CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 17, 1998

• 1106

[English]

The Chairman: (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage, pursuant to the order of reference of the House dated Tuesday, November 3, 1998,

[Translation]

we are considering Bill C-55, an Act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.

[English]

We're very pleased today to have the presence of the minister, the Hon. Sheila Copps,

[Translation]

the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[English]

The minister has advised us that she has to leave at 12, so would members take this into account?

Also with us as witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage are: Mr. Michael Wernick, assistant deputy minister, cultural development; Mr. Allan Clarke, director of publishing policy and programs; and Mr. Jeff Richstone, a lawyer from the Department of Justice who appeared before us the other day to give us a technical briefing.

I'll turn the meeting over to the minister.

Minister, thanks for coming.

[Translation]

The Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

It's great to be here before the committee, especially on an issue that I think is a cutting-edge issue for the 21st century. As you know from your work on the cultural round table, almost every country in the world is grappling with the question of how to maintain cultural identity in a global monoculture.

Historically in Canada, I think we've tried to strike a balance that allows us to benefit from the borders that are the most open to foreign cultures while making sure at the same time that unique Canadian voices are heard and that our own stories can be told. Canadian policy has been driven by a belief that culture is important to Canada and to all Canadians and that there is indeed a role for the government to play in support of cultural diversity.

Films, multimedia, books and art help us to understand and to celebrate our lives as Canadians. Our culture is also a shared experience of our stories. About 700,000 Canadians earn their living in the cultural sector, but we can all take part in forming our culture and in appreciating the creation of Canadian culture, and we all have a vital stake in our development.

Canada's insistence on our own cultural space has a lot to do with living next door to the most powerful economic and cultural dynamo in the world. Seventy years ago, when U.S. radio broadcasting began to pour across the border, a royal commission concluded it was either—and I quote—“the State or the United States”, and that statement is equally true today.

Almost all political parties have expressed support for this bill, and for this I want to thank you. And certainly, the support of all those who work in the Canadian publishing sector, whether it be the unanimous decision of the Canadian business magazines association or indeed the support from the Canadian Magazine Publishers Association, has indeed been gratifying.

Three years ago, Prime Minister Chrétien introduced U.S. President Clinton to reporters from both countries by pointing out, and I quote, “If we had to rely on American magazines to tell us about Canada, we wouldn't know much about Canada.”

• 1110

For over 100 years, successive Canadian governments of different political stripes have put in place policies to ensure that Canadians have access to Canadian ideas, Canadian information and a Canadian point of view through a genuinely Canadian magazine industry. These policies have balanced the need to maintain a place and access for Canadian periodicals while at the same time welcoming foreign periodicals.

[Translation]

The Canadian magazine industry is evolving in a unique economic climate. In Canada, since the population is relatively sparse, subscriptions and newsstand sales can cover only part of the high cost of producing Canadian magazines. Without advertising service revenues, which represent more than 60% of their revenues, Canadian publishers would be unable to continue putting out Canadian magazines. We have an open market. Canada has the most open market in the world,

[English]

and I want to repeat this because I think it's an important point to make in the current debate: Canada has the most open market in the world for foreign magazines.

[Translation]

Canadian consumers have unparalleled access to publications from across the world. Having a market as open as that does however come with some disadvantages, especially when one's neighbour is the largest exporter of cultural and recreational products in the world.

American magazine publishers benefit from economies of scale that are unthinkable for Canadian publishers, who work in a market that is much more limited, and even more limited as far as French-language publications are concerned. Because American publishers have high print runs, their unit production costs are lower.

American magazines that pour into the Canadian market, without their publishers really having to commit additional money, are selling at the same price as in the United States or at a lower price. Canadian magazines are therefore at a clear disadvantage.

[English]

Magazines are a vital communications link. The Canadian magazine industry provides an essential vehicle for sharing stories about our country, our achievements, our challenges, our regions, our cultural diversities, our institutions and our values. There are over 1,500 Canadian magazines, and in a single year these magazines produce content equivalent to 2,500 books. It's a working industry that generates $1 billion in revenues annually. Canadian magazines nurture our creativity and provide jobs for Canadian journalists, editors, photographers and a host of others. The industry represents 5,200 full-time jobs and $240 million in salaries.

This success is not possible with readership alone. This success is not possible with subscriptions alone. This success is possible because of advertising service revenues. Advertising sales represent over 60% of Canadian magazine content. This is not an issue about readership.

[Translation]

Advertising service revenues are used to create home grown stories. In the Canadian market, one page of advertising covers the cost of producing one page of original Canadian content. The economic survival of magazine publishers depends on revenues generated by advertising services. It is not simply a question of readership.

Foreign publishers who want to sell advertising space to Canadian advertisers do not invest in the forms of expression that we call our own; they do not even invest in Canadian forms of expression.

The purpose of Bill C-55 is to ensure that Canadians will benefit from a wide variety of high-quality Canadian stories.

[English]

This bill is about a question of choices, about ensuring Canadian choices in the broad availability of magazine material. Using the food analogy, it's like having a buffet and ensuring that some of the choices may be homegrown—prepared and cooked and maybe even grown in Canada, maybe even the broccoli.

• 1115

Bill C-55 ensures that Canadian advertising services revenues flow to Canadian publishers so they can continue to produce quality publications like these, publications that reflect the lives of Canadians and speak to the needs, aspirations, idea and sense of community of our country.

I'd also like to underscore what C-55 does not do. C-55 does not—and I repeat, does not—prohibit the importation of any foreign magazines into Canada. It does not restrict Canadians' access to any foreign magazines. It does not reduce any opportunities that are currently available to Canadian advertisers. It does not affect the current operations of any foreign publisher in Canada. And it does not introduce new taxes or subsidies. This legislation will ensure that Canadian advertising services revenues continue to support the production of Canadian content.

I'd like to confront the misinformation, because there are some people who would like you to believe there is no problem if we do nothing. Let me tell you that there is a huge problem in doing nothing. By their simple presence in the Canadian advertising services market, foreign publishers would siphon huge revenues away from the production of quality Canadian-content periodicals. If we don't act, we risk the loss of many of Canada's favourite magazines, and we will certainly reduce the size and marketability of most Canadian magazines. We have a lot to lose by doing nothing.

[Translation]

Some say that this is a protectionist Act. That is false. We are not putting up barriers; it is a question of ensuring choices here at home. We want Canadian readers to have the choice of reading stories from abroad, from the United States, but also Canadian stories.

Bill C-55 will not affect the import of foreign magazines into Canada and, I stress, Canada will remain the world's most open market.

If it were only a question of readership, we would not need this measure. Canadian readers, of course, read Canadian magazines. Nineteen of the 20 main magazines in Canada are Canadian.

The purpose of this bill is to preserve the choice of Canadians. We have the right to read our stories, and the Canadian government is responsible for guaranteeing that Canadians have this choice.

[English]

The World Trade Organization did not challenge the right of a member state to have policies in support of its cultural identity. In fact, the WTO panel report stated, and I quote:

the ability of any WTO member to take measures to protect its cultural identity was not at issue in the present case.

Bill C-55 is true to the letter and the spirit of our international obligations, to Canadian law, to our national commitments, to our global commitments and, most important, to our commitments to the future of our own culture.

C-55 is a carefully crafted response to a very difficult challenge. C-55 prohibits a specific commercial activity. The legislation includes standard enforcement provisions. In fact, there are over 100 statutes with similar provisions.

The enforcement approach is very measured. The first step is a standard legal format to cease illegal activity. The second step is a court order to cease the illegal activity. Only when a court order is ignored, when there has been obvious and deliberate disregard for Canadian law, would monetary penalties be pursued, and the penalties would be proportionate to the economic benefit accruing from the illegal activity.

