CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 6, 1999

• 1108

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Translation]

Today, we welcome witnesses from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I would like to remind the members of the committee that this hearing is being held pursuant to a letter which was sent to us last February by Ms. Guylaine Saucier on behalf of the Corporation. In it, she said:

As you know, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will soon have to go before the CRTC, which during a series of unprecedented hearings will simultaneously examine applications for the renewal of all of the CBC's licences. You can imagine what this represents in light of the fact that this licence renewal applies to our radio and television services, as well as to the RDI channel and to Newsworld. You yourselves have undertaken an in-depth review of Canada's cultural policies within the past year.

[English]

This would be a good time for us to come before your Committee to update your members on what we perceive our role to be in the coming Millennium. For almost 63 years, the CBC has been in the forefront of disseminating Canadian culture to citizens from coast to coast. First through Radio, then through Television and now through New Media, the CBC has pursued its mandate to inform, enlighten and entertain its audiences.

[Translation]

The Committee had accepted unanimously to hear the representatives from the CBC.

• 1110

[English]

We're really pleased today to have Ms. Saucier, chairman of the board of CBC/Radio-Canada, and Mr. Perrin Beatty, president.

[Translation]

Ms. Guylaine Saucier (Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): We have with us today Mr. Michel Tremblay, the CBC's Chief Planning Officer.

The Chairman: Thank you. You have the floor, Ms. Saucier.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I first want to thank you for taking the time to listen to us. We appreciate it greatly.

There could be no more opportune time for us to come before this committee, which is itself submitting a report to Parliament on Canada's cultural policy in a matter of weeks. The CBC—by any measure—is a cornerstone of our common culture, and I hope that our discussions here today will assist this committee with its vital task.

[English]

This discussion is timely for other reasons as well. First, the World Trade Organization is flashing an amber warning light that many of the tools Canada has used in the past to promote and protect cultural sovereignty may not survive in the future.

Second, the CBC has put forward a strategic plan that we believe will partially address the issue of cultural sovereignty and will allow the corporation to carry out the spirit and the letter of the 1991 Canadian Broadcasting Act.

Third, with licence renewals pending and a new direction being contemplated, it is important to address the issue of the relationship between the government and the CBC and between the CBC and its audience.

[Translation]

Now the role the CBC plays in fostering Canadian culture is not a tale that wants for the telling. So you will allow me to take a somewhat different approach.

I propose to take three objectives drawn from the Canadian Heritage portfolio itself, and compare them with the CBC's record on the cultural front. My purpose is straightforward—to demonstrate that the CBC is a prime instrument in fulfilling cultural policy.

The first portfolio objective is to enhance pride in Canada.

Many institutions contribute to this objective and the CBC claims no monopoly here. But can it be truly said that there is any single institution that has done more—consistently and over 6 decades—to enhance pride in Canada than the CBC?

The CBC stands as a beacon in times of crisis and in times of joy.

[English]

By providing Canadians with familiar reference points spanning regions, cultures and operations, CBC acts as a forum to share values and foster greater understanding amongst ourselves. Whether we are capturing Paul Henderson's winning goal in the Canada Cup in 1972 or the exploits of our Olympic athletes in successive games; whether we are serving witness to Canadians from across the country as they help their neighbours in the Manitoba or Saguenay floods or using our technology to break through the isolation of families struggling to survive last year's ice storm; or whether we are bringing Canada Day celebrations to every corner of the country or celebrating through docudramas such historic achievements as the discovery of insulin, by telling these stories, by capturing these moments and bringing them into our living rooms, CBC enhances our understanding of and pride in Canada.

[Translation]

Now let's consider the second Heritage portfolio objective, which is to protect Canada's heritage.

The word "heritage" means many things to many people. But it certainly includes such legendary entertainers as Lorne Green, Anne Murray and Louis Quilico. It includes athletes like Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard—all brought into national consciousness by the CBC.

Heritage also includes the political, social and economic upheavals that have defined us as a people: the Quiet Revolution, the decline of the Newfoundland cod fishery, the rise of western populism, the search for self-government by our indigenous peoples. The CBC has been there to document it all, to help Canadians understand, to be an integral part of our lives and our perception of the characters and events that form our heritage.

• 1115

[English]

We produce programs the private sector would never consider, programs whose primary goal is to enhance our appreciation of our heritage. Only CBC or Radio-Canada would bring to life Canada: A People's History, a 30-hour history series in the works for prime-time airing. Produced in English and French, such a project would be too ambitious and too risky for private sector broadcasters. Neither would the private sector provide a French-language radio service to every region of Canada, regardless of the size of the market.

The independence of our news and information service, as guaranteed by the Broadcasting Act, strongly reinforces our rich heritage of freedom and democracy. This is a very important thing to remember, especially when the dictates of journalistic independence occasionally generate tension with the government of the day.

[Translation]

The third and final heritage portfolio objective I'll discuss today is to ensure access to Canadian voices and Canadian spaces.

The Department of Canadian Heritage elaborates on this point as follows:

We will support the production, distribution and promotion of Canadian content that reflects our linguistic duality and cultural diversity; and we will foster an ongoing national cultural dialogue within Canada.

That is the CBC. It is what we do every day.

The CBC is the only broadcaster to serve all regions of Canada in both English and French. But we take our responsibility to enrich our linguistic heritage one step further.

Consider the children's television program known in English as "Wimzie's House" and in French as La maison de Ouimzie. It is co- produced and simultaneously broadcast in both official languages. It is a uniquely Canadian miracle—a shared cultural reference point for the children of our two main language communities.

The CBC provides programming which is pan-Canadian, and will be more so in the future. This means that we bring Canada and the world to every region of the country, and we give every region of Canada the chance to be heard by the others. Canada is multi- faceted, and our public airwaves must reflect that reality.

