic mix in our population. To what extent does this impact on one sector or industry in particular? We might hope to have some of these answers through the panels and the round tables.

The Chairman: John, some of the final comments when he talks about the sectors could impact on some of those, so do we want to—

Mr. John Godfrey: It's a quick note, just to say that I think it's terrific. My only suggestion would be to make your first question your last question. That is to say, you've already covered off the past in your second bullet. What you really want to say, I think, is, given all of this, where we've been, what we think the new threats are, and what is and should be the future role of the federal government in supporting culture. That's the deliverable.

• 0925

That's my only suggestion. It just seems more logical that way.

The Chairman: That's a good point. Mr. Lemieux.

[Translation]

Mr. René Lemieux: On the next page, we have compiled a list of the sectors or industries in questions.

Here again, the choice is not an arbitrary one, but is based on our experience and knowledge of the area, and also on a feeling. It will only be when we hold these round tables that we will really be able to see whether this division of sectors and industries was the right one. This is the division that we are proposing to you as a starting point.

We have divided the arts into two sectors in this case. First we have the performing arts, which have in common the fact that the artists and people working in this area, work in a structured and well-organized environment. These are companies or orchestras. In short, you have a structure.

In contrast, the artists in the second group, that is, authors and visual artists, mostly work alone. These are individuals who mostly work at home. They no doubt have different concerns. Are these different concerns and the very different work setting, factors that should be taken into account with respect to the five questions that we have? I do not know. I am asking you the question this morning. Is it worthwhile dividing these two groups of artists into two sectors?

The next group consists of museums and heritage. There again, people working in this area could point out that museums in one field are so different from those in another that they would like to be heard or express their viewpoints separately.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In a unique way.

Mr. René Lemieux: Yes, in a unique way. Finally, I will leave that question up in the air.

The broadcasting area has been grouped as a single sector or industry. It is very broad and includes radio, television and the cable industry. That is a lot.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Does heritage include parks as well?

Mr. René Lemieux: Heritage includes natural and historical heritage. Natural heritage includes parks, while historical heritage includes the history of civilizations and peoples.

The Chairman: I would have the same question as Ms. Tremblay. When you talk about heritage, you imply museums. Maybe we should talk about heritage institutions because there is a great deal more than museums. There are all the historical sites,...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Battlefields.

The Chairman: ... parks, battlefields, etc. Maybe we should look at that. That will be a lot to cover. I have the impression we will need more than one sitting.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: By using the expression "natural and historical heritage," we cover a broader area. The word "museums" is very restrictive.

The Chairman: It is very restrictive, I agree with you.

Mr. René Lemieux: You would prefer replacing "heritage institutions" with "natural and historical heritage."

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, indeed. May I ask a question?

The Chairman: Go ahead, Madam.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Have you put photographs in the plastic arts sector?

A Member: They were forgotten in copyright.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, they were forgotten in copyright and I think we have to make sure not to forget them here. They should have their say somewhere.

Mr. René Lemieux: I will take note of that.

• 0930

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They should feel included.

The Chairman: We could perhaps make a list and then come back to it when you are almost finished.

Mr. René Lemieux: I had just said that the broadcasting sector is vast. The three sectors, radio, television and the cable industry, have been put together. These three sectors have much in common. Is it worthwhile dividing them? Personally, I do not believe so, but broadcasters may think otherwise. I will leave that question open.

The next sector is publishing. Book publishing and periodical publishing are two different areas, but the activity is the same. Once again, the question is up in the air. Will these people want to be heard separately or not? Will we gather better information if we divide this sector in two?

In my opinion, these sectors of sound recording, film, video and the new media are so distinct that it is not worthwhile to think of dividing them further.

[English]

This third element is the wrap-up. It is what the third stage of the hearings could be: a wrap-up session to make sure that if there are visible gaps, inconsistencies, loose ends, and so forth, the committee leaves itself some room to manoeuvre. We can get some of the people we've heard or some of the people we haven't heard, to come—or to come back—to the committee for clarification, information, and so forth.

That pretty well wraps it up, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: This is a question period, but I think it would be perhaps valuable for the committee if I was to put on the record where it is I and, I believe, the Reform Party are coming from on this particular study. Now that we have this presentation, we have something specific we can talk about, a specific target we can look at.

As are all committees, I recognize that this committee is master of its own destiny. However, I also recognize the political reality in Ottawa. The minister has asked for this study to happen. The committee is therefore now wrestling with it.

Let me state unequivocally that I consider it to be a gross waste of time. It makes me think an awful lot of a big leg of ham. You have to cut through all the ham before you actually get to the bone, and it's the bone that's important. It's the bone that you're trying to get to.

The major difficulty that I have, that our party has, is that we seriously question the necessity of the government benevolently manipulating culture. I use the word “benevolently” because I don't believe there is any malicious intent. But the benevolent manipulation of culture, basically, is to put a group of people...and I don't know if the translator will be able to help my friends from the Bloc or French listeners when I use the term “culturecrats” as opposed to “bureaucrats”.

I believe there is an absolute necessity to be dealing with the bone of this piece of ham that we're talking about. First of all, that is the MAI or the impact of trade as it relates to our cultural industry—because, truly, we recognize that there is a cultural industry in Canada—and the second thing is the convergence of technology. If we were doing something of any real value here, I would suggest that our committee should be embracing a study of combining the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act.

• 0935

Right now, we have two conflicting acts that no longer reflect technological reality. We have the Broadcasting Act, which dominantly is concerned about Canadian content, etc. We have the Telecommunications Act, which has more to do with what used to be telephone companies, but now we see telephone companies getting into the cable business and cable companies getting into the telephone business. It's that kind of thing that is real.

I believe there have been a vast number of studies. As a matter of fact, my researchers are presently working on developing a list of the number of studies that have been done with respect to cultural policy. I defined in our first meeting what I believe Canadian culture is. I believe Canadian culture is what Canadians do, and I don't think the benevolent manipulation by culturecrats really enhances what Canadians do, because they will do what they will do anyway.

