HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 1st, 2001

• 0905

[English]

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

[Translation]

The purpose of today's meeting is to hear from some departmental officials who will brief us on the concerns and activities of the department, chiefly for the new members of the committee.

[English]

We agreed, I think, that to start off the work of the committee this session, it was important to meet with officials of the ministry, so that the new members especially will get a feel for the various activities of the ministry and its preoccupations, especially in view of the fact that the estimates are going to be official any time now, as well as the planning and priorities of the ministry for the coming fiscal year.

So I'm very pleased to welcome the officials from the ministry with two assistant deputy ministers, Mr. Michael Wernick and Mr. Norman Moyer. I'll ask Mr. Wernick to introduce his colleagues.

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Wernick (Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Development, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Members of the committee, I'm Michael Wernick, assistant deputy minister of cultural development. At the back of your document there is an org chart, so that may help—I'm in the box at the bottom of the page. Mr. Moyer is the assistant deputy minister for the Canadian identity sector.

Joining us today to help deal with any questions you have is Mr. Bill Peters, who is director general of the Canadian Conservation Institute, representing Madam Eileen Sarkar, who is the ADM for the arts and heritage sector.

On my right is Madame Nicole Bourget, who is our DG of communications, and Madame Thérèse Roy from our finance group, who can help you with numbers and some financial information.

The Chair: Mr. Wernick, how would you like to proceed? I suppose you will give a brief exposé, and Mr. Moyer also, and then—

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Wernick: We plan to proceed as follows, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

and of course we're in your hands on this. We've prepared a very light, once-over presentation to give a sort of overview of the department and its portfolio. It is not very detailed. It goes over what the department is, how it's organized, some of the things it's working on. That would take about ten minutes, I think. We could then either take questions or elaborate a little on the responsibilities of particular parts of the department. I think we could take direction on that.

The Chair: All right. Let's do it like that. Then we'll take questions and will elaborate through the questions.

Mr. Michael Wernick: Okay.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Wernick.

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Wernick: We have distributed the document entitled Department of Canadian Heritage Overview. Did you all get a copy of it? It will be easy for you to follow if you have the document in front of you.

The Chair: Do you all have the document? Yes, thank you.

[English]

Mr. Michael Wernick: Perhaps I should say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that we have all sorts of documents and papers that may be of use to the committee. We'd be happy to provide to the clerk a bibliography or a sample of documents that might be useful to you. Of course, there have been reports on plans and priorities, performance reports, a number of other documents. As the committee moves forward and examines particular issues, we'd be very pleased to take requests for background briefings on any issue that comes up today, through the minister's office of course. We've done that for you on the book study last year, and we'd be pleased to do it on other issues that the committee—

The Chair: That could be really interesting. As you might know, Mr. Wernick, we decided last week to study the Broadcasting Act and the broadcasting system in relation to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, and any information you've got on file regarding broadcasting would be extremely useful to us. So I would ask that our researcher get in touch with your department. Whatever we can get will save us a tremendous amount of work, as backgrounders to our subject.

Mr. Michael Wernick: Of course. We have that kind of briefing material; it's been prepared for the minister and the parliamentary secretary and others. We'd be happy to make it available to you or come and give you a background briefing, as we did when you started the book study last year. We'll leave that up to you.

The Chair: Maybe both.

• 0910

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on that very point, would it be possible to get the résumés of all the members who sit on the CRTC?

Mr. Michael Wernick: I think that's on the CRTC website.

Mr. Dennis Mills: The résumés?

Mr. Michael Wernick: I believe so.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay, good.

The Chair: We'll obtain that for the members.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Wernick, the floor is yours.

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Wernick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will start right away on page 2. In order to understand the department, I think you have to have some information about its roots. The department was created at the time of the reorganization in the summer of 1993, and is made up of parts of other departments. It was therefore a merger of responsibilities. Its roots are in the former departments of Communications, Environment Canada, which at one point was responsible for our parks, Health and Welfare Canada, which was formerly responsible for sport, and the Secretary of State Department.

So this is the structure of the department. There has been only one change since the department was created: the creation of the Parks Canada Agency. The bill that established the agency was studied by this committee.

The minister is supported by two Secretaries of State, Ms. Fry, who is the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, and Mr. Denis Coderre, who is the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. We therefore support three ministers.

Within the department, we often speak of a portfolio. We need to think not only of the department, but also of a portfolio of agencies. There are 18 of them in all. Seven are departmental agencies and 10 are crown corporations. They differ as regards their autonomy and their financial capability. A piece of information for parliamentarians is that the Public Service Commission is an agency that reports to Parliament through our department. So you see there is a list of agencies.

There is a group within the department that helps coordinate all these bodies. Sometimes it may be easier for you to ask your questions directly to the agencies. However, we can also communicate with the agencies and pursue your enquiries for you.

I would refer you to the last page of the document, to the organizational chart which shows the structure of the department. There are five sectors: Cultural Development, of which I am in charge, Arts and Heritage headed by Ms. Sarkar, Canadian Identity, headed by Norman Moyer, Portfolio and Corporate Affairs, headed by Ms. Yazmine Laroche, which manages the portfolio agencies, and Strategic Policy, headed by Ms. Hélène Gosselin. Since we are a big department, we try to coordinate our initiatives, and she manages our relations with central governments agencies.

We are organized into five regions. The map on page 5 shows the 22 points of service. In addition, there are two Boards of Directors and two Special Operating Agencies which are part of the departmental administrative structure. Mr. Peters can tell you about organization such as the Canadian Conservation Institute and the Canadian Heritage Information Network. So the departmental organization is rather complex. There are 22 points of service, and five regional directors there to assist you.

As regards resources, I will simply give you a brief overview. The department itself has between 1,300 and 1,400 employees, and represents a budget of almost one billion dollars, which is broken down as follows: almost 800 million dollars is shared among 40 grants programs. The rest goes to the department's operational costs.

If we include all the agencies in the portfolio, they account for almost 17,000 employees, and 2.6 billion dollars. It is quite an imposing portfolio.

• 0915

[English]

The next few slides are an attempt to organize what we do thematically. It's a very complicated and broad-ranging portfolio, as some of the members know. There are over 40 statutes in which we have some involvement. Some of the bigger ones, of course, would be the Broadcasting Act, the Official Languages Act, Multiculturalism Act, Parks Act, and so on. There are over 40 programs and 18 agencies.

So one of our ongoing tasks is to organize what we do into objectives and results for the public, for parliamentarians, and for taxpayers. What are we trying to achieve, how do we measure the results, and how do we know if we're getting there? That's the structure of the report on plans and priorities that will be before you shortly, and the performance report that was tabled last fall.

