HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

• 1103

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today to follow its study regarding the order of reference of the House of November 30, 1999,

[Translation]

a study of the subject matter of Bill C-224, an Act to establish by the beginning of the twenty-first century an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

[English]

to recognize crimes against humanity, as defined by the United Nations, that have been perpetrated during the 20th century.

We are especially pleased today to welcome two representatives from the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, Dr. John English, chair of the board of trustees, whom I welcome very specially back to the House of Commons; and Dr. Victor Rabinovitch, president and chief executive officer.

Dr. English, the floor is yours.

[Translation]

Mr. John English (Chair of the Board of Trustees, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also for your invitation today.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me a minute, Dr. English.

Did you want to intervene on a point of order?

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I would like to see if we could talk about the motion I had put in, I think, six days ago now.

The Chair: Okay, Ms. Lill, that's a good point. I would like to suggest this.

Dr. English has advised me that he has a very important meeting to attend from 12:30 p.m. on, so if by any chance, because we have only two witnesses today, we could finish our work reasonably soon, we can devote 15 minutes afterwards to future business, if that's all right. We should have lots of time, Ms. Lill.

Dr. English, I'm sorry.

• 1105

[Translation]

Mr. John English: I believe that you have handed out my letter.

The Chair: Yes, the letter has been handed out.

Mr. John English: Thank you. I would like to read it, if you will allow me.

[English]

Before I do so, like so many members of this committee, I'd like to congratulate Sarkis Assadourian for his private member's bill, which inspired this debate. I've read the testimony and the comments of the members of Parliament, and I must say the members of Parliament who discussed this very difficult, interesting, and important subject, crimes against humanity in the 20th century, have made very thoughtful comments, interjections, and suggestions. Like the rest of you, I would like to congratulate Mr. Assadourian for his skill in presenting this issue and his success in advancing this discussion.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on June 13 on the matter of recognition of the crimes against humanity perpetrated during the 20th century. I have discussed this issue thoroughly with Dr. Victor Rabinovitch, the President and CEO of the CMCC. In preparation for our appearance, I hope it will be useful to share our thoughts with you.

[English]

History shows that the capacity of individuals to commit crimes against humanity is universal and that many communities have been both victims and perpetrators in these tragedies. A large portion of the ethnic and cultural groups that now make up Canadian society have experienced genocides, slavery, ethnic cleansings, and other horrible events: first peoples, English and Iroquois Loyalists, the Acadians, the Scots displaced by the highland clearances, the Irish, Jews, Armenians, Ukrainians, the descendants of West Indian slaves, Cambodians, Somalis, and as we've heard, many others. Persons from these backgrounds often hope their past tragedies will receive official Canadian recognition and that such recognition will enhance an appreciation for their place in Canadian society.

In our work at the museum with some communities—an example being Canada's first nations—we have found a desire to be recognized as contributing members in our broader society. Although memory of injustice is necessary to understand the past, these communities have not asked for a permanent memorialization of injustice or victimization. In the First Peoples Hall currently being developed, aboriginal Canadians are presented as important partners with Europeans in the development of the country over the past five centuries.

Canadians of various backgrounds often have come to live here to escape the conditions in their countries of origin. Conditions of poverty, insecurity, prejudice, and war are common to the history of many survivors. The treatment of people in the Holocaust, perpetrated against the Jews, the gypsies, and others targeted by the Nazis, stands out for its horrors. It is understandable that individuals and groups who suffered in this way do not want their past to be forgotten. A focus on memorializing the crimes perpetrated against a particular people can best be achieved by the community itself, whose members have the common experience of these tragedies.

[Translation]

The CMCC carries out its activities with a view to improving public understanding of Canada's history and peoples, thereby supporting social cohesion among Canadians. Our next major project will be the building of the new War Museum in order to improve the knowledge of Canadians about our military history and to remember the sacrifices made by those who have fought for freedom.

[English]

While there can be no denying the significance of the sufferings endured by many of the citizens of Canada or their ancestors, a single-minded focus on such suffering will do little to enlighten our understanding of communities and cultures or to contribute to the goal of social cohesion. Yet it is also clear that accurate knowledge about events, causes, and processes that were part of the crimes against populations will help in the broader search for a more humane world.

• 1110

This understanding could be helped through an academic research institute devoted to the study of inter-ethnic violence and to an international program of scholarship and exchange aimed at increasing the effectiveness of international response to such events. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage may wish to recommend that the government support an institution dedicated to the comprehension and prevention of such events in the contemporary world.

The CMCC and the other national museums of Canada benefit from Parliament's wisdom in legislating the arm's-length principle that is set out in section 27 of the Museums Act. Consistent with Canadian law and tradition, it is essential for cultural institutions to conduct their programs and research in a manner that is above any suspicion of political intrusion. Of course, public discussions such as those in the standing committee here are important influences on the staff and the trustees responsible for these national museums.

I hope these thoughts will be helpful to the deliberations of the standing committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. John English: I'd like to further add that I've read the testimony of the witnesses and the comments of the members. I noted several comments from different members talking about the need—and I quote—“to research, recognize, and educate”. It seems to me that the bulk of the testimony you have heard points in that direction, that there is a need to research, recognize, and educate.

Mr. Bélanger said at one point, “Mr. Chairman, I was grasping at the notion of what we've talked about and what it means in terms of the final objective of what we are trying to do. What our colleague Mr. Assadourian has tried to do is to help engender reconciliation and a greater awareness and understanding so that these kinds of things will not happen again and people like us will stand up when we see them happening. Perhaps there is no need of a physical building per se—perhaps down the road—but there is certainly a need for education, for research, and for the promulgation of what we've learned.”

The same comments were made in different ways by Monsieur de Savoye and also by Mr. Muise. Mr. Muise talked about looking forward and not backward.

Communities themselves in this country have been encouraged to express and collect their own memories. We welcome that.

In the case of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, in the past, of course, we have had a large responsibility for the various civilizations that have been part of coming together to make this country called Canada. In this particular case, we have worked with different groups since the time of the discussions in the mid-1990s about a Holocaust museum, since the time in February 1999 when this private member's bill came forward, which has resulted in this discussion today. What we have heard is that there is a desire to better understand and to have Canadians better understand what these terrible events of the 20th century have meant.