In taking a look at the number of people who would be coming, the other part of the problem I have is that the vast majority of them will currently be beneficiaries of federal dollars in one way or the other, or are at least beneficiaries of federally funded facilities. As a consequence, I would expect that they would be lining up to defend their position of continuing to receive federal dollars.

So I want to very clearly—and I hope very articulately—register that I think that with this effort we're going on with, there are only two items or questions that it would be worthwhile to consider: What are the major impacts of technology on this sector or industry today and in the future; and what are the major impacts of trade liberalization on this sector or industry today and in the future? As I say, my concern is that we are going to be cutting through all of the ham just to get to these pieces of bone.

The Chairman: Just to register the point, first of all, I don't think this committee is in any way the subject of the minister. It's true that the minister has indicated that she's very partial to a study on culture, especially one touching on these two issues. But I can tell you that before I took on this job in the previous Parliament, it was very much my feeling that we needed to do something in depth to touch on these issues.

The committee, as you say, is its own master. People can accept or reject these things on their own. If we don't like what the minister wants, I think we are completely free to reject it. But I just happen to feel that to just look at these two sectors without first of all finding out what is working and what is not working in the sector, to have a broad brush of where we sit today in regard to these items.... It seems to me that these are the key items that we're going to be looking at anyway. If you feel there's not enough time devoted to them, this is just an outline. By all means, you can just suggest more time for it. In regard to the experts, you're free to suggest anybody you want, and I'm sure people will consider this very openly.

At any rate, it's open for discussion.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What is important and new is that we have to have a good understanding of the impact of all the treaties: the FTA, NAFTA, the GATT, the GATT this, the GATT that and so on, the WTO and all that. We have to come to understand the impact of all these treaties on to-morrow's culture.

What is going to happen in the 21st century? We will probably be in that century when our study is finished. I believe we must be well informed of new technologies that may change things.

• 0940

For example, at the moment, the CRTC is looking at the famous quotas for Canadian content on radio: 65% for francophones, etc. Tomorrow morning, we will have the radio directly on the Internet; it will come from Brazil and everywhere. I say tomorrow, because for most people, it is fairly limited today. But we have to look at what will happen tomorrow. It's fine to make decisions, but we have to make the right decisions. That is why we must look farther than what we are used to looking at.

This will bring us, as Mr. Abbott suggested, to hear other people here. I do not want to see the same people who come here every year, like ADISQ, etc. We know what they think and what they want. They are not the ones we need to meet, but rather specialists, university professors and free consultants who can consult two competitors. But we first need to be informed before receiving anyone to have discussions with.

What I disliked the most was discussing points with someone who had a rich potential and feeling ignorant and incapable of making the most of all the information potential of the person appearing before us, not being well enough prepared or informed to be able to ask the right questions. I noted that I was not the only one in that situation. Often, we ask questions to pass the time—I have seen it—and so as not to insult our witness. I have even seen members read the newspaper while experts were speaking. I think that we need people around this table who know what they are talking about.

I propose that the briefing sessions that are being planned in the third phase of your plan should take place at the beginning. We need the experts to come and meet with us. We have done enough studies on heritage: the advisory council made its study public in September, the Senate committee tabled a study at the beginning of the election campaign, the government has had studies done on convergence and the Library of Parliament had done an inventory of everything that exists. We could have a kind of summary document of what already exists, which would not need to be very long and that would give us the key information.

We could have someone meet with us to speak about new technologies. Have all members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage used the Internet? If one has not personally used the Internet, I believe that we should have a session there that would allow us to navigate on the Internet so that we know what it is like, and so that we conceptualize it properly. We have to come to understand the difference between fiber optic technology and coaxial cable technology when it is mentioned to us. We have to have that information in order to be capable of understanding the new technologies that are emerging. It will become clear that we do not have the slightest idea about it.

You will remember, Mr. Godfrey, when we had the demonstrations...

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes, the satellites, for example.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We were amazed, and it is now out of date. And that was barely three years ago. It is almost out of date because things are moving quickly.

I therefore think that this should be the second type of information. The first part can be theoretical and written, and the second can be practical in nature. We can try things out ourselves as well as receiving information, seeing equipment and, if necessary, going on site to see how things work. It is not necessary to set up equipment here; we can go where the equipment is installed or we can ask companies to come and give us objective information.

The third thing we need is to be informed about the WTO, about what the OECD is preparing to do, about the MAI which is coming up, about the FTA and NAFTA. Why did the United States decide to take its case against us to the WTO and not settle it under the FTA? Because they know very well that they would lose under the FTA and win at the WTO.

• 0945

So we need to know that there are places where we are protected and others where we think we are protected but where we are not at all. Why are we not protected and what do we need to do to be protected? And what do we want to protect?

When we start the briefing sessions, we will need to hear from experts in order to be able to discuss with them. We will speak the same language and use the same terminology. We will finally know what things mean. I think that we should not be afraid of admitting our ignorance at present. That cannot do us any harm. It will enable us, as members of the Canadian Heritage Committee, to take advantage of the experts that will appear. We are going to ask them the right questions. And we will try not to waste time or insult anyone. We will try to get the most out of these experts who are not tied by government funding.

I do not want to watch a parade of people coming to tell us that their priority is to have $200 million put into the production fund simply because they are producers. This time, they could be asking for something else again. We have seen them appear before other committees. They came to ask that something be allowed or something else disallowed, depending on their personal interests.

We could therefore start by hearing experts to gain a good understanding of things. When we have understood and are well- informed, we can then prepare a document with a number of questions and ask for a brief to be presented.

We are not obliged to hold hearings. We can ask for briefs. If there are people who have something to tell us before the final report is written, they can come. We are kind of focusing toward some sort of a white paper that would be consultative.