Of course, we expect that companies will obey the law. Canada is respected for its sense of social justice and fair play. We are also respected for our strong efforts to be good international citizens and to be open to the ideas of the world. There is strong international support for our right to uphold policies that promote our cultural choices.

Last June, like-minded countries met in Ottawa to establish the international network of culture ministers, because Canada is not alone in fighting to preserve our own culture in an increasingly globalized world.

[Translation]

I think that it is Parliament's responsibility to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to a magazine industry that concerns them.

• 1120

The bill is truly about choice. Canada must act so that our dynamic cultural industry can offer us distinctly Canadian ways of expressing ourselves.

[English]

The task before you is not a simple one, but it is an important one. It will guarantee that future generations of Canadians will have access to magazines that tell our stories to each other in our voices.

I appreciate and value the committee's hard work in this regard. I know that over the course of the deliberations you are going to be hearing from all parties and certainly I'm looking very much forward to working with you on the results of your analysis of this legislation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

We have 40 minutes before us, so in the interests of time we'll be pretty strict with the rules. We'll have five minutes for each party to start with and then we'll open the second round.

I ask you to be diligent and make sure that everybody gets his or her share of questions.

We'll start with the Reform Party and Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, welcome. It's a pleasure to see you.

I listened carefully to what you had to say, but I must tell you that despite what you've said with respect to this legislation not being protectionist, I don't see how you can possibly say that. Effectively, what you're doing is putting up barriers that make it impossible for foreign competitors to come into Canada.

So while I appreciate that the Rogers and Beaubien publishing empires are on side and I think that's fairly understandable, I don't understand how you can say this legislation isn't protectionist. In fact, it reminds me very much of the way you and your colleagues argued on the other side of the free trade debate. And now what we see, of course, is that you have supposedly embraced free trade in all areas except this one.

So my question is this: how can you say that this legislation isn't protectionist when you're putting in place legislative barriers that make it impossible for foreign competitors to come into the country?

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, the fact is that if you walk into any smoke shop in Canada you will see that 85% of the choices are foreign, primarily American, so I don't know who's stopping them from coming into the country.

Mr. Monte Solberg: What I'm talking about, of course, is the advertising component of this, so maybe you could address that.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'd also like to address the fact that you've underscored the names of two Canadian companies you cite as great supporters of this legislation. Yes, it's true that they do support this legislation. It's also true that the legislation was unanimously supported by everybody who works in the Canadian magazine industry. In fact—

Mr. Monte Solberg: But not the advertisers.

Ms. Sheila Copps: —I think the only opponents to the legislation tend to be American companies, which I know have lobbyists working here in Canada—

Mr. Monte Solberg: There are Canadian advertisers opposed to it as well.

The Chairman: Mr. Solberg, could you let the minister answer and then ask your next question?

Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'd just like, Mr. Chairman, to correct the impression that this legislation is supported by only a few voices.

I think I tabled this in the House, but I'd like to repeat it here. It's the list of Canadian companies that stand to benefit from continued support for the Canadian magazine industry. They include names like the following: the Western Catholic Reporter, The Hockey News, Legion Magazine, Westworld Alberta, Westworld BC, Le Messager de Saint Antoine, the Elmira Independent, Jésus, Marie et notre temps, Farm Focus, The Canadian Lutheran, and the Catholic New Times.

Anyway, you have the list. All of these magazines currently receive subscription support because we live in a very large country and part of the package of support is going to include continuing that subscription support.

I think it's very sad that a political party in Canada seems to be more interested in speaking out for its American bosses than it does for Canada, and I can tell you that I will not hesitate to support legislation which will continue to allow Canadian choices that are based on more than simply a vision of Canadian magazines as a compilation of advertising.

The Chairman: One last brief question, Mr. Solberg.

• 1125

Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's hard to believe that five minutes is up already.

The point I want to make is of course that it's a no-brainer, Mr. Chairman, that the companies being protected by this legislation are going to support it. That's rather obvious. I'm sure you would find that in any industry. My question, again, is, how can you say this isn't protectionist when you're putting barriers in place that make it impossible for Canadians to advertise in these foreign publications? How can you say it's not protectionist?

Ms. Sheila Copps: There's absolutely nothing that prevents Canadians from advertising in foreign publications that are directed to the international market.

Mr. Monte Solberg: No, to the Canadian market.

Ms. Sheila Copps: So am I to draw from that comment that in the Reform Party's mind a magazine is a compilation of advertising?

Mr. Monte Solberg: No. I'm asking you to answer the question.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm introducing legislation to support the continued existence of Canadian magazines because Canadian magazines are dependent upon advertising services.

Mr. Monte Solberg: This is the same argument you made during free trade and now you're completely reversing yourselves. You're saying that if we protect Canadian business through legislation somehow that's going to leave Canadian business better off. Obviously that's not the case in the rest of the economy, so how can you say it's the case for publishing?

Ms. Sheila Copps: You know what motivates me? And maybe it's not what motivates you. What motivates me is the fact I have an 11-year-old daughter and I'd like her to be able to grow up reading Canadian magazines. I'm not here as a spokesperson for any business. I'm here because I believe it's the role of the Government of Canada and the opposition of Canada to work together to ensure that into the next century there are choices and that Canadian voices are part of those choices. We are not a restricted market.

Mr. Monte Solberg: That will be up to the public, though; they'll decide that.

The Chairman: Order.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm trying to underscore the fact, Mr. Solberg, that when it comes to the public, the choice is clear: they choose Canadian magazines.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Right.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes. There's no debate.

Mr. Monte Solberg: So let's let them decide.

The Chairman: Order.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I would gladly give some of my time to the Reform Party so that it can get some clarification, but I am not sure that that would enable us to advance this debate.

Madam Minister, I would like to thank you for your presentation and above all for this bill. You are familiar with the basic philosophy of the Bloc Québécois, which is prepared to support the government in the steps it takes to promote Canadian culture. You know that one day we hope to have a neighbour that will have a very strong culture and a very strong Canadian identity. So we support all of these steps.

However, I was somewhat disappointed this morning when I read in the Financial Post that among other things, Time Warner wants to use the procedure that was used the case of MMT and take the Canadian government to court for what they believe they would lose because of this bill. Can you shed some light on that?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I believe that Time Warner will be making a presentation, so they can address the issue, but with respect to the opinion of our Canadian lawyers, I'm going to ask Mr. Jeff Richstone to answer your question.

I think that the Act is consistent with the Free Trade Agreement and that it will not be affected by their appeal. Like you, I read that this morning, but we have already received analyses and opinions from our lawyers who say that there is no basis for such an approach under free trade.

Jeff, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Jeff Richstone (Counsel, Department of Justice): The company has made some comments. It remains to be seen what they will tell you when they make their presentation here tomorrow, if I'm not mistaken. With respect to the objections, Mr. Wernick clearly outlined the department's intention in that regard.

For my part, like the committee, I would like to know if the intentions expressed during our last meeting, which was a technical session, were accepted or endorsed in any way by Time Warner. If that is the case, it remains to be seen whether the wording of this bill coincides with that. If that is not the case, I believe that the committee will have the liberty of taking appropriate action.

• 1130

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: When we adopted the other bill, we were assured that it was unattackable. Are we more confident this time around?

Ms. Sheila Copps: We are sure that it is unattackable.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Okay.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Basically, we supported the company precisely because it had been in Canada for 40 years, before other pieces of legislation came into force.

With respect to an in-depth analysis of the specific wording of the bill, there could be some recommendations to the committee, that you could examine as they arise. But basically, there is no problem.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Lill.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you, Ms. Minister, for coming before us.