The five thematic groupings are set out in this visual document, and the overall objective of the department is expressed as “valuing and strengthening the Canadian experience through connections, diversity, and choice.” The five thematic groups, which I'll go through very briefly, are diverse and accessible Canadian choices, excellence in people, building capacity, Canadians connected to one another, and Canadians connected to the world. Of course, we have to work very hard at building the capacity at the department and its agencies to deliver on these objectives.

So there's a range of policy and program tools related to these areas. Some of the major clusters of issues are broadcasting, support for the cultural industries, the arts, heritage issues, official languages, Canadian identity, citizens' participation, youth, multiculturalism, and sport. That's just the highlights. All of these have a common thread, which is strengthening common citizenship, ensuring Canadians have access to diverse Canadian choices, and doing all of this while remaining open to the best the world has to offer and playing a role in the world.

The next few slides are really just highlights, some of the initiatives under each of these thematic areas—it's not an exhaustive list. In the performance report there's much more detail, but some of the highlights of things you've probably seen over the last year or so are set out in the pages.

In the area of diverse and accessible choices, we're trying to support production and marketing and dissemination of very diverse Canadian content, trying to reflect the reality of the country, including its linguistic duality and the diversity of its society. Some of the more recent initiatives, which you've probably had come across your desk, would be the creation of the Canadian Television Fund, which was just extended last week for another year; we have a new program to support editorial content in Canadian magazines and help the industry adjust to the changing marketplace.

A particular issue we've pursued over the last two years is diversity in the broadcasting system, and perhaps the committee will come back to that in its study. Four times in the last two years we've used the directive powers of the government to ask the CRTC to look into particular issues and report to the government, and those included radio services in Toronto, television in Vancouver, French-language minority broadcasting issues, and the need for an arts channel in the francophone market. So that's been one of the more active areas in the last year or so.

Under the theme of excellence, there are a number of initiatives that have to do with providing Canadians, as individuals, with opportunities to participate, perform, and excel, to develop their creativity and their talent to the fullest. Certainly in the sports area—and Mr. Moyer can take questions on this—we're trying to help Canadians excel and achieve. In the arts and cultural area, there's been quite a bit of activity, working with our partners at Human Resources Development Canada, to identify the training and management development needs of the arts and cultural industries and to build some initiatives on training and professional development.

Under capacity you have generally the activities that ensure the infrastructure and the institutions and the mechanisms are here in Canada to make a difference. So we've done a lot of work with official language minority communities, a lot of work with the urban aboriginal communities, in other areas involving industrial sorts of activities, and as I mentioned, arts management and that sort of thing—all to do with making sure that capacity is strengthened and that the tools are there for Canadians to accomplish their goals.

One of the major themes of the department, as it will be of the minister when she comes to talk to you, is connecting Canadians to each other, providing Canadians with opportunities to connect with each other, understand each other, for communities to interact with each other. It's a big country with a lot of fault lines, and we work very hard at bridging those. There are a number of issues like that under the March 21 campaign to combat racial discrimination. There have been recent initiatives: the path of heroes activity, Exchanges Canada, other sorts of things that try to connect Canadians one to another.

• 0920

Of course, the corollary is that we are part of a global society and economy. We want to provide Canadians with effective tools to promote their values and their cultural interests around the world, while being an open society, interacting with the rest of the world and open to the best the world has to offer. There have been initiatives in the area of the francophonie. Over the last year l'année de la francophonie was an organizing event for a lot of activity.

In the area of cultural diversity, which I'm sure you'll want to talk to the minister about, we've been very active over the last two or three years in building networks and dialogue and connections around the world among governments, among NGOs, among cultural industries, among think-tanks and others, and among arts funding organizations to promote cultural diversity on the international agenda. It's a typical dossier where Canada is playing a leadership role in stimulating international discussion.

Those are the five themes. If we try to boil down some of the common challenges and opportunities that any department or any structure would be looking at in the area of culture and identity and citizenship participation, those sorts of themes, there are four things that just keep coming back again and again, and they play out in different ways for me, or for Norman, or for Eileen.

One is the growing diversity of Canadian society, the changing face of Canada. You see that in our urban centres, but you see it, in fact, in all regions of Canada. This is a very different country from what it was 20 years ago, and in 20 years it'll be different from today. That has an impact on a lot of our programs and how we think about them.

The impact of new technologies, the migration to digital, has a bearing not just on the cultural industries that I work with, but also in other parts of the department. It creates challenges, but it also creates tremendous opportunities to pursue some of the goals we were talking about, to connect people to each other and give people a chance to find each other, or find marketplaces and audiences.

Globalization is an overwhelming theme—and a reality out there—and it has a bearing on the way companies, industries, and others organize themselves, the business strategies they pursue, the way they deal with survival and success. In pursuing our objectives, we are trying to make sure that Canadian companies and industries succeed and that the diversity and creativity of our content actually thrives in this kind of environment.

Capacity and self-sufficiency come back again and again. There are limits to what any government can do, and a lot of it has to do with fundraising and financial stability and management, competencies and building for people the ability to go and take care of their own lives, their own issues. Whether it's in Norman's area, or mine, or Eileen's, capacity and self-sufficiency and autonomy are issues that just keep coming back again and again. So we'd be pleased to discuss that with you.

Our first responsibility at this time in the cycle of the government, of course, is implementation of the government's commitments and platform, its policy. Those were set out most clearly in the Speech from the Throne.

[Translation]

And on page 15 there is a list of the main government commitments. I will not go through the whole list, but I can say that for us, this is a long list that includes all sorts of challenges and interesting and fascinating issues. We are working hard on all theses commitments in order to advise our minister and we think about ways of delivering these programs and services to Canadians.

[English]

We'd be pleased to talk about any of those specific works in development with you today.

That's a very brief overview, Mr. Chairman. I know we haven't gone into anything in great detail. If I wanted to sum up what I'd hoped to convey to you today, it is that it's a very broad and diverse portfolio of responsibilities. We're working very hard on what kind of society and what kind of country we want it to be.

[Translation]

This portfolio has a significant impact on the social, cultural and economic lives of Canadians.

• 0925

[English]

There's an enormous amount of activity here, and many, many Canadians are involved as creators or consumers or citizens or members of their communities.

[Translation]

Values of Canadians unite all our activities. Values are at the heart of the work of Heritage Canada and its agencies.

[English]

And that is, in an uncertain and changing world, the anchor and the gyroscope, if I can mix metaphors there, that keep us on course.

The last couple of pages are the good old government organization chart, showing who's responsible for what at the moment and people who will be able to assist you as you move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I leave it to you. We could take questions of a general order, or any of us would be pleased to go a little more deeply into the areas of our responsibility, but I take your direction.

The Chair: Let's start with the questions. I think that will open up the meeting to delve into the various aspects of the ministry. As agreed, we'll start with Mrs. Gallant. Then Bloc Québécois, two Liberals, then we'll go back to the NDP and Conservatives.

