CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 6, 1998

• 1140

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: The first topic on the agenda

[English]

is the election of the chair. Do I have motions to that effect?

[Translation]

Ms. Bulte, seconded by Ms. Tremblay, moves that Mr. Lincoln be made chairman of the committee.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: Mr. Lincoln, congratulations.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): Firstly, I would like to thank Ms. Bulte and Ms. Tremblay for having moved and seconded my nomination, and all the members of the committee for having elected me chairman. We will continue the work we had begun. Many of you were already members of this committee. To the newcomers,

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark and the new ones who have joined us, Mr. McWhinney and Mr. Lavigne, I would like to wish you fruitful work on the committee.

Mr. Lowther, you were already with us. Many thanks for joining us today. I hope our work will be very fruitful.

Now we have to proceed with the election of vice-chairs of the committee.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would like to nominate Member of Parliament Ted McWhinney for the vice-chairmanship.

The Chairman: We don't need a seconder, so Mr. McWhinney has been nominated.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): I'd like to nominate Mr. Inky Mark for the vice-chair position as well.

The Chairman: So we have two nominations: Mr. Mark and Mr. McWhinney. Are there any other nominations? If not, I will call for the vote.

(Motions agreed to)

The Chairman: I declare Mr. McWhinney and Mr. Mark vice-chairs of the committee.

Congratulations.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

The Chairman: You have received a copy of our agenda. We will move immediately to the future business of the committee. A motion has been introduced and I ask the mover to submit it to us. It reads as follows:

That the Subcommittee on the Study of Sports in Canada be reconstituted and made up of the same number of members and that those members be appointed by the Chair of the standing committee after the usual consultations with the parties have taken place;

That the budget for subcommittees be taken from the budget of the standing committee; and

That Dennis Mills be the Chairman of the subcommittee.

[English]

Is there a proposer for this? Monsieur Bélanger. We don't need a seconder.

Mr. Mills, would you like to say anything about your work?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, we've had an overwhelmingly positive reaction from the amateur and professional sport sectors in this country, so much so that we were not able to finish our work by the end of the summer. So we will need until the end of October for our final witnesses, and then we will sit as a committee with our final recommendations, and we will report back to this committee by the end of November.

• 1145

That pretty well covers it. Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Métis, BQ): Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, you will consult the parties in order to have them choose the members who will be members of the subcommittee. I would like to know whether, normally, to be a member of a subcommittee, one must first of all be a member of the committee or whether, on the contrary, any member may sit on a subcommittee.

The Chairman: A member or an associate member has the right to sit on the subcommittee.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Fine.

The Chairman: The subcommittee can include members and associate members of the committee.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Very well. When you hold your consultations, would it be possible for you to propose that persons be chosen who will respect the work of the committee and not publicize what happens at the committee before it tables its report?

The Chairman: I hear what you are saying, Ms. Tremblay, and take good note of it, but we are at this time studying the motions submitted to us concerning the re-election of Mr. Mills as chairman of the subcommittee.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have no objection to that.

The Chairman: It will up to us as members of the committee and to Mr. Mills as chairman to take good note of what you have said.

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, may I respond to that?

The Chairman: Yes, sure.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I'll be very brief.

Madame Tremblay has a very good point, and in our committee tomorrow, we will discuss that at length, because the particular information we've been reading in the press in the last few days was a very unique experience. Once the committee has explained or has told what happened, I think she'll be quite satisfied, because nothing from the committee work we've done to date has leaked to the press.

The Chairman: Okay. We have a motion in front of us. If there's no further discussion, I'll call for the vote.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We now have another motion that was circulated to you in writing during the summer, because at the time we needed some help. If you recall, we used to have two researchers on this committee on a permanent basis. Of the two researchers, one retired and the other one was transferred, and we ended up with one researcher who was unable to do all the work by himself. During the summer, we wrote to you to say we needed the services of somebody who has served on the committee before and is extremely experienced in all matters of Canadian culture, Madame Wanda Noel.

[Translation]

Is Ms. Noel here?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, could you introduce the persons to your right?

The Chairman: Yes, I was just about to do that. Is Ms. Noël here?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: She is at the back.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Noel, why don't you join us here?

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Just for clarification and for my understanding, we had two researchers prior to this.