As I pointed out in my letter, these kinds of events much precede the 20th century. This has happened in many continents, not simply Europe. It has happened very recently and it has happened in the far past.

Many years ago when I was a member of Parliament like you, I travelled to central Asia, about which I didn't know very much historically, although my professional background was as a historian. So I read about it, and it was a history of successive genocides of different people. A group would come through, marauders or tribal warriors, who would simply wipe out peoples and they would vanish from the face of the earth. That is why there is such a demand to memorialize, to maintain these memories that you've talked about.

I read proposals in your testimony about a “Book of the Dead” that would commemorate the victims of the past, and I think that kind of suggestion is important. I read in your testimony as well comments about the linkages that can be established between institutions in our country and elsewhere that pay tribute to those who have been the victims of holocaust, genocide, highland clearances, etc.

If you look at the people I've listed—and there are many others—many Canadians have this experience in their background. So many Canadians have come from wars and have been victims. Indeed, there was a historian many years ago who talked about Canada being a collection of countries of losers, people who have been driven out, if not because of war then because of famine, if not because of famine then because of disease and desperation and poverty. These things are very important.

• 1115

In terms of our work at the museum, we are always willing to consult on this. We have a particular responsibility here. In the case of the kinds of discussions you have been having in recent days, I think this has advanced very much the debate and our understanding of these issues. I commend the members of Parliament who have taken part in these discussions, and I think we are ready to move forward with some suggestions, which I've made in the letter.

The Chair: Dr. Rabinovitch.

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to our board chairman, Dr. John English. I have not come with a prepared statement, but I would spend a moment or two just adding some detail to what Dr. English has been speaking about.

I have been the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation since April 3. In that short period of time, I've had to focus primarily on meeting with staff and meeting and speaking with members of our board, but I've also had the opportunity to meet with many people, almost in the hundreds, who are interested in the activities of the Museum of Civilization and particularly in current exhibitions at the Museum of Civilization.

I draw your attention to two exhibitions currently: India—The Living Arts and the exhibition on the war paintings, which are drawing literally hundreds of thousands of visitors over a period of several months. One of my pleasures is that I get to meet some of the people who are visiting and to listen to their reactions and their views.

My work in the museum focuses in part on how to do something, the timing of doing something, the finances of doing some activity, as well as on broader executive direction. As Dr. English has pointed out in his letter, currently the most important new initiative within the museum corporation is the planning and the designing and activity around the recently announced new Canadian War Museum. As you may well know, Mr. Joe Geurts has recently been announced as the new director of that war museum.

There are extensive programs of research and exhibition planning, programs for public education, programs of outreach, of school education, that all fit in with being the activities of the Museum of Civilization. Our focus is on a number of themes. Dr. English has referred to one of them, and that one is social cohesion. We focus as well on bringing forward exhibitions and research on Canadian experience, precisely on the experience of communities within Canada. In cutting through this broad issue of what is the civilization that we focus on, this is how we aim at doing it: activity within Canada, activity that directly influences communities within Canada, and specifically social cohesion within Canada.

Dr. English has drawn attention to one suggestion that has been put forward in his letter, which is the suggestion for greater focus on research on the broad question of the Holocaust, on genocides, and on what we used to call in our high school days, politically incorrectly, man's inhumanity to man, which is really much more the inhumanity of people to people. We hope that's a practical suggestion for the committee.

In our own discussions about it, our personal discussions, our discussions with members of the staff of the museum, we came to the conclusion that this might be a very useful way of developing the information base, the sharing of information, the accuracy of information, that is at the heart of good understanding of the past and the influence of the past on the present.

• 1120

One last comment—and I think, at least to my mind, it's an important one—is that in a society as complex as our own, memory is not necessarily something that is state sanctioned or government sanctioned. Memory is something that is individual, something that is family-based and, more broadly, also community-based. A government, a state, can do only so much in creating institutions for memory and in assisting the development of memory. But in a society such as ours, where the democratic flow of free information and thought and the exchange of ideas and the exchange of experience is so important, memory must flow from individuals as well as from communities. They do not have to wait for the government institution to say this is now an official memory; this is now the memory that you can memorialize or the memory that has become the recognized part of our state central organizing thought.

So I hope that idea is helpful to the committee. I'll sit back at this point.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rabinovitch.

I'll open the floor to questions.

Mr. Mark.

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

I'd like to welcome our witnesses today before the committee. I'd also like to thank you for your continued work in support of Canada's heritage, both preservation and educating Canadians on their history.

You are the experts in your business of museums and heritage preservation. The question I need to ask you is: Where do we go from here? What do we do? What is the next step? I had indicated to our former witnesses that perhaps there is a next step to consultation and getting people together.

The other thing I need to ask you is, would your organization take a leading role in bringing this about?

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: Like Dr. English, I've had the opportunity to look at an initial transcript of the discussions that have taken place here at this committee, and for me personally, it has been very helpful to read those discussions.

I believe those discussions are very helpful to you in deciding what to bring forth as ideas or recommendations to the government. So where to go from here is of course, first and foremost, for the committee to draw its own conclusions.

With regard to the Canadian Museum of Civilization, at this point our best offer is the offer to provide technical advice, assistance of a technical advisory nature in the event that there are initiatives from within government to develop forms of institutional memorialization or forms of institutional research where the Museum of Civilization has expertise in that matter. In other words, there's only so much we can do or that we know.

When we discussed together—“we” meaning Dr. English, myself, Mr. Geurts, Madame Dubois, who is the secretary to the board of the corporation, and other staff—we thought, there is so much information that has yet to be gathered, so much information that has yet to be analysed in an academically peer-reviewed manner that would be useful to understanding the experience of various communities, not only in the 20th century.... I must say, from our standpoint in our discussions, that in the Canadian experience, activities between different groups, both arriving in Canada and living in Canada in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, were highly important in shaping the Canadian consciousness and the relationships between different groups and different regions in this country.

• 1125

Overall, our discussions led us to the conclusion that if the government were to choose to promote more such research, that would be a very useful thing. But we were quite keen in our own discussions on the need to focus on the experience in North America and the experience between different groups in North America and how that in turn shaped the Canadian consciousness. To us, that is very important.