Madam Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): You've briefly touched on the transition from analog to digital, and I was wondering how this CBC transition, for English programming only, does serve to connect Canadians from coast to coast, given that now a million Canadians do not have access to CBC English programming through antennae. A further outlay of cash is going to be required in order to tune in, on top of the tax dollars they're already paying for CBC.

Mr. Michael Wernick: I understand the question, and I think it's one you should pose to the CBC. There are three ways people receive broadcast signals: one is over the air; about 75% of Canadians get their broadcast programming over cable systems; and about 15% get them through satellite dishes. By definition, the satellite footprints reach all Canadians. Any Canadian with a satellite dish from ExpressVu or Star Choice can get any Canadian broadcasting service.

The question of whether, in the 21st century, there's a need for coast-to-coast-to-coast broadcasting over the air is one I think you might want to put to the CBC.

From a policy point of view, it's important that all Canadians, wherever they live, have access to Canadian programming, Canadian services, but there are many ways that can happen.

The Chair: Do you have any more questions?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: What role do you see the Canadian heritage ministry playing in resolving the western alienation movement?

Mr. Michael Wernick: I'd like to duck that and send it to the minister. But I think it's the typical kind of question this department is here to deal with, that all Canadians, wherever they live, should feel a part of a Canadian community and a Canadian society, that they should have opportunities to participate. So a lot of what we do is precisely to make sure that whether you live in downtown Toronto, or in rural Alberta, you're a full participant in Canadian society. A lot of what we do would speak to those issues.

It may not have that kind of label on it, but if it's about—to go back to your example—making sure that wherever you live you have access to the Canadian broadcasting service, whether minority language communities in the west are given the tools to develop and express themselves, whether it's working with a museum community in western Canada—a lot of what we do is certainly aimed at that sense of inclusion and participation. Whether we do it well enough or enough of it is really a question I'd have to send back to the politicians, but it is part of our mandate to build an inclusive country.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: What systems do you have in place to ensure even distribution of the funding, for example with Telefilm Canada and the National Council of the Arts, to ensure their grants get to all artists across the country, and not just those affiliated with the council?

• 0930

Mr. Michael Wernick: Each program or each form of support has its own design and its own rules. So Telefilm makes investment decisions by itself, under its own business plans and reporting structures, as to how to invest in film. The Canada Council has a jury system by which it distributes money to people who apply for it.

In each case there'd be a very different sort of sense of what's fair. You wouldn't necessarily want to distribute money strictly by population. The need or the opportunity may be concentrated in one part of the country or another. It may be that the media arts activity is clustered in Vancouver, or it may be that there's a very strong theatre company in Halifax, or whatever.

So we're not trying to sort of parse every dollar down to every particular census district. But to make sure there is—to go back to my first answer—an inclusion in our participation across the country, very often in the contribution agreements or the arrangements that govern a program there's an obligation for some sort of regional bonus, regional incentive, an envelope of some sort. Quite a number of our programs have a requirement that no less than a third be spent on French language content—that sort of thing.

The pattern will vary from program to program and service to service. But we do often, through those kinds of tools, try to steer and spread it out, so that it doesn't systemically just flow to the major urban centres, for example.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, followed by Ms. Bourgeois.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Good morning again. We met not long ago. I would like some clarifications about a couple of issues of interest to me. In my case, of course, they have a great deal to do with amateur sport.

My first question touches on a subject that was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne or in the Mills report. While there is a reference to it, no specific objective is stated. I am referring to the issue of the official languages as regards Quebec and francophone athletes.

I still see nothing on this in the documents or in your presentation. I am well aware that this is a very broad subject and I hope we will get back to it in the subcommittee on sport. Is there anything on it from the deputy minister? Have some official language programs already been established for Quebec athletes, the training of coaches and vice versa?

Mr. Norman Moyer (Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Canadian Identity, Department of Canadian Heritage): First of all, there is a very clear policy which states that if we establish a national sports organization representing all Canadians, it must be able to respect the official language of francophone and anglophone athletes, and offer all the necessary services. Every time we sign an agreement with a national sports organization, it must make a commitment on this. Every time we announce we will support some important games in Canada, there is a clause in the agreement that requires the organizer of the games in question to represent Canada in both official languages.

Following the study by the Commissioner of Official Languages, we introduced a strategy to support francophone athletes in particular, because athletes are sometimes required to continue their training in Calgary. When athletes are in elite ranks, it is sometimes necessary to go to Calgary or even the United States to continue their training. When they go to Calgary, the National Sports Centre in Calgary offers service for francophone athletes who are in the city to train. When an athlete chooses to follow his or her coach to the United States, obviously, there is more of a problem.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I have another question about grants and contributions. I looked at the expenditures for 2000-01, and I noticed that there had been a number of substitutions. I would like to know what the department's vision is, and why some grants can be given at some points, whereas elsewhere, the funding is in the form of a contribution.

Mr. Norman Moyer: We distinguish between the two concepts in that a contribution is provided to support specific results. We require a very specific description of the objective and the results. Often the amount is greater, and generally, interim reports and a much more careful follow-up are required. The amount of grants provided is generally lower and they are used to support the general objectives of the organization that receives that funding.

• 0935

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Who makes such decisions? Is it the officials or the minister who decides whether to provide a grant or a contribution?

Mr. Norman Moyer: We review the nature of the request and the officer in charge recommends either a grant or a contribution. The final decision within the department is not delegated; it lies with the ministers or the secretaries of state.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: If I may, I would like to ask a final question. We see that there is a great emphasis on education. I attended the World Conference on Doping and Sports held in Montreal on the week-end, and I would like to congratulate the two levels of government, the provincial and federal levels on this initiative. Finally, I think we can achieve something good. I believe in this. However, it goes without saying that the issue is extremely important. Is this partnership really possible? We have seen rather convincing evidence that there has been an attempt once again to invade the provincial jurisdiction of education. Will some respect be shown in this regard?

Mr. Norman Moyer: In the area of sport—and I think your question touches mainly on sport—it is clear the only way Canada can support individuals who want to take part and become top athletes is to have co-operation from non-governmental organizations, the two levels of government, the provinces and the municipalities within an integrated system. A single level of government cannot achieve that. In Canada, it is always a challenge to get the various levels of government to work together properly, but we cannot make any progress if you leave out any level of government.

In the consultation process we conducted this year, we explicitly asked all levels of government to take part, and we hope to be able to meet the challenge you have described.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: My last question is on funding. We don't have the new budgets yet, but it is clear that everywhere—in conferences on sport or on doping—the problem, outside of the issues of education and information, is funding. Will there be a new budgetary envelop for this, for antidoping programs and athletes?