I know that you were a tireless crusader against free trade in 1988 and that you were a severe critic of your predecessor government when they entered the NAFTA rounds of discussions. You ran on changing NAFTA in 1993, yet your government has done nothing to change the FTA or the NAFTA agreement or to enhance protection for Canadian culture in the international scene.

You say that you wish to protect Canadian culture, but the government has supported the MAI process. Eventually MAI did collapse, but it was because the French pulled out, so Canada's bottom line was never made that clear.

What I'm concerned about is that the World Trade Organization is scheduled to start another round of talks in the next year and a half to remove barriers on services, as you know, such as the advertising service you are protecting in C-55. So I guess the central question is this: why should I believe that this government is not going to give away the protections offered by C-55, as well as all our other cultural subsidies, at the World Trade Organization talks in 2000?

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, I think it's interesting that you raise the issue of the MAI, because on behalf of the Government of Canada I actually went to France almost two years ago to enlist the assistance of the French government in securing a cultural exemption. In fact, in my meetings with the culture minister of the day, I was able to engage her and our Italian colleagues in the same question. They had not at that point been engaged. Obviously the subsequent engagement led them to pursue an exit.

Successive Canadian governments have always taken the position that culture is to be treated in a fashion unique to that of simple trading commodities, and that's why the previous government introduced an exemption for culture in the free trade agreement. That was endorsed. And obviously I don't think it's a coincidence that the U.S. chose to take us to the WTO and not to the NAFTA, because we do have a cultural exemption in the NAFTA and they saw that.

We've already begun the work, in fact, of preparing for the next round. That's one of the reasons I was in France this week: to meet with the French culture minister and to work on a collective position that we might take into the next round of the WTO negotiations, because they are going to be very important.

I think if you look at one of the reasons this legislation and the ultimate treatment of this legislation is being watched very closely by other countries is that if the Americans are successful here in breaking down the opportunity for expression of Canadian voices, then obviously it will not stop here.

The market for Canadian magazines, in effect, is rather a small market, so why has there been so much attention paid to this issue? Precisely because, historically, successive governments have had a unique treatment for culture and, frankly, the Americans don't like that. But that's been a position that we've taken for a hundred years and I think it's partly central to our continued cultural health and our growth and survival. I think it's very important. I think the government believes it's very important.

• 1135

I hope that we've been working constructively on the international scene in the last year and a half to make that point, because I think you, as an artist, know...or should I say a “former” artist? It's like a priest, right? Once an artist, always an artist. I think you know that one of the challenges we face now is to make sure that we have such international discussions and that we can come together with like-minded countries. That's one of the things we're trying to do.

Ms. Wendy Lill: You often point out the fact that 80% of our magazine racks are filled with American or at least foreign products. And I was interested in the food analogy that you were using because it seems to me that the bulk of the products such as the grains and the cheese and the milk and all of the stuff of our menus should be domestic. Are you not concerned about that 80%? I'm concerned about it, and I guess I wonder about the grandfathering clause with C-55. Why can't we take some shots at that grandfathering clause and start reducing that percentage of foreign content?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think if you look at the overall picture, Inky Mark actually pointed it out in his speech in the House. I'm sorry he can't be here, but I'm sure that he'll be engaging in the debate in the future. He pointed out the fact that even with an 80%-85% rack rate for foreign magazines, Canadians continue to read a lot of Canadian stuff, largely because of the subscription market.

Now, if you look at where we are in magazines compared to where we are, for example, in feature films, in terms of what we read obviously magazines have been a great success story, and it has been a result of subscription markets and advertising revenue rates supporting that subscription market.

I know the Reform Party doesn't like to talk about the subscription issue, but the fact is that one of the reasons we have such a healthy 1,500-magazine distribution across the country, such a very high rate, is that we do provide support, for example, for mail deliveries in rural areas across the country.

If we were doing as well in some other areas as we're doing in magazines, I would be less concerned, and that's one of the reasons why C-55 has to work. The fact is that when we looked at the legislation and we looked at what all the options were, we believed—and continue to believe—that had we not grandfathered companies existing in Canada we would be subject to legal action for the expropriation of existing sorts of material benefits in Canada.

It was a political balancing act. And essentially, faced with that possibility or the possibility of the grandfathering and a bill that will be not pursuable, we pursued the second option.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As well, thank you for being here, Madam Copps. One issue that has been of interest to me since we started debating this bill is the grandfathering clause that Ms. Lill alluded to. We have companies like Reader's Digest and Time Warner that have made large investments in Canada, and basically this bill will prevent them from expanding in the future. Is the government willing to revisit the grandfathering clause?

Ms. Sheila Copps: No. You're going to hear from them. I'm not going to put forth their case. They would not want you to revisit the grandfathering clause. Au contraire, I think they're probably hoping to be grandfathered—and in a clear fashion.

I think what Madame Tremblay made reference to was some question about the wording of the clause that deals with the grandfathering. If there's work to be done there we'll certainly be happy to hear whatever people bring to the committee and then clean it up.

I think Wendy asked a question around grandfathering. The fact is, we chose to grandfather those magazines from Time Warner that are here precisely because we did not want to be subject to legal actions for confiscation of economic benefit already existing in Canada. It was a political decision. We can certainly clean up any anomalies in wording that come before the committee, but we're not not going to change the substance of the bill.

Does that answer your question?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, Minister.

The Chairman: I have Mr. Godfrey from the government side.

Oh, sorry, Mark. By all means, please.

• 1140

Mr. Mark Muise: I'm kind of curious as to how the figure of 75% for Canadian content came about, as to what determines Canadian ownership...can you maybe expand on that just a little bit?

Ms. Sheila Copps: That was in the previous section 19 legislation and we just transferred it.

Mr. Mark Muise: But what basis or what measuring stick was used to come to that figure?

Ms. Sheila Copps: It's the same figure that was used under the previous Income Tax Act and we just transferred it over. We did look at the possibility of modifying it, but because it had already been in existence we just left it at that figure.

The Chairman: I think we'll leave it to a second round.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I entirely support the purpose of the bill. I guess my only question is about the method we're trying to use to achieve this purpose.

If I understand it correctly, the situation before the Sports Illustrated case arose was that we had a regime in place which was essentially anti-dumping. We said they couldn't take free Canadian advertising because they already had editorial content paid for elsewhere. Then they used a new methodology to bring the stuff in; they satellited it in.

I would have thought that normally as a principle of law, if someone is just using a new way of trying to get around a general principle, which is anti-dumping in this case, you simply extend your existing arrangements to cover the new ways. In other words, it's like fraud. If you have postal fraud, the principles would extend to telephone fraud, e-mail fraud and so on. The principle is that it's fraud. Or in this case, the principle is that it's dumping.

So why is it that we couldn't simply broaden whatever regime we had in place before to cover the sneaky way around that they use, the satellite? Instead, we're taking a totally different approach.

I guess a subsidiary question would be this: was it that even without the sneaky technology of satelliting in, the existing regime would have been attacked under new trade rules, and therefore it was just a question of time, not a question of technology?

Ms. Sheila Copps: To answer that, I think it was introduced as a tariff measure and therefore was not subject to anti-dumping provisions. That's sort of the short answer.

Mr. John Godfrey: Could you give a slightly longer answer to that? Sorry, but I—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Because we introduced a tariff measure, it was considered to be a measure on a good and it was not attacked from the perspective of selling at sort of a lower price in a marketplace, which is the basis for dumping complaints.

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, what was the previous regime? Was that a tariff measure that we had?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Anyway, there may be many methods. This is not the only method that could have been introduced. We looked at a number of them over the period of about a year and a half precisely because we wanted to make the measure supportable in international and Canadian law. And we think we've achieved that with this measure.