[English]

The CBC is the only broadcaster capable of operating right across the country in terms of production and distribution. We broadcast in English, in French, and in eight aboriginal languages. No other broadcaster has the mandate, the infrastructure, or the motive to reach all Canadians. No other broadcaster has devoted so many resources to ensuring that Canadians see a reflection of themselves and the rest of the world on their airwaves.

Accessible public service broadcasting is essential to providing the critical mass required for effective communication of Canadian culture. Sports and comedy, drama and news, public affairs and cultural programs—all are entitled to their place. CBC, Radio-Canada, is that place.

[Translation]

Let me, then, Mr. Chairman, recap Canadian Heritage's objectives: to enhance pride in Canada, to protect Canada's heritage, to ensure access to Canadian voices and Canadian spaces.

These objectives reflect the hopes, dreams and aspirations of millions of Canadians. Again, I must ask you... What other institution has contributed as much to these objectives over the past six decades? The conclusion is clear: if Radio-Canada/CBC did not exist, we would have to invent it.

• 1120

The good news is that Canadians have already made the investment in building the CBC over six decades. We are an integral part of Canadian culture and identity even as we work to enhance it.

The CBC is a primary instrument in achieving Heritage Canada's objectives and a precious resource for every Canadian. Let us use it well.

I now call upon Mr. Beatty to speak to you about our strategic plan.

[English]

Mr. Perrin Beatty (President and Cief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Thank you very much, Guylaine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here.

Perhaps I can be permitted a very personal note. This is likely my last appearance before the committee as president of the corporation before I step down at the end of September.

I want to express a very personal word of thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all of your colleagues for the support and guidance you've shown me and given to the corporation during my tenure as president of the corporation.

I'll say also that it's particularly appropriate I be here at this time. I'm particularly pleased to be able to take advantage of the opportunity to speak about a strategic plan that will propel the CBC into the next millennium. The plan is bold and ambitious in scope, and I want briefly to review its highlights.

[Translation]

First, we will provide programming of interest to all Canadians. This includes sports programming, which is a significant part of Canada's heritage, and also very much within the domain of our expertise.

We will provide pan-Canadian programming. For our cultural identity to survive, Canadians must see themselves reflected on their airwaves. Accordingly, we must increase the number of new voices that represent our cultural diversity in order to provide a complete and vibrant picture of the country.

[English]

We will strengthen our distinctive presence in the regions. As one Regina resident noted during the recent CRTC hearings, “CBC's Toronto building just isn't tall enough to show us much of the rest of Canada.”

We will revitalize English television by continuing our very successful Canadianization campaign. I can tell you that it's starting to work. This year, nine of the top ten Canadian series shown on Canadian television were in fact shown on CBC's English television.

An important weapon in the battle for a healthy and independent Canadian culture is our ability to ensure that all Canadians, but especially our children, understand their own history and their own traditions.

We will provide Canada's premier news and information service. Indeed, our journalistic leadership and expertise are among CBC's greatest strengths.

[Translation]

We will support French language and culture right across Canada. In a global communications environment increasingly dominated by the English language, this role for the CBC becomes even more imperative.

We will build bridges between French and English cultures and communities by intensifying our efforts to produce cross-cultural programming such as CBC Newsworld's and RDI's jointly produced Culture Chock/Culture Choc, English radio's C'est la vie and Anglosong on French radio.

[English]

We will champion Canada's arts and culture. The CBC is Canada's electronic stage. Some of our most enduring Canadian stars emerged from CBC television and radio. With a renewed and revitalized mandate, the CBC will continue to showcase our artists, writers, musicians and creative talent.

We will develop a constellation of new services to better respond to Canadians. The CBC of tomorrow must be available to all Canadians, wherever and whenever they choose to consume media.

In this regard, our applications for new specialty channels last year address very real gaps in our country's programming that need to be filled by a public broadcaster.

We will play a leadership role in new media and new technology. There's not a shred of doubt that the CBC belongs, and indeed will thrive, in this swiftly growing arena. Without our presence, there's a very real risk of Canadian voices being submerged.

[Translation]

Finally, we will provide a view of Canada abroad. The closer the world draws upon us, the more important it becomes to provide a view of Canada beyond its borders.

• 1125

These commitments will set the course for the CBC of tomorrow. They represent targets that are ambitious, but within our grasp.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can conclude on a very personal note. I came to the corporation a little over four years ago, convinced of the importance of this corporation in serving Canadians and building bridges between cultures, between regions in Canada, of offering a public broadcaster who sees its audience in the context of not simply eyes and ears to be sold to advertisers but also citizens. I was convinced that it was important to have a broadcaster where, every day, when the men and women working in it got up in the morning, they saw their job as telling Canadian stories in all parts of the country, promoting a sense of tolerance and understanding in the country.

As I prepare to leave the corporation, I'm more convinced than ever of the importance of this corporation and of the vital role it can play in the future of our society and our country.

We do need to ensure, Mr. Chairman, as we approach the next millennium, that we have a broadcaster dedicated to ensuring that Canadian voices and Canadian faces aren't lost to Canadian homes. We need to ensure that there is a broadcaster there that sets the standard for quality and that has the determination to serve all Canadians in the context of their roles as citizens.

That's the role this corporation plays, and it's a role an amazing group of men and women, those who are immensely dedicated to the country and the people they serve, want to play going into the next century.

As the committee considers its priorities for strengthening and celebrating the country in the new millennium, I'd encourage you to consider the powerful instrument you have at your fingertips. The CBC is here to serve the cultural aspirations of all Canadians. Let us use it well.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Beatty. I think it's a timely note on which to open to questioning.

I will start with Mr. Mark.

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

I'd certainly like to thank all of you for being here today, for taking the time to come before the committee.

First, I want to say that having been part of the public hearing process in Atlantic Canada as well as Montreal and Toronto, we certainly heard no shortage of positive comments about the CBC and the role it plays in this country.

