HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 15, 2000

• 1109

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I would now like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which will be hearing today from the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Alex Himelfarb.

[English]

We are really pleased to welcome the deputy minister. All of us have wanted to hear from the deputy minister as he starts his new functions within the ministry. We welcome him and his colleagues.

Mr. Himelfarb, perhaps you would like to introduce your colleagues. The floor is yours.

• 1110

[Translation]

Mr. Alex Himelfarb (Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be here today. It is the first time that I am appearing before this committee. I am armed with my books and accompanied by three of my colleagues:

[English]

Michael Wernick, ADM of cultural development; Peter Homulos, ADM of corporate services;

[Translation]

and Michelle d'Auray, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Management.

[English]

If it's the pleasure of the committee, I would begin with a brief presentation—I believe decks have been distributed—of no more than 20 minutes.

The Chair: That's fine. That will give us time for questions. The floor is yours, by all means.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Great.

I've been deputy minister, as you may know, since June. For me, then, the report of this committee came at a particularly opportune time. It helped situate me, and it helped me launch a new planning process within the department. The response to the committee report was a key element of setting out new orientations, new directions for the department.

With this deck, I'll try to set out very briefly what some of those new directions are.

We started our planning process with the same broad environmental factors the standing committee discussed—globalization in an increasingly borderless world; new technologies; demographic change; and, we might add, increasing public demand and appetite for scrutiny and accountability—as four of the very broad pressures we had to respond to.

It's probably safe to say—or certainly I would say, from where I sit—that Canada's mix of regulation, incentives, and subsidies is a cultural success story historically. We've been able to build a very strong and vibrant culture and the cultural expression that goes with it. But these new changes, these new trends, and the rapidity of change are challenging us to review the tools we've used in the past to achieve what remain as legitimate objectives. It's not clear the old tools are going to be as effective in achieving what remain, I think, as worthy objectives for any federation such as our own.

In slide 3, we set out our broad strategic commitment. We used as our point of orientation the suggestion of this committee to adopt a broad definition of culture. There has been a good deal of speculation episodically about how the various pieces of the diverse portfolio of Canadian heritage fit together.

The committee report helped us to start sorting that out—the broad definition of culture as a way of life of a people; as the symbols that we share; the values we share; the languages we speak—and gave us a framework in which we could understand the role of official language communities, of the sport communities, of the various ethnocultural communities, as well as the arts and culture organizations.

To put that in another language, it allowed us to understand arts and architecture as an expression of our everyday, lived culture, as an extension of our everyday, lived culture, and also as a way of extending that culture.

So they're not discontinuous, our everyday, lived culture and art and architecture; they are, in fact, part of a larger whole. This notion of a broad definition has helped us to start piecing together the disparate pieces of Canadian heritage.

Now, if in fact we're right, that culture and heritage in Canada reflect our shared and diverse symbols—the two languages we speak; the distinct culture of Quebec; the unique aspirations and circumstances of official language communities across Canada; the special place of aboriginal people in Canada; and of course the diverse regional and ethnic groups that have built Canada—then the Canadian cultural experience is unique.

• 1115

I think it's an experience we have every reason to be proud of and every reason to want to share with the world. We've had a unique capacity to manage that diversity and still pursue common purpose.

From that base we have built five broad strategic orientations. The first is to promote a plurality of choices, with a focus on Canadian content or Canadian space. The second is to encourage the people who do the creation, the people who create, who participate, as well as who form the audiences for those works. The third is to enhance the capacity of our institutions, our key institutions, and of the private sector to be more self-sufficient. The fourth is to connect Canadians with one another—to quote from the standing committee report—“across the borders that divide us, regional, linguistic and other”. Finally, we aim to connect Canadians to the world and to promote our values and our interests internationally.

Those are the five broad orientations guiding our planning process.

The next slide focuses on the notion of plurality of choice or content. Canada is clearly an open society. We are open to the best the world has to offer, open to cultural products and cultural expression from every part of the globe.

[Translation]

Without limiting this access, we must ensure that we have a critical mass of Canadian cultural products and that these are made known to Canadians and available to everyone.

For example, with the arrival of the Internet, we realize that only 1 percent of our cultural collections are in digital form. People therefore have access to content that is primarily American and mainly in English. We know how small a share of the market is held by Canadian films, less than 3 percent of screen time is given over to Canadian films.