The Chairman: That's correct.

Mr. Mark Muise: And now, because they have retired, it seems we have to spend money. I don't understand why. We had two, and now to get a second, we have to spend additional funds. Was there not a budget allocated for this, which would automatically mean that budget would go to that replacement person?

The Chairman: Perhaps the clerk could explain that to us.

The Clerk: The previous two researchers were provided by the Library of Parliament at the cost of the Library of Parliament.

• 1150

The need that arises at this moment is not necessarily one of a person but one of a person with knowledge. The library, I suppose, could assign two researchers, but that still would not fill the void of losing Monsieur Lemieux, who was with the committee since I've been around the Hill, so a long time; as well as Susan, who was also with the committee for a long time. There's been a loss of knowledge, and that's why a consultant with that knowledge is required for this project—and I emphasize it's for this project, not for the continuation of the committee's work.

The Chairman: I should explain that Madame Noel is quite well known to many of the members of the committee. She served with us during the whole process of Bill C-32, which was the copyright legislation. She's worked very closely with the ministry for several years. That's why we felt she would really be the ideal person.

Suzanne Tremblay and then Mr. Godfrey.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The matter concerning Mark remains to be settled. If we do not accept the research assistant assigned to us by the Library because of his lack of knowledge of the issue, why does the Library not hire a consultant itself and lend him to the committee since in any case we won't be using its staff? I don't understand why we should cover that expense.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I have a further refinement on the question. It would seem that we used to have two full spots paid for by the Library of Parliament. One's retired and the other's gone on to another function. We now have one full spot. Do they owe us another spot? It would be appropriate on a short-term basis to have Madame Noel complete this function, but on a long-term basis, are we going to be down when they owe us?

Mr. Mark Muise: That's the real question.

Mr. John Godfrey: Shouldn't we also be thinking about bringing someone on as quickly as possible, if they owe us two, so they may gain that expertise and join our new associate here? Perhaps we might want to introduce our new associate, so we have a better sense.

The question is, have we gone down from two to one, and what have they done with our one? And should we bring them before the bar of Parliament to get them back?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I want it to be clear that we are not at all questioning Ms. Noël's competency. That is not the issue, and I want everyone to understand that.

The Chairman: Yes, we understand that very, very well.

[English]

May I suggest this? You all have a very logical point. From what Mr. Blais explains to me, the Library of Parliament carried out advertising and they also had a test, but nobody suitable was found. So they are trying to fill the vacuum as soon as they can.

Of course this person won't be assigned just to our committee; it's somebody who does other work as well. They would be assigned to our committee, among other duties.

You have a fair point. I'm going to be in touch with the Library of Parliament to see whether in the meanwhile we can get funding for somebody to replace the person they haven't found. But perhaps we could take it in two items. As you can see, there's a longer-term implication in another motion. The $5,000 is for work that was done during the summer. I would suggest that we just take care of that one—it's not a big item—and look at the other one differently.

Mr. Mark Muise: So moved.

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Bonwick.

• 1155

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, these are two completely separate topics you're pursuing on behalf of the committee. An additional staff person from the Library of Parliament is separate in itself.

Hiring a contract consultant is another topic, completely different from the Library of Parliament. In that regard we're looking for continuity. We're looking for somebody who is able to hit the ground running, so to speak. Based on the information you've provided, I have no doubt this is the person. Whether the budget is coming from the heritage committee or from the Library of Parliament to a certain extent is semantics.

I would therefore move that we move on the recommendation to hire the consultant and move forward with the budget as it's presented, simply deal with it in that text. And I encourage you to also move forward on a separate topic, and that is to encourage the Library of Parliament to recruit somebody as quickly as possible so that we can have the appropriate staffing, but separate from the budget that's been presented at this point.

The Chairman: Why don't we deal with this motion on the basis of Mr. Bonwick's proposal? We'll take this motion, and then perhaps, Mr. Muise and Madame Tremblay, it would be good if you proposed a separate motion that, with the unanimous consent of the committee, you ask me to go to the Library of Parliament to see what we can negotiate with them.