My two questions are about culture and finance. To play the devil's advocate, you've indicated to us this morning the numerous roles CBC plays. Is there a role for the private broadcaster in terms of culture? I'd like to ask you what part they should be playing within that context, knowing that we have a large national broadcaster in this country.

The second question has to do with finance. What type of financial support does the organization expect down the road, beyond this current relationship that's been established, over the next several years?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I'll take the first one and I'll ask Perrin to deal with the second one.

Obviously, everybody has a role to play in Canadian culture. The difference between the private broadcaster and the public broadcaster is the difference in mandate.

As I said, I come from the private sector, where we have to be driven by the bottom line. This is how our shareholders are evaluating the added value we are bringing to them. Private broadcasters have to go by this rule. You don't have any choice.

Our role is very different. Our mandate is to bring a different added value to our shareholders, the Canadian citizens. It is really to be able to share values, to be a link between Canadians. This is how we are going to measure our success in the future.

• 1130

I don't want to say we are against private broadcasting, because we are not. They do fulfil a role in the broadcasting system. But only a public broadcaster with a public service mandate can fulfil the role to share values in the Canadian environment.

When you look at all of the forces at play right now in the global environment, where you do have more and more a globalization of culture, we need in Canada, as does any other country in the world, tools to promote our own identity if we don't want to lose it.

I don't see a private broadcaster having French-language services outside Quebec. It's not profitable, and it will never be profitable. I don't see a private broadcaster having aboriginal services in the north.

For me, this is quite important. We are the only broadcaster who services coast to coast in the two languages. We are the only one who can fulfil this role of sharing values between the different communities in Canada.

So I think for us, the role of the public broadcaster is essential if we want to keep this country together, if we want to share values and keep a Canadian identity that we will be able to share with future generations.

The Chairman: Mr. Beatty.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Mr. Mark, I was minister at the time the current Broadcasting Act was proclaimed. It enshrines in it a principle that has really been the mainstay of Canadian government policy on communications since the time of the founding of the CBC. That's the principle of a mixed public-private broadcasting system.

It's served us well for over 60 years, and it's my strong feeling that Canadians would be served much less well if there weren't a strong and vibrant private sector offering those things it can do best, offering choice in the system, ensuring that we're vigilant in doing our job to the best of our ability.

As well, though, I believe the system would be much poorer if we did not also have a public broadcaster—a public broadcaster that sets standards in journalism; a public broadcaster that is focused on seeing people in their role as citizens as opposed to simply people to whom products can be sold; a public broadcaster that sees its role as building bridges among Canadians and fostering an intelligent and respectful dialogue among Canadians; and a public broadcaster that showcases the tremendous talent in this country.

The Broadcasting Act certainly does impose on the private sector responsibilities in terms of Canadian content, and I hope each private broadcaster, as responsible corporate citizens, will do their part in that. But we happily assume a much heavier responsibility as a public broadcaster to often do things that would not be profitable for the private sector to do and to showcase Canadian talent and take risks that might not otherwise be taken. I think in so doing, we enrich the system.

In terms of finances, you ask what we expect going forward. We've entered into a period where our financing has become predictable, where we know what our appropriation will be next year, but what we are looking for is genuinely stable funding. We start each year with an appropriation that's essentially the same as the previous year, but we lose out to inflation as a consequence. That means we start each year with less purchasing power than we had the previous year. That's infinitely better than the position we were in a few years ago, where there were major cuts being made to our budget, but it still doesn't give us genuine stability.

So the first is genuine stability in the appropriation after inflation. The second is the ability to apply to government for one-time projects that would not be going under our operating appropriation.

Such a project would be our archives project, which we have underway at the present time. We're attempting to conserve the audiovisual heritage of Canada. On a one-time basis, I would argue that it is appropriate to seek support from the Government of Canada for a project of such importance to all Canadians.

We will not seek to have all of the money restored that was taken out of our budget over the course of the last several years. We're seeking to have genuine stability.

As it relates to new services that we're providing, we will expect the new specialty services we've applied for to be self-sufficient. We're doing so in partnership with private sector partners who expect that they will be profit-making enterprises.

• 1135

The CRTC is abundantly clear in saying that there will not be cross-subsidization between our main networks and the specialty services. This is critical for us.

Finally, we will seek to generate the moneys we need to innovate, to improve services, and to present new services by setting ourselves a target of a 2% productivity improvement each year. That will allow us, in addition to our own choosing of priorities, to change as audiences change the way in which they consume media, and to change as Canadians' needs change into the future.

We think our request for genuine stability is a responsible request. Allow us the flexibility to change along with our audiences and we will do the rest in supplying high-quality Canadian content. We will live or die based on our ability to attract audiences to that high-quality Canadian content.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: Perhaps I can add something, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Briefly, Ms. Saucier.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I mentioned to you previously that McKinsey published a study last January called Public Service Broadcasters Around the World, which demonstrates that having a strong public broadcaster in the country enhances the whole broadcasting system.

I think I will send you a copy, if I may. It might be of interest to you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. If you can send it to the clerk, we'll make sure all members get a copy. That study is very timely.

[Translation]

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueil, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank our three witnesses. We have met twice in two days. I am very pleased and I hope that there will be a second round because I have many questions to ask you.

First off, I would like to tell you, if you don't already know, that the Bloc Québécois tabled its brief with the CRTC yesterday. We support the renewal of the main licenses for French radio and television, etc..

But today I would like to mainly emphasize the reservations I have and which I have already expressed to you. I want to repeat them here, before the members of this committee.

Ms. Saucier, during your presentation, you stated:

The CBC is a primary instrument in achieving Heritage Canada's objectives and a precious resource for every Canadian. Let us use it well.

I would like you to be governed by this last sentence, and to remember that the CBC was at the outset a corporation subject to the Broadcasting Act, and not a propaganda tool for Heritage Canada. I must admit that I have some reservations in that regard.

