[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 9, 1995
.1104 
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I want to bring this meeting to order.
We have a considerable amount of work to do. We have a full quorum, which means we can proceed with our meeting and hear witnesses. It would be nice to have the opposition here. Chances are they're just late; let's hope they're just late. But we do have a full quorum and that means we can proceed.
.1105
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, can we proceed without the presence of the members of the opposition?
The Chair: Isn't that what I just said?
Mr. Serré: Yes.
The Chair: If I didn't make myself clear, we have a full quorum of six. That being the case, we can hear witnesses. If we had a truncated quorum, we would have to have one from the opposition, but since you people on the government side have been good enough to come out in full force, we can proceed.
Let me just point out a couple of things before we hear from our witnesses. We are going to be embarking upon an initiative in the days to come. We'll be dealing with that matter right after we hear from the witnesses, so I want you to stay around. The steering committee took a decision last week and we'll be acting upon that decision later in the meeting. That will be done under the rubric of future business.
Right now I want to hear from officials of Parks Canada. Shortly after I became your chairman I spoke to officials of Parks Canada, and they wanted an opportunity to say a few things to this committee. I thought we should oblige them in that regard, and that explains their presence here today. We're going to have a short presentation from them of perhaps fifteen to twenty minutes. Then if you're in the mood for questions, they'll stay here for questions. I want this part of the meeting to be over by 12 o'clock, because we have to get into future business.
So, without further ado, I want to introduce to you, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Thomas Lee, assistant deputy minister, Parks Canada; Michael W. Porter, director general, national parks; and George Ingram, director, policy legislation and government relations, national historic sites branch. I believe Mr. Lee will be beginning.
Welcome to the committee, Mr. Lee. You can begin.
Mr. Thomas Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have been asked to provide a brief overview, hopefully not in a manner that will bore everybody. If you remember who we are, that's great, but just in case you don't, I will summarize some of the things Parks Canada is involved in. I will then move on to some of the changes that are taking place that might be of interest to the committee and might at some time involve some responsibilities of the committee as you move into your future agendas.
Parks Canada is responsible for a number of programs. There are three that we operate and deliver directly.
The first of these are the 36 national parks, covering about 2% of all Canada's land mass and with annual visitation in the order of 14 million visitors a year.
We also operate and are in the process of establishing additional national marine conservation areas, which are the ocean or water equivalent to a national park. They are quite different, but are also part of Canada's heritage - not its land heritage, but its water heritage. We currently have five marine conservation areas.
We also directly operate and deliver or deliver through partnership the national historic sites of Canada. There are over 700 designated sites; 130 of these are directly operated by Parks Canada and receive in the order of 8 million visitors a year.
We also commemorate history throughout Canada through a system of historic plaques, of which there are about 1,200. These plaques, I might comment, are a very important part of heritage conservation in Canada. While they don't involve direct government money or assistance in the usual cases, they do serve to protect our national heritage and sites of national significance. You may well know you're sitting in one of our designated plaque national historic sites when you're sitting on Parliament Hill, but you would be if you were sitting down at the Chateau as well, as you would in various places in Canada. I think that is a very important element of the program.
.1110
There are three activities beyond the national parks national historic sites and the national marine conservation areas in which we play an important role.
First of all, we are the administrator for the heritage railway stations program, and that involves administering legislation relating to the protection of some 120 railway stations across Canada, owned by railway companies but designated to be of national historic value by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
We operate very closely with railways and with local communities. As the railways gradually and progressively remove themselves from some of these stations, many of these stations are being transferred to local municipal jurisdictions and will remain part of local heritage in that context.
The second area in which we're involved, or somewhat indirectly in an operating sense, is the Canadian heritage rivers program. This is a very unique program in Canada. It's a program of federal-provincial cooperation. Through that cooperative mechanism there is a system of heritage rivers being designated in Canada - currently 26 rivers. Every province and territory in Canada is involved. These rivers range from remote wild rivers in the Arctic to heritage rivers such as the Grand River in Ontario, which is an historic piece of southern Ontario where there are a lot of communities and a lot of interest in the river for its heritage value.
Finally, we administer a policy called the federal heritage buildings policy. That is a policy of the government to try to conserve and protect some 1,000 government-owned buildings that have or have potential heritage value. Basically that involves an examination we carry out across Canada of any building over 40 years old to determine whether it has value that should be retained in the future because of its architectural, historic or cultural significance.
I would note that our involvement also extends beyond the boundaries of Canada. We are actively involved internationally in a number of areas.
First of all, we are the designated agency in Canada, the lead agency, to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, the United Nations program on international heritage. Canada has 10 designated world heritage sites.
I'm please to note, Mr. Chairman, that in re-election of members last week in Paris, Canada was re-elected to the management commission for that convention. I think we could note with pride that our previous role in that commission was based very much on our strength in historical conservation. We were selected this time because of our strength in natural conservation. That's a tribute to Canadians - to the Government of Canada and the people of Canada.
Secondly, we participate internationally in a program called the man advisory program, which is a program of selected areas throughout the world that are chosen to represent the integration of man and the environment in a positive manner, demonstrating sustainable development, demonstrating conservation. There are six internationally designated biosphere reserves in Canada that we are responsible for.
.1115
We are also the state representative to the World Conservation Union, which is an assembly of some 130 governments and over 800 non-governmental organizations involved in conservation internationally. I would note that this October, Canada will be hosting the World Conservation Union congress in Montreal. That will involve somewhere in the order of 3,000 people from around the world for a period of two weeks in discussion and resolution of international conservation issues.
Finally, I would note that we are directly involved as an agency in assisting countries throughout the world in developing their skills and expertise in establishing, planning and management of their national parks and their national historic sites.
Within the past year, we have signed an international accord with Chile; we have just signed an international accord with Korea; and we will be renewing our relationships with the United States in close cooperation on our borders. We have completed or are in the process of completing various activities of technological assistance to countries such as Hungary and Russia, and Canada is recognized throughout the world for its expertise in this area and those are part of our activities.
That's a description or a quick snapshot of who we are and some of the activities we're involved in. There are three or four items I would want to explain to the committee, regarding changes that are or will be taking place in the direction and nature of our program.
The first change obviously is the need that government and Canadians have expressed for us to try to deliver our services, the operation of national parks and national historic sites, in as efficient a manner as possible.
Over the course of the coming two years - this year and the coming two years - we will be reducing our budgets by an order of magnitude of 24%. We are committed to doing that without reducing service to the public. That is not quite achievable, but we have a very important task to play in Canada, both in presenting these sites and also in an economic role that these sites play. Our objective is to reduce our budgets by that order of magnitude but retain service, keep sites operating and open. That is a challenge.