If it turns out to be necessary, the committee can examine the possibility of going to certain strategic places to enable the public to tell us it what it wants to have defended or protected in the area of heritage. This should not be a matter for a few people only. People need to feel involved and that heritage is everyone's issue. It is not just a temporary whim of the Minister or a few members of Parliament. Our heritage matters to all of us and we are going to find ways to protect it.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Being a new member of this committee, I would first like to say that I agree with the points that Mr. Abbott raised. I believe that we need an overall cultural policy. I also believe we all need the same background information so that we can go ahead.

I see that the people and organizations that are going to appear are already lobbyists. We are going to hear the same thing again.

The Chairman: I think that there is a common thread between what Mr. Abbott said, what Ms. Tremblay said and what you are saying, which is that we need people who are independent and, in particular, completely objective. We do not want to hear the same old refrain.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's right.

The Chairman: We don't want people coming to lobby us. That is not at all what we want.

Mr. Mark Muise: First, we want to understand and then we will be able to listen to the various viewpoints. At least we will then have a base to start, and understand where they're coming from and where they are going.

The Chairman: We understand that very well, Mr. Muise.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: I must start with Mr. Abbott's first intervention. I suspect this is a debate that either should be.... He raises a very large philosophical point of view about both culture and the role of the state, as well as a number of other things that I think are not what we're on about. I think that's a worthwhile debate, but I must say I'd rather like to have it with him over an extended dinner with a good bottle of wine. What he's essentially saying is that we should do something else.

I agree that the things that he thinks we might do would be worth doing. Studying convergence would be a very useful activity, but I would also point out to him that there have been several studies of that, too, including one by this committee in the context of its CBC work. Madam Tremblay will recall when we did attempt to do the very thing he's talking about, namely to examine how these new technologies will be impacting on the future of broadcasting. So it's not that it has been under-studied. It's a related but different piece of work.

• 0950

I entirely agree with the second point Madam Tremblay made. It would seem to me one way of making sure we're all up to speed on these issues is that under the briefings and overview section we can cover off with the expertise of the Department of International Trade. I think we can do that. I think we can have an overview of the WTO and intellectual property and all that. What is missing is those independent experts on technology. The Internet is a classic case, because it's so pervasive. It will have an impact on radio, and who would have thought of that? It has an impact on museums, because they are already putting their stuff up on the Internet.

So it may be that one of the first sessions, which will not have to do with the roles and responsibilities of government...it's almost a separate sector, like demographics, where you get the best outside experts, and I agree, if possible, the sort of hands-on demonstrations we had previously with satellites and all the rest of it, so we have a real sense of what convergence actually means, even if you're not an expert on it. That should be a starting point.

I suspect we will also, when we move into the specific sectoral panels and round tables, where appropriate, want to invite specific experts who will be there to say, excuse me, but cable is going to go this way or satellite is going to go that way. So we will have two cracks at the experts, and I would hope the experts would be distributed among the first session and in the second session.

My last observation is simply to niggle a bit about the set-up of the panels. I think this is just management, if you like. I understand, for example, the division between artistic companies, if you like, which is the first category, and sole artists, the second category, but it would seem to me it would make more sense, if you take the ecosystem approach—pardon me for that—to put the literary folk under publishing, because they are the content. If it doesn't get published, it's a useless exercise, right? So they are a vital part of the ecosystem. I know it's not as neat and Cartesian as we would like, but they seem to me to belong more properly under that heading.

One could equally argue, although with less strength, that the visual artists, not that they all should wind up in museums...maybe there is a way of re-dicing it.

The one I think you're pushing far too many things into is the first category. I could come up with four categories. I can come up with theatre, dance, classical music, and maybe opera, because they all have different systems. Maybe theatre and dance can go together, although their worlds and their ecosystems are different. They have different pressures internationally. One is language dependent. That means you have different situations in Quebec from the rest of the country. The other is not language dependent, because it's dance.

So à la rigueur, theatre and dance and maybe music, that understood to be orchestra, opera, and classical stuff...but I don't think you can put all four into one big bag. You're talking apples and oranges.

That's my only niggle.

My final remark is under broadcasting. You're really separating out two things, and it's again making the point both Madam Tremblay and Mr. Abbott made. On the one hand, you're having a sort of technological discussion. Cable is not content. Cable is a distribution mechanism. Satellites are a distribution mechanism. Internet is a distribution mechanism. So you have a whole bunch of technologies, whether they are digital, radio, or whatever else, which then make the content of radio and television possible.

That's the division there. This is just quibbling. I think the basic structure is fine.

• 0955

The Chairman: Does anybody else have a comment?

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just to put a fine point on what I was attempting to say, and using what Mr. Godfrey just used as an example, with regard to the input and the difference between the publishers and the writers, I'm suggesting that with the MAI and indeed with split-run magazines, technology has a specific impact that I am very interested in taking a look at from the publisher's perspective.

What this committee is headed toward—that's the choice of the committee, and I'm sure the majority will reign—is having the writers involved in this, which would be more about whether we see this benevolent manipulation as being beneficial or essential or whatever the case may be.

I'm cutting to the chase. I'm cutting to this bone in the hand—and I keep on coming back to that analogy—of saying I would like to hear from the publishers, not just on the split run but on MAI and on technology and how that impacts, because that to me is something real that we can deal with. That's why the example Mr. Godfrey used of publishers and writers, with the writers being the content that's going into the publication...nonetheless, I would like to focus on the publishers and the impacts of those two things.

Mr. John Godfrey: Part of your objectives.

The Chairman: Are there any other remarks?

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think that if we are unable to write the equivalent of a white paper, expressing cultural policy as envisaged by the federal government, there is no point in having hearings. There is no point in having panels, round table discussions or anything else.

People invited to appear have to focus on a specific subject. We will produce a paper which can be given in any colour you want, but I think you'll agree with me that all of this seems to point to a certain green paper. Before deciding on Canadian policy for the 21st century, we could express what we think about this issue. We could publish a document and wait for people to react. We can offer an opportunity to people wishing to express their views. But they have to know what they're going to speak about, that is what the government wants to adopt as a policy. They will come and tell us whether they agree or not, thus letting the government know exactly what Canadians think.