So we'll pass this one here and then you will assign me... Coming from the committee, it would have much more weight than if I did it on an informal basis.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Bonwick, only one premise is false. The money comes neither from the Library nor from the Department of Canadian Heritage. It comes from the House of Commons and was allocated to it for the operations of the committees. It has nothing to do with the departments. It is a budget that belongs to the Speaker of the House and the funds must be approved by the Bureau of Internal Economy and by the House. The funds have nothing to do with Ms. Copps' department.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, I think that Mr. Bonwick meant that the money comes out of the same pocket; it comes out of the pockets of the federal institution.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is not that simple. If we have someone who meets our current needs precisely, and if it is probable that we will need to retain that person's services until the month of February, why does the Library not hire Ms. Noël, from its budget, rather than wait till we have finished our work and no longer need Ms. Noël's services to hire someone else? We are running the risk of having to cover the cost of the consultant's contract, while the Library will hire someone whose services we will not be using. We will be paying two people rather than one. It seems very simple to me, unless something escapes me.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I think to a certain extent, Madame Tremblay and I are agreeing. I certainly didn't mean to excite that type of emotion, Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Don't worry; it's...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I think we're losing sight of the fact that there are two separate issues at hand. The committee is choosing a person with expertise. The choice of the committee is Madame Noel. We are choosing that person to assist us with this particular package, because we believe we need somebody with experience who can, as I said before, hit the ground running.

We are also, on a separate issue, going to, with unanimous consent, have the chairperson lobby the parliamentary library to provide the necessary staffing that they normally would.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Chair, at the risk of disagreeing with my colleague—but I like the emotional content too—they're directly related, because if we hadn't lost the services of two experienced researchers, Mrs. Alter and Monsieur Lemieux, we would have assumed that Monsieur Lemieux might have done what Madame Noel is going to do, right?

In other words, it's only because of that situation that we find ourselves in the pleasant position of having a renewed association with... How am I doing?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Godfrey: It's because of the internal workings of the Library of Parliament that we find ourselves in this situation, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask them, rather than the liaison committee, for the money for a function they have to fulfill.

An hon. member: That's right.

• 1200

The Chairman: I just want to ask the clerk to give an explanation regarding this question, which is important.

The Clerk: I'd like to preface this by saying I'm not trying to take sides. I'm not promoting a consultant or promoting the Library of Parliament; I'm just explaining the way I understand the situation.

If we can speak about money, there is a difference between the amount of money a committee pays a consultant for immediate services—be it consulting or legal advice—and what the Library would pay on a contract or term basis. The reason for that is that the library would retain a person but also offer some benefits.

I will use myself as an example. If you were to retain a consultant, that person would be paid a lot more money than I would be paid or than I can expect. That's because I'm an employee of the House of Commons.

In this instance, the service required is for the specific exercise of our Canadian cultural policy. I may be wrong, and this is public, so I have to be very careful of what I say—and I'm saying this without any prior knowledge, just based on my own personal experience—but I presume the Library of Parliament would not be able to retain the services of Madame Noel at the contract cost we would normally pay. That's a standard practice in committees of the House.

The Chairman: Before we get into a long, drawn-out discussion, I would like to suggest something that I think will meet with everybody's approval. First of all let's deal with the first one for $5,000 and get rid of it. Madame Noel has been working during the summer, so I think we should just do that.

An hon. member: I move that.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll do this and then go on from there.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: All right. From this point on, we're going to look at the other one, which is item number (iv).

What I would suggest is that you propose an amendment to this that I should approach the Library of Parliament, and if, according to what the clerk just explained, the Library of Parliament pays us, instead of the amount shown there, x amount of money—I don't know what it will be—then we'll come back to the committee to see about the difference. Okay? Is that fair enough?

Mr. Mark Muise: Super.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, could we delay the vote on this motion until the next meeting to give us a chance to settle this issue when you have more information?

The Chairman: Yes, we could. Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if the members of the committee agree, I move that we adopt the budget and that we leave point (iv) in abeyance, while you consult the liaison committee and get its reaction to our requests. We will still have a margin in the budget which will have been approved. I am suggesting this so that we don't waste too much time on this. Furthermore, the discussion may become a bit delicate.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You are proposing that we table the motion and wait till the chairman share the information he will have obtained with us at the next meeting.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In my opinion, it is important that the budget be approved.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Why approve it when we don't know what is in it?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Well, we do. It was presented to us.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It doesn't indicate who pays. Once we have passed the budget, we won't be concerned anymore with doing those other things. That is a double-edged sword.