We will do that by making some changes in the way we operate. Since our last meeting with the committee, Mr. Chairman, we have retained the rights from Treasury Board to retain the revenues that people pay for their visits to parks and reinvest those directly back into the operations of the park. That is a very important step forward.
In the course of the past year, we made the first major adjustment in our fees in over ten years, and I can say that those adjustments were well accepted by Canadians across Canada. They appreciate and are prepared to pay a portion of the cost of the services they get, and the fact that they were made aware that these moneys were going directly back into this to pay for the services they were using, which was of great benefit in carrying out that change.
.1120
The second area in which we have made changes is our relationship to tourism in Canada. I think Parks Canada sometimes has been described as a reluctant partner in tourism activities, and that derives partially from the very strong conservation mandate we have. We believe we can meet our conservation mandate and can also contribute in a stronger way to the Canadian economy. There are a couple of pertinent facts that might be interesting to committee members.
First, other than visiting friends and relatives, a category called heritage tourism is the single most significant category of tourism in Canada, the reason why people visit Canada and places in Canada. That accounts for 33% of all tourism in Canada.
The second interesting fact is that if you open the Michelin tourism guide to Canada, you will find that roughly two-thirds or 66% of all three-star attractions listed in the Michelin guide to Canada are either operated by or supported by the Department of Canadian Heritage. We have a very deep and important role to play in the economy of Canada through tourism.
In the past year we have initiated very strong and cooperative work with the new Canadian Tourism Commission. We have participated very strongly in the initial thrust of that commission, which was a Canadian domestic marketing program, getting Canadians to stay in Canada, to visit Canada and to learn about Canada. There have been some very positive results.
We are participating in another initiative of the Canadian Tourism Commission. One of their focuses for the coming year will be the United States market. They will be marketing Canadian ecotourism, and obviously that's one of the businesses we're in.
Finally, we have cooperated in a number of international missions to various parts of the world, to Europe, Asia and Japan, to market Canada and the tourism offering in Canada.
The third item that I think is of some interest to the committee is the work we are doing to establish new parks. We are facing some quite profound and deep changes in terms of our budget, but we have an undertaking not only to maintain service in existing parks but to contribute to the fullest extent possible to this government's commitment to work towards the completion of the national parks system by the year 2000.
Completion of the parks system by the year 2000 is a very ambitious task that would require the creation of approximately sixteen new parks. That may prove to be unattainable, but I want to assure the committee that we are progressing along those lines as as quickly as we can.
In the past year we announced that in conjunction with British Columbia we would be proceeding to create a new national park in the Gulf Islands and the Strait of Georgia and one or more new additional national marine conservation areas on the Pacific west coast.
We are very close to concluding arrangements and negotiations for a new national park at Churchill, Manitoba. That park will encompass the largest single known breeding area in the world for polar bears.
.1125
In the past year our minister announced the withdrawal of lands for our new national park which lies between Paulatuk and Coppermine on the Arctic Ocean, in conjunction with the agreement of the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit people and the Inuit people. That park, called Tuktut Mogait, which means baby caribou, is the home of the Bluenose caribou herd, one of the largest herds of caribou in Canada. We are proceeding with negotiations for new parks in a number of other areas of northern Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth noting the unique relationship we have established with Canada's aboriginal people in the creation of these parks. It's an exemplary activity in terms of building cooperative partnerships with the aboriginal people. Last week the international union for the conservation of nature, the world body I mentioned, gave an international award to the Inuit people for their cooperation in establishing new parks in Canada. I think that award was richly deserved and reflects well on the aboriginal people and, I believe, on the work we're doing.
Finally, this is partially an update from last year. We noted in our presentation to the committee last year that we had a number of legislative items we anticipated we would have to deal with. We noted specifically that there are amendments required at this time to the National Parks Act.
Those amendments are required for a number of purposes. Some of them are housekeeping, but some are needed to create the new parks, some of the new parks I've just mentioned, because at this time those are created by an act of Parliament. We have not yet completed our work on that but we are progressing. This is an item that the committee might anticipate having come before it once we have received direction and the mandate from government.
We also noted last year that we had to proceed to start work on an act relating to the national marine conservation areas. We currently administer the national marine conservation areas under the National Parks Act. The National Parks Act was established for the purposes of managing a land park. You get into quite a different situation when you're managing a park that encompasses parts of an ocean, islands in the ocean, whales, birds and various other wildlife and natural features.
We will need to create new legislation or modify legislation in order to enhance our ability to manage these areas. We have started work on that item. I should indicate that we are very closely connected in this case to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I appeared two weeks ago before that committee to talk about the relationship between our national marine conservation program and the new oceans act, which is currently before that committee. That work is ongoing.
I cannot give the committee an estimated time as to when we might bring forth considerations for national marine conservation areas legislation. There's a lot of work to be done. We have a lot of constituents we need to talk to in the process of developing the ideas around that legislation. Last year we invited the committee to become involved in any way they might choose in developing ideas around that. That offer, Mr. Chairman, obviously remains open. I could simply say that we have started the work on it at this point in time.
.1130
Mr. Chairman, that does complete my presentation. I would welcome any questions you might wish to pose.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee. If we need it, we have up to half an hour for questions.
We'll start with Mr. Ianno.
Mr. Ianno (Trinity - Spadina): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for informing us. Looking at some of the information you've given us, it's a pretty large area in terms of land mass that you have to deal with, and there are many responsibilities.
I'm also interested in these 14 million visitors per year, when you take into account that in some ways it's almost more than the total sports audiences in the country. Having heard that you worked with the increased budget of tourism and that you were working with Mr. Buchanan and company, I'm curious as to how you're fitting into the marketing side of it.
Mr. Lee: Last year, for example, the domestic marketing program was run. I don't know how many of the members might have seen it, but I'm sure you will recall the tourism ads on television. We wrote and prepared much of the material for that campaign. That campaign was based very much around the heritage of Canada, either natural or historical. So the advertising campaign went at that.
I would note something for the members of the committee. Again, I think this is quite interesting and quite profound. There was an Environics poll conducted a little over a year ago, and Canada's national parks and national historic sites ranked only behind the Canadian flag and the national anthem as symbols of Canadian identify. These are profoundly important places for Canadians, much more than even I would have thought, and I'm very proud of the program.
Mr. Ianno: Have you seen any positive results from the marketing, such as having Canadians stay more in Canada versus travelling abroad?
Mr. Lee: It's a chicken and egg question, isn't it? We're doing very well in tourism in Canada right now. There's very deep and positive change. Now, is that the result of the domestic marketing program? I'm not sure. Was external tourism the result of the value of the Canadian dollar? I think we can say very much so, but the marketing effort also worked.