Dr. John English: If I could add some comments, as Dr. Rabinovitch said—he's calling me “Doctor”, so I'll return the insult—

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: Don't have a heart attack.

Dr. John English: Yes, don't have a heart attack; none of us could treat it.

I think the committee has to draw its own conclusions, and I think you're pointing in some directions in terms of the testimony you've had and the comments that members from all parties have made. Obviously the committee will draw its conclusion and make recommendations to the government, which then has to come to a conclusion itself.

As I read your testimony and as I considered this issue in consultation with the same people of whom Dr. Rabinovitch spoke, what struck me is the fact that this subject has become extremely important in the latter part of the 20th century.

If we can recall, it is only 52 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in 1948, and at that point even Canada abstained on the first vote on that particular universal declaration. We didn't have an understanding of what human individual rights meant. As I read through this testimony, I saw how important it has become to all of us.

During the middle part of this century, we thought we had moved beyond the types of terrible things that happened in the first half of the 20th century. But in recent years we have learned that we have not, and I think that's one of the reasons you are considering this here.

Many Canadians who have come here in the last 30 years have been escaping tragedies. I listed some of them: the Cambodians, and the dreadful events that happened there; the former Yugoslavia—we know about those events more recently—and I read the testimony of the gentleman from Rwanda. Obviously these are things that Canadians must consider, because it's going to be with us in a certain very real sense.

What I discovered as I was reading about this topic is that there has been an explosion of interest internationally in human rights and memorialization of war and genocide. There are research institutes throughout Canada. I've heard that one has just been established at McMaster University to look at the tradition of Gandhi and what that means for today. The university where I teach has a centre for peace and conflict study, run by the Mennonites. There are others in Calgary. There are many in the United States and in other places.

In looking at these questions, what they're trying to find is what has caused this recurrence of violence, of hatred, of persecution, and of extermination of peoples, to return in this century when we thought we had left so much of that behind.

Obviously the topic will remain with us, and I think the conclusions you come to will point in the direction that many of you have suggested. I copied down some of the comments: Mr. Wilfert saying we should be looking forward rather than backward; Mr. Bonwick talking about the need to research, recognize, and educate; Mr. Bélanger—I read his comment before—talking about an independent foundation with a research and publishing budget; Monsieur De Savoye talking about alternatives to a brick-and-mortar museum. I think these indicate the range of debate that you have to consider.

I think when you consider these questions, one of the conclusions you might consider is the research institute that we've proposed. I'd be willing to talk about that in more detail, as would Dr. Rabinovitch.

Mr. Inky Mark: Again, returning to my last question, other than the role of research, would you see yourself having more of a leadership coordinating role beyond that of research?

• 1130

Dr. John English: I think in terms of the research role and the consultative role, we would certainly do that. As we have mentioned, we have just begun to work on a new war museum. That's an enormous task. We have to think about what goes into a war museum; there's a relationship to some of the other things we've been talking about. We also have to build it, which is not one of the easier tasks.

Mr. Geurts is eminently qualified to handle these kinds of questions, but in terms of the museum, we have limited resources. Whatever we can do in terms of helping people, helping groups, we will do in terms of consultation, advice, and access to the richness of our collection.

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: Just to add to that, Mr. Chairman, we've talked over the available resources and the professional and technical specialties involved in community consultation—the fence-mending, the exchanging of information. That type of process really goes beyond what the museum is set out to do and is capable of doing. It really will require a level of expertise and community work that goes beyond anything we are equipped to do, not just financed for.

So the type of technical assistance we can provide is more in the form of meeting some individuals, talking about the complexity of what is involved in design or in exhibition planning, in selectivity of information, of artifact-based exhibition, and in making clear that similar complexities apply to the development of, for example, web-based exhibitions. The web is not a simple answer to everything.

We're very pleased to try to provide that information to those who might be interested in this stuff. At the same time, a sophisticated consultation and development of a proposal, along the lines of a research institute or perhaps even a series of institutes, goes beyond our own professional and technical capability.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): If I understand you correctly, you are telling us that you focus more on the aspects of research, recognition and education than on exhibits, as far as genocides and human rights are concerned. You also brought up the idea of a research institute in this field.

Personally, in light of the various presentations that have been made to us, it seemed to me that it would be more useful, if we want to teach people about history, to be able to convey concerns rather than historical facts. In teaching the lessons of history, we cannot limit ourselves to recalling events and showing photographs. A more educational approach must be adopted.

If I understand what you are saying, your organization would be prepared to make its expertise available in support of some discussions aimed at setting up appropriate measures, perhaps of a virtual nature.

You have obviously given some thought to this. You have probably given more thought to it than us, given your highly- specialized skills in these matters. Ideally, what would you propose in response to the concern that we have all felt, in the coming months or years? Ideally, what kind of measure or instrument would you suggest?

• 1135

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, Mr. de Savoye has expressed certain notions very clearly. The educational role is fundamental and it is truly important that we look toward the future, in a changing society where social cohesion is of vital concern.

We are prepared, as an institution, to share our expertise, but I must point out that our expertise is limited, especially in this field. However, if at some point government groups or other organizations need to ask questions about how to do various things, we will be prepared to share information.

Nevertheless, the question here is a broader one, in that you are asking what would be the best arrangement for the future. For us, the priority is to build the new War Museum, which will help us not only preserve the memory, but also understand the “wha” and the “why” of the wars, and the “what” and the “why” of Canada's participation in these wars. When I speak of Canada, I am referring not only to the period since 1867, but since the arrival of non- Aboriginal peoples.

I am giving you my personal impression. The specialists working at these museums would have to be the ones who determine the type of exhibits that they present. This is my personal impression. An institution such as ours, a large institution, nonetheless is limited in what it can do. This is the largest museum and, I am told, the most popular museum in Canada in terms of number of visitors. This will involve a huge effort over a period of approximately five years, or perhaps even six.

In our discussions, Mr. English and I have established that better research was indispensable in order to ensure that information is well grounded. This is important. We cannot create institutions like museums without a foundation based on facts and perceptions of facts. It is possible that, at some point in the future, there will be a real consensus to establish another kind of museum or another kind of institution. Perhaps you are now discovering that a consensus already exists. I do not know. I am not in a position to judge, but I know that, according to our information, we can only help the people who are currently conducting research to do their work better and to better understand the genocides and what are referred to as the states of chaos of the past. That is our contribution.