The Chairman: We'll start the second round. I have two requests, from Mr. Bonwick and Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And through yourself, thank you, Minister, for taking the time to come in today and clarify some of these issues for us.

Firstly, I agree with you that government has a responsibility to Canadians—not to magazines and foreign competitors—to provide them with a vehicle to hear Canadian stories. We must ensure that for our own and for future generations. To do otherwise, I think, would be a great sin.

That said, I'm wondering if the minister could provide me—either now or perhaps to the committee at a later date if her staff doesn't have access to this information presently—with the cost-of-production advantage versus the cost of publication. I'll provide an example. To produce 100,000 copies, the cost of production would be $1 per copy. To produce 10 million copies, it would be 45¢ per copy. These are just fictitious numbers, but there obviously has to be some sort of cost-of-funds production for 10 million versus 100,000.

• 1145

And second, if I may, could the minister provide us with information on how the publication industry effects its pricing? For example, if a foreign publication produces 20 million magazines across the continent or for North America and its target market or its main market is the United States but it does a supplementary for Canada, is there a rate breakdown such that their main market area is, for example, $3 per line and their secondary market areas might be $1.50 per line? And if that is in fact the case, is that sort of a form of dumping in your opinion or your department's opinion?

And then I have one small supplementary if I have time.

The Chairman: I don't think there will be time, Mr. Bonwick.

Madam Minister.

Ms. Sheila Copps: On the rate lines, I think that when you hear from the Canadian Magazine Publishers Association they can give you a ballpark figure, but a lot of this information is relatively confidential as per each company because they don't necessarily publish the total picture. Certainly in the United States we wouldn't have total access to it.

I can say that the effect of not introducing this legislation would permit, for example, a U.S. company to come to Canada and, for the cost of a $500 plate change, sell aggressively into the Canadian advertising market with absolutely no Canadian content. They basically buy the technology that John referred to.

They are very able right now to take a product—for purposes of discussion, let's use the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, which we know is very popular—and sell that into Canada, simply changing the plates of U.S. advertising and putting on a huge advertising campaign here. What you would end up with here is effectively the skimming of the advertising services market with absolutely no Canadian content. That's over and above the discussion around the economies of scale that accrue from being able to sell to a market of 30 million as opposed to a market of 300 million.

I'll give you another small example. As a voracious magazine reader myself, and as a new gardener—very new—if I want to pick up a magazine.... I even have the name of it here; it's Canadian Gardening. Canadian Gardening may be a great magazine. If Canadian Gardening wanted to sell in the United States, they could probably do so very successfully on the condition that they adopt the climatological and market interests of the majority of Americans who live in a number one or number two climate zone.

Now, anybody who's trying to grow peonies in Ottawa or chrysanthemums in Hamilton—which is the chrysanthemum capital of Canada—will know that you need to use a different gardening approach, and you would not be able to read that in a magazine targeted to the southern and western United States. That's a practical question of how it could affect Canadian readers; you may actually get access to American Gardening, with some similar content but not the climatological references that we need because the advertising skim-off would not support the continuance of very targeted magazines of that nature.

The Chairman: Mr. McWhinney and then Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Minister, I'd like to get your comments on some of the macro issues that were raised in the questions relating to WTO and other arenas. It would be your position, I believe, Minister, that there is nothing in the principles of the free market economy that is antipathetic to the maintenance of Canada's plural cultural personality, correct?

Ms. Sheila Copps: A free market approach works when you're dealing strictly with the marketing of commodities. If you consider culture a commodity, then, I would think, any measures you would take would be inconsistent with its treatment as a commodity.

• 1150

I don't consider culture a commodity, unlike, for example, U.S. policy, which says that there is no role for the government to play in providing a climate for the support of culture. And I think having a culture minister and having a government cultural policy is critical to our survival as a nation and therefore should be treated in a fashion different from commodities, which are governed by a rules-based international trading system.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: So the message we would be sending out from this committee to the foreign affairs committee, for example, in your view, would be the position that I believe we took in the MAI negotiations with the French government.

Ms. Sheila Copps: And as a matter of fact, I should have, in response to Wendy's question, pointed out the work that you did on the joint committee on the MAI, because I believe that the next great debate will be engaged on how we impact internationally on future WTO negotiations to ensure that there is a unique treatment for culture.

And those questions, on ne peut pas les aborder seuls, have to be taken in partnership with other countries. So obviously, work that you can do, work that the foreign affairs committee can do and work that other countries can do to support the fact that culture is different from a simple commodity rules-based system is going to be crucial.

I think it'll be the cutting-edge debate for the 21st century, I really do, because eventually, in a global world, how do you guarantee cultural pluralism if you don't have unique instruments attached to the support of cultural diversity? And this is, in part, about cultural diversity. We talk about the cultural wave sweeping the world, and we know that primarily it tends to be a wave going in one direction.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: So this would be a message from this committee to the foreign affairs committee you'd be very happy to see go forward in our negotiations with the WTO: the necessity of recognizing the special cultural plural identity of Canada and the necessity for safeguarding it in any agreements in WTO.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Absolutely.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Thank you.

Ms. Sheila Copps: And with other countries.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: And with other countries, perhaps.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly the intent of getting Canadian stories to Canadians is laudable. Nobody would want that not to happen. And I point out that the minister's own department has made some mention of the fact that 50% of magazines sold in Canada today are Canadian magazines purchased by Canadians. This is good.

But I'm just concerned about how Bill C-55 is actually going to work. It seems to me this is more focused on ownership structure than it is on Canadian stories for Canadians. I'm trying to think of an analogy in regard to this 75% rule. For example, we could take the case where a company is 100% Canadian-owned and has Canadian writers and editors. But, as I understand it, if the chairman, for example, is non-Canadian, he's deemed to be a foreign publisher and the magazine is forbidden to carry ads directed at the Canadian market.

I have a number of other concerns around the practical side of how this is going to be implemented and actually ensure that Canadian stories are getting to Canadians as opposed to getting into the difficulties of ensuring that shareholder requirements are met, especially when we consider the volatility in the TSE. And when have we crossed that limit and when haven't we? I'm concerned about the workability, Madam Minister.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, I guess the shareholder that I'm concerned about is my Canadian daughter. My Canadian daughter has a right to read her own stories, and if you have a better way of ensuring that, I'd certainly be happy to hear it. Would you be looking at more of a content approach?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, I think one of the things you haven't addressed that I'm also concerned about is Canadian advertisers. Your daughter may want to purchase from them or know about their products. I think of a company like Bauer, a Canadian company producing skates. What do they do when they're looking for an appropriate vehicle in the Canadian periodical industry, can't find one, and would like to advertise their product?

Ms. Sheila Copps: There's nothing stopping them from doing that right now.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So a Canadian company—

Ms. Sheila Copps: —can buy an ad in Sports Illustrated right now.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, if they want to reach the whole North American market, but if they don't—

Ms. Sheila Copps: There's nothing stopping them from buying an ad in any foreign magazine right now.

• 1155

Mr. Monte Solberg: Only if they want to reach the whole North American market, which may not be feasible for them.

Ms. Sheila Copps: You're going to hear from a number of Canadian advertisers. In fact, there are two Canadian advertising associations, one of which represents big bulk buyers. They've taken a position against the legislation, but one of the major members of that organization happens to be the Government of Canada, which has expressed the fact that it doesn't agree with their position. The other advertising association, which represents the broad mix, supports the legislation.

So I guess when you're talking about who you're speaking for, I want to make sure that the subscription and advertising mix, which has allowed us to see the creation of 1,500 good, quality Canadian magazines, remains there to support the Canadian content. If you and the Reform Party have a better way, I'd be happy to hear about it. Would you prefer a content regime?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'd like a little clarification on the association of advertisers, Madam Minister, that has supported this legislation. Our information is that some of the key advertising associations in Canada do not support this legislation.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think you're going to be hearing from two different associations, one of which is supportive, one of which is not.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Which is the supportive one?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The Association of Canadian Advertisers and the Canadian Advertisers Foundation.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Are you saying they're supportive?