Perhaps it can be seen when you get to some of the work that was done at a more specific regional or locational level. This year, for example, we celebrated the anniversary of Louisbourg and accompanied that with a very aggressive marketing campaign, both regionally within Canada and in places like Boston and so on. I can say it made a big difference.
Mr. Ianno: What have the last three years been like in terms of visitors in the national parks? Do you have numbers?
Mr. Lee: I don't have those statistics.
Mr. Ianno: I'm curious to see the next two years also so I can see if there's a growth in numbers and in terms of the expenditure.
Mr. Lee: I think you're very right in your question. We need to have a mechanism to track that.
Mr. Ianno: Could you get that to the committee as you receive any of that information?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
I should say that the marketing of the national parks and historic sites involves some other motives as well. First of all, almost 50% of our visits are occurring in the mountain parks. Now, that could be because Banff is on the Trans-Canada Highway and so on, but we have a lot of capacity. Our mountain parks - Banff, for example - are very heavily used, some would argue to the point of overuse. On the other hand, the rest of the parks system has good capacity. Places like Louisbourg, without any additional operating costs or any new infrastructure, can easily accommodate about a 30% increase in visitations. Some strategic marketing has to be done on this.
.1135
Mr. Ianno: I know the marketing. I think I read in one of these things that there is $700,000 of revenue in sponsorships from some of your marketing plans. Is that correct?
Mr. Lee: That's partially correct. We have an umbrella organization in Canada called the Canadian Parks Partnership. It represents a number of local organizations that occur right at the park level. They're park volunteers, mainly from the local communities, and cooperatively they offer programs in the park, and market and sell heritage-type products. I invite you to buy their series of Christmas cards on Canadian national parks and national historic sites.
Mr. Ianno: What are you doing to get that to be $7 million versus $700,000.
Mr. Lee: They're independent, so we're cooperating with them. They don't work for us.
Mr. Ianno: How do you do it so Parks Canada gets $7 million in revenue in a way that does not diminish the integrity of Parks Canada or the parks but still get sponsorships, especially if you take into account the ecology, the wildlife and all the rest, so we can do some positive marketing and have companies contribute to save some our heritage?
Mr. Lee: That's exactly what they do. The money they earn goes back into the parks -
Mr. Ianno: Is it Parks Canada?
Mr. Lee: The money the Canadian Parks Partnership -
Mr. Ianno: Yes, but I'm asking about Parks Canada. Because of the difficult times Canadians are facing with the budgetary restraints, I'm trying to find out how you can become self-sustaining, if it's possible at all. How do you get your mind geared to start becoming entrepreneurial in a way that doesn't hurt the parks, yet still gains revenue? Where are the creative juices coming from?
Mr. Lee: There are a number of things on the books. We're moving progressively in this area. We have one of the largest collections of heritage products - whether they're archaeological, chairs, dresses, or designs - in Canada. We are currently in the process of developing that collection into a Canadian heritage product line, which would be manufactured and sold through the private sector ,with us retaining a licensing agreement for revenue.
Mr. Ianno: You're not giving it to Disney?
Mr. Lee: No, but that is one of the examples. We have also been mandated by government, and are in the process of finalizing our work, to provide a mechanism through an independent foundation to access private sources of money for Canadians who would like to give to the creation of a new park. That is currently -
The Chair: Do you have other questions, Mr. Ianno? Perhaps we could come back to you shortly.
Mr. Serré, five minutes.
Mr. Serré: Thank you for a good presentation. I'll give you some background on my riding, as it might help you answer my question.
The town of Cobalt in my riding is where they discovered silver. It was the first town that opened up the mining industry in northern Ontario. We have quite a few buildings of historical significance, such as the old railway station and many others. It's never been designated as a national historical site. What are the criteria to have such a property designated heritage? What is the process to have it approved? How would the budget cuts affect any new designation?
Mr. Lee: I know Cobalt and I know some of the buildings you are talking about.
George, I would appreciate it if you answer the process question. It's quite clear.
.1140
Mr. George Ingram (Director, Policy, Legislation and Government Relations, National Historic Sites Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage): Yes, Mr. Chairman, the process is that there's an advisory board to the minister, which is the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
In effect, in the case of Cobalt, if there are buildings, or actually an historic district itself and so on, then any aspects of the history of Cobalt that you consider to be of national significance would be brought to the attention of the board. A paper would be prepared that would identify the various aspects of the history. Based upon its deliberations, it would make a recommendation to the minister as to whether either individual buildings, or the district of Cobalt, or various aspects of that history were of national significance and should be in some way commemorated as part of the program.
Once it receives that designation of national historic significance, if it's a positive recommendation, then this can lead to any number of developments. There could be a plaque put there, which in effect is the recognition of whatever aspect is identified as being of national significance.
There are other programs, such as a national cost-sharing program. So if in effect there is an opportunity, such as a partner and so on, and the board recommends that it should receive some sort of financial assistance, then it could be considered eligible for some sort of funding under the national cost-sharing program.
In effect, that's the process. Quite frankly, you've started a process now by bringing to our attention the fact that you feel Cobalt should be considered by the board. If you like, afterward I could explain how we can then take action on the next step, whereby the board could consider it.
Mr. Serré: Could you provide me with something in writing, so I don't tie the whole board to this present question?
Mr. Ingram: Yes, with pleasure.
Mr. Serré: Thank you very much.
The other question is with regard to the designation of rivers as national heritage rivers. I believe that the French River was so designated a couple of years ago. I'd like to know the impacts of such a designation on the development of those rivers and use of the river itself. What are the implications?
Mr. Michael W. Porter (Director General, National Parks, Department of Canadian Heritage): I can answer that, Mr. Chairman.
The Canadian heritage river system, as Mr. Lee said earlier on, is a federal-provincial-territorial cooperative arrangement in which the jurisdictions don't change.
The French River, which was the very first river designated under this program, is an interesting one. It was designated very largely on its historical and cultural values. This is as opposed to its wild and scenic values, which it does have. But it was essentially based on the historical and cultural side of things.
In the designation of the French, the local communities felt very strongly that the important thing to retain was lifestyle and cultural values. It was at the very strong request of those communities and the Ontario government that the French was not put on a national promotion list that we would normally use through the offices of Parks Canada. In fact, the promotion of the French was - and is - fairly low key, simply because there was a feeling at that time that it was at capacity, and that there was no local will to generate more tourism than they had. They were quite satisfied with the status quo.
That's not the case in other rivers, where there is a capacity to expand, much as many national parks. Some were at capacity; some could take lot more.