Mr. Norman Moyer: From the consultations it is clear that some strategies are favoured by Canadians involved in sport and who want to see increased government support. Each government must establish its priorities and make certain decisions. I am sure that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of State will present what they heard during the consultations. However, it is up to the government to make these decisions once all the requests have been reviewed.

[English]

The Chair: Does anyone from the Liberal side have a question??

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I would like a quick question regarding the difference between the departmental agencies and the crown corporations. I know you said it was the degree of autonomy. I'm not sure what that difference is. Maybe you could just expand on that, Mr. Wernick.

Mr. Michael Wernick: I'll have to give you a very quick answer, which is that the crown corporations have considerably more control under the Financial Administration Act in generating revenues, disposing of property, dealing with their affairs. The departmental agencies are a little closer to the department in terms of their autonomy. A more detailed answer than that I'll have to get back to you on.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That's fine. Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

• 0940

Our broad understanding of what kind of culture Canada supports includes regional, local, national, and international activities, and I think that's stipulated in the Broadcast Act. But with the changes taking place right now, both at the national and the international level, I get the distinct impression that we are prepared to sacrifice regional and local expressions for the sake of some strong national institutions capable of being internationally competitive.

Examples of that are the continuing, as far as I'm concerned, cuts to the CBC; concentrations in private broadcasting companies, with fewer Canadian production funds overall; the recent 1999 changes in the Canadian Television Fund easing regional rules; consolidation in independent film and TV companies, such as that of Salter Street recently with Alliance Atlantis; and the consolidation in the book industry, Indigo taking over Chapters.

I can't help but think there's a choice being made within your ministry that we can sacrifice local and regional culture for the sake of a strong international competitive cultural sector. I'd like you to comment on that.

I don't mean to be paranoid, but I did notice that in your statement of strategic objectives the words “local” and “regional” did not appear. I know the words are chosen very carefully in a document like this. So maybe you could comment on that concern.

Mr. Michael Wernick: It's a policy comment, and I will have to refer you to the minister.

The words are carefully chosen, and the word chosen over and over again is diversity, and this includes the regional and geographical diversity of the country. In a number of the programs we require regional floors. There are bonuses, there are rules. I think in the festivals progam in Eileen's sector, or any number of the programs, there is an effort to ensure that there's activity in all parts of the country.

As you say, there's going to be a role for strong national institutions, for strong Canadian players on the world stage, but there's also very much a role for the local expression. It's not necessarily true that those stronger national players are only going to appear in Toronto and Montreal. They've popped up all over the country as well.

There's no question that there are changes taking place in the industrial structures, but there's certainly no policy intent to abandon the regions of the country, quite the opposite.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Following on that, I wonder about your intentions to support local and regional artistic endeavours. Do you have any idea of the state of our cultural and amateur sports infrastructures across this country? Do you have any kind of inventory on facilities, galleries, theatres, arenas, soccer fields, and the like, that are becoming dangerous and obsolete because of lack of infrastructure money that has not flowed for a long time? It's one thing to be able to say we have a travelling fund and an insurance fund for exhibits to move around, but the fact is that an awful lot of our actual cultural infrastructure, sports infrastructure, regionally, locally, is in incredible disrepair.

Mr. Michael Wernick: No question. But to go back to your colleague's question, we have a municipal level of government and we have a provincial level of government, and the federal government would be ill-advised to go and solve every infrastructure issue—the library in town A, or the hockey arena in town B. What we try to do is help through partnerships at the community level, both in the arts and culture and sports areas.

Mr. Norman Moyer: This is a good chance for me to underline that the governments, federal and provincial, did agree, in the new infrastructure program, to include cultural and sport infrastructure as items that could be covered, because there is a recognition that reinvestment in those areas is good for communities.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Just one more?

The Chair: There's lots of time, Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I know that affordable housing is included as well in that infrastructure program. It's everything but the kitchen sink. The problem is there's not enough money in it.

I'd like to ask you what kind of follow-up the ministry is carrying out on the study we undertook last year on the book publishing industry. We spent thousands of hours, and representatives from the industry came here and spent thousands of hours on their presentations and their research. I want to know what the status of our recommendations to the minister on the industry is.

• 0945

As you know, Indigo has now taken over Chapters. The situation is continuing to change. How are you monitoring that? How are you taking our recommendations and instituting them?

Mr. Michael Wernick: There are two parts to that answer. On the specific issue of the Indigo-Chapters transaction, I'll repeat what I said here before: the competent body to deal with that is the Competition Bureau. The Competition Bureau has an active file on that transaction. It's now deliberating about what to do, and they may any day now—they're masters of their own calendar on this—make some adjustments to that transaction and deal with any alleged anti-competitive behaviours. That's the body to deal with that issue.

As for the rest of the report, I can tell you that the committee's recommendations are my work plan in that area. That's exactly what my publishing group is working on. I'd be pleased to come back with a more detailed answer to that, but we took to heart your recommendations on statistics and data. We are trying to work very hard to establish consultative forums. Since your committee reported, we've created a book industry forum in both the English language and French language markets, where we bring together the writers, the publishers, the distributors, the wholesalers into one place to talk about issues and try to find solutions. That group has met three or four times in each of the languages groups. There's a meeting of the French language one this week actually, I think tomorrow.

The government in the Speech from the Throne made a commitment to do some things to strengthen the book industry. I think the minister will be in a position to make some specific announcements in the next couple of months, but essentially, the short version, it's our work plan.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Two or three things have hit me as other people have raised questions, certainly in relation to CBC, when we look at the comments in the Speech from the Throne signalling increased support for CBC as the public broadcaster. Yet, just a year ago, we had CBC gut many of the regional programs, the local programming. That wasn't popular in many parts of Canada, certainly on the east coast, in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in particular.

It's a bit ironic, I guess, that when all of us had been lobbying and demanding funding to try to keep the local programming alive, there wasn't any help, but immediately after the cuts are made, we're increasing funding to CBC. It almost looks as if it was an intentional ploy to get rid of local broadcasting, and now we'll boost up the new national perspective. I'll talk a little more about that later.

Mr. Michael Wernick: I'd encourage you to talk to the minister and to Mr. Rabinovitch. I wouldn't interpret it that way.

Parliament gave the CBC $901 million last year. It's going to give the CBC $923 million this year. Parliament asks the CBC to deliver two television networks, four radio networks, a northern broadcasting service, and an international service with that money. How it spends its resources is in the hands of the board of directors of the CBC and the CBC management, and they have a very tough job meeting those expectations with the resources they have. You wouldn't want me to interfere with the internal decisions of the CBC. That's what their board is there for, and you should really ask them and Mr. Rabinovitch about their priorities with that money.