[English]

We have a major task in front of us to ensure Canadian choice and Canadian space, space for diverse Canadian products in a country that has been, and must continue to be, open to the products of the world.

How do we do this? Slide 6 sets out our key strategies. We want to create incentives for the production of quality Canadian content and ensure its accessibility to Canadians. That includes ensuring that there's a public lane on the Internet, ensuring that on the World Wide Web, dominated as it is by American and English content, we have defined space for Canadian choices. That means we have to put new technologies to work both within government and in the private sector to produce that content and to make it available. As well, we have to develop audiences for that content.

An interesting debate is playing out in the Quebec media and elsewhere about the balance involved in audience creation, starting early, building an appetite for Canadian products and support for the arts. We're trying to find the right balance between supporting creation and supporting audiences and an appetite for the creative products.

One of the major enterprises we've undertaken in response to the Commissioner of Official Languages is to ensure French access on the Internet. Canada can play a lead role, not only domestically but also internationally, by ensuring that French users have comfort with the Internet, have choices on the Internet. Right now, no other country is playing that role.

In that context, we also have to reach young people and increase youth participation in all of these cultural enterprises.

The second major objective of encouraging excellence, encouraging a focus on the people who create, the people who participate, and the people who consume, allows us to cross all of the domains of Canadian heritage. It allows us to give emphasis to sports, not only to the high-performing athletes, but to the core of young people who participate in sport and who provide the theatre for excellence in sport.

• 1120

One of our strategies is to find new ways of getting young people to participate directly in our cultural institutions. We've developed a number of means for doing that, from Canada Works to a greater investment in training in culture, and through a new initiative where we're encouraging young people through the Internet and other media to produce their first works and to get feedback and mentoring on the quality of those works. Even if out of all those enterprises we don't produce some of the stars of the future, we produce the audiences for the future. We also produce citizens for the future.

Our third key orientation is building capacity. Again, we've taken seriously the message in your committee's report that we distinguish clearly between the not-for-profit sector and the private sector, the profit sector. The capacity issues are quite different. For the not-for-profit sector we have to help them figure out how to get stable funding, while at the same time reducing dependency, and we have to help them manage that funding better.

We're seeing a number of our key national institutions taking very tough measures to become better fiscal managers. We've also helped them to engage in fundraising and leveraging private sector resources so they have a firmer, more enduring base on which to continue to play their key roles.

In the private sector the challenges are different. Here we have to, I believe, help the industries become more competitive so that their revenues start to fund the development of talent and the production of content. That means that they be better able to adopt new technologies, better able to use the export potential, and have greater export readiness. So we are focusing increasingly on projects that help the industry adapt to the new technological challenges and help them increase their export readiness.

Slide 10 talks about the range of different measures we are exploring to enhance capacity, and clearly it means very different things, whether we're talking about cultural institutions, the private sector, or communities such as the official language communities, where we are trying to increase their capacity to be self-sustaining and increase their voice and participation in the life of Canada.

Through all of this capacity building it's clear that partnership is going to be one of our key tools—partnership with the provinces, partnership with the private sector, and partnership with the communities we're serving.

The fourth broad orientation is connecting Canadians to one another. Clearly Canada's vast expanses—our geography, our duality, and our cultural diversity—have created particular challenges for us to ensure that we connect across these various borders that can divide us but which in fact, if we play it right, can also enrich us.

We are looking at a range of strategies that will enhance face-to-face and virtual exchanges among Canadians—across language groups, across regions, and across age groups. We have already 25,000 young people participating in exchanges and we're looking to build on that. We use industrial and arts festivals to bring creators and audiences together to expand markets both domestically and internationally, and we use touring through the NAC and through the agencies of the portfolio. We also promote touring across all of our key cultural institutions to bring museum artifacts, artworks, and cultural products to all Canadians, so that all Canadians own each museum and each museum is accessible to all Canadians.

• 1125

Slide 12 talks about some of the specific measures we're undertaking to better connect Canadians so that we enrich each other, benefit from each other, and expand the reach of each of our cultural institutions.

Finally, the fifth orientation is connecting Canada to the world. Slide 13 quotes from our response to the standing committee about how important it is for Canada to increase its capacity to promote its interests and project its values internationally. We are building from strength here. We're building on a reputation internationally of a country that is committed to peace, to the peaceful resolution of conflict, and that has played a disproportionate role in international affairs. The culture window provides us real access to continue to promote our interests and project our values.