I think you know very well that the CBC is part of Quebec culture and I think that Quebec contributes its fair share. What concerns me is that even in your strategic plan I see nothing for Quebec. In fact, we even did a little calculation on the text that may seem innocuous to my colleagues, but the fact is that the word Quebec appears barely five times. Just like the Department of Canadian Heritage, the CBC seems to have trouble recognizing Quebec's existence. I have some serious reservations about that.

It goes without saying that we cannot support you with regard to specialty channels. As you were willing to admit and said yesterday, the CBC is not perfect and you are ready to work to eliminate its shortcomings. I would recommend that you improve what you are doing at the present time, and we'll see about the rest later. That is what we recommend in our brief.

I would like to hear your point of view on that, as well as your version of the Milewski affair. I would like to know what happened and how you interpret what happened with the Prime Minister.

The Chairman: Ms. Saucier.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: As I mentioned yesterday, we are indeed an arms length corporation, a corporation that is independent from the government. Our mandate was entrusted to us by the Canadian Parliament and we must discharge it to the best of our ability. This mandate consists in promoting the Canadian identity which, in my opinion, dovetails rather nicely with the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage, so we can work in tandem.

• 1140

I expect that we took on some components that originated with Heritage Canada because they seemed to be in tune with the CBC's objectives and not because we had received instructions to that effect. It was the other way around, I believe. The fact remains that it is the role of the board of directors of the CBC to ensure that we are discharging our mandate adequately. We intend to play that role as we should. If our mandate is in line with the objectives of Heritage Canada, our task will be facilitated since the major part of our funding does come from that department. We have to be realistic, after all.

I have been in this position for four years and I have always felt very comfortable working in this context where we receive a mandate from Parliament and establish a strategy. We must not forget that we are accountable to the Canadian population for the funds that we spend. We have to strike a balance.

With your permission, I will use the Milewski affair as an example. The government never intervened in that affair. At all times, it followed the formal process any citizen may resort to if he or she is not satisfied by our coverage. I was very comfortable seeing the government use that tool—our ombudsman—rather than making direct interventions, which it never did.

Our mandate is similar to that of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and that seems normal to me since our roles are similar. So, you should not be surprised if we express ourselves in similar ways. I feel very at ease working in a system where we are at arms length from the government and accountable for the funds we manage.

That being said, we reflect all regions of the country, including Quebec, which occupies a lot of our space, so to speak. We are anxious to insure that the rest of Canada is reflected in Quebec and that Quebec is reflected to the rest of Canada. That is part of our mandate.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: It would be difficult to review the Milewski Affair briefly. You said that Mr. Chrétien had acted as an ordinary citizen and that you had answered him in that capacity. But why was an answer given to him before the ombudsman made a decision? Perhaps there are things I don't know. I expect you have all of that at your disposal.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: Since this concerns an internal management process, I will ask Mr. Beatty to answer your question.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Could you state your question specifically, please?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Milewski was suspended before the ombudsman arrived at a decision on his coverage of the APEC summit. I believe the Prime Minister had written to him as a citizen and that he was answered as a citizen.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Two types of issues are being raised in connection with this situation: political issues on the one hand, and our journalism standards on the other. Mr. Donolo raised a question concerning the professionalism of our coverage of APEC, and on the other hand, there is the matter of our relations with our employee.

Have you had the opportunity of reading our ombudsman's report on this case?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I only received part of it, and so I could not read it all.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I would be more than happy to send you a copy.

[English]

Let me briefly summarize. When Mr. Milewski's e-mails were made available at the RCMP inquiry, CBC News management immediately began an inquiry to look into the methodology used in terms of generating the reports that were generated. So it was some three days before any complaint was received from the Prime Minister's office. It was not at the initiative of the Prime Minister's office in any way. That complaint came into the ombudsman at a later date. The Prime Minister's office has exactly the same right as any other organization or any other citizen in Canada.

• 1145

[Translation]

Yesterday, when I appeared before you and your colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, I invited you to use the services of our ombudsman. I would like to repeat that invitation since all citizens have the same rights and recourses if they are not satisfied with our journalism.

[English]

The ombudsman found that in terms of the material that had gone on-air, it had been professional and it had been fairly balanced. It represented fairly the events that had taken place at APEC.

That had also been the position of CBC News management, and we were very pleased to find that the ombudsman did that.

The ombudsman did not rule on other issues that are still matters of grievance, properly filed by Mr. Milewski. They will be adjudicated later this year under the collective agreement.

So there are two separate issues here. I can certainly assure you that the investigation was begun by CBC News before receiving any complaint from Mr. Donolo.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The members of the committee will have the opportunity of raising these questions again during the second round.

[English]

We will close the first round with Ms. Bulte, and after that, Mr. Lavigne, Mr. Crête, and Mr. Mark.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for appearing before the committee.

In your opening remarks, Madam Saucier, you said that the strategic plan you're putting forward “will partially address the issue of cultural sovereignty”.

I wonder if perhaps Mr. Tremblay can elaborate on how that will be done. I agree that it's a very important concern in light of not just the WTO but also globalization as we enter into the Free Trade Area of the Americas as well.

Second, I am absolutely delighted to see that you are going to be producing a 30-hour history program. One of the concerns I've had about our broadcasters, private and public, is that we have an incredible wealth of Canadian documentaries. While we have put funds toward the creation of that artistic product, we don't seem somehow to have the infrastructure to promote those documentaries. I wonder if your strategic plan addresses how we can promote our Canadian documentaries.

Last but not least, a question that we've spoken about before but that bears repeating is with regard to when you made your presentations to the CRTC, and you talked about sponsorship. The number of phone calls I received in my riding from people...

For example, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and individuals who are artists and technicians within the CBC found it absolutely abhorrent that you were going to be taking sponsorship. You're supposed to be arm's length. Now, as you proceed to take corporate sponsorship, that's going to bring in with it a brand new set of censorship issues as well.