What the committee, I gather, is going to turn to is whether the broadcasting system is meeting the objectives in the Broadcasting Act, which are very ambitious and very detailed, and the CBC is a very important part of that.

I won't speak for Mr. Rabinovitch, but what he's trying to do, as I understand it, is clarify what the national public broadcaster should be in that world, where there are now about 60 private broadcasters operating and another 289 just licensed. If you've got 300 Canadian services out there, what should the CBC focus on with the taxpayers' dollars? The CBC has to make those tough calls within its mandate.

As to the commitment the government made in the Speech from the Throne, I think it's precisely—if I can speculate—because it heard from this committee and others about how important the CBC is, the importance of it as a vehicle for content, as a vehicle for connecting Canadians to each other and for reflecting those realities. And there's a commitment to provide increased support. That will be turned into something substantial, as with all these things, in a budget or in decisions that the Minister of Finance and the cabinet will take over the next few months.

• 0950

I don't know exactly what the amount will be, but there won't be a lot of strings attached. If the CBC gets some more money, then the CBC board and management will have to decide whether it wants to reinvest in this or that, and I'm sure the committee would have advice to give them.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Ms. Lill mentioned the fact that the words “local” and “regional” are almost non-existent. We look at things from more of a national perspective, and perhaps there are arguments that can be made. But as we get into delivery on a more national basis, we wonder sometimes where the focus of that national delivery really is, and if it's a “made in Ottawa” or “made in central Canada” program. Then, even though it's delivered to the different sectors of the country, we can probably see the western alienation. Are we left out? Are we neglecting Quebec? Are we neglecting Atlantic Canada?

And even though we get more of something, it is certainly concentrated in a centralist area, rather than our getting more of what we really need in our own areas, more of our own local heritage and culture. I think we are becoming Canadian in a broad sense, but we're all being tarred with one brush, and a lot of people who make decisions are forgetting about the unique divisions within our country. If we neglect that, we're going to feel left out and alienated, and we're not going to be buying into the national perspective.

Mr. Michael Wernick: And the question is...

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Is that the intent? Is it the government theme or department theme to deliver cultural activities that are national in scope, hoping that we will accept the centralist view, rather than taking into consideration the needs of the different regions and the local areas?

Mr. Michael Wernick: Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. Perhaps I wasn't clear in the previous answers, but we are trying very hard to ensure the diversity of the country is reflected. That diversity includes every province, every community—every part of the country has some voice.

There will be—to take the broadcasting example—natural poles where activity tends to collect. In this country they are Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. In the United States they are Los Angeles and New York. In Germany they are Munich and Berlin. Those things happen in the marketplace. What we can do to balance that is to use the instruments of public policy, whether it's CRTC licensing, tax credits, the Canadian Television Fund, or other tools, to try to encourage, stimulate, nurture—I'm not sure what the right word is—activity in other parts of the country.

The tax credit support to make TV programs and films is available and generous, whether the film is made in rural Alberta or in Toronto. The television fund has regional bonuses in it. There are 450 production companies in this country, and a lot of them are outside the major urban centres. There's activity, I assure you, in every part of the country, and you know some of the Newfoundland and Labrador examples.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I know them well.

Mr. Michael Wernick: So is it enough? That's a judgment you'll have to make. But as a matter of policy, we're trying very hard in the cultural arena and in the other arenas of the department to reach out to all parts of the country.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have one other short question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Briefly.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: In relation to the delivery of funding in culture and heritage—I'm thinking particularly of the historical sites—a lot of it is at the provincial level through federal-provincial agreements, usually 80% federal money, 20% provincial, though the reverse can be the case. Quite often, with many of the attractions that need to be developed in the areas, the decisions made as to which ones are selected are very political, certainly at the provincial level, though certainly not, I would say, at the federal level.

• 0955

The old saying is that who pays the piper calls the tune. Don't you think that perhaps the federal end of it should have a little more say on how the funding is delivered, rather than having most of the decisions, as I would think is the case, being made at the provincial level?

Mr. Michael Wernick: I think it would depend on the instrument you're talking about. There were in the 1980s very formal federal-provincial agreements—cultural ERDAs they were called—where you would sign a multi-year agreement to fund particular projects. One of the struggles was always over who was going to have the final say on that.

We don't do those any more because in most areas—although there are some specific agreements we could point to—in many cases regarding infrastructure, capital works, cultural tourism, and so on, you'll find organizations like Western Economic Diversification, Agence de développement économique du Québec, and ACOA are very involved, because they know these are job creators, these are economic engines. So you'll find those organizations have their federal-provincial and municipal agreements on those activities. One of the things we try to do is make sure that they pay attention to cultural industries, cultural tourism, and that sort of thing.

As Norman mentioned, the instrument of choice these days is the infrastructure program, where it's a third, a third, a third. Ultimately, whether a cultural project or a sports project is going to rise to the top will depend a little on whether the Mayor of Ottawa, or the city council in Victoria, or the province, is going to get on board. But we do have, of course, a say in those programs as well.

I don't know what the right balance of power is on any particular agreement, but if you have a particular concern, we'd certainly try to get you more information on it.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, and then Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know it's quite fashionable in this country to blame the centre for so many things, and in the area of broadcasting, I don't believe centralization, as perhaps suggested by my friend Mr. Hearn, is so insidious. We all know the CBC went through a major reorganization of its regional and local programs last year. I think we forget that one of the results of that was a new show called Canada Now; it doesn't come from Toronto, it doesn't come from Ottawa or Montreal, it comes from Vancouver. I think we tend to forget that. I think we also tend to forget about programs that emanate from Calgary, Halifax, and elsewhere.

So I don't think it's as bad as you might suggest. I think Mr. Rabinovich, in his initial foray into reorganization last year, went too far with the cuts. There was an uproar around here, as you know. He pulled back a little, and some of the programs were saved as a result of that. He faces about a $30 million shortfall, and he'll have to do something about that.

I come from Winnipeg, and Winnipeg has had a show called Twenty-Four Hours there for 31 years this fall—I know because I was one of the original hosts of it. They now have 30 minutes for local talent and local production, as opposed to 60 minutes when I was there many long years ago. Have they suffered? I don't know. You could ask my friend Robert Enright, and I suspect that, to be political, Robert would have to say yes. But I think it's a matter of sometimes having to face these new challenges, perhaps with fewer resources. I've seen Twenty-Four Hours a bit since its reorganization last fall. I don't think it's suffering, and as I read the press and talk to my old friends at the CBC, they don't seem to be complaining, Mr. Hearn. But yes, in broadcasting, it's always better to have 60 minutes than 30 minutes.

But that wasn't what I really wanted to ask our witnesses. I wanted to ask them about the television fund. I'm a supporter of that, and I wanted you to paint a picture of the results, of the outcomes of the television fund. Who's taking part? Is it doing the job we would want it to do? I hope the results are good, but just give us a bit more detail on that.