The Chairman: I believe I understand what Mr. Bélanger explained to me. I have already spoken to the chairman of the liaison committee. If we don't table a budget right away, its study will be delayed, because all of the committees will be tabling their budget these days. There's no guarantee that they will approve that budget. Even when we have the budget, we won't automatically... We have a separate resolution for the $45,000. All we want to do is submit an amount to the committee for its examination. The sooner we do that, the sooner it will examine the request.

[English]

Apparently there are requests from all the committees already. If we don't put our bid in, then we're just going to be that much more delayed. That doesn't mean to say we are automatically approving this, because there's a separate resolution for that.

• 1205

On that basis, I would suggest we move a resolution to present this to the liaison committee. I think Mr. Bélanger is right.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, something disturbs me in the budget: we seem to be taking it for granted that we set aside the idea of travelling and have opted instead for video conferences, even though the document you had distributed presented three options. Until now, all the video conferences I have taken part in have been failures. I don't know why we should invest $12,000 in video conferences.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Ms. Tremblay. The clerk, with apologies, points out that there is an option for an alternative budget including travel. It is up to us to choose the budget that suits us.

[English]

And if there are any specific requirements of the sports committee, they will have to look at it.

Mr. John Godfrey: I was just checking that the budget we're looking at is simply to cover the operations of the main committee and that no sports committee budget was included within that sum.

Mr. Dennis Mills: It's included.

The Chairman: It's for travel only.

Mr. John Godfrey: Oh, I see. That's just the $6,400 for the printing.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Right.

The Chairman: Could I suggest something? I see that according to the order of business here, it makes a lot of sense for us to look at the work plan before we get on to the budget. I'm sorry; it's my fault. I should have gone first to the work plan that was sent to you, because it's crucial that we decide whether we agree with the work plan.

You will see from the work plan that we have two alternatives: travelling and video conferencing. It will be up to you to decide. From this will flow the requirements for the budget.

You all received the work plan prepared by our researchers. Of course the dates will have to be moved somewhat, because we indicated the start as September 28, which has already passed. So we would have to move the dates forward. But the critical thing is whether we travel or not.

[Translation]

On page 2, under heading number 4, we refer to consultations

[English]

to obtain a regional and cultural perspective. If we travel, the cost is going to be around $100,000. If we have video conferencing, it will be $25,000.

• 1210

[Translation]

I agree with Ms. Tremblay fully that video conferences cannot replace the travel of committees, but it will be up to us to decide. If that is what we want, we will have to submit a budget of $93,000, plus $102,000, which amounts to approximately $200,000.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: If I'm trying to compare the two, would I assume that we would be going to see the witnesses we would have brought in for $25,000, or would those witnesses still have to come to see us, over and above the travel?

The Chairman: The travel is separate.

Mr. John Godfrey: What I'm saying, though, is when you eliminate the need for video conferencing at $12,000, do you also eliminate witness expense because you're going out to places, or does the witness expense still persist under both models? In other words, you'd still have to bring in from across the country people you wouldn't be visiting.

The Chairman: The clerk explains to me that $25,000 is already pared down. We might save a few thousand dollars, but it won't be very much. The video conferencing of course will be obliterated. So about $180,000 or $175,000 would be the budget.

Mr. John Godfrey: So it's doubling.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, would this be the appropriate time for me to bring forth the fact we would need some additional funds for the sport committee?

The Chairman: Well, if you want to add on a motion that we consider... How much money are you talking about?

Mr. Dennis Mills: It's in the neighbourhood of about $30,000 or $40,000 dollars. I put the motion on the floor.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I know we want to do a good job here, and of course that's my primary goal, but I have to look at approximately $100,000 versus $25,000. When you see throughout most of our ridings the difficulty people live with day to day, I have difficulty—

The Chairman: It's $12,000 for the video conferencing.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's $12,000 versus $102,000. I have difficulty in suggesting that we do travel when we could do it that way. I recognize what Madame Tremblay has said. Yes, they don't work very well, but $80,000 or so is a substantial amount of money, and I would suggest we may want to look at video conferencing. That's my personal opinion.