If that is truly the case, is the solution that we in the government need to stand up and say we can't allow this to happen, and that, if it is the case that we need more money to address this issue, we should do so?

I wonder if either one of you can comment on those.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: On the sovereignty issue, I do believe quite strongly that each country has to find the tools to promote its own identity. I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself a bit, but we are faced with so much information coming from other countries, it's very easy for any country today to dilute its own identity, I think.

So if we don't find ways and means to be sure that we are going to be able to not only share values today but also be sure that they are going to be shared in the next generation, that means, for me, two issues.

First, when you say it has to be shared by the next generation—and this is a file that is quite close to my heart—it means two things. One, we have to reach youngsters, to attract them, to be able to speak to them.

• 1150

Up to now, we were not very good at doing that, especially in English Canada. That is why we would like to have a “Radio 3”. This would be one means.

The other side of the coin is that if we want to share values 25 years from now, we have to help bring these new voices on stream. We have to give room for these new voices to be broadcast.

This is part of the role of the CBC. To me, this is quite important. When I speak about our sovereignty, I think the CBC is one of the most important tools in our country to share values today but also to share values tomorrow. This is quite important.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Would it be correct to say—

The Chairman: Very briefly, because we have a lot of questions today.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: —that when you talk about how we can address the issue of cultural sovereignty, an enhanced role for the CBC is one of the ways in which we can address the issue of cultural sovereignty?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: On the history project, I will just say something. I'm so pleased about and so proud of the fact that we, for the first time, are preparing a history series that is going to be broadcast in French and English and is going to be the same in French and English so that people will, I hope, understand each other better.

Perrin and Michel might like to comment a little more on both the history project and the sponsorship issue.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: With regard to the history project, this is a monumental exercise. It is the first time ever that there's been a televised history of Canada of this scope. It will give a common interpretation of Canadian history in both English and French, and will do so in a way that's respectful to often very divergent points of view about the nature of the development of Canada.

So it's something about which we're very proud. Only the national public broadcaster could undertake a project of this size.

On the issue of commercialization of radio, I'm very pleased you raised that, because I'm very glad to have the opportunity to respond.

I would be every bit as concerned as you if there were some issue of putting advertisements on CBC Radio. One of the things that makes it unique is the fact that we are commercial free. We took that decision some years ago. You will not be hearing advertisements in any conventional sense on CBC Radio.

What we are looking for is flexibility from the CRTC that will allow us to partner with other cultural organizations. In doing this with other cultural organizations and possibly with companies in the private sector that might be interested in putting on cultural events, that injection of money into the cultural sector would enable other cultural organizations to have events that otherwise could not have been afforded.

Today we're prevented from having the type of partnership with them that's necessary to facilitate that taking place, so this will allow us to work with symphony orchestras, say, or Roy Thomson Hall, or other organizations to facilitate cultural events taking place.

There will be no cheques sent by corporations to the CBC. Any moneys going in will be going into the third-party cultural organization. The advantage to us will be in having an event take place that is beneficial for our listeners to be able to hear, and it'll be something that will help ensure that there's an injection of new funds into the cultural life of Canada. So it's something that's very positive.

There'll be no return to the days in which there used to be commercials on CBC Radio. If there's any question about that, we're quite prepared to see the commission circumscribe, quite tightly, the authority we're asking for to make it clear that there would be no 30-second or one-minute spots going onto CBC but rather that we would just be given the ability to facilitate the type of cultural partnership that is beneficial to everyone concerned.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lavigne.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): I want to thank all three of you for appearing here today. I have a question for Ms. Saucier.

In the past, you used to cover an event which has existed for 125 years, and that is the St. Patrick's Day parade. I would like to know why since last year you are no longer covering this event, which is a part of Canadian heritage. Is there a particular reason?

• 1155

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I will let Mr. Beatty answer that question.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I don't know, but I will find the answer and send your a letter if possible.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: Yes, if you please, because this year, there was approximately two seconds' coverage of the St. Patrick's Day parade and then the cameras vanished. I was very surprised to see that this heritage event was not covered by Radio-Canada and the CBC.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: As a person of Irish ancestry, I find your question very important. It will be a pleasure for me to look for this information.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: Thank you.

The Chairman: One last question, Mr. Lavigne?

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: No, that's all.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, followed by Mr. Mark.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): I have a two-part question.

Firstly, does the CBC feel that it discharged its mandate during the last referendum campaign, even though the ombudsman, Mr. Cardinal, said that the English network had less balanced coverage than the French network? During the last referendum campaign, he stated that CBC devoted 66% of its time to the No during the evening news bulletin, and 34% of its time to the Yes, while the program The World devoted 76% of its time to the No and 24% of its time to the Yes, the program Politics, 63% of its time to the No and 37% of its time to the Yes. The same report stated that the French network had maintained an almost perfect balance between the two camps. That is my first question.

Secondly, you know that Eastern Quebec lost its three stations in 1990. The members of Parliament and the population of the region are clamouring for that service to be restored. In that regard, I have here the support of all federal MPs, 10 provincial MPs, all of the provincial MPs of the region, eight businesses, 20 institutions, 72 organizations and 96 municipalities. You referred to this in your presentation. Do you intend to restore to Eastern Quebec and the North Shore a station that would be present in the region, so that TV cameras would not only appera in cases of natural catastrophes or fires?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I will answer on the broad principles and I will let Mr. Beatty answer in a more detailed way.

On your first point, I won't say that we are always perfect, but we feel, whether during a referendum campaign or our normal coverage, that it is essential that we have fair and balanced coverage. We are very much aware that there are sometimes shortcomings, because just like everyone else, we are not perfect, but we intend to work continuously to reach that balance. That is our policy.

Secondly, if we want to fulfil our mandate in a satisfactory way, it is absolutely essential that we reflect the country's various regions. How are we going to do that? We will have to use new technologies in some cases. We will probably have to do things differently than we did in the past. We have fewer resources but it is incumbent upon us to be connected to the country's regions if we want to reflect them.