The Chair: Briefly, Mr. de Savoye.

I would like to remind committee members that if we want to finish in time to allow Dr. English to speak, both sides will have to be more concise.

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Rabinovitch and Mr. English, I am not sure that I follow you. You spoke to us of the need to do more research in order to clearly understand the subject matter, and I agree. You also mentioned, for the second time, the War Museum, which is currently on the drawing board. Are you suggesting that the War Museum be the sponsor of this research on genocide and human rights?

• 1140

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: No. So that you will be absolutely certain, I will tell you that I am not proposing that. We have already received very clear instructions, first in the Senate committee report and then in the government's decisions: the War Museum must focus on Canada's military role and activities. The reason that I highlight the planning and construction of this museum is that I want to stress that such an institution will require enormous efforts, planning, human resources and intellectual resources in the near future, that is, in the next five years. This is our museum's most important project.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian, the practice—and you're not a member of our committee regularly—is that we start with two members of the opposition and then we go on to the Liberals. Okay?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I too would like to welcome the witnesses. I've been waiting for a long time for this, and I'm glad we're doing it.

I have a few questions. One question goes back to 1998.

Dr. Rabinovitch, I have a document here that says the museum was contemplating having a Holocaust museum only as a result of consultations with the Canadian Jewish community leaders. Are you still contemplating having one museum for the Holocaust only, or has that been changed and it's now in the past?

Then I have a few more questions.

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: I obviously am not aware of all documents from the past. As the member will know, I have been in place for about ten weeks now, and in addition to this subject I've had many other subjects on my mind, at least as a quick study.

To be very clear, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, which includes both the War Museum and the Museum of Civilization, has no plans at this time for the creation of a Holocaust museum or a Holocaust exhibition. That's the state of reality as it stands now.

Dr. John English: If I can comment briefly, I think at that time there were certainly suggestions made that there could be a Holocaust museum developed, but not through the context of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. In any event, I think the debate has moved along in part because of your private member's bill, which, if I remember the date correctly, was February 15, 1999. I plead ignorance of earlier times, because I arrived in October 1999. We'll both take advantage of our newness.

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: I'm more ignorant than you are.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Dr. John English: Okay. I'll be relatively ignorant.

The parliamentary secretary responded to your petitions, I believe, on October 27, 1999, by saying that there are a number of ways to commemorate genocide and crimes against humanity, and the Canadian Museum of Civilization will “facilitate” a process to determine the best way to commemorate the Holocaust and other acts of genocide. We have always been available for consultation and facilitation, but not in the sense that you were talking about, taking a direct role in any Holocaust museum.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

If you read last Thursday's transcripts—and I have no reason to believe you didn't—you'll know we had a representative from a Canadian of South African origin. He made a very moving statement at the end. I'll just tell you what I remember from his statement.

A few years ago, when he was in South Africa, there was a mine explosion. In that mine explosion 56 people died. The next day the newspapers said 6 miners died. It so happened that 6 were white and 50 were blacks. At the end of the article, it said “As well, 50 black miners died.”

Can you give me your assurance, Mr. English and Mr. Rabinovitch, that type of thing will not ever happen here in Canada with the Museum of Civilization or the War Museum, and we'll never put one group against the other?

• 1145

Dr. John English: The purpose of the Museum of Civilization, our mandate, the Canadian Museums Act, everything about the creation of the museum, the name of the museum itself, Museum of Civilization—answers no to your question. Absolutely not.

We've come a long way in this country, and that choice of name, our approach to history and heritage.... Dr. Rabinovitch talked about the War Museum. We've had an exhibition Canvas of War. We had recently a Vietnamese exhibition. We have currently a very fine exhibition dealing with India, which I commend to members of this committee. And of course we're dealing with first peoples as a very major part of our responsibility.

We treat these, I think, with sensitivity, imagination, and commemoration too. So the answer I think is obviously no.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So basically this document I have, November 16, 1998, talks about one museum exhibit being dead.

Dr. John English: I just said that.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian, I think they both just answered very clearly.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I just want to make sure—

The Chair: The answer was very clear. It's on record. There is no intention...we don't want to belabour the point and just go on with this thing forever. The answer was very clear.

Dr. John English: But to be clear, Mr. Chairman, I don't really know the document and haven't looked at the document. But the answer is very clear.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you for being here.

As I listened to some of your discussions, I hearkened back to a recent news article. I can't remember the number. The province of Nova Scotia graduated something like 17,000 high school students this year and only two of them took Canadian history. I look at your mandate of telling Canadian stories to Canadians. Canadians don't know very much about their own history, obviously.

I guess my first question is, given the resources that you have available to you, are you strapped to the limit of carrying out your existing mandate, let alone taking on new projects?

I'll get my second question in, Mr. English. I'll call you mister; I won't insult you by calling you doctor. You use a quote that Canada is a country of losers. I really take exception to that. I know you didn't mean it in that context. I think we're a nation of winners.

I guess I asked the other question, which is a more difficult one, and that is to deal with the whole issue of social cohesion, because you touched on that issue. I guess the ultimate question is, is a genocide museum consistent with social cohesion?

I look at the war in Kosovo. There's a limitation to memories. It seems to me all the problems of Kosovo are indeed memories, and memories have limitations too. It seems to me it must be very important how we celebrate memories in view of the need for social cohesion.

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to understand that when someone like me accepts a Governor in Council appointment, it isn't to turn around 10 weeks later and say that those who appointed me are all wrong and have to give me more money and have to give my organization more money. So if I sound like someone else with the name Rabinovitch....

This really does go, of course, to the heart of the decision-making process by governments. I knew the budget when I accepted the position and I work within that budget, and if Her Majesty in her good senses decides that more money is available for our work, then Her Majesty will be well served.

The history focus is not purely on what event took place where or what person did what when, but also the focus is on how communities evolved over a period of time. How did communities within this place called Canada relate to each other? How do their memories of their own pasts evolve over time? How do we perceive this by walking through their history and looking at their history? That whole focus is really central to how the Museum of Civilization operates.