It's exactly the same thing with Canada's river systems. In the event that a jurisdiction does determine that there are benefits to increased promotion by bringing in more tourism and outfitting, then, from a national point of view, we undertake that kind of promotion. It really is at the behest of the jurisdiction, the needs of the particular local communities, and the river itself.
The Chair: Thank you.
We're going to have to wrap this up by no later than 12:05 p.m., Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Solberg (Medicine Hat): First, I want to apologize for coming late. I apologize for missing the first part of your presentation. But I am curious to know - maybe you went over this - a little bit about the organization of the department, particularly in light of your comments about having to reduce your budget by 24%, which is what I think you said.
Could you describe briefly how the department is organized? If memory serves me, obviously you have a bureaucracy here in Ottawa, but you also have regional departments or regional offices. Is that right? Then, of course, you have people at the field level. Is that correct?
.1145
Mr. Lee: That's correct.
Mr. Solberg: Roughly how many employees do you have, and how would they be distributed through that system?
Mr. Lee: First, I'm the ADM for Parks Canada, so my responsibilities are basically to direct the program across Canada: provide the legislation; provide the policy; and, through government, provide the money and distribute it; and decide nationally the priorities for new parks, old parks, operations and so on.
The delivery of the program is carried out through the field offices in our six regions in Canada. The regional office is responsible for the management of the historical sites and the national parks in that region. The actual management of the parks occurs right at the park level at the superintendent level.
That deals with the organizational question. Would you repeat the second part of the question?
Mr. Solberg: You're faced with this challenge. On the one hand, you want to expand the parks system, plus you have to cut back your budget. There are only a couple of ways you can do that, of course. I'm curious to know about how many people you have distributed at the field level, for instance, compared to the upper or middle levels of management.
Mr. Lee: I will give you a rough cut on that.
Mr. Solberg: Sure, that's fine.
Mr. Lee: At full strength, in the high operating season, we have about 6,000 people working for us. Our full-time staff is roughly half that, in the order of 3,000. This is the distribution: fewer than 300 people are in Ottawa, with the rest of the 3,000 or 6,000, whichever, out in the field. The 300 in Ottawa, I have to say, includes people who are operational, because we operate two conservation laboratories in Ottawa as well. The actual head office component of Parks Canada would probably be less than 200. Maybe it's 150.
Mr. Solberg: What about the regional offices? Do you have many staff there?
Mr. Lee: Yes. One could say we even have too many, but the ``too many'' will disappear as part of the reduction that is scheduled.
Mr. Solberg: Further along the same line, right now are all the services that are provided in the parks by Parks Canada provided by employees or do you contract out some of those services?
Mr. Lee: The historical way of carrying out the operations was for Parks Canada to do it all. As part of the transition we're in, changes are taking place. We're looking for the most efficient and cost-efficient way of delivering those services and, at the same time, maintaining the quality of services. That's extremely important.
We are basically shifting away from that full operational role. We deliver already through private partners, contracts, and a whole range of partnerships. For example, the new historic site in Hawthorne Cottage in Newfoundland is not operated by us at all, but by a non-profit association. Quite large shifts are occurring - these will have to occur - as part of budget changes.
Mr. Solberg: I'm just going to ask one more question. I guess I'm primarily concerned with the park in my province with respect to Banff.
.1150
I guess I'm concerned on two points. On the one hand I have people raising concerns about the fees, and on the other hand I certainly appreciate the need to have dedicated fees. I think it's a good idea. But I'm also concerned about the pull and tug that goes on in that park, and whether or not we're getting close to any kind of resolution. I guess what I'm wondering about are the long-term prospects for the park and whether or not those dedicated fees are going to go up or down, how those fees are going to be used, and those kinds of things.
Mr. Lee: I appreciate that depending on the audience, you might get a variety of views on the fees. From the perspective I have on them, the fees that were introduced this year certainly went well. The level of acceptance really was quite high. We're not finished; as you may know, we will be making some additional changes in the fees this year. For example, I expect we will enter into different fee arrangements with the tour bus companies, which will be done in discussion with them.
The larger issue, the other issue that you raised, which as Canadians we read about in the paper almost every day, is the conflict between the development community - although that isn't the proper word - and the conservation community. I don't like to put labels on people, but if we have to, those are the ones I would use. But this conflict that is going on is rife; it's a very intense conflict.
As you would be aware, in order to try to come to grips with this our minister appointed a panel, the Banff Bow Valley Task Force. It is using a kind of community round-table method to try to get at this and to see if we could arrive at a vision for Banff, and specifically the Bow Valley in Banff; to see if the tourism community, the commercial community, the environmental community - the people who work and live in Banff - could agree on the future. That's the problem and the task that we have. Will we achieve it? My optimism says we will achieve something. Whether we get....
One might despair to think that everybody might some day agree on what Banff really should look like in the year 2020. That, however, is what we're asking people to try to come to grips with. The report is due this coming year - in June, I believe. I'm working very closely with it; I'm very closely tied to it, as you would appreciate, in terms of trying to help and to urge people to reach that direction of consensus. We'll make progress.
The Chair: Thank you.
We're over time on this particular round. Mrs. Gaffney, then Mr. Loney.
Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): I'll be quick.
Mr. Lee, Mr. Porter and Mr. Ingram, thank you very much for coming. It was an interesting presentation for one who spent a holiday in Atlantic Canada and toured Prince Edward Island National Park - P.E.I. is my native province, by the way - Louisbourg, and Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland.
You're talking about tourism here and how you are promoting it. You are saying it is going well. If a Canadian said to you, ``I want to tour your national historic sites in British Columbia and the western Arctic'', rather than having them go through all the process of booking a little plan from here to there, do you give them a full package of what they could do and how they could do it? Do you do something that would make their life a little bit easier? In other words, do you provide that tourism package for them?
Mr. Lee: We don't go quite that far, but we have started something very interesting across western Canada. In the past year, in cooperation with the industry, we've a set of what would basically be called heritage tourism guides. They do almost exactly what you say. They say that if you want to do Vancouver and the Pacific coast, here are a number of ways in which you could package it. The sale of that package is done by the private sector, not us, but we are developing that package.
.1155
The other one is a very good example. You mentioned Gros Morne. The work that is going on, both in developing tourism infrastructure and in promotion of the western peninsula of Newfoundland, is outstanding.
What we have with Gros Morne is truly one of the great national parks of the world. If you haven't visited it, go do so, because it is outstanding. It is a profound park. It ties together with a number of very significant historic sites, including L'Anse aux Meadows, the Viking site on the northern end of the peninsula, Red Bay on the southern Labrador shore, and Port au Choix, which is another historic site. Combined, those things are a tourism package that is being promoted collectively through the concept of the Viking Trail; they are all part of the Viking Trail marketing effort.