The Chairman: Can we just clear this particular item and then we'll deal with Mr. Mills after?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I was going to suggest that we finish up with that and then that we discuss the matter of sports, because there may be money available.

I think that we should not approach all of this strictly from the cost perspective. When the time comes to tour Canada to look into fisheries, people don't ask whether it costs too much; when the time comes for Foreign Affairs to cross Canada, we don't wonder whether it costs too much; when the time comes to send people to the Arctic to examine the value of some policy or other, we don't ask whether it costs too much. But when it comes to culture, people always say that it costs too much.

When we suggested travel, we discussed the possibility of producing a document, and sending it out to people, explaining that we would go to get their reactions to the draft cultural policy, and that we would travel to do that. We had to consult people about something. Travelling in a vacuum does not produce results. Let's stay here and work. Let's prepare a draft...

The Chairman: This is a draft that we are submitting to you today.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is not a draft cultural policy. I'm sorry, but if that is a draft cultural policy, we still have a lot of work to do.

The Chairman: What we have here is a thematic summary of what we will be sending out.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, when I refer to a document, I'm talking about the document you want to table in December, or sometime around that date, which the committee will have to discuss.

• 1215

Before the committee gets together to hold discussions we have to ask people, including the members of the committee, what they think about that. We are drafting a Canadian cultural policy for the population and not for 19 members of Parliament who will change from time to time. In light of our responsibilities, the players change too often.

Committees are not reliable; we can prepare a whole document with people who are different from one week to the next. I have seen that sort of thing happen. I have been burned, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, no one is suggesting that we go and consult people without sending out a working document that they will be able to study in advance first. That is the idea.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Where is that working document?

The Chairman: Let's take it for granted that that is the way things will be.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Where is the working document?

The Chairman: We gave it to you. Did you read the draft summary?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, I read all of that. It isn't a working document.

The Chairman: The working document will be tabled if people accept the proposed thematic draft today. We are going to ask the researchers to go ahead. They have already done a good deal of work.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing whether or not we want to decide to travel or stay here, and we don't know whether we have a document, nor when we will get one, because we haven't approved the work plan.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, excuse me. If you look at the work plan, you will see that we describe our intentions very specifically, when we will be travelling, etc. Before the committee travels, we will have the working document which will be the subject of a discussion in the committee. As soon as we agree on the thematic summary, the researchers will prepare the working document.

[English]

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chairman, more specifically back to the topic at hand—video conferencing versus travelling across the country—I would call on the knowledge of Madame Tremblay and people like you to establish whether or not video conferencing has been effective in the past. If some of the more experienced members of this committee suggest that time and time again it has not been effective...

We must realize that we are investigating what potentially is one of the most important topics any standing committee on the Hill is studying. It's our Canadian culture and a policy for such, and we have an obligation. We must make sure we hear from peoples all across this country, and not simply those we would be soliciting for a teleconference or ones for whom it would be convenient to Ottawa. We are obliged to make sure we put in place an effective mechanism to hear from peoples all across this country.

Although, yes, I agree with Mr. Muise that an additional $80,000 or $75,000 or $90,000, depending on what the number is, is a sizeable piece of money, in the long term it is but a mere pittance to ensure that we hear from peoples all across this country, and not simply put in place an ineffective stopgap measure that shows short-term savings and makes us creators of ineffective policy.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly agree with many of the comments of Mr. Bonwick, but also Mrs. Tremblay raised some very valid points.

On the financial side, the travel expenditures are really a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the heritage budget as a whole.

Also, we need to know what we're doing before we get out to the field. Certainly at the committee level, we need to know what the goals are for this journey across the country. To support the travel, this is a topic that's dear to the hearts of many people across Canada. Personally I think we're obliged to go to Canadians rather than ask them to come to the Hill all the time. But we certainly need to do our homework before we hit the road.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark, we've been working on this for nearly two years and we've received I don't know how many briefs. The summary we sent you before summarizes all the themes that have come out of what we've heard so far, over a year and a half or more.

• 1220

What we're suggesting now is that if we can discuss this afterwards and agree that this is a path the researchers should follow, they will produce a substantive document that will be sent out before we travel. That's taken for granted.