• 1150

What's now called the Canada Hall, which is on the third level of the museum, is designed as a walking through of the Canadian history, and in order to reach it you have to first go through the grand hall, which is focused particularly on west coast aboriginal art and artifacts, and then up onto the Canada Hall level. That is the single most popular exhibition in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The level of appreciation and approval—and that's the right word—the approval rating by visitors, in all of our interviews with them, for that exhibition is extraordinary, extraordinary, in the range of 90%.

So the focus on exhibitions, both permanent and temporary, to reveal different aspects of either Canadian culture, Canadian experience, or the experience of communities that are now part of Canada is a central theme for what we're doing. Do we have enough money to do it? Yes. Could we use more money? Yes, absolutely. Do we have to budget carefully within our existing funds? Absolutely. We are not cash-rich at all, but at the same time, I would not come here at this time to complain about the budget.

On the question of social cohesion and contributions on social cohesion, I know Dr. English is going to want to talk about that. I was looking the other day at the background piece of a research that was done by the parliamentary research branch, Mr. Purves, and I must say he really does capture the arguments very well and in a very balanced manner. On page 8 of his document, where he lists arguments regarding why exhibitions focused on genocide are not necessarily a positive approach to things, I think he gives a very good summation of the essential arguments.

As a child, I was called many nasty names, in both the English and the French languages, because of my Jewish background. I was stoned as a child. Stoned. Rocks were thrown into my home. So I understand personally that focusing too much on the particularity of individuals, of their religion and of their background, is not necessarily a constructive way of building social cohesion. In fact, in my own experience, I would say people working with each other as individuals and as communities seeking for what unites them and what joins them is a far more constructive way of building a country than just focusing on what divides them.

All of us have terrors in our past, whether as communities or as individuals. Focusing history only on the terrors is not a constructive way of moving forward.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming here. This is really a fascinating conversation.

I would like to pick up on what Alex said. He made a point about Nova Scotian students not having a grasp of history, and I think you could probably find that across the country. I guess the thing I'm finding interesting here is that we need our museums, they have an important role to play, but for the idea of teaching our children, informing them of where they come from and the type of society they are being forged in—all of this—the educational system has a role to play here.

I think we can't leave it all to a museum to do the work of a truth and reconciliation commission. We can't do the work of the dozens of 20th century genocides that have occurred, and Sarkis could probably give me even a better number there. You have a museum for memories, but what about reconciliation and what about healing?

• 1155

Mr. Rabinovitch, in what you were just saying about your own personal experiences, where does the healing take place in the instance of a small boy being stoned? What happens with all of the native children who in fact had the erasure of their memories with residential schools?

This is the idea you were talking about. We don't need a state sanction to memorialize memories of importance. But right now we're seeing an amazing thing going on with residential schools and really almost the need being pointed out for something like a truth and reconciliation commission, instead of 10,000 law suits.

I'm not saying the Museum of Civilization has to do all this, but I guess it's a larger question: what are the many steps that have to take place to get us to talk about reconciling some real atrocities that are occurring right here in our own midst and that have occurred through our history here in Canada, as well as in Europe and other parts of the globe?

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, I'll start off about the museum a bit, and John will continue a bit more.

The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch, I think it would be useful if we concentrated less on what the museum will do but maybe on what kinds of paths you could suggest to members here in regard to what Mr. Assadourian has presented to us. Perhaps that would help.

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, there's only so much any one institution can do. The focal point for the development of exhibitions at the museum has been more—and in this there may be some ideas for the future—on where history moves us forward from here. To give you an example—and Dr. English's letter refers to this briefly—a permanent exhibition is under construction now within the museum. It's called the First People's Hall, and it should be open by June of the year 2001. Through you, Mr. Chairman, may I invite people to mark the date, because it should be an important opening.

That permanent exhibition has been seven years in the design and the building. And staff will say it's longer than seven years, because background research was done. There is a consultation process with people from aboriginal communities across the country. There is a detailed consultation process with specific individuals who have some background in museology. Essentially, as an institution, in the small space an institution has, it is focusing on episodes and on reactions to episodes. It will be looking into how to move forward from here.

So the portrayal in a museum setting, not only of the past but also of the causes and the likely way of avoiding such causes in the future, is a unique contribution a museum can make. A museum is much more than just an exhibition. A museum has to be artifact-based. It has to have material history as well as written history and photographic history. That's what makes it an exhibition rather than just pictures on a wall. So to focus only on a museum is really to focus only on—and I hate to say this for my own organization—a small part of the larger picture.

To go forward from here, really we must start with facts and a fact basis. We must move forward from facts to discussion between individuals of such facts, the engagement of communities, the engagement of individuals. To try to take as complex an issue as the memory of the Holocaust, the memory of other genocides, and the memory of the killing of other peoples, not only Jews, through the Holocaust, and to simply say, “Let's create a museum”, in my view, professionally and personally, is side-stepping the issue.

• 1200

It's far more important to generate solid information, to share that information, and to challenge that information, and then from there to move forward into how to portray that in a museological or a television or an educational setting.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill, do you have any further questions?

Ms. Wendy Lill: In a way, you seem to be saying museums can't make history. The history that has to now be made.... We will look at, for example, the native residential school. We'll just use that as an example of a situation. The history has yet to be made as to the role the Canadian government will have in terms of the reconciliation. And then it becomes an artifact within the museum—an artifact in the very best sense of the word.

Dr. John English: The points you are making are very important. So many societies in the world are dealing with this kind of question.

The Royal Society of Canada last month had a whole day devoted to meetings to human rights and remembrance of war and genocide, and they talked about such diverse countries as Chile, Argentina, and South Africa, trying to come to terms with something such as you're talking about in terms of our aboriginal community.

There are many models of dealing with it, but memory is important. Memory is fundamentally important. Canadian stories are extremely important. We are an unusual society, along with how many more in the world—five or six?—that are as pluralist as we are. Being pluralist does require a balance between memory and social cohesion and reconciliation.