Mrs. Gaffney: To me, Gros Morne is a holiday in itself. You could spend two weeks there.
Do I have time for another question?
I couldn't see anything in your book with regards to the waterways, but I know that Parks Canada governs the Rideau system from the Ottawa River, into the Trent-Severn Waterway, all the way to Georgian Bay. As one who lives on that system and is also a user of that system, the evidence of cutbacks was really very noticeable last summer in terms of quality of service. Last summer was the first year when you really had that cutback.
Is it constantly under review? Are you doing some kind of analysis of it? What kind of review are you doing with that system?
Mr. Lee: We have completed the review and have released the results to the public. Perhaps I could get you a copy of it, if you could just remind me to.
First of all, this is one of the more difficult and serious management problems and challenges that we have. It's a very expensive system to operate, as you would appreciate. It is of great historical significance. It is used by a large number of people, but we have had to reduce the hours of service there. What we did - and this is in the document that I will give you - was undertake to provide some stability for the future. We said, we will not come back next year to reduce it more; we are going to have to make the reduction but will try to hold to the following hours of service over the next four years. That was an attempt to try to give the business community and the users the stability they need to plan their annual thing.
We have done that. We did make the reductions, and we're not quite finished, but I can say we are trying to do it as well as we can.
Mrs. Gaffney: It's a major tourism attraction.
Mr. Lee: It is, and I can tell you that when I spoke to the Tourism Industry Association of Canada in Montreal three weeks ago, I specifically referred to those two canals as one of the lost marketing opportunities in Canada. If they were in a different country, such as one in Europe, these things would be known not just nationally but internationally. So we've got some work to do.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Loney, then Mr. Peric.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Lee, in your presentation you made reference to the heritage railway stations. Does Parks Canada's involvement encompass railway museums that are set up either as foundations or organizations? Are you involved there?
Mr. Ingram: Mr. Chairman, we are not involved under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act per se. In effect, it is a piece of legislation that has been in place since 1988, and by which railway stations are designated to be of heritage value. If they are designated to be heritage railway stations, any sorts of changes to those stations or disposals by the railways have to go through due process.
.1200
In terms of assistance to railway museums, if funding were provided through Parks Canada programs, it would be done through a program such as the cost-sharing program. As a matter of fact the Smiths Falls railway station, which is a museum as well, has received funding through the cost-sharing program because it is considered to be of national historic significance. In other words, it would be eligible for funding under our programs if it were a national historic site, but not under the heritage railway program.
Mr. Loney: So there would be recognition and partial funding, then.
Mr. Ingram: If the building were viewed as a building or a national historic site per se - if it were brought to the attention of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the board recommended that it was of national significance and was eligible for funding - then it could receive funding through the national cost-sharing program, such as was the case with the Smiths Falls railway station.
Mr. Loney: Thank you.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Lee, what is your budget and how much are your revenues?
Mr. Lee: I will give you the business plan. Basically this is where we started from. Two years ago we were at $35 million in revenue. Our business plan will double that revenue in five years, so we have a target revenue of $70 million. As of this year we are at about $46 million. So we've moved from $35 million to $46 million and our target is $70 million.
Mr. Peric: Thank you.
The Chair: Can I just piggyback on that? What portion of that is from the public, from the government and from the taxpayer, and how much is from elsewhere?
Mr. Lee: All of that is revenue.
The Chair: So what do you call the ``other''?
Mr. Lee: The ``other'' is appropriations.
The Chair: How much are the appropriations?
Mr. Lee: I don't have the actual figure with me.
The Chair: What's the percentage, then? Of all the money that is available to you, what portion is called revenue and how much is appropriation?
Mr. Lee: I'm trying to do some calculations.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Ianno.
Mr. Ianno: As to the $46 million you say you're at now, when did you start the five-year program?
Mr. Lee: We're in the second year.
Mr. Ianno: So you went from $35 million to $46 million, and I'm hoping there's an upward curve, so I guess hopefully in two to three years you could reach the $70 million versus the $5 million increase, with the progression there seems to be.
Mr. Lee: Yes, the target is $70 million in 1999.
Mr. Ianno: Did you grow $5 million or $6 million each year of the two you've already proceeded on, or are you on your second, meaning the $11 million occurred in one year?
Mr. Lee: We started at $35 million. The first year we moved it to $39 million and this year we've moved it to $46 million.
Mr. Ianno: All right; I see the progression.
The Chair: I was just looking at the 1995-96 estimates, and it looks as though the revenue was $38 million and the total budget was $326 million. In other words, the appropriations are a bit under $300 million, according to what I'm reading.
Mr. Ianno: I have a couple of other small questions, if it's possible.
The Chair: Okay, we have one or two minutes.
Mr. Ianno: I want to go back to a more local level. You mentioned heritage railways stations. In terms of the Toronto situation, were you involved at all with the John Street railway line?
Mr. Ingram: I'm not familiar with that one specifically, no.
Mr. Ianno: Let me ask an overall question then, regarding the Toronto waterfront, which has a lot of historical sites. Does Heritage Canada, Parks Canada or Historic Sites deal with that at all? Are you looking at that at all?
Mr. Ingram: Again, our involvement in the program of national historic sites would be either through the designation of the area as an historic district or of individual buildings as historic, or else through the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. In this case, what's happened with the waterfront buildings is that I think the commission voluntarily came forward with some of the buildings and had them evaluated. They have been, in effect, looked at under the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office.
.1205
Mr. Ianno: But you are not looking at sites that would be of historical value and trying to push the agenda?
Mr. Ingram: Only if they have been brought to the attention of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and designated as national historic sites. That's our trigger for being involved.
Mr. Ianno: And who would designate?
Mr. Ingram: In effect, it's the minister, on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board.
Mr. Ianno: So it would have to be the minister. Do you keep him apprised of potential places where Canada should have involvement?
Mr. Ingram: In effect, yes. What would happen is that there are a number of sources whereby items are brought to the attention of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. It can be the general public, it can be through our systems planning, where we're attempting to identify those places that should be looked at.
Mr. Ianno: And who in the department deals with the Toronto waterfront? Does anybody?
Mr. Ingram: It would be part of our organization. In general, I think probably the best way to do it is to have information come through the secretary of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, which perhaps could be helpful.
Mr. Ianno: And how do we find out if they've been apprised of it and haven't really dealt with it?
Mr. Ingram: I could undertake to do that.
Mr. Ianno: Could you do that for me, because there are several. There is the Humber River, in terms of some of the battles and some of the historic value.... Some of my constituents are concerned that somehow Heritage Canada may be, to use their term, sleeping at the switch. I'm curious about that.
Mr. Ingram: What I can undertake to do is to provide a list of all the designations in the Toronto area for your assistance.