I don't think we need hearings for this, except for experts who will provide us with the most objective information possible— although as we know it is always subjective—thereby giving us every part of the puzzle which we can put together, and see, for example, what will the future shock be. People often talk about cultural protection or cultural exceptions, but we may realize that with the present treaty, that cannot be achieved.

As you know, at the last meeting you referred to the seminar organized by Carleton University. One of the panelists told us that if tax credits were to be considered as subsidies, that could cause problems for Canada and steps were being taken to challenge them. Do you realize what would happen to the Canadian and Quebec movie industry if it were decided, tomorrow morning, that there would no longer be any tax credits? It would be disastrous. Therefore, we have to find out whether that is true or not. Is it just one person's opinion and something which will not happen?

I think it is important to have information because too often we are trying to work in the dark. I don't think that the question of hearings is for the moment the most important issue to decide upon.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, I think we share the same views. I think that the idea of having this work lead to a report, be it white, green, red, blue or any other colour, is a very good one. Such a document would mean that the committee worked as objectively and independently as possible to propose certain approaches which the government may or may not decide to adopt. That will be up to the government to decide, but we must at least present the situation to it as objectively as possible, taking into account what Mr. Abbott and the other members have said.

• 1000

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib): What you are saying is perfect and I agree entirely.

The Chairman: We have to move ahead. We have done some work today and everybody has provided input. We have to enable our researchers to move forward and the committee has to propose the names of experts and set out objectives. If I understood correctly, we should begin with experts who will give their views on the major issues concerned.

We could then listen to departments such as Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the issue of treaties and move on finally to panels and round table discussions before drawing conclusions.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No panels or round tables. I don't think they're necessary at this stage because they serve no purpose. There are too many people around the table. It creates an impossible situation, with everyone expressing his or her own personal opinion. I think we must determine what is the technology and agreements in place, and we need experts, not a panel to tell us that. They have to come individually, one at a time.

The Chairman: We agree completely, Ms. Tremblay. We agree completely that we need experts. That is how we will begin.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would prefer not to have panels and round tables before we have produced a report.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: We could just have a discussion on international trade or technology, not with lobbyists but with the people concerned, that is artists, directors of orchestras or theatre companies. How do these people deal with such challenges? What can be done? Each sector has its own rules. We want to talk with the people involved, not novices but experts. We certainly cannot develop opinions without talking to the people working in these areas. We cannot produce an abstract report. We have to ask questions before writing a report.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: In my presentation earlier I said that we are going to be hearing from beneficiaries of federal dollars or from beneficiaries of federally funded facilities. These are artists or symphony directors, who are already beneficiaries. I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that they are their own form of lobby for their own interests. That is exactly my point.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Frankly, I really cannot imagine a great pianist such as Mr. Lortie, for example, sitting down here and telling us what he thinks of the impact of new technology and international agreements on the future of his career as a pianist. I think it is ridiculous to try and get us to believe that.

These people are so involved in their artistic work and in many cases working so hard to survive that if you ask them to determine the impact of those factors on their future, the person you will have coming here will not be a pianist but rather the president of the particular association who spends his day lobbying for those pianists. We have seen enough people like that. You only have to look at the reports of the Heritage Committee over the past 20 years to know what those people think. If ADISQ were to appear to talk to us about singers, that wouldn't help. We already know full well what ADISQ thinks. They have told us often enough.

• 1005

Nor do I think it is necessary to have practitioners appear.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, I think that is a misunderstanding. We would not be inviting Mr. Lortie as a pianist or any other singer in particular.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That's what he said.

The Chairman: No, just a moment please. The idea is to organize round table discussions to which we would invite people chosen for their objectivity, expertise and independence. We don't want to have hearings. We said at the beginning that we were going to. We have dismissed that idea for the very reason that you mentioned.

We have received 60 briefs. We want to bring together the most independently minded of those people. I myself took part in a round table on bio-technology, an extremely complex area. Mr. Radford was the committee clerk, and we invited seven or eight experts in that area who were completely independent and presented their view of the situation to us. We had a full discussion with them, in the form of a round table, and were then able to decide on certain positions.

There is no question of inviting Mr. Lortie or anyone else to lobby for his particular area.

Mr. Mills.

[English]

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam Tremblay, in my community I have over 3,800 people who are employed in the motion picture industry. Most of these people are entrepreneurial. In order to survive—I'm talking about going right to the bone now—these people must be totally aware of the possible impacts of MAI and new technology. If they're not, they can't compete, they can't export and they can't stay in business.

My understanding of what you were proposing is that we would be inviting people who understand the impact or possible impacts of MAI and new technology, who are right there in the field from these various sectors; people who have to be competitive, meet payrolls and stay alive, not the lobbyists but the people who are hands-on in the street, who are aware of the impacts.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would find it very difficult to see the difference between an academic report and the committee report if we were to restrict ourselves exclusively to experts, as, unless I'm mistaken, Ms. Tremblay is suggesting.

I would see the presentation of experts as helping to set out the concept in which we would work, but there is a significant difference between that and the protection of a discussion paper for the public, be it a white paper or some other document. Before being able to do that, I would in fact need to meet with people, and I am very pleased that there are people around this table with previously acquired expertise abling them to contribute substantially towards that end. However, as a member of this committee, I need this kind of process to be able to contribute substantially.

I need to meet people who will tell me about their own experience in this area before I could ever put my name on a report intended for publication. For my part, I need that knowledge in order to make a significant contribution.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I would like to defend why you might want to invite Louis Lortie. You might want to ask him how we got to have a critical mass of great Canadian pianists over the years and what were the training facilities. What were the programs in place that allowed for the creation of these artists? You might want to say, “Now that you're here, Mr. Lortie, tell me, the way things are going, do you think you have a future career in this country, or will you have to earn all your money abroad? In fact, will you have to live abroad because there is no base of symphony orchestras to support you?”