• 1000

Mr. Michael Wernick: I'll try to be brief.

Mr. Chairman, it's one of my favourite subjects, because I'm on the board of directors of the fund as the minister's representative. And the minister just announced that our contribution to the fund was extended for one more year, pending the budget, so it will be active again this coming year.

The Chair: Mr. Wernick, could you tell us, especially those of us not familiar with it, what the size of the fund is?

Mr. Michael Wernick: Yes, of course. There is a Canadian Television Fund website, and all of its annual activities for the last four years are described. There's a ton of information on the website, so I certainly encourage members to go and look for it.

In general, it's a partnership between the Government of Canada, the department, Telefilm Canada, and the broadcast distribution companies, cable and satellite, to fund Canadian programming. It's not the only way Canadian programming gets funded; as I said, we have tax credits and we have programming that CBC makes directly. But this is an important instrument for funding programming made by independent production companies.

We as a department put in $100 million: $50 million comes from Telefilm Canada's base budget, an amount they've always been spending on television; and originally $50 million, but now about $80 million, comes from the satellite and cable companies as 5% set aside from their revenues. Throw all of that together and you get a pot of about $220 million per year to fund productions. The fund is administered by a board of 16 people, with representatives from producers, broadcasters, cable companies, the government, Telefilm, and others, who basically decide under what rules those funds should be allocated.

I would think of the fund essentially as a ranking system. There's about four times more demand than it can possibly meet, so it's really about how to allocate those resources. The money is spent entirely in the fields of drama series, documentaries, children's programming, performing arts, and variety. So there are all kinds of programming that are not eligible, not supported by the fund. Two-thirds of is spent in English language, one-third in French language, after about $2 million has been set aside for support of Aboriginal programming.

That's basically the allocation. So what you have is a pot of money for French language drama, a pot of money for English language children's programs, and so on. And each year producers and broadcasters apply to the fund—they're now in the middle of their allocation system for the coming cycle.

The real beauty of it, from a public policy point of view, is you're guaranteed that what is funded gets aired and seen by Canadians, because nobody can come into the fund unless they have a commitment from a Canadian broadcaster to air the program within two years of its being shot. So its not like European butter subsidy, where the product is just going to pile up in a warehouse and rot. The programming will be seen.

In short, it funds about 2000 hours of new programming a year—that's 8,000 new hours of Canadian programming already. The programming it funds is highly Canadian, because the eligibility criteria reward programs that have Canadian settings, themes, subjects. It has to have a very high participation on our famous point scale for tax credits. They all have to be ten out of ten, which means—

Mr. John Harvard: Sorry to interrupt you. When you mentioned there has to be this commitment from a distributor—

Mr. Michael Wernick: Broadcaster.

Mr. John Harvard: —broadcaster to show the program, is that a natural advantage for names already in the field, so the broadcasters won't be taking a risk with someone who is unknown, particularly if they're from some far off place away from the centre?

Mr. Michael Wernick: It's not been the pattern. We've had four years experience with it, and because television is a changing environment, things work, things don't work. If you know exactly what program is going to fly, you're going to be a very rich person. Things get tried and cancelled all the time, and as I said, we've now got 60 Canadian broadcasters who are trying to find their niche in the marketplace.

The pattern over the last four years—and I'd be happy to back this up if you'd like—is that you do get some continuity: a series like Traders or Omertà will come back for several years because it's working, but there is turnover. There's a lot of new programming; especially in the documentary and children's areas, new projects tend to be submitted each year.

• 1005

I would go back to Ms. Gallant's question. It's been absolutely essential for some of the capacity that's popping up in places like Edmonton, Halifax, other centres, because those companies have been able to afford the quality and the production values that used to be difficult for them to achieve. They get a track record, they get a relationship with the broadcaster, like CTV or TVA, and they're flying. To curb my enthusiasm, I think it's a tremendous success as a public policy.

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Michael and the whole team, for the presentation. It's always good to have you in giving us an update as to what's going on, how you're working with the minister's office and government in general.

One of the most prevalent things I've witnessed over the last few years sitting on this committee—and you've touched on it briefly—in the massive change you're undergoing, the challenge the government lays on your shoulders, the challenge Canadians place on your shoulders, is the attempt to make sure we remain distinct, we have a strong culture, a strong identity, while sometimes not having the necessary resources. I'd like first to share a couple of observations, and then ask a question.

First, I may be able to put Mr. Hearn's mind at ease, for the next couple of meetings anyway, until we get under way. I respect the fact that he's coming from the rural perspective, as do I. I challenge his comments about painting Canadians with the same brush, and I think we've spent a massive amount of time focusing on one or two words, inserting them in all the reports we ever participated in, and they were “respect” and “supportive diversity” throughout the entire country. We travelled across the country from coast to coast to coast just focusing on that very thing. And so I take a certain comfort when Mr. Hearn raises those kinds of questions, because we'll continue to make sure we focus on those things and respect all the diversity in Canada, not simply make a one-stop shop in Ottawa in that regard.

The other observation I wanted to share was regarding Ms. Lill's comment that there appears to be an abandonment of rural areas. I would think it's quite the opposite. When we're sitting here with full committee and you look at the representation and the kinds of questions that come out, the majority are actually rural members of Parliament from across the country. And so the perspective that comes out at committees, the questions directed to witnesses, quite often employ a rural lens, and we're more curious about what's happening outside of Ottawa than we are about what's happening inside. I see a progression to that. Are we doing things differently? Most certainly. Are we making uses of technologies that are available today, but were not 20 years ago? Most certainly, but I think we still have a very high degree of respect for rural culture, rural diversity.

The question I would pose to you is this. Through the throne speech or the department or the government itself, do you have a sense of comfort in the direction the minister has given in supporting the ability to ensure we maintain a strong Canadian identity through various things you've identified in here? And do you believe you're being provided with at least the minimum necessary resources to support that kind of initiative in this ever-changing global economy? And I hope you can expand on a yes or no.

Mr. Michael Wernick: The short version is yes, of course. Our role, as you know, is to provide advice and then to assure loyal implementation of the decisions made by cabinet. And we're very enthusiastic and comfortable with the direction we're being given. As a personal comment—and I'm sure I'm not contradicting my colleagues—it's the best department in town to be working in. It's the best committee, I would think, to be on.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Absolutely. I'll agree with you there.

Mr. Michael Wernick: So we share a tremendous adventure in these sets of issues. And I wouldn't be a good public servant if I didn't say sure, we could use some more resources here and there, but I think the challenge, which I accept, is, given what Parliament has made available to us, to make the best use of it, to be very clear about the objectives, to measure the results, to change things that aren't working, improve things that are. That's the ongoing task we have.