Mr. Ianno: I'm more concerned about those that have been ignored or have been turned down as opposed to just the ones you've actually done.
Mr. Ingram: I would undertake to do an assessment, then.
Mr. Ianno: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: On behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Lee, I want to thank you for coming, thank you for your presentation. Our thanks also go to Mr. Porter and Mr. Ingram.
I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Lee, that especially at this particular time, Canadians are naturally concerned about Canadian unity and our identity. I was happy to learn from you that our parks system is one of the most prominent symbols, right up there with the anthem and the flag, and I would invite you, on behalf of your department, to submit any ideas to this committee with respect to how your department can perhaps use your facilities to strengthen our identity and Canadian unity. If there's something we can do, short of supplying you with more money, we're always near our phones.
Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not ask you for money. I do not ask anybody for money. But I very much appreciate the offer.
The Chair: Thank you, again.
Colleagues, under new business, we have some significant matters. Why don't we take about a two-minute break to allow our officials to leave, and then we'll start.
Thank you.
.1208
____________________________________________________________________________________________
.1211
The Chair: Colleagues, can we resume our business. We have a couple of things to discuss.
By the way, this is in public, this is not in camera. It is open to the public, as it should be.
I want to exercise my prerogative of saying a couple of things before we get into the meat of our discussion under new business. Colleagues, on October 30 Canada had both a close call and a wake-up call. It had a close call because of the tightness of the referendum in Quebec; a wake-up call because of the realization that the greatest country on earth nearly slipped through our fingers.
In my opinion, Canadians are a rather shy bunch, especially when it comes to extolling the virtues of Canada. We don't brag much. We don't boast much - at least, not enough. We don't flaunt our patriotism. We are patriotic. We do have patriotism, but we don't let it all hang out, and I think it's time to change our ways.
Canadians must learn new ways to give themselves confidence, to feel confident about our country. We must find and develop new ways to express that confidence in ourselves and in Canada. After all, in my opinion, is a country really any different from an individual person, a family or an institution? All need emotional support. Canada needs emotional support, not just right now but every day, in good times and bad.
If Canada were a car company, you might say it has a great line of cars but its sales and promotional department needs a little shaking up. Since the referendum, Canadians have been asking what can be done outside of the political arena to keep this country together, to strengthen our confederation. They're searching for ways to learn more about ourselves and to celebrate the great history, the traditions, the values and the successes of Canada. In that regard, I believe this heritage committee can play a significant role.
Colleagues, our steering committee met last week and this matter was the number one item on the agenda. We agreed that this Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should pursue an initiative to help foster and promote Canadian identify and Canadian unity. It was generally agreed, and of course it has to be ratified, if that's the term, by the full committee, that we should carry out an exercise in which this committee would reach out to all Canadians, appeal to all Canadians to give us their ideas on how we can promote and foster Canadian identity and Canadian unity, outside of the political arena.
.1215
This is not going to be an exercise in looking at the Constitution or particular policies. We have programs, we have delivery systems, yes, in the government sector, in the public sector, that perhaps should be looked at in one way or another. But we want to hear from Canadians as to how they individually and in groups, collectively, can do this job of fostering and promoting Canadian identity. I might have some ideas, and I'm sure that you people have some ideas, but millions of Canadians out there who dearly love this country I'm sure have their ideas on how to promote Canada, and I'm sure they would want to come forward to us as a committee to tell us what can be done.
What can be done, say, among the universities? What can the student federations do; that is to say, the university federation of students? Or the school trustees, ethnic organizations, chambers of commerce, or the Canadian labour unions?
We're all Canadians. We all dearly love this country. I don't think we would want government to do it all. In fact, I think most Canadians would want to do it in their way, in their own inimitable style.
What I want to see and what the steering committee generally agreed to was for this committee over the next while - and we didn't put a date on it - to act as a receiver of these ideas, as a repository of these ideas, so that we can look at them and then mirror back to Canadians what we've heard, what we've been told. Then we can prepare a report and tell the government what we've heard. Perhaps these are some of the things that can be acted upon by government and some of the things that perhaps the private sector can take on on their own volition, on their initiative, perhaps with some help from us - chances are not - but on their own.
That's what the exercise is going to be about. It's not going to be political, if I can put it in that way. In other words, if someone has a great idea on how we can change the Constitution, there's nothing wrong with that, but that's not part of this exercise. That's for another forum, for another platform.
As your chairman, I asked the staff to prepare a list of criteria, guidelines, objectives. I think you got them earlier this week. Before I hear from any of you, the object of the exercise here, after our discussion, is to adopt those criteria so we can move forward.
Mr. Peric: I'm really pleased to hear about the concerns from the steering committee and the decision that this committee should undertake this leading role to revive and strengthen Canadian unity, pride, and dignity, the dignity among all Canadians, to revive Canadian patriotism.
What bothers me is just what you mentioned a couple of minutes ago: ``ethnic''. Can somebody define ``ethnic''? Who is ethnic? Who is considered under ``ethnic'' in Canada? What does that mean? What's the full meaning of ``ethnic''? I hate that expression.
An hon. member: He meant English also.
Mr. Peric: Hold on. Who is ethnic in Canada?
The Chair: Apart from the first nations, I guess all of us are, but I agree with you that it's -
Mr. Peric: So why don't you drop that expression, ``as Canadians and ethnics''?
The Chair: Maybe we should. Maybe we should just get it out of our mouths altogether, Mr. Peric. That's a good point.
Mr. Peric: By an accident of birth I'm Croat, but by my choice I'm Canadian. So I'm not ethnic; I'm Canadian.
The Chair: Hear, hear!
Mr. Peric: And I feel much more strongly Canadian than my children do.
.1220
Mr. Solberg: As you know, I have some concerns about this - not because I see any harm in it, because I don't. But my concern is that what Monday, October 30, was all about did not have anything to do with communications between people in Alberta and people in Quebec, or people in Cape Breton and people in British Columbia, or whatever the case. It wasn't about the fact that people don't communicate with each other and aren't patriotic enough. I think it was about the fact that people in Quebec want to pursue a particular type of society and don't feel they have the means to do that. I would argue that people, to a lesser degree, in other parts of the country feel the same way.
That's why I've argued that we can do these things, but at the same time we should be pursuing ways of meeting the aspirations of the people in the province of Quebec, through devolution of power and that kind of thing.
The second thing I wanted to say is that it's always good to communicate, but what do we expect to come out of this? That's really the question I have. If we achieve what you've written down here, what exactly should we expect to see?
The Chair: That's going to depend on Canadians. I suppose we could sit here and guess what Canadians might say to us. I don't know how far that would take us.