These are the people who are actually in the system.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: It's his livelihood.

Mr. John Godfrey: They can tell you how they got where they are. Depending on what we do, with all respect to Mr. Abbott, where we are partners with the private sector and everything else in making symphony orchestras possible so Mr. Lortie can have a career in Canada, will he be driven out?

It's also true, by the way, for pop stars. We've created a wonderful pop star thing and they all live out of Canada right now, every bloody one of them—Céline Dion, Bryan Adams—they're all living in Ireland or the United States. We've created a Canadian culture that is now based somewhere in Los Angeles. What's all that about?

• 1010

So I think it's useful when we're considering these sectors to actually invite people in who do the stuff and who've had careers that have been impacted by public policy.

[Translation]

I hope that you will communicate my comments on this point to the other lady.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to point out to Mr. Saada that the people who have been on this committee for some time know that it is always the same witnesses who come back and say more or less the same things, particularly when they are to some degree linked to the government through a subsidy or a grant. Inevitably, they tell us how important that is, etc.

As members of Parliament, we can often hear that kind of thing outside the committee because these people lobby the members of every party. What you need as information will be provided to you. You will receive calls, letters and requests for meetings with all the agencies, artists and producers who receive or need government grants.

That is why we have to limit the work of our committee to new issues, as you seem to suggest, and as Ms. Tremblay and my colleague from the Conservative Party also pointed out.

The danger for the people involved in movie production is what would happen if, for example, tax credits were to be considered as a subsidy because of NAFTA. Wham! That would hurt. That is why we have to get organized and obtain information as quickly as possible.

There is also the whole question of new technology. When we meet artists or producers, they will reiterate the same things to us. What we have to determine as quickly as possible is where this new technology is leading to, and that's why we need to consult with experts from the beginning so that we can see and clearly understand the future impact of international treaties to which Canada, including Quebec, is a signatory.

We can then invite those associations which usually appear. There is nothing to stop us, as a party or as individuals, from meeting with them at the same time.

Mr. John Godfrey: I would invite Luc Plamondon for example. I would ask him how he was able to develop his career, whether it was on a strictly private basis or with government assistance. That is the type of questions I would like to ask all the people concerned.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You can ask him that by phone. It is not necessary...

Mr. John Godfrey: I want everyone to hear the answer.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In the case of composers, they will be more concerned about one point, namely copyright. We will have to take a broader approach but also be more specific, as the first four people who spoke indicated.

The Chairman: We have had quite a thorough discussion of the subject and must reach a conclusion. I would suggest three things.

First, I need a motion to invite representatives of the Department and witnesses with respect to Bill C-7 which will be sent to us next week. This bill deals with the establishment of the Saguenay—Saint-Lawrence Marine Park. It's essential that we be able to prepare for this.

[English]

I would like a motion in that regard.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I so move.

The Chairman: Seconded by Mrs. Bulte.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Now, we need a motion to adopt a structure for this cultural policy study. There are two ways of proceeding: either we adopt the draft presented today, subject to the reservations that were expressed, or we send it to the

[English]

steering committee to finalize it.

A voice: Could we amend it?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Given the discussions that we have had and that the clerk has recorded, we need to act as soon as possible. This is urgent. It is almost November.

The Chairman: Could I have a motion in that regard?

Ms. Tremblay, seconded by Mr. Plamondon, so moves.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Can we start giving our researchers and the clerk some direction on inviting the initial experts for December 2nd? In that regard, I would like some suggestions on designating the initial experts.

• 1015

We had suggested Ms. Pennefather, Mr. Ostry and Mr. Florian Sauvageau. The list is not complete.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What will we start with, the treaties or technology?

The Chairman: No, we are going to start with something more general.

Mr. John Godfrey: The current state of culture.

The Chairman: Yes, the current state of culture.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think that could have been the topic of a report by the researchers. They could have provided us with an update on culture. I wonder what those three people can add. That has already been done.

The Chairman: They can talk about high technology, which you mentioned. Suggest someone else. They can talk about technology, the impact...

Mr. John Godfrey: We could, for example, ask Mr. Sauvageau the following question: Since you wrote your report, what new aspects or changes would modify your...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He will tell us to read his most recent book. It is all in his most recent book. Why waste our time? I think that would be a waste of our time. We are not here for that. I'm telling you, I feel like we are wasting our time.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I hope to contribute to this committee. I am not the only new member at this table. I cannot afford to read reports indiscriminately, without knowing which ones are substantial and which ones are not, and be ready to make a substantial contribution at the next meeting. We would need a meeting, which would require a lot less work than reading 55 reports in order to determine which ones are good and which ones are bad.

Would it be possible to agree on one thing? If we want to all work together by starting from the same point, could we agree to hold at least one meeting to bring us up to speed before undertaking something more substantial? Does everyone feel it would be reasonable to start that way?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, and it could be prepared by the Library.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It could be done by the Library. That's what I'm saying.

Mr. Jacques Saada: It would summarize for us...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What you were asking for, Mr. Saada, can be done by the Library.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am not trying to influence the choice of witnesses. I am going on the principle that I would like to be good for something.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If you want to be useful, you have to read at least ten pages before a meeting.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Ms. Tremblay, please do not insult me by believing that I cannot read 10 pages. Be nice. We are talking about something more important than that.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Do I understand that the first session would be to work toward an understanding of the present state of culture?

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have to agree with Madam Tremblay. I think it's an abject waste of time.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: My understanding is that it was in the context of some of these specific focuses you talked about—new technology, MAI.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The Library can send it to us. If we read it, we will be up-to-date and in a position to address the issue of technology. That has already been done in the document prepared for the Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled "Selected issues in Canadian culture and current cultural policy support measures".

The Chairman: In order to avoid prolonging the debate, let me make the following suggestion: before our next meeting, which will be held on Wednesday, committee members will send in, before the beginning of next week, names of persons they would like to see invited as experts. If you want us to discuss technology, good enough, but send us some names because we have to be able to invite and contact them. If it's for December 2nd, we have to start acting.