• 1010

On the rural issue, if you would just permit me one comment, that's where I would stress the opportunities of new technology. Because what you get with satellites and Internet and interactive digital networks is the chance to put an end to geography as a limiting factor. The Minister of Industry has this broadband task force under way right now, with a very explicit goal to bring broadband Internet to every corner of the country, and that's going to open up tremendous possibilities.

A small example in the broadcasting world is that the CRTC has just ordered all the satellite and cable systems to carry every French-language service that's licensed and available to them. So if you're a francophone in rural Ontario, you shortly will have access to 19 or 20 French-language services. That's something that would have been unimaginable about five years ago. So technology also brings with it some new possibilities.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Just to reinforce that, in the rural areas of my riding, Simcoe—Grey, only 15 years ago, in many places they had access to perhaps one or two channels with a set of rabbit ears. Many of the people in those communities—and it's not that they're backward in the least—had AM radios. So the transition that's taken place with the advancement of technologies in rural areas is mind-boggling. The fact that for $39 a month or thereabouts they've got 300 channels, the massive amount of Canadian content they have access to now, the Internet through which they have access to Canadian culture—it's absolutely phenomenal.

Mr. Michael Wernick: The real beauty of it is that it's two-way. It's not just a matter of being able to consume, but it's also to contribute.

I can give you lots of stories of a record company. With digital technology you can put a recording studio in your basement for about $50,000. You can send CD quality, industrial quality material to the record companies over the Internet. That's available today. You don't have to be in downtown Toronto; you could be doing it from any community you can think of. So I think you'll see the pattern of the creators start to spread out across the country as well.

The Chair: Mrs. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Talking about the television and film industry, what preparations are being made for the upcoming round of WTO talks to ensure that Canada's system of nurturing our fledgling television and film industry is not going to be negotiated away?

Mr. Michael Wernick: That's a question you should put to the Minister of International Trade and the foreign affairs officials. They operate under negotiating instructions given by cabinet, and cabinet's been very clear, in both the FTAA and WTO contexts, that they're not going to take on obligations that limit Canadian public policy in this area.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: As for recording and digital, what percentage of the revenues from the levy on recording media is going back to the recording artists? And what is the criterion upon which—

Mr. Michael Wernick: You mean the levy on blank recording material?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Right.

Mr. Michael Wernick: All of it.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So there's no administration?

Mr. Michael Wernick: The collectives that represent the artists may be taking some fee—I can look into that for you. But it never passes through government hands; it's collected by the copyright collectives and distributed to the artists—all of it.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Which artists are receiving it? Everyone across the board who is...

Mr. Michael Wernick: It's in proportion to their activity, and the copyright collective would make that determination.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay.

Now, does the ministry view the increasing participation of Canadians in Internet activity as a threat to Canadian heritage?

Mr. Michael Wernick: No, an opportunity. It's a tremendous opportunity, as I said, for creators to find audiences for new forms of expression. There are works being created that were unimaginable five years ago, ways of combining text, print, audiovisual under new works. You can get stuff to market, the costs are coming down, it's cheaper to publish books and make records and films than it was five years ago, and those costs are constantly going down. The Internet is a way for you to have a company in Saskatoon and have a worldwide market, and I can give you examples of companies that do that.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So the CRTC won't necessarily need any regulation on this form of communication?

Mr. Michael Wernick: Well, as you know, they took a decision about a year and a half ago that they would not try to regulate the Internet.

• 1015

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: And in the Speech from the Throne you mentioned ensuring access for aboriginal people. Will ensuring better access to Canadian society for our aboriginal people include dismantling the system of segregation, like reserves, or is it going to mean putting more funding into the bands—funding which may or may not get to the people for whom it's intended?

Mr. Michael Wernick: Well, you're asking questions you should put to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Our participation is with aboriginal communities, aboriginal cultural entities or aboriginal organizations. Most of those programs are in my colleague's area.

In my area, we provide support to northern native broadcast societies and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Aboriginal companies are eligible for and are encouraged to draw on the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund and so on. We don't run the Indian Act or the Indian Act system. To go back to your very first question, we simply try to make sure aboriginal Canadians are full participants in society.

Actually, a lot of those activities are more in Norman's area. Perhaps he would elaborate on that.

Mr. Norman Moyer: We undertake several kinds of activity that play on this, and, as Michael said, they do not play on the broad issue of the constitutionally legislated relationship with aboriginal peoples. They're based on the fact that if we're going to advance as a society, there have to be effective voices in the aboriginal community that are expressing their concerns, their interest in moving ahead, and how they're going to do it. We support those aboriginal organizations that give that kind of voice to aboriginal communities by providing some funding for aboriginal representative organizations.

We also have programs that intervene on behalf of aboriginal peoples not living on their reserves but living in urban areas, those who are having difficulty adapting in those situations, and those who need help in getting access to social services. We have programming in the form of friendship centres and in the programming of targeted youth support, which helps aboriginals in major urban centres to organize among themselves and provides a place they can come to in order to get access to the community.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Bourgeois.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. I am looking at the document that we were given entitled: Department of Canadian Heritage Overview. The last point mentioned is multiculturalism and the status of women, which also come under you. At the meeting held at the beginning of this week, we suggested that there be a committee that would report directly to the House. I must confess that when I look at the document you distributed, I wonder where we women can be found in it. I am very interested in issues relating to the status of women. We are nowhere there, even though we are part of the values put forward by Heritage Canada, and there is no problem there. What is happening as regards the status of women? Can you explain to me in a few minutes whether this issue comes under a subcommittee? It is of course one of the minister's responsibilities, but how does it work out? Could you talk about this department for me, as a newly elected member of Parliament?

Mr. Michael Wernick: This is a very good question. I would say that women are everywhere rather than nowhere. They are involved in all our activities. Ms. Fry demands that we be very vigilant about the participation of women in all our activities, and we support Ms. Fry in her responsibilities.

Mr. Norman Moyer: I can give a little more explanation about the role of the Secretary of State, Ms. Fry's two responsibilities. She is responsible for the status of women, and there is a separate agency that includes all of these responsibilities. Some day, you may ask this group to come and testify before the committee on matters relating to the status of women. There is a separate agency that reports directly to Ms. Fry on status of women issues.

The other half of her mandate is multiculturalism, the effort to combat racism. There is a branch within the department in my sector that deals with these issues.

• 1020

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: You are right to say that issues relating to the status of women cover many different fields.

For example, how do you deal with the status of Aboriginal women and that of women in the labour force? Do you handle that within multiculturalism or the status of women? That too is a good question. How do you deal with this?

Mr. Norman Moyer: That is a typical question relating to our responsibilities as officials. There are often horizontal responsibilities that cover all departments and all programs.