Mr. Paul Crête: Does that take precedence, for you, over the specialty channels? Will you be able to reach that objective if you associate it with all the other parts? Will the CBC have the means to do all of that at the same time?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I think that the problem is not as you describe it. The specialty channels have to be self-sufficient financially. RDI and Newsworld are probably self-sufficient as we speak. We can't take the resources of the main network and reassign them to specialty channels. So, one does not exclude the other. These two aspects are not in opposition to each other.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Insofar as our coverage of the referendum is concerned, I am satisfied with it in general, but there is always room for improvement of our activities.

• 1200

We asked Erin Research to carry out a study on our coverage. They found it, generally speaking, to be fair and balanced. I feel it is important to use that study as well as the results of other studies and surveys.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Beatty, how can you say that it was balanced? If we had had the same coverage on the French network, it would have been considered normal to devote 70 or 75% of airtime to the Yes. The French network had a perfect balance, approximately 50-50, while the English network's coverage was significantly unbalanced; it could be described as 70 versus 30%, according to the type of program, which means that the anglophone population that listens to the English network had a truncated vision of reality. The ombudsman, Mr. Cardinal, himself wrote:

Does that mean that the French network, whose viewers are francophones and live in Quebec, should have devoted 60% of its airtime to the Yes side? Of course not.

How can you justify that situation? I can't understand it. You may admit that there was a mistake—and that is what I believe I understood from what Ms. Saucier said—but defending it...

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: There is room for improvement.

Mr. Paul Crête: Saying that there is room for improvement is very different from saying that things were balanced. There is something wrong. Can this be chalked up to the same two solitudes, still today? I don't know.

[English]

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I have also said that I think we can always make improvements in our coverage. We can do so on a daily basis and we can do so during referenda as well.

In general, looking at the coverage of the referendum, we made every effort to be fair and complete in our coverage. The interests of our audiences will vary across the country by region in terms of the particular perspective they have. What we do not attempt to do is to require that our journalists give exactly the same air time to one point of view as to another, but what we do require is that they do their job professionally, thoroughly, and well.

Based on what I saw from the referendum coverage, and based on what I've seen from studies that were done of the referendum coverage, CBC did that job very well.

The other question you asked was with regard to the stations in Quebec. As you know,

[Translation]

we went through a period of very severe budget cuts. We still hope to improve the level of services in each region of Canada. How can we do that? That is an important question, because we must do so with available resources.

I can assure you that there is no contradiction between our desire to improve services on the main network and our request for specialty channel licences. All of these specialty channels will have to be self-financing.

Secondly, those specialty channels will give us the capacity of improving our services in the regions and allow us to serve the population in the same way as do RDI and Newsworld. This adds to our capacity to serve the regions. It is very important for us to have that capacity to improve our service.

Mr. Paul Crête: Do you know, Mr. Beatty or Ms. Saucier, that a French-speaking ornithologist who organises a bird month in Alberta has about 500% more chances to see his event mentioned on CBC's national network than does an ornithologist organizing the same event in Eastern Quebec, where there is a population of 400 000? The coverage of that population is much less than that granted to francophone communities outside Quebec. It is completely disproportionate if one considers the relative size of the populations involved in the Canadian mosaic, without considering whether they are in Quebec or elsewhere.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I don't have your statistics, but one thing is very clear: I try to keep in contact with all of the francophone communities both in Quebec and outside Quebec. Everywhere, we hear the same comment. At some point, I'm going to have to rebalance all of that and try to see how we can reflect the regions of the country in a proper way, in order to have a tool to constantly revitalize this francophone culture we have in common. You are going to have to give me your statistics in a more specific way.

• 1205

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a comment first. In addition to what Mr. Lavigne has indicated, I certainly invite CBC to cover Canada's National Ukrainian Festival parade in Dauphin, which has been going on for about 34 years.

My question is directed to Madam Saucier. Now that we've heard Mr. Beatty give his farewell speech to the standing committee this morning, I would like to ask a question relating to the hiring of the new president. It comes in two parts.

First, will the board be making that decision? Second, will this process be transparent, and open to the public?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I'm not the right person to answer this question, Mr. Mark. As you know, the president of the CBC is an Order in Council appointment. He or she is appointed by the government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, not by the board of the CBC.

This is a fact of life. This is in the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and we have to respect that.

As I said, I'm not the right person to answer the question.

Mr. Inky Mark: As chairman of the board, would the board welcome that opportunity to do the hiring?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: As I've said, in my former life, before the CBC, I wrote a lot of papers on board governance. I've said quite a few times that one of the most important jobs of any board is to hire its own president.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: If you have your application filled out, Mr. Mark, I'll make sure it's distributed to the appropriate people.

Voices: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I'm astonished to learn that francophones in provinces other than Quebec are privileged, as compared to the francophones in Quebec, by the CBC. This is a piece of news that should make all of us happy, Mr. Chairman, because we were convinced that the opposite was true. I'm certain that the francophone communities in Alberta or elsewhere will also be happy to learn this, because they were under the impression that the opposite was true, especially as regards production. On that, I agree with my colleague. As I already said here, before the committee, outside of Montreal, there is no salvation for independent production. I hope that that will improve. At least there are a few indications that that might be the case.

I would like to put a question on another topic completely, but before I do so, I want to congratulate you for the intentions you presented to the CRTC, particularly the seventh one, "To build bridges between cultures and francophone and anglophone communities in our country". I find that commendable and I hope that the CRTC will grant your request and that in the years to come, we will see an obvious increase in those efforts.