I think Canadians will be pleased to hear that someone wants to hear from them about this matter. I don't know what kind of suggestions are going to come flooding in. They could be about music and poetry, festivals, exchange programs, conferences. They could be about all kinds of things. My imagination, perhaps, is somewhat limited, but I don't think the imaginations of millions of Canadians are limited at all.
I think in the first instance we have to hear from Canadians about what they think this should be about. Then some time during the exercise we can perhaps refine our process. I assume that at the end of the exercise we would report to the government and to all Canadians what we had heard, what we could take action on in the government sector, and what the private sector might take action on.
While ideas will naturally be brought forward to help us understand ourselves better across this chasm that apparently exists between Quebec and the rest of Canada, I think a lot of Canadian identity and Canadian unity has to do with just what occurs in our own localities, what happens in British Columbia. British Columbians can express their Canadianism, and some of it really doesn't have to relate to Quebec at all. But this would just give them a great feeling about not only British Columbia but this entire country.
Mr. Solberg: I just want to follow up on this. I spoke about this a little in the House in the week leading up to the referendum.
We're members of Parliament. We just came within a hair of losing the country, as you pointed out, on Monday, October 30. As members of Parliament, I think we have an obligation to address this directly, and I think we're trying to address it very indirectly in doing this.
As members of Parliament, we have an obligation to do something concrete to keep the country together. The first thing should be to find the common denominator among the provinces, and there certainly seems to be one with respect to devolution. In the case of Quebec, there has been a traditional demand to be more involved in administering cultural powers and language.
For the life of me, I don't understand why this committee, charged with responsibilities in those areas, shouldn't be talking about precisely those things instead of coming at it in such an indirect, roundabout way. Although I appreciate very much the intent and I think you're right that Canadians need to be more patriotic, as I've said to you before, I'm not certain that's the most direct approach to dealing with this situation.
.1225
Mr. Ianno: Don't we get to debate?
The Chair: Well, I guess to some extent we are, Mr. Ianno.
Can I just point out a couple of things? One is that I think you have been given the criteria, Mr. Solberg, and you mentioned that this committee should be looking at concrete means. In the very first sentence, under the objective of the study, those two words appear: the objective of the study would be to identify ``concrete means''. The other thing, too -
Mr. Solberg: To what end? We're talking about different ends. You're talking about concrete means to communicate better, but I'm talking about concrete means to keep the country together. They're not necessarily the same thing.
The Chair: Can I just say one other thing? We have to remember there are going to be a number of tracks followed in the days and weeks ahead with respect to Canadian unity. There will be certain initiatives under the rubric of devolution and decentralization, and your party has already talked about this, Mr. Solberg. That's fine and dandy, but are we going to duplicate that? Are we at this committee going to be talking about the very same thing as others? Surely we can have a tighter focus.
Mr. Ianno.
Mr. Ianno: First of all, I think we are embarking upon something this committee should have been doing a long time ago. I'm very glad we're finally getting to it. Heritage Canada is really something about our history, who we are, what we are, what we want to be and become. I think it's the various tools that are available to us and all the facets that make up Heritage Canada, such as culture and on and on. We can get into the specifics.
I think that if you take into account the ability to communicate amongst Canadians, that is a goal that I feel is important enough in itself. When you have people from one part of the country who don't know many other positives that exist in other parts of the country, that in itself is already something that is not appreciated by the country at large.
I think we have a lot to be proud of. We have a lot to see and a lot to talk about. Canadians have a lot of common goals and aspirations that we can continue building on. I think love of one's country is in itself a part of the heritage of this country.
Janko mentioned earlier the term ``ethnic'', and I agree with him. My children would have difficulty, since they're eighth-generation Scots and only second- or third-generation Italians. That in itself is a new form of our heritage, and every year it's becoming more so.
So there are a lot of things that we can actually continue to do directly. When you start to allude to directly and indirectly, I start to think of Brian Mulroney and the elite, which is what I believe you don't want, according to what your party has always stated.
I think what we want to do is open up so that Canadians are involved in the process and give them the utmost opportunity so they can express what they feel about this country and all they believe each of us has to contribute towards a better nation. The devolution in your politics in terms of decentralizing is fine, but take it somewhere else. I think what we're talking about here is basically an opportunity to try to find a way to improve everyone's perspective.
You have to take into account some of the tangibles, such as tourism. We talked about Canada's parks and Mrs. Gaffney asked how someone can get to a certain location. Do we have package? Well, we are still learning. Part of the difficulty we have is that because the country is so large geographically, you can't get to the other part without spending a whole lot of dollars. It's cheaper to get down to Florida than it is to get from Halifax to Vancouver.
There are many things that can be done and many ideas that can be worked on and that we can probably propose to government, so that in effect it makes it easier for Canadians, whether they be young or older, to see what this country really is all about.
.1230
This is a great initiative and I fully support it. I hope also that we shall be able to travel ourselves and to have people who perhaps can't get to Ottawa come and speak to us and express some of the things that sometimes are very obvious but that we can't see. So I'm very much in favour.
The Chair: Mr. Solberg, I don't want to be really political about this, but if I can be a plagiarist and take a few words from your own leader, this is from the bottom up, not from the top down. In other words, we're reaching out to Canadians and asking them how we can strengthen and foster Canadian unity and identity. Yes, once we hear from them - and I hope that we will hear from a plethora of Canadians - then we will have to decide what to do with it, but this is not from the top down.
Mrs. Gaffney: One of the things I am hearing is from Canadians within my own constituency of Nepean, who are coming to me saying that we should be doing this or that.
Even before I knew the steering committee had discussed this for future agenda items, I happened to say to Mr. Harvard, who was one of my seatmates, that I really believe this heritage committee has a role to play in promoting Canadianism within this country. He said, ``Well, you'll be interested in hearing that we discussed this today at our steering committee''. Therefore, obviously my constituency in Nepean is on the same track as John was in bringing this to the steering committee.
I've given each of you a map that was drawn by a young man in Nepean, with the heritage sites, or what is unique to the different areas of Canada, hand-drawn on it. He did this. I brought this as an example of something that may be useful in the schools, or whatever, or what he could do as his contribution to Canadianism so people will know what is out there and what we need to know about other parts of the country.
I mentioned my little trip down east last year. It was very important to me to visit those historic areas of Canada.
If we can do something to encourage visiting the north, or wherever in this country, then it is our responsibility as this committee to promote that, both inside and outside of Quebec. We've all got something we can learn from each other, and we have a responsibility to do it.
Mr. Loney: I would like to comment in response to Mr. Solberg's remarks. The objectives of this study were discussed before October 30. It's not something that has been motivated as a result of the close vote on October 30.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): As a former member of the committee on a regular basis, I would like to commend the steering committee. I think it's right on. Go for it, and I think you'll get a very positive reaction across the country.