There's a role for museums of course. Victor talked about the First People's Hall. But there's such a larger role. With your background, of course you know literature and the arts are so important in understanding how reconciliation can be achieved. Think of Japanese Canadians and how novelists really brought that to the fore first, such as Joy Kogawa. In terms of our aboriginal peoples, literature and the arts have played an extremely important part there as well. And of course in the case of the Holocaust, it is the literary evocation of the Holocaust that has given it such real meaning. If you look at the history as Mr. Purves describes it, you'll see we came to realize what a dreadful thing this was. We realized it through memories, whether they were of Anne Frank, Elie Wiesel, or William Styron, for that matter. And in movies, of course we can think of many along these themes.

Memory is something a society works upon and constructs. It understands those stories. Museums have a role, sure, but it's part of a collective effort on the part of others in the societies too.

The Chair: Are there any more questions from the members? If not, we'll conclude this part of the meeting and thank Dr. English and Dr. Rabinovitch for appearing today. And Madame Dubois, merci beaucoup. It's been extremely useful to us as a conclusion of our hearings. Thank you.

If members will agree, for the rest of the meeting we have to focus on a few things, if you will give us the time, because it's only 12 o'clock.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can we have a five-minute break?

The Chair: No, we'll have no break; I'm sorry.

An hon. member: We'll go right through.

The Chair: Members, we'll first discuss Mrs. Lill's motion in an open meeting, and afterwards we'll meet in camera to give Mr. Purves and the other researchers an idea of the thrust of our possible report on this subject.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, would members be agreeable, seeing as we're going in camera, that this motion, which most of us support—

The Chair: No, the motion will be in the open.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, couldn't we do that in camera as well?

The Chair: If members so desire.

Mr. Dennis Mills: This is a very important motion for all of us as members of Parliament, and I'd just like to say a few words to the members privately.

The Chair: Well, that will be up to the members to decide. I don't want to decide.

• 1205

Would that be agreeable to you, Mrs. Lill? I think the suggestion is being made in a constructive manner, I take it, by Mr. Mills. So if it's going to help....

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, I guess so.

An hon. member: Okay.

The Chair: Is that the wish of the members?

All right...? If that is the wish of the members, I will—

Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I just want to note my objection on a matter of principle. That's all.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, if you object, then we have to follow—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. It doesn't have to be unanimous.

The Chair: It should be.

Mr. Dennis Mills: It has to be.

The Chair: It has to be. If it's not unanimous, we'll just carry on.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: All right. On the very deeply held principle that our debates, for the most part, should be public, I can't go along with that.

The Chair: Okay.

I should mention to the members that in dealing with Ms. Lill's motion, I would like to also refer you to a letter sent to us by Mr. Wayne Easter on May 17, which letter was translated and sent to the members. In case you don't recall the letter from Mr. Easter, it touches on the same subject that Mrs. Lill is bringing up, except that it doesn't refer to any specific dates. It says:

As the MP for Malpeque, P.E.I. I'm requesting that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hold hearings in Prince Edward Island on the issue of CBC television and the proposed reductions in service referred to by CBC President Robert Rabinovitch at the committee hearing of May 16.

Then he goes on to say that he's against the elimination of the supper-hour programs, etc., and adds:

I would be pleased to assist the committee in organizing a meeting in Prince Edward Island and look forward to your cooperation in this matter.

As it touches on the same subject, when we discuss Ms. Lill's motion I take it that we'll automatically refer to this one as well instead of treating them as two different subjects.

Mrs. Lill, do you want to speak to your motion?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Yes. I brought this motion to the committee because I feel it's important that we clarify the very deep discrepancy that exists between what the CRTC put forward in their licence renewal in January and what the CBC is now planning in terms of their own commitment to regional broadcasting.

In this document, the decision of January 6, 2000, which I think you all have before you, the CRTC:

encourages the Corporation to maintain and strengthen its coverage of regional issues in both news and public affairs programs, and to bolster its international news gathering capacity.

Later on, it talks about how the:

CBC's commitments with respect to Corner Brook, Sydney and Saskatoon will be fulfilled by rebroadcasting the 1 hour 30 minutes per day regional/local news programming from St. John's, Halifax and Regina, respectively.

Section 38 says:

The Commission has re-imposed a condition of licence with respect to the CBLT Toronto, prohibiting the....

Actually I'll go on. It's not as relevant. Section 39 says:

The Commission remains concerned over the lack of regional weekend newscasts on most CBC stations. These newscasts were dropped during the last licence term in response to budget reductions. At the public hearing, the Corporation indicated that it was studying the reintroduction of weekend regional news. The Commission considers that this should be a high priority for the CBC. ...the Commission requires the CBC to reintroduce regional weekend newscasts on all owned and operated stations, by the beginning of the second year of the new licence term.

So there are very strong messages within the decision that the CRTC came up with in January. This is a decision that grew out of wide public consultation across the country. I think it is very much a document that reflects what Canadians are looking for in terms of local and regional programming. It's an issue that I'm very concerned about. I myself presented at the CRTC on this issue.

Our regulator is giving us a pretty strong indication of what they believe is necessary to maintain a public broadcasting presence. At the same time, we are dealing with the CBC taking some very draconian steps in terms of that exact issue, which is local newscasts.

• 1210

So I say, let us, as the heritage committee, as a quite appropriate group, sit down with these two bodies and talk about the great discrepancy existing here, which I think Canadians would like resolved.

The Chair: Monsieur Bélanger and Mr. Mills.

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

Ms. Lill, when we were all in this room before the president of the CBC, we all, every one of us on this committee, voted on a resolution that showed that this committee was a fist in being for not only maintaining but enhancing CBC in the regions. There wasn't a single member of the government that didn't vote for that resolution. I think the record would show that any of us who went out and talked about this issue, whether it was in print or on radio, also included in our language that all of the opposition members were with us. We said that this wasn't just government members but the opposition. We were together.

What happened in the House, and this was part of the reason I didn't.... I think I have enough respect for opposition members, and I realize that you have a job to do in terms of making the government accountable, but you went into the House of Commons and you let on like we weren't even in the game, like we were not interested in supporting, as did Mr. Muise. All of us here on this side of the House want to and will work to lobby and move our executive to do more for the CBC, but I think it's very important that you acknowledge that.