However, in those 12 intentions, I can't identify one which, in my opinion, might be important in another connection, that of a national State corporation that broadcasts in both languages, from coast to coast, as you say, and which has played, as you mentioned in your comments, Ms. Saucier, and will probably be called on to play again, unfortunately, a role in natural disasters or crises. The Corporation is a kind of lifeline for the population when there are floods or ice storms. I wonder if that role should not be an integral part of the mandate of the CBC and SRC. Perhaps we could even prepare for such eventualities, although I don't wish that kind of event on anyone. In another connection, the fear of the Year 2000 bug seems to be decreasing. In Canada and elsewhere in North America, we seem better prepared than people elsewhere in the world. However, I think it is a foregone conclusion that there will be some problems.

• 1210

In the documentation you have submitted, I don't see anything about that, but I understand that it may be in the documents you presented to the CRTC. I would like to hear your comments on this, on this aspect which is totally outside the realm of partisanship, I hope, outside the realm of favouritism. It is, in my opinion, an essential aspect of the usefulness of a public broadcasting corporation.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: Mr. Bélanger, that is an excellent question. Basically, we are already doing that. During the ice storm, we were an indispensable tool for the survival of some people. As for the Year 2000 bug, we are very aware of the fact that we might once again be useful in that connection to the Canadian population. We hope that we won't have to be, but that could happen.

You are right when you say that we did not discuss this as such in our presentation. We emphasize on several occasions that that is what we do. It might be interesting to add that element to our commitment to Canadians. Perhaps a commitment is what we need.

The Chairman: Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: In the same vein, I would like to remind you that during the ice storm, some people were not able to follow what was happening, and I'm referring to the community of the deaf and the hearing-impaired. In Quebec, whenever Mr. Bouchard made statements or held press conferences, there was no captioning. There was no interpretation inset. The community of the deaf and hearing-impaired thus had to follow developments on the Internet. It was very difficult and these people felt very isolated. I know that the Réseau québécois pour le sous-titrage (Quebec network for captioning) tabled a brief stating that there was quite a difference between francophones and anglophones. Some interesting developments are occurring in captioning for anglophone deaf and hearing-impaired persons, but where francophones are concerned, we are very far indeed from the 100% mark. Ideally, to my way of thinking, we should have reached 100%. I know that I'm asking for a lot, but still...

I would like to see greater efforts in this regard than those mentioned in your strategic plan. Ideally, I would like both communities, anglophone and francophone, to have 100% captioning, or at least to have the same objectives. Don't tell me that financial reasons are behind this, because the CBC's mandate demands that it serve all Canadians, men and women, all Quebeckers. Whether hearing-impaired persons are French-speaking or English- speaking, they must have the same service.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about that. That is all for now.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I am in complete agreement with you. Our mandate, in French and English, is to improve our services to all Canadians. I'm going to ask Mr. Tremblay to answer your question in greater detail.

Mr. Michel Tremblay (Chief Planning Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Firstly, details having to do with our position with regard to services provided to the hearing-impaired are contained in each of our renewal applications before the CRTC. I can assure you that in all cases, we met the requirements set in the previous renewals.

That being said, obviously that is not a maximum for us and we are committed to continuing our efforts in that direction. Where we have not attained an optimal level, we commit ourselves to doing so. Important progress was made on the Réseau de l'information and Newsworld, on the English network, and also on the Radio-Canada network, but there is still progress to be made. As I was explaining yesterday, we have committed to having all of the Ce soir programs from the regions captioned by the Year 2000, and other elements will be put on the table for the specific renewal of the French network.

Mrs. Caroline St-Hilaire: Why do you have more than 75% captioning on the anglophone side, while on the francophone side, you haven't managed to get beyond 50 or 51%?

Mr. Michel Tremblay: There are costs involved, of course, but that is not a factor. The main problem is the availability of the captioning devices. During the last term of the RDI licence, we spent a lot more than planned to offer the service at the agreed level.

• 1215

So, there is indeed a difference in the service offered and in the availability of the necessary specialists, but we're working on it. Radio-Canada even offers training in this area. So, I can assure you that we are taking this very seriously and that we are going to try close that gap.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I'm sure you can find a little something in your budget for that.

Mr. Péladeau made a brief statement yesterday. It was in almost all of the newspapers. I don't know if you saw it. The CBC, during a BBM survey, broadcast the movie Forrest Gump, without advertising. Was this in connection with your mandate of promoting Canadian culture?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: To answer in a more general way, we do indeed attempt to promote Canadian culture. That is our main role. If you look at the statistics on Canadian content, especially during prime time, you will see that we have more than 90% Canadian content in both languages.

However, we also want to occasionally present programming from outside of Canada, and we choose the best available. If you want a more specific answer, Mr. Beatty will reply.

[English]

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Mr. Péladeau was, I guess, really concerned about Forrest Gump. I am less concerned about Forrest Gump. I think the important thing is to take a look at our schedules in general. What you'll find is that we have never been more Canadian in our content, on any of our networks, than we are today. We set the pace for Canadian broadcasters in terms of having locally produced programming, and we'll continue to do that.

When we Canadianized our schedules, though, we reserved one responsibility to ourselves—that is, to also present the best of the world. Mr. Péladeau might want to debate whether or not Forrest Gump represents the best of the world, but we feel it was a very fine movie that was appropriate.

The important thing, though, is to recognize that the vast bulk of our programming is in fact Canadian and reflects this country. When we can set that pace and set a standard for the rest of the industry, I think it's a very important contribution to make.

The other element raised by one of your colleagues yesterday—and I apologize, because I didn't have a chance to respond to that—was on the issue of advertising. One of the allegations made was that Radio-Canada was undercutting the market in terms of its advertising.

In fact, if one were to enquire of the advertising agencies or to look at a study that was done for us, one would see that just exactly the opposite is true. Repeating something that is false—and it periodically gets repeated that Radio-Canada undercuts the market—doesn't make it true.

The simple fact is, on both the English side and the French, we charge, if anything, a premium for the audiences we deliver to advertisers. We're proud to do it. We think we get value for the services we're providing for advertisers. We're proud, as well, that we can get maximum value for the taxpayers of Canada.