The key elements of our international strategy are to develop international markets for our industries and cultural products; to promote the Canadian diversity model by participating in international sport and cultural events; to continue to ensure Canada's openness to the best the world has to offer; and finally, to promote cultural diversity, multilaterally and bilaterally, to ensure that we protect Canada's ability and the ability of other countries to promote their cultural interests in the face of freer trade and technological change.

On that note I would conclude with a general comment that the very title of the standing committee report—A Sense of Place, A Sense of Being—provides us with a pretty good test of whether our culture policies are working. A vigorous cultural policy ought to be able to connect people to their past, to one another, and to their future in ways that are meaningful to them, and that's the ultimate test, it seems to me, of all of the policy work that's now ongoing.

I would now turn to the committee members to answer, with my colleagues, any questions you might have or to provide answers later that we can't provide today.

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

As per the procedure, I'll turn the mike over to the Reform Party, Mr. Inky Mark.

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

I would like to welcome the deputy minister and the rest of the entourage to the committee meeting. It's good to see you here this morning.

I have two easy questions. The first one deals with the Auditor General's report of December 1998 and the second deals with the Canada Council.

As you know, because of what we're hearing in the House on HRDC issues, Canadians certainly want more accountability from governments, wherever they may be, at all levels.

I just want to refresh our memory in terms of what the Auditor General said in his report of December 1998 as he evaluated the Canadian heritage and multicultural programs. The findings aren't really inconsistent with what we've been hearing these past few weeks with HRDC in that he found that in one-third of the projects audited, there was little evidence that the department had exercised due diligence in approving funds, the programs' performance expectations were ambiguous, and clarification was needed to avoid duplicating the efforts of other departments as well as other provincial governments.

Now the meat of the Auditor General's report is really in three points, and I will read them to you. These are his recommendations to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The first calls for further clarification of the objectives of the multicultural programs by defining clear, attainable goals and expected annual results.

The second is to ensure that due diligence is exercised in the review and approval of grants and contributions under the program.

The third is to ensure that recipients provide the required performance information.

Now these certainly can be applied across the board to all granting boards and councils of Canadian Heritage as well as other departments. Let's not forget that we're talking about a budget of over $3 billion, similar to that of HRDC.

• 1130

My first question is what specific actions have been taken by your department to comply with the Auditor General's recommendations so that the department can keep track of all these grants and contributions?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: That was one of your easy questions?

First of all, just to clarify, I would love a budget of $3 billion. Just so it's absolutely clear, the department itself doesn't have a budget of $3 billion or even close. It's not even $1 billion.

That notwithstanding, we've taken the findings of the Auditor General's report on multiculturalism very seriously, not just in light of recent circumstances. In fact, we launched a department-wide management improvement plan in July. Perhaps I could just detail some of the elements of that plan and provide written information detailing it after the meeting.

First of all, we created an audit and review committee, the first audit and review committee that makes sure we have an audit plan that really focuses on programs where the risk is greatest and ensures follow-up action that's monitored collectively. I chair that committee. To guide that committee, we've put in place a risk management process with the Comptroller General. We also have a risk assessment process of all of our programs so that we can decide which programs ought to be audited first and where the risks are.

Because of the comments of the Auditor General, we also launched a results process to specify key results for all of our programs. The framework for that was affirmed by all managers in January, and that should lead to very clear result statements and commitments and how those results will be measured before we go into the new fiscal year.

In addition to that, we have a grants and contributions secretariat that ensures due diligence and proper administration on each grant. They now review each grant or contribution at three stages of the process: in developing the recommendation for funding, monitoring the project during its course, and prior to any payment going out, quite apart from the measurement of the results of the program. They now review 100% of the grants and contributions in the department.

In light of the AG's report, we've also launched training sessions for all the managers responsible for the programs so that they understand the requirements of the specific programs, the terms and conditions and requirements of Treasury Board and of the Financial Administration Act. We've had several of those sessions.

One of the interesting things is that we've brought auditors in so that they actually explain what an auditor looks for. That has more meaning for the program officers so they understand more fully why they're putting these steps in place.

I would be happy to provide you with several texts we've prepared for the minister setting out just what steps we've taken to make sure due diligence, proper administration, and good follow-up are built into all of our programs.

The Chair: I think it would be useful if you would send the information to our clerk, who will make sure the members get it. Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: My second easy question relates to the Canada Council. As you know, the Canada Council has been around a long time, since 1957. There's no doubt that they do a lot of good work, but unfortunately it's the little things that create the public perception that tend to spin negatively, certainly over this past year.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): So why do you focus on the little things?