I think if we're going to work together there has to be in your tone the fact that this committee is working together as a whole. Before I would support that motion I would need to have that assurance, because I think that part of creating a thrust on the executive of this is that you get that unique situation when all parties come together. I don't think you should do anything to divide us.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I intend to vote against this motion. I encourage members of the committee to do the same, for a number of reasons. Dennis has alluded to some, in that it goes against the spirit of this committee in the way we've tackled this issue, a very important issue, and against the influence this committee has had by standing unanimous together when it was time to do so.

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, if it hasn't been done, that the motion that was adopted here unanimously vis-à-vis CBC-Radio-Canada be sent formally to the government on behalf of the committee, either through a report to the House or a letter from you to the minister responsible. I would hope that this, if it hasn't been done, would get done. That's number one.

Number two, the motion calls for us to substitute ourselves to the CRTC—or to be the arbiter between a public fight of the CRTC and the CBC. Essentially that's what this does, and I think it is totally inappropriate to ask the committee to play that role.

I am not suggesting that some of the issues raised by Ms. Lill are not relevant. They indeed are. There is a licence and they are our requirements. If she had proposed instead that this committee ask the CRTC to come before us and explain and answer our questions on how they set licence requirements and how they monitor licence requirements, not just for CBC and Radio-Canada but for all of those issued licences.... I mean, TVA is a prime example of non-respect of licence requirements.

I will not support that we haul CBC here in front of the CRTC, witness that feud—and only CBC. If we're going to do it properly, we should ask the CRTC to come here and tell us how they indeed do apply licence requirements and how they monitor them and so on and so forth. That's the kind of constructive approach I would have expected from Madame Lill. We're getting something that is confrontational, which I don't think is very useful, to be honest.

• 1215

That's why I'm disappointed in this motion. I don't think it serves the purpose we're all trying to achieve, which is to promote and encourage the government to put more money into the CBC. That's why, when I saw this motion, I requested the 48-hour notice. I didn't think it appropriate that we just do it this way. There are other ways of helping public broadcasting in this country, and that's not one of them. That's why I encourage members to vote against this motion.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It is a fact, Dennis, that the committee unanimously adopted a motion asking that the CBC fulfil certain obligations in order to meet regional needs. I can assure all committee members that, whenever I was asked for my opinion, I always emphasized the fact that it was a motion supported by all committee members, a motion that was non partisan but in the public interest.

We came to the realization, a few days ago, that CBC—Radio- Canada had made a decision—I was going to say a decision to split the difference, but in fact, it is much more radical than that—and that the regional presence in CBC—Radio-Canada newscasts was going to be considerably reduced.

I do not know what message this committee wants to send to the CBC, but I think that we cannot be content with what we have done so far, namely, having Mr. Rabinovitch come here and, faced with a sequence of events that will unfold quite quickly between now and July 1, accept that there is nothing we can do. It will not be easy to turn back after that point. Therefore, I think that the committee would be well-advised to invite Mr. Rabinovitch back, and hear from the horse's mouth the conclusions reached by his board of directors and the impact that they will have, and then make recommendations to the government. I know that we have already passed a resolution, but that resolution was intended to send a message to the CBC and its board of directors, a message to take into account one of our main concerns.

Now that we know that the CBC has made its decision and that we sense that this decision is not what we hoped it would be, I believe that there are two things to be done. The first is to invite Mr. Rabinovitch to testify again before the committee in order to check whether the decisions of his board of directors are what they seem to be, namely, harmful to regional interests. If this is the case, it will be appropriate that this committee send a recommendation to the government executive.

From this perspective, Ms. Lill's motion is in my view appropriate, but not because it sets one party against the other; that is not what the resolution says, nor is it the committee's role to sit as a judge. We have already had similar conversations and we came through them unscathed because we had the witnesses give us the information that would allow us to better understand the issues and subsequently make more enlightened recommendations.

I think that if we intend to make a recommendation to the executive, we will need input from two sources: input from the CBC, through its president, who will explain to us exactly where it stands, and input from the CRTC, through its chairperson, who will tell us how the Commission sees things.

• 1220

It will be up to us to draw conclusions in the form of a recommendation, in order to square the facts and ensure that the public interest will be best served. If we do not do this, the next time that we invite Mr. Rabinovitch or anyone else and we pass another unanimous resolution, everyone will know that it is only a paper tiger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a few comments.

I have a problem understanding this issue totally. When you look at the budget for regional broadcasting, it's only roughly $40 million to $45 million. So in the big picture, which is over $1 billion, it's really a drop in the bucket. If we reduce the regional coverage by 50%, what's there to be saved, $20 million to $25 million? That's not even a drop in the bucket when you look at the $20 billion surplus that this government has.

The impact on local.... It's almost ironic that here I am talking about saving a public broadcaster from past positions that this opposition party has had. I think we need to take a look at the big picture and the impact it has on the staff, the system, the future training of our film industry, our television industry.

I actually get confused over this whole thing at times. Really, how much are we...? When you look at the negatives versus the dollars, if there are dollars saved, what's it for? What are they going to do with the $25 million that they're going to save? I'm confused in terms of the direction that's occurring right now.

I can still preface this by saying that I understand that perhaps CBC shouldn't be operating in an environment where the private broadcaster is doing a good job or where there's totally no demand for the service. But remember, Canadians identify with this country through the regions, through their own local environment and through their own connections. From a cultural perspective, is this the right thing to do, to allow this kind of stuff to occur? I need to have some answers to some pretty basic questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any other points?

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I'll be brief.

We must keep pressing the nerve on the CBC. I quite frankly think this committee should take a large amount of satisfaction from the fact that we altered the position somewhat. It's not what we wanted, but we moved a decision. We reversed a decision.

Alex Shepherd asked a very important question to Mr. Rabinovitch when he was here. He said, “Where's the business plan?” Because I, like every other member, am pressing nerves with the board members and others on a constant basis, I happen to know that they now have more detailed information.

I don't know, Ms. Lill, Wendy, if this would be a compromise. Would you be satisfied if we could invite Mr. Redekopp here, who really operates the place on behalf of Mr. Rabinovitch? He could come in front of us and answer some of Mr. Shepherd's questions related to the business plan and say where we are going. We'll let him know that we're continuing to press the nerve with the executive.

The bottom line of all of this is that in some way, shape, or form there have to be some budget alterations. Is that a compromise?