What we have to decide now is what sum we propose to the liaison committee for budgeting so that either we make provision for travelling or we don't. We should do that and talk about the budget at this time.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, the committee is constraining itself by not including both. We should have within the committee enough manoeuvrability that if we decide, as the work is evolving, that we not only want to travel but we also want to do the odd video conference, we can do that. The structure and the resources should be there so that the committee can do its work.

We can all relate to people in our communities, in our ridings, who are living below the poverty line. But the purpose of this committee is to develop policy that will reinvigorate our quality of life and affect millions and millions of people, and unless we have the resources to do the work properly, I think we're really being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

So I totally agree with Madame Tremblay and Mr. Mark and Paul. For a multibillion-dollar decision-making department, the notion of an extra $40,000 or $50,000 so that the committee has the flexibility to do what's correct and right and proper... There's just not much to talk about.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: With respect to the travel, it seems to be at this point agreed by the majority of members that we should be travelling across the country.

With respect to Mr. Mills's comments about video conferencing, as I experienced last year in this committee and in fact in other committees I've sat on, if expenses arise based on the wants of the committee—additional expenses above and beyond our budget—we certainly have it within our means to go back and request additional funds, based on wanting to do a teleconference or video conference, whether it be in St. John's or in Victoria. As to whether or not that's included now, I'm flexible, but we should perhaps move on, because I think we have agreement.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, do we have a motion on the floor now?

The Chairman: Well, we were discussing what—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, do we have a motion on the floor?

The Chairman: Yes, we have a motion on the floor—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Which is it?

The Chairman: —to present a budget for either $93,000 or $93,000 plus $102,000.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like to move that this committee adopt a budget, to be presented to the liaison committee, of $93,600 plus $102,000, so that the committee can maintain its options.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I second it.

The Chairman: Do you want any further discussion?

Madam Lill, you had asked to speak.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'd like to raise the issue that the Canadian Conference of the Arts is now having a cross-country tour themselves to get comments on their cultural policy for the 21st century. I think we've all read that, and it's an excellent document. I remember John Godfrey actually said at one of our meetings that maybe we should adapt this as the basis of our report.

I raise that as a concern because I'm thinking about the people who are going to have to come and speak to us out in the community and also to this group. We're talking about working artists who don't have a whole lot of time. I guess the question is, what will be the purpose of this for them and how can we make them realize that this is worth doing, that this committee is going to be coming up with a document that will impact on their lives?

A lot of people in the fisheries went to the fisheries committee and found out that the report that was tabled in fact was not to the liking of the minister, and we know what happened after that.

So it's more a quality question; it's not an economic one. For what reason are we doing this, who are we going to attract to this, and is it going to be an effective exercise?

• 1225

The Chairman: It would seem to us, Madam Lill, that it's up to us to make it an effective effort. That's what we're here for.

Anyway, we have a motion before us now by Mr. Bélanger that we submit a budget request to the liaison committee for $93,600 plus $102,378.89, for a total of $195,978.89.

Mr. Dennis Mills: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, does that include the $40,000 that I—?

The Chairman: No, we will vote on the $40,000 separately, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay.

The Chairman: We have a motion before us.

Do you want a recorded vote, Mr. Muise?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

The Chairman: You want your name recorded?

Mr. Mark Muise: No, no.

The Chairman: Fine, thanks.

(Motion agreed to on division)

The Chairman: So that's $195,978.89, and the clerk will be instructed accordingly.

Now could we deal with the motion by Mr. Mills?

Mr. Mills, are you asking for $30,000 or $40,000?

Mr. Dennis Mills: It's $40,000.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Another five minutes and it would have been $50,000.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mr. Mills, would you like to speak to the motion?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, as you know, over the last year we've been working on a report and we've had absolutely no budget. Well, we've had $6,000 for our basic resources.

We have discovered that this industry of sport is much bigger—can you imagine?—than the automotive sector in terms of its contribution to GNP. We are going to need additional research and writing resources in order to make sure that this report, when it hits this committee and finally Parliament at the end of November, really does justice to the thousands of people involved.

So on behalf of the committee, I would like to have that amount of money to have the flexibility to get the job done.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick and then Mr. Muise.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: On the separate topic of this additional—is it still $50,000?

An hon. member: It's $40,000 and counting.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Bonwick: First of all, I certainly have difficulty in establishing, from any of the information I've seen, that the sports industry or the recreation industry, important as it is to Canada and certainly to culture, is a greater contributor directly than the automotive industry, with auto parts and all the sub-sectors created along with that.