If we do not receive any names, then I'll discuss the matter with our researchers to determine who should be invited.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: May I ask a question?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Why is Ms. Copps coming to see us? We are not ready. We haven't done any work. We don't have anything.

Mr. John Godfrey: That's not the only purpose. We can also find out information on the Department, can't we? That's what we're doing.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: It's estimates.

Mr. John Godfrey: With estimates and—

Mr. Jim Abbott: We invite the minister under estimates to answer for her department.

The Chairman: I think we've already had this debate. The committee wanted to have Mrs. Copps. We contacted her. I think all the people said the first person we want to have is the minister. We contacted the minister. She's coming on Wednesday. We can't just now say the minister is not welcome. We wanted the minister to come.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I thought we'd agreed unanimously that this is what was to happen.

The Chairman: That's right. So we're not going to redo this debate.

• 1020

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Of course we agreed to have the Minister come but I didn't assume that she would be the first to come nor that it would be right away. Does that mean that we won't have any meetings on Tuesday or Thursday but only on Wednesday when the Minister is coming?

The Chairman: Yes. It will be Wednesday at 3:30. We hope to have a meeting on Thursday to study Bill C-7. If the debate is over in the House, which is quite likely, it will be referred to us on Thursday. If not, then we'll probably hear officials of the Department's Amateur Sport Directorate. That means there'll be two meetings next week, namely on Wednesday and Thursday.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: And in the meantime, we'll be sending you names of witnesses?

The Chairman: Experts you will like to suggest.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In the field of technology and treaties or the more general cultural area?

The Chairman: Suggest whomever you would like. We can make our selection later on.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I see.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You said that Wednesday's meeting would start at 3:30 P.M.?

The Chair: Yes, at 3:30.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: And the Thursday meeting at 9 o'clock?

The Chairman: Yes.

I promised my colleague Mr. Mills, who has done lots of work on the Sport Sub-committee, that we would deal with this subject. I'll give him the floor now because he has an engagement soon.

[English]

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does everybody have a copy?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I don't have a copy of your revised report.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: As they put right at the top of this terms of reference, this is a draft, so therefore any insights or amendments this committee might have should be put forward.

I circulated copies before today, in both languages, to make sure that people had time to reflect on this. If there are any comments or any amendments, people should put them forward, but essentially, I don't believe in reinventing the wheel. We've gone back to the study that was done almost 30 years ago. We've taken some of the basic framework from that study, which was highly respected and most useful, and 30 years later, I believe it's time to do an update and a review.

I would be happy to hear any comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Can I ask you a very short question? When you talk about the sports industry, are you talking exclusively about the industry or the sports sector in Canada?

[English]

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Sport in general, as a sector.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think that perhaps the expression should be corrected in French because the sports industry would designate more particularly the commercial sector while you are looking at something much wider, including amateur sport and so on.

[English]

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: It's meant to be a comprehensive review, absolutely. So maybe the translation is....

What did you say there, Mark, in terms of what you would recommend?

The Chairman: I think it was a question of saying the sport sector in Canada, instead of saying—

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: The industry of sport.

The Chairman: —the industry of sport. It's more than just one industry. It includes amateur sport and....

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's also an industry.

We have no difficulty taking part in this subcommittee but we do have some problems relating to items 1 and 5 of the work plan. Education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We also think it's a bit exaggerated to look at the link between sports and national unity.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: What did you mean by sport and education?

• 1025

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Most of our Olympic athletes, in every sector of Olympic programs, have a very specialized educational sort of package. Most of that has a federal aspect. Many of them are saying that as a nation we are deficient in supporting our Olympic program on the educational side. So we should look at that to see if it is in fact the case.

The Chairman: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have no difficulty discussing point 3 as far as the Olympic Games are concerned. I don't see any problem in that. The problem is point 1, namely sports and education because it relates to an area of provincial jurisdiction.

[English]

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Fair enough. Point made.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: As far as item 5 is concerned, sports and national unity, the Olympic Games constitute a perfect example of the lack of national unity, I don't know whether it was deliberate or not, because of all the difficulties that Quebec athletes experienced in being selected for Canadian teams. The committee will examine this question and do an exhaustive study. You will be surprised to note that Quebeckers are often justified in their complaints. If we examine item 5, there's a good chance we'll bring to public attention the fact that sports have not contributed to Canadian unity. We'd be much better avoiding the whole subject.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I would disagree with Madam Tremblay on point one, to this extent. The federal government is highly involved in post-secondary education, as you know. You can pursue a degree, and many people do, in, say, history of sport in this country. I think sports and education is an appropriate topic because of post-secondary education and the way in which many people specialize.

On point five, I can't believe what I'm hearing there. Perhaps—I would say definitely, but perhaps at least—one of the most unifying moments in our history was the Henderson goal, which has just been re-celebrated. From my friends in Quebec, I think it was as wildly celebrated there as it was in any other province. I think sport has the potential to be one of the most effective builders of national unity in this country, so I certainly think it ought to be on there. The examples are just so obvious.

So unless I misunderstood, I think there is a very obvious link between sport and national unity, and I think it should be studied.

The Chairman: Mr. Mills, Monsieur Plamondon, and Monsieur Abbott.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: I want to say that I totally agree with the notion of post-secondary.... There's a whole litany of specific courses being offered now in universities across Canada that need federal support and bursaries.

To go back to the national unity issue, if I understood Suzanne correctly, it was a fact that more recently with the screening process for participation, especially in certain sectors of the Olympic games, there were concrete and specific examples where members from Quebec, it could be challenged, might have been overlooked. If I understood Suzanne correctly, she just wanted this reviewed from a criteria point of view—how were these players picked, with so many from this province and only so few from this province?