Ms. Sheila Copps: There are two different associations. One association, which says it's against it, does not have the support of one of the single biggest advertisers in Canada, which is the Government of Canada—

An hon. member: Well, that's not surprising.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Sheila Copps: —and I think Ron Lund is the name of the person who's speaking out on behalf of that association.

Obviously there's a mix across the board, but the reality is that my job—I hope and believe—is to secure opportunities for my daughter to hear her country's stories told and to hear her face and voice reflected. If there is discord among certain bulk advertisers because they like to have cheaper rates by buying bulk services from American magazines that can come here for $500 a plate and skim the Canadian market, I oppose that.

I'd be very happy to suggest that the reason I oppose it is that the Canadian magazine that my daughter reads is dependent upon the coupling of subscription with readership with advertising services to survive. If you take out one of those three component parts, her magazines, in many cases, will cease to exist. When you're talking about choice, she should have those choices. I don't want her to grow up having to read only American magazines. As for this business about the closed market...my God! We have the most open market in the world.

The Chairman: Minister, it's very close to 12 o'clock. There are requests from Mr. Muise and Madame Tremblay. Could you take two brief questions?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Sure.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, quickly.

Mr. Mark Muise: Madam Copps, could you just touch on the postal subsidies, on how they would work and how they would benefit and hinder? For some publications like the Legion Magazine or other religious magazines, apparently it could hinder them. Could we touch on that briefly?

Ms. Sheila Copps: This is another area that I think in the long run is going to require some greater attention in terms of how the WTO decisions are executed, because, in fact, in the original WTO decision where the Americans came after us on two fronts, on postal subsidies and on the excise taxes, the original panel did not find a breach of the postal subsidy.

The appeal found a breach and the breach was unappealable. So what the WTO appeal decision did was to say that there was no problem with the subsidy that was paid, but because it was not shown as a direct sort of debit from the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Canada Post services, it had to be paid in a different way. We have framed a different way to basically see that support there and we believe that the postal subsidy therefore will be unaffected.

• 1200

I would like to—and I did actually table it in the House, so you've probably seen it—again sort of underscore the importance of having a viable package. The postal subsidy does support the Eastern Synod Lutheran, Canadian Mennonite, Homin Ukrainy—Ukrainian Echo, Pulp and Paper Canada, etc. What they do is provide support for subscription costs, bearing in mind that if you live in a country that spans six time zones, with many remote areas, you need postal support for the subscription costs to remain competitive.

I will table, Mr. Chairman, the list of all those magazines that receive that publication assistance. We believe that the way we reformulated the payment will cover the concerns of the WTO, but it's certainly clear in analysing the decision on the appeal that what is probably worth reviewing in the long term is that a decision that was upheld and then overturned in the appeal has no mechanism for review at the WTO level. And that has to be dealt with in the next round of negotiations or discussions.

Is that confusing enough?

Mr. Mark Muise: A little bit.

For Legion Magazine, is there anything that's going to be there that could—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, in regard to Legion Magazine—you're a member and I'm a member of Branch 58—we have a magazine that receives assistance under the publications assistance program and that will continue. What we have to change is the way the transfer is made to Canada Post, because in the past it just showed up as kind of a global item and now it has to be more itemized in order to meet the test of clarity and transparency.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, briefly.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Minister, a lot of American magazines were referred to. Is the situation the same for French-language magazines?

Ms. Sheila Copps: With respect to French-language magazines, where is the competition? "Maris Patch".

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Paris Match.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I know. I was being facetious. Paris Match or other magazines that come from France can create competition here. The difference is that many Canadian publishing houses that publish, for example, magazines such as Le Magazine Enfants Québec—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: And Paris Match Québec.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Let's take the example of Magazine Enfants Québec. There are French magazines that won't be affected. However, if they also have revenues that come from English-language magazines that are designed to supplement the company, the negative impact of a drop in advertising in English will be less damaging than the possible impact on French-language magazines.

The Chairman: Madam Minister, Mr. Bélanger would like to ask a short question. I do not know if you can stay a bit longer.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Vanier, Lib.): Is it possible to estimate, to the nearest percentage, the actual cost of eliminating advertising for a magazine? In other words, a foreign magazine comes here and the advertising is eliminated and replaced with Canadian advertising services. Do we have an idea of the advantage, from the cost perspective, that such a magazine or periodical has over other Canadian magazines?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Of course, the advantages are enormous, especially since it is estimated that 60 percent of the revenue of Canadian magazines currently comes from advertising. That's why advertising as a service is very important to the survival of a magazine. Mr. Black criticized our policy, but a representative of his own magazine, Saturday Night, was at the committee and endorsed it. He said himself that if a magazine is good, people will buy it. And yet, it's not a simple question of purchasing it. It's also a matter of revenue generated by advertising, and that represents about 60 percent of their revenue. The costs of an American magazine are already covered. When they come here, their costs are therefore extremely minimal. The profit is there for—

• 1205

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Half, 30 percent, a quarter?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think they talk about 35 percent.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I understand correctly, if the bill before us is not passed, any foreign periodical could come here, remove its advertising, get into the Canadian advertising service and offer advertising for 65 percent less money.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Without losing money, nevertheless. They could therefore fragment the advertising market.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Of course. Their magazine is already paid for.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What I don't understand is why people in the Reform Party are opposed to this.

Ms. Sheila Copps: That's because right now, the people of the Reform Party seem to be spokespeople for the American companies.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Minister, we really appreciate your presence and the presence of the officials of the ministry. Thank you very much for appearing before us and being so forthright.

Members, we have many items of new business.

We will adjourn for two minutes.

• 1206

• 1209

The Chairman: Could I call the meeting to order, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question before we adjourn?

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

We have several items of business to deal with.

First of all, there's a motion from Mrs. Lill, which has been deemed receivable and has been circulated.

Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Would you like me to read the motion?

The Chairman: It's up to you.

• 1210

Ms. Wendy Lill: My motion is that this committee call before it members of the board of directors of the National Arts Centre and other interested parties as determined by the committee to discuss the centre's mandate, resources, management and operations and that these witnesses be scheduled in at the earliest convenience, as determined by the committee chairperson.

The reason for this motion is that there is a lot of turmoil at the National Arts Centre, as we all know. There is a cloud hanging over this very important national institution at this point and I think it would be useful for our committee to hear from the aggrieved parties—and many of them may perhaps feel aggrieved.

I would like to do this for the purposes of clearing the air and of making this again a very strong institution where people have the morale that they need to continue working there. I do not see this as a long, drawn-out procedure; I see this as a one session, perhaps two. And at this point, the people that I think would need to be involved would be, of course, the director who has left, and perhaps someone with him. There would be the board members and someone that they would like to have with them, perhaps the auditor of the National Arts Centre, and then, perhaps, there would be the Auditor General. They are the people that I would suggest.

The Chairman: Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be rather inappropriate at this point to consider it, for the very simple reason that there's a possibility of a strike action involving employees of the National Arts Centre orchestra. And if that is indeed the case, this committee could be seen to be interfering in what is an internal matter. I don't think that was the intent of our colleague in proposing what she's proposing, but the status of that situation would perhaps make it so. So at this time, because of that situation, I don't think it would be appropriate for the committee to support this motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey, Madame Tremblay and Mr. Lowther.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the challenges we face is to determine the priorities of this committee. I don't entirely agree with Ms. Lill that if we were to do the job right we could do so in one session.