Mrs. Gaffney: How can we convince our colleagues, though?
The Chair: I don't know. This might be beyond their purview. As I understand it, they're not here to promote Canadian identity and -
Mrs. Gaffney: We're promoting Quebec identity, too - within Canada.
The Chair: Well, I think it is, but I don't think their political objective is to strengthen the confederation, unfortunately. They might find this exercise to be somewhat frustrating.
Mr. Solberg: In hindsight, perhaps we shouldn't have elected them as vice-chair of the committee. It's just a thought.
The Chair: Well, it's a Canadian tradition.
As you know, colleagues, I had the criteria, if I can put it in that way, distributed. I believe Mr. Loney has looked at the criteria.
Mr. Loney, have you prepared some kind of a motion?
Mr. Loney: I would move, first, the deletion of the word ``ethnic'' in the objectives of the study. I would move that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee study and report on Canadian unity and identity and that the terms of reference that were distributed be adopted.
.1235
The Chair: We've already had a lot of discussion. I've naturally taken note of that one-word deletion, Mr. Loney.
Are you prepared to vote on the motion?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: I would hope you would leave the scheduling of witnesses to the chair, because we're sort of dealing a bit in the dark, as it were. My assumption would be that in order to start this as quickly as possible, we may want to hear from one or two government departments, such as Heritage Canada, and ask them what they're doing and what else they might consider doing.
While that is being done, we're going to get the word out to all Canadians about this exercise, and then we will be looking forward to the responses. I'm sure we will get written submissions and oral submissions. So please leave it to the chair to arrange this.
I would say one thing, though. I would invite all of you, perhaps especially you, Mr. Solberg, mindful of the criteria, to share any ideas you have as to organizations and individuals you think can make a contribution to this. I would ask you to, say, within the next ten days, submit them to Danielle, our clerk.
Naturally I'm hoping we'll hear from organizations in Quebec as well. In fact, we will be taking it upon ourselves to write to a number of organizations we assume may have some interest in this exercise. They may or they may not.
As I indicated at the beginning, perhaps my imagination is a bit limited, so whatever you can contribute in the way of suggesting possible contributions, please do.
As to how long the exercise will take, I just don't know. We're not talking about two years or anything like that, I can assure you. Let's see how it plays out over the next little while.
Do you really think we should be suggesting to Canadians a deadline for submissions, or should we leave that open for the moment?
Mr. Ianno: We should think of a realistic time line. I don't know if that would be three months, six months or whatever. It's not that we won't accept them afterwards if they're late, but we should state that we're already starting the process.
Again, I don't know what the travel plans might be. We can discuss where we're going to start and how we're going to do it. Are we going to jam it all in or will we go somewhere maybe once a week? It all depends on the logistics. But that is a consideration also in terms of where people can deposit and express, and the time line is of concern with that.
Until we answer some of those basic questions.... It's very difficult to know the specific time line, but a more concrete time is more appropriate than just leaving it very loosey-goosey.
The Chair: We won't set it today, though.
Mr. Ianno: No.
The Chair: Okay. Let's just keep a close eye on it, and maybe we'll be in a position, say, a month from now or whenever to tie up a few loose ends, such as setting a deadline on submissions. Is that fair?
Mr. Ianno: But we will start the process of informing Canadians right away.
The Chair: Yes. I know there are some media people in the room, and I would hope we can use the media, because we don't have the money to advertise this as such in a commercial way. We're going to count on the media as much as possible to get the message out. We can use the Internet. Anything we can use, we will.
.1240
Mr. Ianno: What we may want to consider is having either a steering committee or a committee as a whole to possibly go through some of the logistics. Once we do have that, we should do possibly a press conference to let Canadians know, and then take it from there.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon: I'm sure you've already considered it in your capacity as chair, but I'm hearing and reading of the other place making some kinds of similar initiatives. It might be worthy of keeping attuned to what they are looking at as well. If there are any similarities of travel that perhaps.... It's something to keep attuned to so that we're not duplicating.
The Chair: One of the things we'll have to consider, Mr. Ianno, after we've experienced some feedback, is whether we travel or whether it's video-conferencing. Those are some of the things we're going to have to consider.
I know travel is always expensive, and the board of internal economy has become even more parsimonious.
Mr. Ianno: I'm very frugal when it comes to spending of the public moneys, but there are times when it is worth the expenditure.
The Chair: I agree. So can we leave it at that on this item?
At the steering committee meeting, we raised the matter of inviting witnesses to discuss some reports. You have received a paper, I think, in the last few days from research staff regarding the Canada Council. Have any of you seen that? Okay, that's just for me.
We have, as a committee, three reports in front of us that we can look at. One is from the Canada Council, one is from the National Museum of Science and Technology, and another is from the National Gallery. What is your pleasure?
I would think, given some recent news stories and whatever, perhaps we would like to have the Canada Council here as soon as possible. I think Mr. Solberg has offered some opinions in that area.
Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Solberg: Well, sure, I'd be interested in what they have to say.
The Chair: So may I instruct the staff to arrange an appearance of the Canada Council people as soon as possible? I would suggest that we do it as early as possible, let's say the Tuesday after the break. If not, let's try for the Thursday. If we can do it the Tuesday after the break, we certainly will. Okay?
Mr. Ianno: Or Wednesday if possible.
The Chair: No, Mr. Ianno, our days are Tuesdays and Thursdays. We're boxed in.
Is there any other report you'd like to deal with at this time? I mentioned the other two.
I'm sorry, one at a time. Mr. Solberg, did you have any other suggestions?
Mr. Solberg: Just one other thing that I mentioned to you. I promised you a one-page paper on it, but I didn't actually produce it and I apologize.
The Chair: That's all right.
Mr. Solberg: It was with respect to Canada's approach to trade in the cultural areas and the need to have a consistent policy.
I was pointing to the CMT decision, the Sports Illustrated decision, the debate about ownership levels in broadcast and telecommunications, and things like that, because it's my sense that there isn't really an overarching policy direction there.
I'd be curious to know whether there is an intention to have one, what we're going to do with our cultural industries in the era of free trade, and things like that.
The Chair: Would you be good enough, Mr. Solberg -
Mr. Solberg: I'll try to cobble something together.
The Chair: Okay, then we'll proceed.
The other thing is, if we can get the Canada Council on the Tuesday after the break, we will, and if we can get some witness with respect to our initiative with respect to the unity, let's say on the Thursday, we will do that as well. Okay? Call me any time and we'll try to keep this thing moving as well as we can.
If there is no further business, this meeting is adjourned.