The Chairman: Monsieur Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'd simply like to point out that the Canadian team did not choose Mario Lemieux, claiming that he wasn't good. Four years ago in 1993, there were no Quebeckers in the junior hockey team even though Quebec won the junior championship that year. No Quebec player was good enough to be part of the team. It's obvious that the coaches or the organization have too much discretion and some corrections are necessary, for example in terms of breakdown. Thirty per cent of the members should come from Ontario and 25 per cent from Quebec. We need a team that represents the various provinces.

• 1030

I come back to national unity and I agree with Suzanne on this point. Several years ago I found it very hard to see the "sovietization" of sports and arts in the countries behind the iron curtain. This is what they attempted to do in the Canada Council. We've already discussed that.

I can also remember a long debate in the committee. An artist was asked what he was going to do for Canadian unity if he obtained a grant. If he wasn't planning to do anything, he wouldn't get a grant. In my view, that is unacceptable. We cannot expect an artist to subscribe to a political view in order to obtain something. I think it would be dangerous to make use of sports to promote national unity. I can't go along with that.

You have to realize that in Quebec 50 per cent of the people are sovereignists and 50 per cent are federalists. So it's quite different talking about sovereignty in Quebec or in Ontario where they claim we're trying to destroy Canada.

There are two different views in Quebec; on the one hand there is the future of Canada and on the other Quebec's relationship with Canada. Sovereignists claim that there can be a partnership where federalists say that this is not so, that there must be a redefinition of powers. We are discussing two very different visions here in a concrete way.

The referendum took place, it was almost an equal split. There was no civil unrest. From time to time, there are shouting matches. But outside of Quebec, whenever national unity is discussed... even if you are journalists, you go see Villeneuve race and hand him a flag. Everyone, even journalists, become defenders of national unity.

Pat, I can hear what you're saying and I understand your view. You have a heartfelt conviction that everything should be done for the construction of a great nation whereas I feel with all my soul that I am more of a Quebecker than a Canadian and I think that everything should be done to give Quebec its place, at the same time retaining an economic link with the rest of Canada as good neighbours. So I wouldn't like to see us use national unity, as I've just spoken about it, as a pretext for spending money and going against my option, which would divide us even more.

So if it's possible, I would like to replace certain words and simply ask the question: have sports properly served each of the regions of Canada? This would enable us to find out whether the East has been discriminated against, perhaps the little guy from Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick.

In Quebec, it's often been because of the language of communication that there have been problems in hockey clubs. Perhaps we could make a recommendation to the effect that one or two coaches should be bilingual, for example. We wouldn't be talking about the flag. It seems to me that we all want our team to be made up in a more objective way and one that better reflects what I refer to as the "founding peoples" although you may prefer to use the term two cultures. We know that talk about the founding peoples rubs some people the wrong way. If we talk about two cultures, then there isn't that problem. As far as Suzanne and I are concerned, you can put a big question mark after that item.

As far as education is concerned, I would like to remind everybody that we are talking about post-secondary education, so that there is no infringement on provincial jurisdiction.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott—quickly.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have a number of observations and I'll try to patch them together just as a passing comment.

To begin with, though, I think the Montréal Canadiens have probably been one of the greatest sowers of Canadian unity. I mean, I see Canadien uniforms being worn proudly out in Calgary, in Vancouver, in Halifax—wherever I go anywhere in Canada, and certainly in Quebec. Clearly, the point Mr. Mills makes at the beginning about the spiritual Canada, and our soul, and the way we visualize ourselves—probably the Montréal Canadiens are the greatest example of that.

One of the concerns I have with this, and it's a very serious concern, is that this is too small. This proposal is way, way too small. In other words, after meeting approximately 30 times, we will have just gone across the mountain tops. We are not going to be in any of the valleys. We are not really going to have anything of any substance at the end of this particular exercise.

• 1035

We talked earlier about benevolent manipulation. I do believe, and my party believes, there is a place in Canada to, with taxpayers' dollars, benevolently manipulate amateur sport—in other words, to be involved in amateur sport, whether we're talking about our Olympic teams or facilities—primarily because of the national spirit that sports do bring.

I would like to ask Mr. Mills if perhaps, in some of this manipulation we're talking about, he has in mind a situation where we talked about the Montréal Canadiens. If we were to talk about Quebec going to Denver; if we were to talk about the soon-to-be-announced takeover of the Edmonton Oilers, where they will probably end up in Houston....

You see, where I'm coming from and where we're coming from is that in the same way the Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas, the Winnipeg Jets moved.... Where did they go?

A voice: Phoenix.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Phoenix, thank you. Whoa, there's a contrast for you: Winnipeg to Phoenix in the winter.

The point is, if he has in mind with this study actually getting involved in taking a look at the loss of professional sports, especially hockey, to venues in the U.S.... If that's the direction he's going, it's completely wrong-headed of this committee to become involved in that. I am disgusted with the National Hockey League, the massive salaries, and the gross business manipulation of our Canadian sport, but I don't want to see the Government of Canada get involved in trying to manipulate a multimillion-dollar business.

So my first observation is that I cannot support this because it is way too small. There is a place for a study by this committee, because Sport Canada does come under Heritage Canada. There is a place for a study of sports in Canada, particularly amateur sports, our facilities, and the Olympics. Therefore I will not be able to support it because of its size.

The second question I have for Mr. Mills is whether one of the things he wants to achieve is to take a look at the potential loss of professional hockey teams.

The Chairman: I would like recognize Mr. O'Brien first, then Mr. Mills and Mr. Saada. Afterwards I'm going to cut off the discussion and make some suggestions, because we must move on.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are so many things I could say on the previous discussion on national unity. It's very fascinating. I hope we'll have a chance to pursue that in other venues at other times.

I'll raise one other point. I'm sure it's implied under several of these categories, but as somebody with a pretty active involvement in sport myself, I see one of the major problems in Canada as the imbalance in the distribution of facilities, times, and moneys between men and women, boys and girls. I'm sure that's implied in several categories. I just want to raise that with Mr. Mills and hope that's on his list of things to explore.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: First to Mr. O'Brien, absolutely. You should refer to paragraph 2, in the last sentence: “the economic impact of sport through an exploration into the linkages between sport and job creation”.