My understanding is that we would not be focusing on an internal personnel matter but on the larger issues which this controversy has raised in terms of the future direction of the National Arts Centre. So what we would want to do is to say, all right, where did this thing start out when it was built? What was the expectation? How has it evolved? What resources have been made available to it? What's the governance structure? And how does that play out in management terms? We would not want to get into a “he said, she said” operation.

I think that's a worthwhile activity for the committee to undertake, and my only concern, given the rest of our obligations, is that our ability to do the right kind of job at this particular moment is impeded because obviously our first task is Bill C-55, and also, we cannot keep putting off our cultural policy study. And if we're looking at the long-term future direction of the National Arts Centre, the fact is that there is now in place a provisional regime, with a new acting director who has a contract for 10 months.

So while I really do support the motion, and actually, I do believe that even Mr. Bélanger's concerns can be laid to rest as long as we understand that the last phrase, which is, “as determined by the committee chairperson”, means that the committee chairperson would be guided by these kinds of remarks and would endeavour to schedule an appropriate number of meetings at a time when our obligations will allow us to do so—not to rush it.... So if we give over the mandate, as is specified in the motion, to the chairman, he would take into account the kinds of worries and concerns that Mr. Bélanger raised about the imminent possible strike of the orchestra and all that sort of stuff and find a time when we can do the job right, which would take, in my view, longer than one session.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay, Mr. Lowther.

• 1215

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Personally, I will support this motion. It seems to me extremely important. Mr. Bélanger's argument is a false one. Mr. Godfrey pointed it out when he mentioned the last sentence of the proposal, "when convenient for the Chairman to organize the meeting". Therefore, when we've decided our future business... There is no way we're going to set aside our priorities: that's Bill C-55. There may be other priorities too. Indeed, there may be a strike. Of course, if that's the case, that won't be a good time to have the chairwoman come. I met her at the Governor General's reception, and she told me that she would undoubtedly be called upon to meet with us soon. She's well aware that what's going on there is of concern to us.

In my opinion, we will have to follow up on this proposal once we have established our priorities. What does having people come here represent? As you said, there may be three or four meetings. It also depends on the people we need to invite. You're given the mandate, when it's convenient for you, to organize these meetings. What's going on cannot leave us indifferent, given the importance of this institution in the National Capital.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like to speak in support of the motion. I don't think Mr. Bélanger's concerns about it jeopardizing the strike action, etc., are overly well founded. These people would be coming before the committee to tell us about their situation and the committee per se is not taking any particular stance according to this motion.

I also say to Mr. Godfrey's concern that maybe we need to have more than one meeting and give it more time. We haven't decided that yet. This motion simply says, “let's hear them out”, and then we can decide as a committee should we wish to have more meetings if we feel it's warranted. I think the motion is quite reasonable and I think we should support it.

The Chairman: Okay, if I could give you a few explanations that might guide our decisions, first of all, I think the point is well taken by members that we have—and I think I've discussed this with Mrs. Lill already and she understands this—Bill C-55 before us and we have already convened several witnesses according to the decisions of the committee. They're slated to appear. And if we don't have any further witnesses added to the list—because there are requests to add more witnesses—the earliest we can finish is November 26, possibly November 30.

So the earliest we could finish is November 26. If there are more witnesses added we might go into December. And that is not clause by clause; I'm talking about the witnesses. Then we have the clause by clause to do. I don't expect the clause by clause will be very long because it's not a very long bill, but one never knows. It depends a lot on what members will want to do with the bill. But anyway, there is the clause by clause to do.

We have had a request by Mr. Mark, a request to appear from a Professor Jamie Cameron, and a request to appear from the Massachusetts Medical Society, which has written to us to have witnesses included. Depending on what we do there—

Mr. John Godfrey: On what subject, may I ask?

The Chairman: On C-55.

The clause by clause will start at the very earliest in the week of November 30. Whether we finish in two sessions...hopefully we will and that will bring us into December.

We have another bill before the House,

[Translation]

Bill C-48 regarding marine parks which is now in second reading in the House. If second reading is finished, Bill C-48 will be sent to us. As you know, bills have precedence.

We've also made a commitment to hear the last witnesses regarding Canadian culture. There was Folklore Canada International. There was also a panel of Aboriginal people. Lastly, there was Stentor and SOCAN that had asked to be heard, and we have made commitments to at least two of them.

• 1220

I would therefore like to ask members of the committee whether they could agree on principle, all depending on our priorities. We have to look at the agenda again, because I don't see how we'll be able to do all that before the end of the session. If Bill C-48 was sent to us... It was suggested that we hear the NAC. If that's not possible, we'll do it when we come back, and we'll also have to find time at that point to finish our study on culture.

With regard to Mr. Blais, his contract expires March 31 at the latest. We therefore have to get everything finished so that he can present his report, because he's the key person. There's also Mr. Mills' subcommittee on sport, and we have to examine his report. We have a lot of work to do. There's no doubt that the bill comes first and that the study on culture must be finished.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, there are two things I'd like to mention. Depending on the House, the government gave notice that it wanted to table two other bills that you haven't mentioned: one on national parks and another that the Minister announced last week or two weeks ago that deals with compensation for travelling exhibits. Those are two other bills that the committee may have to deal with. I wanted to mention those two factors.

I'd like to get back to what I was saying earlier. I'm absolutely not against the fact that the committee receive people from the National Arts Centre as witnesses. In fact, Ms. Lill knows this because I told her. However, at the moment, if there's a possibility that there will be a strike, the simple fact that the committee is saying that it will ask such and such a person to appear may have an impact on labour relations. In that sense—and solely in that sense—I think that the committee should be very cautious and respect the distance that has to be there. Personally, I have absolutely no objection to asking these people to appear eventually.

Now with regard to the schedule, that's your responsibility, Mr. Chairman. All I'm suggesting is that right now, we should perhaps be cautious in order not to add fuel to disputes that may otherwise be settled. That's all. Perhaps because I'm being overcautious, I think that we should not, at this point, deal with this resolution. Let's wait until the labour conflict is settled.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill and Ms. Tremblay.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess I also have some problems with trying to have the NAC come before us while there's a labour dispute going on. I think we are sending some possibly strange messages about micromanaging this situation and getting involved, and I have no interest in micromanaging the arts centre.

But I do think it's very important. People are holding their breath. There are hundreds of people at the arts centre and hundreds of people in this community holding their breath to find out what, if anything, is going to happen to change this very rocky status quo we now have at the arts centre.

And I just would caution us about walking away from here without some sort of resolution that sends a strong message, which is that we are concerned about the problems at the arts centre and we want to get to the bottom of them as soon as possible. I certainly wouldn't want anybody to think that this was thrown off the agenda because it simply wasn't as important as the other issues.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Just to modify that by saying, given that there are no

[Translation]

labour conflict. When the labour conflict has been solved, there will be no problem. That has to be said, because we don't want anybody to use this. That's what I'm trying to communicate and I'm doing so badly, Ms. Tremblay. Help me.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If all we need is to add an amendment to make that acceptable, I'm perfectly prepared to have one, because it seems to me extremely important. I don't want to see caution that's more fear than prudence. We tried to be too cautious with the Museum of Nature—Mr. Godfrey will remember that—and our extreme prudence was a mistake in that case. I don't want us to repeat the same experience with the National Arts Centre.

• 1225

The Chairman: If members of the committee want to accept—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Godfrey's amendment.

The Chairman: —I would like to suggest something.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The amendment says that provocation—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He's going to suggest something.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second. I see quite clearly there the phrase, “and that these witnesses be scheduled in at the earliest convenience as determined by the committee chairperson”. If you are prepared to trust me, I, like most of the members who have spoken here—and I think there's a consensus—don't want to stop the NAC from appearing. We think it's a good thing that they do. We don't want to micromanage; we want to look at the broad spectrum.