Ms. Wendy Lill: No, I don't think so, Dennis. It isn't for me. What I feel, picking up on what Inky said.... Inky says he needs some answers. Monsieur de Savoye says he needs some answers. I think there is a sense that we....

In my estimation, this committee took a brave step when the president was here. We came up with a unanimous motion to put forward our concerns about public broadcasting, and then what happened after that was.... Something happened. We know something happened. Something happened behind closed doors and some kind of hybrid plan was hatched. I don't know how long it took to be hatched, and I'm not sure where it happened, but people are now waking up thinking, wait a minute, now we're getting half-hour news. We're hearing that six minutes of it is commercials. We're hearing that there are huge cuts to that particular news chunk. So it doesn't sound like it's going to be very high quality. I have heard people say all across the country that they are sickened with this new hybrid plan.

• 1225

So the question is what do we do? It was either Mauril or Dennis who said there are other measures.

Tell me what they are, Dennis. I don't know of any other measures. I personally—

Mr. Dennis Mills: I never said there are other measures.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm sorry. It was Mauril, and I'd like to hear—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll give you one. I have no problem, I support this committee's asking the CRTC to appear before us to explain to us how it is they set licences and how they monitor these licences, because that is what your documents refer to. That's perfectly legitimate. But I don't want to be party to setting up a confrontation where nobody gains. All we do is play politics with that and I don't want to be party to it. It's as simple as that.

The Chair: Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you.

I too have some concern with the tone of this motion and the purpose it seems to try to come to. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to really write a performance appraisal on the CRTC or to try to determine in this manner what it is they are going to do and why. I could see this committee perhaps asking the CRTC to review the plan in a timely fashion so that before it's implemented they can tell us whether or not it meets with their licensing requirements, so that it's not too late, so that the horse isn't out of the barn before we find out that they've gone too far or they've done something that is not in compliance with their licence. I think that's just asking the CRTC to do their job, and to do it in a timely manner respecting the realities of the business in which CBC is trying to operate.

I can also see this committee, in view of the significant change that has occurred in the CBC plan as was outlined when Mr. Rabinovitch came before us compared to what they are now planning to do, having him back again to try to explain to us the evolution of this plan and clarify for us exactly how it will roll out and the impact in our communities across Canada. But I have a little bit of a problem with the tack that this motion seems to be taking, of putting them head to head and asking them to do their jobs in this type of soap opera, soap box venue, making their decisions on the fly as they go and so on. I don't think that will derive any type of rational public decision-making process.

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you for your comments.

I don't disagree with you. This isn't a talk show. We're not trying to get these two people together so we can see sparks fly, and that's not what I had intended either. And I liked what Mr. De Savoye talked about. We have to have an enlightened understanding of what is going on here and we have to hear from the CRTC and we have to hear about what they think about all of this, where the public interest is in this.

We should bear in mind—and you talk about our having them consider this in a timely fashion—that the layoff notices are going out on June 30, so we don't have very much time here. I feel we have a responsibility to not let this slide at this point in time.

Mr. Dennis Mills: We're not letting it slide.

The Chair: Who wants a second question? There's a motion by Mrs. Lill. Are members ready for the question? I remind you there is also a letter from Mr. Easter that we convene Mr. Rabinovitch. I don't know if you want to treat those two items separately. If we treat them separately, then we'll deal with the motion now and then we'll look at Mr. Easter's letter.

Are we ready for the question?

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1230

The Chair: Are we in favour of inviting Mr. Rabinovitch back, as suggested by Mr. Easter?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make sure that Mr. Bélanger's point in his remarks is exercised. That would be a letter coming from you with our motion that would go to the executive reminding them that on this date we continue to be in a position of solidarity as a committee, that CBC is still a priority issue for us, and we hope that they will see it likewise, in a timely manner.

The Chair: Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Further to that, as I mentioned earlier, I think perhaps it would be timely to press the CRTC to review this plan and see whether or not it meets with their licence, to ensure that in fact we don't get a ruling that is six months too late.

The Chair: Let's deal with one at a time. First of all, the suggestion was made by Mr. Bélanger, and presented as a motion by Mr. Mills, that the resolution passed when the CBC appeared before us be sent by me under covering letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on behalf of the government.

An hon. member: He said executive committee.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So all the cabinet.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Send it to the whole cabinet.

The Chair: The cabinet. All right. Is that a question? All in favour? Okay.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Secondly, Mr. Limoges, you want the committee to write to the CRTC to ask for a review of the business plan of the CBC?

Mr. Rick Limoges: In essence, if they don't have enough information to get that information.... But I assume they know that, so it's just to ask the CRTC to review the plan as announced by the CBC and make a ruling as to whether or not they feel that the plan, as enunciated, will fulfil their mandate.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Could they do it by the end of June?

Mr. Rick Limoges: Yes. We definitely need this to take place prior to the implementation of that plan, so perhaps it can be done within the next month.

The Chair: I think it could be made as a suggestion by us. The CRTC's an arm's-length organization. We can't direct them.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Right. That's why I said to ask them. I don't think we can demand anything of them.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We can ask them their opinion.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Would they consider, by the end of June, whether or not they feel the CBC is in line.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If they could inform our committee of their opinion...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: As soon as possible. I think it would be important to set a deadline.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The committee would appreciate having it by the end of June, if possible. If we do not ask for it, we will not get it.

[English]

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: So I'll do this as soon as possible.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Could the clerk send us a copy of that letter wherever we are?

The Chair: Copies of both letters will be sent to all members.

Mr. Dennis Mills: The response from the CRTC?

The Chair: Yes. Of course.

Excuse me, could members give us ten minutes to sit in camera? It's only 12:30. We have to give directions to Mr. Purves. As you know, we have an order of the House to report to the House regarding Bill C-224 before the 15th of June. We really must give him our directives as to how the report should be written. All of the members can stay, but otherwise it'll be an in camera meeting.

We have one last thing: Wayne Easter's letter asking to convene Mr. Rabinovitch.

An hon. member: I think we've already done that motion.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: He put forward a formal motion, did he?

The Chair: No. It was just a letter. So we take it that the motion is denied, then. Okay.

[Translation]

[Editor's Note: The meeting continued in camera]