Mr. Abbott, this is not a study about professional hockey in Canada. I want to make that very clear. I have made it clear, but I'm making it clear formally in this meeting.

• 1040

We should know, as public policy-makers, what sport does contribute to job creation in the community and the country as a whole. We do not have a set of books on the impact of sport in the economic fabric of this country.

You may not think it was important that the Winnipeg Jets or the Quebec Nordiques left those communities, but some members of Parliament who we serve with tell us that the impact, the job loss, and the business opportunity loss are things we should be aware of—not that we invest taxpayers' money to save it, but we should at least know what those impacts are. I consider that just one of a litany of things we should look at, but it's not the primary thrust of this study.

It's a comprehensive report. Our national sport is just one factor in this, but it is a multibillion-dollar industry sport in this country. We are losing some of our best sporting manufacturers to offshore people. So that would be part of it as well, to look at the opportunity we're losing.

I hope that covers your concern sufficiently.

Mr. Jim Abbott: It doesn't cover my major concern. You just expanded the vision of this subcommittee even further.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: No, it's all in there.

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, but I mean with that description.

My point is, this is going to be a waste of time, because it is simply so small against something that is so large that I don't understand why we would tinker with it.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: It's hardly tinkering.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I have some reservations about what my colleague, Mr. Abbott, said about federal intervention in the cultural or sport fields. Correct me if memory fails me but it seems to me that some people have repeatedly spoken of manipulation of federal funds in those fields.

I do not think that each time the state intervenes in those fields it is with the intent of manipulation. There is a connotation that appears to me to be negative and I would like to correct it at once. I think that the federal level has a role to play in the field of sport as well as in the field of culture.

Secondly, I would like to join my friends and Suzanne on the need to restate number 1: sport and education. It seems to me absolutely essential for the reasons that were eloquently expressed earlier.

I would like to add a last thing concerning the reservations expressed by Louis in respect to number 5: the link between sport and national unity. The fact that that heading is there does not mean that the substance will not take his concerns into account. It is a heading. As the saying goes, I think we should not trip over ourselves. When we discuss the issue and draw our conclusions, we will see what kind of accommodation we can make. It is only a heading. And to me, national unity is not a taboo topic.

The Chairman: I think we have now heard all the views. I would like to make a few suggestions. First of all, we could agree or disagree today on the principle of having such a subcommittee.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I so move.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Tremblay. We will therefore begin with that and decide at once on the principle of the subcommittee. We have to ask Mr. Mills if people are in agreement. In fact, we would need several things: that Mr. Mills and his subcommittee come back to us with the names of members, a description of the powers that will be given to that committee, its budget, its schedule, its report mechanism, the whole logistic of meetings, etc.

For instance, the subcommittee will not be allowed to meet while the main committee is meeting. I suggest that today we make our decision on the principle of having or not having a subcommittee on sports. Once that is done, we will ask Mr. Mills to work out the other items with the researcher and the clerk, and also to work out with the members of the committee who will want to join him the definition of a mandate on which there is no unanimity.

I think we could proceed this way, and

[English]

Mr. Mills, you could come back with a framework and terms of reference that would take into account what the subcommittee members would want.

• 1045

At this point, can I ask you, have you contacted any of the members here with regard to a potential subcommittee?

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Yes.

The Chairman: How many members would you need to have a subcommittee that would be viable?

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Including the opposition, I think we would need a minimum of six or seven members.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, at what point would the committee be voting on and giving approval for this to be going ahead?

The Chairman: What I would suggest, Mr. Abbott, is that we vote on whether or not we agree on a subcommittee for sports. It will be up to the people then to come back to us with refined terms of reference, and then it will be for the committee to agree or disagree, reject it, and it will go from there.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Chairman, I really don't understand how much more refining you would need when Mr. Abbott, if I understood him correctly, is essentially not in favour of the principle no matter what. In other words, it doesn't seem that the Reform Party position would support this analysis of sport no matter what we put on paper.

We have the Bloc Québécois interested in doing this review, and I'm not sure what other parties think, but I would think that we have enough to begin the process here, with the exception of defining specific members.

First of all, we would obviously go through our own committee on our side. I would have to discuss with Madam Tremblay who it would be in her party. But obviously, I don't see how we're going to have any change in what we have here this morning from the Reform Party.

The Chairman: I agree with that, Mr. Mills. What I wanted to suggest to you was this. Today, we'll agree on the principle of a subcommittee so that you can go ahead—

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: I get it.

The Chairman: —and contact members to get them on board.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Understood.

The Chairman: From this point on, you'll have to work with the clerk and the researcher—

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Okay. Terrific. I misunderstood you.

The Chairman: —to decide on the scope of the powers of the committee, to put down the budget you need, and to see what the timeframes are for your work. Do you want to invite people to appear or not? What is the final document that you want to propose to us for adoption? Because there have been discussions about education and national unity. What will your subcommittee propose? Then you come back to this committee, and we'll agree on everything.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Terrific.

The Chairman: Do we agree?

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: This morning we'll approve on principle.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Will there be a formal vote on this now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Can we go ahead?

The Chairman: Just hold it a minute.

[Translation]

Moved by Ms. Tremblay, that we accept the principle of the subcommittee, with all the conditions that you have described and that you, Mr. Mills,

[English]

you will get together with the researchers and the clerk, and come back to us with a final text for the terms of reference with all the various items I've listed. Then we will decide on a final vote as to whether we'll go ahead on this basis or along different lines.

Is that fair?

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Fair enough.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Are we going to have a vote on that now?

The Chairman: We are going to have a vote on just the principle of a subcommittee for now. That's all.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would like to have a recorded vote on that, please.

The Chairman: By all means, Mr. Abbott.

This is a nominal vote for the principle of setting up a subcommittee.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Mr. Mills, is the agenda quite clear to you?

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Yes. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is there any further business?

[English]

Is there any further business?

The meeting is adjourned.