At the same time, we have our priorities. At the earliest, it won't be before December, and I doubt very much if it will be in this year. We'll try, but I don't think so. Also, I must agree with Mr. Bélanger and with you—we have discussed it together—that for us to invite them while there's labour strife would be the worst possible signal we could send. So if you trust me...I won't do it during a strike anyway, I can tell you that; I will give you a commitment I won't do it.

Number two—

Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I think it has to be incorporated in the motion if we're going to approve one, for the simple reason that then no one can use it.

The Chairman: All right. Make an amendment, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm trying to be consistent.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: As soon as possible, provided that there is no unresolved labour conflict.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No unresolved labour conflict.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That's all.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's all. Then it's clear.

[English]

The Chairman: At the earliest convenience—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Provided there is no labour conflict.

[English]

As long as you don't have....

The Chairman: As long as no labour—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: How do you say "conflit de travail" in English?

[English]

The Chairman: Labour strife.

Mrs. Lill, would you agree for this to be introduced into your motion? Then it will simplify things.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Fine.

The Chairman: So it's at the earliest convenience, as long as no labour strife is present, as determined by the committee chairperson. Okay?

Mr. John Godfrey: The question.

The Chairman: The question has been called. All in favour? Contrary?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We have a request by Mr. Inky Mark—and a letter has been circulated—that three ministers, those from the Departments of Industry, International Trade, and Justice, appear before the committee in regard to Bill C-55.

We have also received a request from a Professor Jamie Cameron, who is a constitutional lawyer and expert, she says, and who wishes to appear in regard to Bill C-55.

And this morning we received a letter from the Massachusetts Medical Society, which has been circulated to you. It's written by Maclaren Corlett, Barristers and Solicitors.

[Translation]

Was that... I'm sorry.

[English]

Maybe we could tackle the first request by Mr. Inky Mark that we invite the Ministers of Industry, International Trade, and Justice.

Mr. Lowther, did you want to speak to this?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, just to set the context of Mr. Mark's request. I think it's quite apparent and maybe it doesn't even need mentioning, but if this committee is in fact attempting to make sure C-55 is going to work, I think it's incumbent upon us to consider the broader ramifications of the bill. And if it goes ahead and then runs into roadblocks at the WTO maybe we should find out about that now.

Second, with Industry, how is this affecting the investment side of things? Maybe we should have the industry department's perspective on it.

And finally, in regard to the whole justice portfolio, they could give us their comments with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is this going to work? Will it be challenged?

• 1230

I think that's our mandate here: to test this legislation to make sure it's going to work once it leaves the House. And if we don't do that, I don't think we're fulfilling our mandate.

That was Mr. Marks' intent.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Godfrey, quickly.

Mr. John Godfrey: I don't have an objection to that provided that the letter of invitation to these folks does not restrict itself to the issues Mr. Lowther raised.

What I'm concerned about—maybe I'm the only one—is that I simply want to know.... And I tried to ask the question today and I'm an ill-informed person, because I'm still having trouble with the answer. What were the actual choices that were available in policy terms? It's the technical side of it. I now gather that a tariff applies to a physical object, so you can physically stop it at the border, but if you produce the physical object inside the border, you have a problem.

It is an exploration of the alternatives which I would like to have if we were to invite the justice and international trade departments, not simply what this means.... Well, it would touch on the things that Mr. Lowther raises, like how this will go down at the WTO, but it's really the underlying legal principles of why we're going one way rather than another. Under those conditions, I would be pleased to see these witnesses.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I think this is not an acceptable request. This is a bill that's being sponsored by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It has the support of the government, the cabinet. If we're going to start this, then every committee is going to be able to invite every minister to every bill. It's no way to go. I mean...we could invite the Minister of Human Resources because this has an influence on 6,000 people who work in this industry, and we could invite the minister of anything because we could find a rationale.

If the member is serious and if he wishes to suggest expert witnesses, fine. We've done that before in this committee on a variety of things. But to invite the ministers when it is not their bill is not, I believe, an appropriate measure or motion and we should not accept it. I invite my colleagues to defeat that.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question? Are there any interventions? The question has been called.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: We have a request from Professor Jamie Cameron, who wishes to appear before us. There are two options. Either we ask Professor Cameron at this late stage to produce a brief or, somehow, in the interests of time, insert her when the advertisers appear. There will in fact be three groups of them here on November 24: the Association of Canadian Advertisers, the Institute of Canadian Advertising, and the Canadian Media Directors' Council. But it will mean less time for them, so I suggest that maybe the best thing would be for Ms. Cameron, at this late stage, to produce a brief. I leave it to the wishes of the committee.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you want a motion to that effect, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: If there is agreement—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Agreement.

The Chairman: If there is agreement, all right.

Mr. Eric Lowther: We can't have her appear, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Well, you know that we want to study the clause by clause of this bill, preferably on November 30. And what will happen, Mr. Lowther.... Many of the questions this morning were directed to the question of advertising. It would mean that we would just cut into their time. There are three appearing on November 24 and I don't think having her there will help their cause, because it will just reduce the time that they have to put their case.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chair, I agree with your comments. I think we should request a brief. There's an opportunity for committee members to review that brief. If they have questions surrounding any of the content, they can direct those questions through the clerk to get the appropriate responses. But I think it is inappropriate to compromise scheduled witnesses and the discussion and questioning back and forth.

• 1235

If it's required to move a motion, then I would do so and move that we simply request Professor Jamie Cameron to submit a brief to us and afford us the opportunity to review that and communicate with her should we have any questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick, are you prepared to add in the foreign publishers, the—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Sorry. That could incorporate—

The Chairman: —the Massachusetts Medical Society, which has just written to us today?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Why are we listening to them...?

The Chairman: I mean if they want to send a brief.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: If I may, that would incorporate both of those—

The Chairman: Both of them.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: —again in regard to compromising the overall process of being able to discuss and debate rather than be cut short. We have an opportunity at our disposal to review these briefs. If we have questions, we have an opportunity through the clerk to communicate with these parties and address the issues or concerns that we might have. The process is in place. Why don't we continue to follow it rather than scrambling around?

So that motion is moved, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mrs. Lill, then Mr. Lowther.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm just curious about what kind of timeframes are out there publicly. Have we actually said that there is a closing date for submissions and invitations? Has that passed? I'm just not aware of that. Are these people actually coming in after the door has closed?

The Chairman: Mrs. Lill, we discussed the list of invitees at at least two meetings, I think. We invited every party to submit names. These names were not there. We didn't receive a request from Mrs. Cameron until...was it yesterday? That was the first time I heard about it myself. I don't know when it came in. And as for the Massachusetts Medical Society, it was this morning.

And so if we leave it open.... The government has signified that it wants the bill to be processed by the committee before the session ends, which I think is a reasonable request. We started a long time ago. We invited requests for briefs. At one time or another we just have to cut the list short and close it.

I guess that was the intention of the amendment.

Yes, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to belabour this. I understand we're trying to get a lot through in a fairly tight timeframe. It seems like we're in a bit of a rush to get this thing finished.

But I would like to make one last appeal that we give Jamie Cameron some opportunity to speak to this committee. The expertise that she brings, I think, would assuage a lot of concerns around this bill, and we do have November 26, when we're hearing from the Canadian Magazine Publishers Association. If we could schedule her for a few minutes during that meeting, even 15 minutes or something, to give the highlights of her presentation, I think that would balance off what we're hearing there and would give us a much stronger position to move ahead on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chairman, we have a motion on the floor. We can't afford 15 minutes to a witness; it takes 25 minutes to go around the table just for question and answer to give everybody an opportunity, just five minutes each. So it wouldn't be 15 minutes; it would be 45 minutes minimum.