Personally, I am also responsible for official languages. I cannot do everything in my sector. The department must get involved and enforce the Official Languages Act. The same is true of issues relating to women. And you should invite the agency to appear before the committee. These people could tell you about a tool they have created. It is an analytical grid that determines the impact that any political issue can have on the role of women in society. We all use it in preparing our documents.

In the case of Aboriginal communities, for which I have a special responsibility, we decided that there should be a special place for women within the representative groups we are trying to support. As a result, we give grants directly to women's groups in Aboriginal communities, because they have asked for the right to have a distinct voice. We reviewed the situation, and we decided that indeed, women in these communities deserve a distinct voice. That is why we support groups that represent Aboriginal women. That is just one example, but that is how we implement the policy.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: I have one final question.

If the House leaders decided to set up a committee to study the status of women, I think that could lighten your workload, because if you have to deal with all the issues relating to the status of women, I imagine that this could sometimes involve a great deal of discussion. You do have to work together in order to meet the demands of the ministers and those of women, if I understand correctly.

Is my question clear?

Mr. Norman Moyer: This is an important aspect of our analysis; it is not an additional burden. It is part of our work; it is something we have to do. It is up to you to decide on the structures within Parliament, but even if there were a committee, we would still be responsible within the government for analyzing the impact of policies on women.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Yes, but all the efforts would stem from one location. If I understand correctly, at the moment there are a number of points you must take into consideration when you make a decision. Is that correct?

Mr. Norman Moyer: Yes, but there will always be a number of factors to be considered. It would certainly be helpful to us, because we could respond to the concerns expressed by parliamentarians, and that could certainly clarify the priorities today. As Michael mentioned earlier, the work on the book industry allowed this sector to target the most important aspects, to develop a strategic approach.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Expanding on Canadian culture on the international scene, Ms. Gallant posed a question about what strategies we have in place to protect Canadian culture at the WTO, or on the international stage, for that matter. You said the question might be better directed toward the international trade department, working in cooperation with you, of course. It's incredibly refreshing to have an Alliance member asking that kind of question about how we would best protect it. It's a direct contradiction to the form of the past position that always said it should be treated as a commodity just like the auto sector, the high-tech sector, or the softwood lumber sector. I'm just wondering if you could expand on that a little bit.

Have you seen any wavering whatsoever from the department or from the minister in terms of making sure we do have protections in place on the international scene, that we have internal mechanisms in place to protect our culture from globalization? I guess, in short, it's to make sure our culture is not treated like a car or is not treated like a computer.

• 1025

Mr. Michael Wernick: None whatsoever. I think the instructions given to people before the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle were very clear. There was input from this parliamentary committee, there was input from the parliamentary committee on international trade, and there was input from the cultural industry sectoral advisory group, the so-called SAGIT. The instructions going into this year are very clear as well.

I was before this committee presenting Bill C-55, and I negotiated with the Americans on the magazine issue. I have no doubts about the government's resolve on this.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lill and then Mr. Lanctôt.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think we should take you up on your suggestion that we have the Minister of International Trade in here to talk to us about the issue of culture, if that is in fact where you believe the buck stops. I think we would all have some questions for him on that.

I just have one question with regard to the information office. Does the heritage committee oversee the information office?

Mr. Michael Wernick: The Canada Information Office?

Ms. Wendy Lill: The Canada Information Office, yes.

Mr. Michael Wernick: No, it's under Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay, I don't have a question then. I wanted to ask about government television advertising, so I'll take it to them.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, briefly.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: There are two different aspects. First, about the antidoping file, how do you coordinate the amounts—and I am getting back to the funding I was talking about before—coming from the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and Heritage Canada? How do you do that? Is there any concertation there and how do we establish the amounts we need? These are really major amounts that we need quickly in this area.

Mr. Norman Moyer: As for the officials, there is an interdepartmental committee on all matters concerning doping, whether it is doping for recreational purposes or performance purposes. That is what we are discussing and the Department of Health is the one actually chairing that committee where we can put all our concerns about antidoping in sports in a more global context. But because of the unique nature of antidoping in sports, this concern is part of our policy at Sports Canada and the proposals we want to put to the government to fight against doping.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is concertation, but it comes from the Department of Health at that point.

Mr. Norman Moyer: They are the ones responsible for the use of narcotics or other drugs in society.

The Chair: Be very brief.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The other part of my question has to do with something that was mentioned a bit earlier, regionalization and all that. I am mainly referring to page 9 of your document with the heading "Diverse and Accessible Canadian Choices". In the last paragraph it says:

Passed a series of directives requiring the CRTC to ensure greater linguistic and cultural diversity of content

I hope that in that directive—and I wonder if the directives really go down that path—there is something concerning community television stations that are numerous in Quebec, that are concentrated and many of which are shut down and, for some time now, for many months now, have been asking for public hearings. I told you about that at our last meeting, but I am doing it again today. I did not get any follow-up or any directives. Will there be a public hearing and will there be directives to that effect to require access to community television stations which, on the other hand, have closed down?

In my riding, the station has been shut down since November 1999. We are asking to be reconnected and, of course, it is always the game with your Canadian fund. They have the choice of putting it into community television, for the cable companies, or putting it into the Canadian fund and it is easy to say today: we are just putting it there and we are washing our hands of it; we are putting it into the Canadian fund. I think you are going to have to rethink it all because maybe it is good to have it in the Canadian fund, but there are, at this point in time, community television stations closing down in Quebec.

• 1030

Mr. Michael Wernick: If I understand you correctly, because you had questions last week, the CRTC put out a press release on February 5. They are now at a consultation stage and they are looking for contributions from everyone. I think that deadline is the first week of May and the whole CRTC process is extremely transparent.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You know, this is the fourth notice we have been sent. People have had to write for briefs.

Mr. Michael Wernick: Yes, but that responsibility is the CRTC's. There are very restrictive limits in terms of what the government can do in giving directions to the CRTC. It has the power to give direction, but more to ask the CRTC to examine or review a file or things like that, not to tell it to do this, that, or the other thing. Maybe you could put that question directly to the CRTC. They could explain things directly. As for us, we will be looking at the consultation process and following the matter very closely, as we are already doing now, and if we had to recommend something to the minister after the consultation process, we would do so. The representatives of the CRTC can come here.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, as we pointed out last week, I think, that will be part of our work when we examine the whole matter of broadcasting. We will certainly call the CRTC before us and, at that point, you will have all the latitude you need to ask questions to find out what their point of view is and we will also call community television representatives before us.

[English]

Mr. Wernick, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you very much for being so available and for being so free with your answers to the members' questions. I think this has been very useful, especially for the new members of the committee. So I'd like to thank you and your colleagues very much.

Mr. Michael Wernick: Thank you for your interest and your questions, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to working with you in the coming months.

The Chair: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.