So it's simply untrue for anyone to claim that Radio-Canada is discounting advertising or undercutting the market on that, and we're quite prepared to demonstrate that to the commission at any time.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, one last question if you please.

Mr. Paul Crête: It is a very specific question on the program Anglosong, that is broadcast Saturday night on Radio-Canada. There are English songs during two hours on Radio-Canada. I find that English radio in Canada and elsewhere in North America generally... Anglosong is a program that broadcasts English songs on the French network of the CBC on Saturday night, between 10 and midnight, I believe. I wonder if you think this reflects our society and meets the requirements placed upon you. That time could be put to use to broadcast French music from all of the Francophonie, for instance African countries, France or elsewhere. It seems to me that in the North American context we are in, we can find this kind of music elsewhere in the radio. This creates expectations. Saturday night, francophone stations for teenagers are giving those youngsters a taste for anglophone music. If there weren't any elsewhere, this would appear normal, but we are invaded by anglophone stations in North America.

• 1220

Is there an anglophone counterpart to that program, where francophone songs are broadcast? And if there is one, is the objective of the CBC being met in this way?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: I'm going to let Perrin answer in a more specific way, but I will say that it is part of our role to put communities in touch with each other. In that context, it can be understood that we produce this type of program.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Our mandate, as stated in the Broadcasting Act, requires that we actively contribute to cultural expression and to the exchange of its various forms. In both our English and French services, we have the responsibility of encouraging intercultural exchange.

On English radio, we have a program called C'est la vie, which gives anglophones a look at French language and culture.

Mr. Paul Crête: And at what time is it on?

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: At 7:30 Friday nights.

Mr. Paul Crête: I would exchange one for the other at any time. If you put on French music Saturday night at 11 o'clock on Radio-Canada, I would be glad to trade.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: French-language songs are also broadcast on the program This Morning. I think that our English-language radio service is perceived by Canadians as the most important instrument to present French-language Canadian culture to anglophones. That is an important aspect of our mandate, and we are very proud of it.

Mr. Michel Tremblay: Just a clarification. I am told that the program À propos, heard Saturday nights at 10 o'clock on the English network, has a French-language music component and broadcasts French-language culture.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: You will have a new listener.

Mr. Paul Crête: But that doesn't solve the problem.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I only have a comment. I want to strongly encourage both the SRC and the CBC to continue fighting insularity. I think that the vast majority of Canadians want to get to know each other and don't want to be isolated. I can't encourage you strongly enough to continue in that path. I want, on my own behalf, to wish the CBC every success in all of its applications before the CRTC.

The Chairman: Ms. Saucier, Mr. Beatty and Mr. Tremblay, we are very happy to have had you with us today.

[English]

We're most grateful to you.

I think CBC and Radio-Canada reflect Canada as a whole. It's our principal means of expressing our culture in so many ways.

Mr. Beatty, I think it would be fair to say that all of us here have really appreciated, during the four years of your mandate, the cooperation you've given us as well as your wisdom and your capacity to listen at a time when it was very difficult for a president of the CBC, with all the cuts and everything.

So we really appreciate what you've done. We wish you great success, and thank you for all you've done for all of us.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thanks for appearing before us.

Ms. Guylaine Saucier: Thank you for your time.

The Chairman: If members would stay for five minutes, we have one small item of business to do.

• 1225

• 1227

The Chairman: This what we are proposing for next week.

Next Tuesday, we will have the hearings on Bill C-64, with witnesses. The invitations have gone out and so forth. We'll have the regular meeting from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Then, as agreed, during the discussions on Bill C-64 we will have the clause-by-clause on Wednesday at 3.30 p.m., followed briefly by Mr. Lowther's motion on child human rights, after the clause-by-clause, which won't be very long.

On Thursday, if chapter 2 of the study is ready dans les deux langues, we will convene a meeting if we are ready for that.

Is that agenda okay with members for next week?

Mr. Inky Mark: How many witnesses are we hearing on Tuesday?

The Chairman: About six or seven in one round table.

[Translation]

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Would it be possible to tell us in advance whether chapter 2 on cultural policy will be ready for Thursday?

The Chairman: It all depends on when the translation comes back. May we let you know next Monday?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Excellent.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If we do the clause-by-clause study Wednesday, Mr. Chairman, when should the proposed amendments be tabled?

The Chairman: Monday at the latest.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine.

The Chairman: Will the government have amendments, Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Not to my knowledge, but we can check.

The Chairman: Will there be any from the other side?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Probably, but if we have until Monday to table amendments and if we are hearing witnesses Tuesday, isn't that a bit strange?

• 1230

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): If an amendment does not simply introduce a correction, if it attempts to reverse something in the bill, that is something else.

The Chairman: We could give you until Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I don't suppose there will be that many in any case. Perhaps the MPs could be given until five o'clock on Tuesday to table them.

Mr. Paul Crête: Or perhaps even till Wednesday noon.

The Chairman: Tuesday, five o'clock, that will do. That will give you the possibility of examining them for Wednesday.

[English]

It will be 5 p.m. Tuesday. So we can just have a look at them before clause-by-clause.

[Translation]

Is everyone in agreement?

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: We have just one last item of business.

[Translation]

We received a letter from the National Arts Centre.

[English]

We tabled the letter, although, unfortunately, Mrs. Lill and Mr. Muise are not here.

Could you let us know on Tuesday morning next week, when we meet, what your decision is on what you feel we should do? There's a request there that we wait until we have the new director general in place. We tabled that letter, and we'll give you another copy as a reminder. We would like to know so that we can reply to them.

So maybe on Tuesday you can let us know. I'll ask the clerk to advise Mr. Muise and Mrs. Lill so that we can come to a decision on Tuesday.

[Translation]

Is everyone in agreement on that?

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chairman: So, that's what we will do.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you very much.