There is a motion on the table, she has an opportunity, and we would certainly encourage her to bring forward a brief and leave the door open for us to communicate. But the motion stands.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Just quickly again, in regard to that, today with the minister we only took one hour, and we have two hours scheduled on November 26 for the magazine publishers association. It seems to me that we could fit this in.

The Chairman: The question has been called. All in favour of Mr. Bonwick's motion as formulated?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: If we finish with the witnesses, we will start clause by clause in the week of November 30.

And, as I mentioned to you, Bill C-48 is now presently in second reading and will probably be sent to us before the end of the session.

In regard to the Canadian cultural policy, we are to hear Folklore Canada International, a panel of aboriginal people, Stentor, and SOCAN, and we are waiting to hear from the budget committee this week as to our request for budgets and travel to finish the cultural study.

• 1240

So I will fit in Mrs. Lill's motion whenever our business allows and I will be in touch with you to discuss it as we go along.

Mr. Godfrey, then Mrs. Bulte.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm sort of anxious in the context of C-55. Maybe I'm the only person who worries about this stuff, but I really am anxious to understand the principles which lead us to go in one direction rather than another direction. I've asked the question twice. The first time the officials said they thought that was the most useful way to go. Well, that's fine, and I'd like to know why that's the most useful way to go and why that has a better chance of success. What is the relationship between tariffs on goods and attempts to control services?

What I'd like is a comfort level: that by going this route this is going to have a greater success than the last time we tried this exercise. So within the context of those witnesses and maybe through the department those questions can be answered, but I feel to date that maybe wiser persons than I have understood the answers. But I don't understand it.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, just on that topic, I've been fairly quiet but I've sensed the same feelings. Anytime that something is not explained I sense or tend to think that there's something hidden. What's wrong with having a few more sessions that will explain and alleviate any concerns we may have? It would just reconfirm or confirm the fact that we're on the right track or we're not.

The Chairman: The committee is the master of its own decisions, so it can do whatever it wants. Right now we have hearings scheduled until November 26, according to the list of people we discussed. We invited representations. There will be the officials from the ministry. What I would suggest is to start with these and see. You will have ample opportunity to question these people. If afterwards things remain, the committee may revisit and see then if it needs another session or two sessions to clarify its own queries.

Finally, we have also received a letter from Mr. Eric Lowther, pursuant to Standing Order 106(3):

That a meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage shall be convened within 10 sitting days for the purpose of examining the process by which the report on Canada's compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is prepared.

This is certainly a receivable motion. This jurisdiction is that of the Ministry of Canadian Heritage.

Would you would like to speak to it, Mr. Lowther—briefly?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll close with the issue concerning the 10 sitting days with recognition of how much time we have. Let me just say that as many of members here know, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a very important document and actually a very powerful document and is used to shape much of our public policy. Canadians are really held accountable to it.

I'm desirous that we as parliamentarians understand a little better the process by which this document is put together, along with, maybe, some of the public funding that's involved. And perhaps even before it goes to the United Nations, we could have an opportunity to have some access to the draft versions or the direction the thing is taking, just so we're aware of it.

• 1245

In general, parliamentarians will be asked to account for this report once it's given to the UN, as will Canadians be held to account by it. And I can tell you that even in the first year of this session of Parliament, there have been over 80,000 names on petitions from people who are concerned about how this process works, about what's in the convention and about the five-year report that the Canadian government is now required to draft back to the UN.

Primarily, I just wanted to give us an opportunity to look at this process and bring it forward. I appreciate the committee hearing this out. If the 10-day limit turns out to be the limiting factor because of C-55 and other things, I'd be open to amending that with the committee's agreement.

The Chairman: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a subcommittee on human rights. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have this analysed in detail by that subcommittee?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Bulte, we looked at a number of ways to go on this. Actually, there are a number of ministries involved in the drafting of the report to the convention, but the primary ministry is the heritage ministry and, as the chairman indicated, the responsibility does fall under heritage so we thought that rather than go to a variety of committees we might get it done once and get it done here.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Again, the reason I'm saying this is that the subcommittee can delve into narrower issues for a longer time. Not to stop this investigation, but....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Excuse me. I was going to say to members before there is a lot of discussion that in any case this requires 48 hours' notice, correct?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, just the notice.

The Chairman: And it's just the notice. I just wanted Mr. Lowther to explain his notice, to explain why he produced the motion. We don't have to vote on it and we don't have to do any more today.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: On just a quick point of order, whatever happens to this motion, if we found it an interesting subject would it be inappropriate for the committee to put in a written request to the Department of Canadian Heritage for some kind of a written explanation, on the basis of which we might then wish to determine whether we wanted to know more by calling witnesses? Do we have to give a notice of motion?

In other words, could we not wait but get on with it, simply by saying as a group that we'd like to understand more about the process, particularly since there are so many other ministries involved? Would that be a place to start—without prejudice to the disposition of this motion?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'm hoping that we can discuss this a little more fully in the next meeting of the committee now that notice of this has been served. And when we actually decide on the motion there, maybe that's one of things we can put on the table at that time, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes. As you know, we start the hearings with witnesses Time Canada and Reader's Digest. We'll find 10 or 15 minutes at the end to discuss it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Very good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Finally, I would suggest that if one or the other member would agree, that there be a suggestion that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of the House of Commons congratulate Mr. Keith Kelly for his outstanding service to the Canadian cultural sector and for being the first recipient of the Keith Kelly award for cultural leadership.

I think Mr. Kelly just received this award from the Canadian Conference of the Arts. He has done outstanding work and he has been really helpful to us in the cultural study, and I thought it would be nice gesture.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Mark Muise: I vote for that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: All agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I have one question or maybe a point of order, Mr. Chairman. About ten days or two weeks ago, we had a request from the subcommittee on sports for travel to Toronto to meet some of the individuals. At that time we said we would want to know what our budget was prior to approving their travel. Subsequent to that, in the House of Commons on the last day, they asked for unanimous consent to put forth a request for $10,000 to $18,000 to travel and that was not given. Then I was made aware that the meeting did take place, so I'm very curious as to how that took place and where the funding came from.

• 1250

The Chairman: I don't know what they did. As far as I understand it—and I would like Mr. Mills to speak to it—from what Mr. Mills told me, they used their own funds and travel points and different things to travel to Toronto. They paid their own expenses when there. They were then going to go back to the committee to see if they could get a refund. Our budget request will not be affected by it in any way. I believe they managed to do it for far less money than was previously predicated.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are we going to get a request?

The Chairman: No. It's been organized that there the subcommittee will speak directly to get a refund of their expenses.

Mr. Mark Muise: But is that how it works, Mr. Chairman? That's my only question. When they came to committee for approval we said that being it was a subcommittee....

The Chairman: I know. When they came to the committee for approval—

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

The Chairman: —I happened to be the person at the liaison committee to move their request because Mr. Mills wasn't there, and I made it quite clear that it was without prejudice and that it must not affect the budget request that we had put in.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

The Chairman: Eventually the decision of the liaison committee was that there would be negotiations on this basis directly with the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Mills, and the budget committee, which they did. They didn't arrive at a conclusion because they needed enough votes, which they didn't have. They didn't have all the members of the budget committee.

Eventually it was getting so late that Mr. Mills decided on his own that he and the committee members would travel on their own points and pay their own expenses and then go back to the budget committee to see if they could get refunded.

It doesn't affect us at all. We don't have to get involved in it at this stage. It's purely a decision as to whether the budget committee will refund their expenses, but it will not affect our request at all.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.