An hon. member: You're going to get a surprise.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Perhaps.

However, that being said, I can't support an additional $40,000 endeavour for this and other like topics that I'm sure are going to come along over the next year, and perhaps over the next several years. This is a subcommittee of the committee of the whole, and it's a lot of money. I couldn't support that.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I think it would be good practice if requests for fiscal budget expenditures came along with details on how they're going to spend that money, because really, when people are watching us and listening to us, it certainly shows that we're a little more accountable than just, you know...

The Chairman: Mr. Muise and then Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mark Muise: Along those same lines, I find it difficult to approve something when I have absolutely no grounds on which to approve it. If we knew that there were specific amounts for specific things, it would be much easier.

I say that with all respect, Mr. Mills. And being that you're with my party as well, as you will note on this list over here, I'd like you to sit next to me, if you wouldn't mind.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mark Muise: So I would have difficulty, based on not having information.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't prolong this too long.

I have to agree with the comments I've heard. Even though my colleague now says he's on the other side, that doesn't influence my decision.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Not having a plan of some sort makes it very difficult to support this. I urge committee members to vote against this. Perhaps our colleague can come back at some other time, but at this point I have to concur with Mr. Mark, especially in view of the fact that this number is in a state of flux. So I'd urge us to not carry this motion at this stage.

• 1230

The Chairman: I think there's been enough discussion; we'll move on to the vote.

(Motion negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: You can come back, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.

The Chairman: In regard to motion (iv), on consultant fees, I would like you, Mr. Muise, to present a resolution that I approach the Library of Parliament to see how much they're prepared to contribute, fully or partially, and then come back to you.

Mr. Mark Muise: That would be the motion. I was thinking if the library was going to spend so much money, perhaps we could have that money allocated and we'd pay the difference.

I'd also like to say that in no way should my comments be interpreted to say that we did not want Ms. Noel here, not at all.

The Chairman: No, no, I understand that. So are you making a motion to that effect?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, I am, sir.

The Chairman: All right. We'll discuss this item very fully. The idea is that the committee would empower me to see the Library of Parliament to see how much will be contributed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: So we'll defer motion (iv), with the unanimous consent of the committee.

(Motion allowed to stand) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I don't know if members have had a chance to read the work plan. We'd like to look at it on Thursday morning, but we have witnesses on Thursday morning. Are you prepared to come 20 minutes before the meeting?

Mr. John Godfrey: At what time?

The Chairman: The meeting on Thursday is at 11 o'clock.

Could we do it after the witnesses? Are you prepared to stay to do it after the witnesses?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What are we voting on, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: On Folklore Canada International and the Canada Heritage Foundation.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: But nothing indicated that that was there. He says it is on the agenda. Where?

The Chairman: On page 3. Could we move on to the work plan, then?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, what purpose does that serve? How will Folklore Canada International and the Canada Heritage Foundation enrich our committee? What will those people contribute that will be helpful for the work we have to do? I have tried to figure that out, but I haven't yet. I didn't realize they were the ones coming this week, because they weren't the first on the list. I don't understand why they are coming here.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could we take Thursday's meeting to draw up our work plan? We'll be better prepared and ready for the job at that time. On that point, I agree with my colleague, Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We have to know what we're doing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Let's not jump into things hastily, there's no need. We don't have to begin hearing witnesses on Thursday.

The Chairman: Very well. Thursday, we will examine the work plan. I hope that the members of the committee will take the time they need to read up so that we can provide our research assistants with some direction.

[English]

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, I'd like to introduce an additional routine motion. I believe that whenever Order in Council appointments are made or certificates of nomination are submitted, the committee gets copies, right?

The Chairman: That's right. They are sent to all the members.

Mr. Inky Mark: Oh, okay. I was going to ask that they be circulated to the members.

The Chairman: Oh, yes, that's fine.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a question of procedure. The rules of this committee stipulate that you have to give advance notice of motion. Do those rules carry on?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Godfrey: Fine.

• 1235

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Could the clerk send all members of the committee the rules that we adopted last year, since there are new members on the committee?

[English]

The Chairman: All right; good idea. That will be done.

The meeting is adjourned.