Mr. Inky Mark: Anyway, it is the little things. Over the past years, things like Bubbles Galore and some of the grants you've seen in the press today.... What I want to ask you is do we need to scrutinize the scrutinizers, or do we need new terms of reference, or will your department put in an internal process to follow these grants?

There are a lot of grants, obviously. Almost $115 million is an awful lot of grants. In terms of numbers, there are a lot of files. How do you plan to deal with the problems or at least what the public perhaps may perceive as problems at times?

• 1135

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I suppose the easy answer—and I've been advised to go for the easy answer—is that it is an arm's-length agency that makes these decisions. But I won't stop at that. It is an arm's-length agency and it was created that way because governments have historically taken the view that it would be inappropriate for government to dictate content or to determine or define what constitutes art. There's some real, significant merit in that view.

I also appreciate the tone of your question, recognizing that the Canada Council does a lot of good work. I think a significant number of our artists would say they wouldn't have had the developmental opportunities or the success they've had if it had not been for the Canada Council. Clearly, it funds organizations I think none of us would quibble about, from ballet schools to symphony orchestras to theatre across Canada.

It's also clear that a jury process of expert and respected artists, which is what they use, will make decisions about art that are occasionally controversial. As you recognize, the minority of cases tend to be controversial.

The chairman of the Canada Council has said they continue to look for ways to ensure that they spend taxpayers' money wisely, but my hunch is you'll never be able to eliminate all of the controversy. It's in the nature of art that it stretches our boundaries; it challenges our conventions.

I must say my own views of art tend to be conventional and rather boring and I would hate for me to be shaping the future of Canada's art. That's not to say that all of the projects I read about this morning are projects that would please me as a citizen or a taxpayer. But on the whole, the peer review, the jury review, the pretty open and transparent way in which the Canada Council operates—because in fact it makes available all of its project funding on a regular basis routinely—and the contribution it's made have to be counter-balanced against some of these controversies that are, one might argue, too many. Perhaps one could also argue they are to some extent inevitable.

The Chair: We'll come back to you, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I have just one little thing.

The Chair: Okay, make it very brief.

Mr. Inky Mark: The bottom line is that it is still taxpayers' money and the buck stops somewhere. Where do you think the buck stops? Even though it's an arm's-length board, does the buck stop with you folks or at the minister's table?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I would just reiterate that I don't think you want government determining content or art. That doesn't mean there can't be continuing improvements in the Canada Council for how it manages its process, but those are questions best put to the Canada Council.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): The number of questions that one could ask you is almost unlimited: we could talk about funding for feature films, Canadian content—I understand that sometimes it is the theme that needs to be Canadian, rather than the creators or those involved in the production—, tax credits for production, and community television. However, I will keep my questions on those issues for a second round.

I would like to talk to you about the Internet and hear your thinking on this subject. At present, the Internet is not regulated. As a result, it would be entirely possible tomorrow morning, since the technology is there in space, to have Direct TV sending signals to a footprint stretching from one pole to the other, including in Canada, but doing it using Internet protocols. This would no longer be the grey market, but e-commerce. It would be possible tomorrow morning. In fact, I wonder why it hasn't already been done.

We also know that although the CRTC is empowered to regulate the Canadian content of our radio and television programs, technology will very soon make it possible, and Vidéotron and Rogers will be working on this, to use Internet protocols to receive television and radio programs that are not covered by CRTC regulations.

• 1140

We might also see copyright ignored to some extent, and this is already happening in some cases. In all this, in this debate which is not taking place, an important player is missing, and that is the Department of Canadian Heritage. What is your thinking in this area?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Another question, please.

Some Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: That is a very complex, very challenging and very important question.

[English]

Yesterday evening on CBC News there was a discussion of just this issue: does the Internet need to be regulated? We found fierce views on either side, and the majority was not to regulate. Let me take it piece by piece.

With respect to le droit d'auteur, it is clear that we are going to have to renew our copyright legislation, our clearance of rights. We've been working on a number of round tables and discussing with the industries and there are very competing views of course on these issues. It's very difficult stuff, but it has to be a priority, and it is a priority to come to grips with protecting rights premièrement et sans questions.

With respect to the spate of mergers and consolidations, we're just beginning to understand it; it's happening awfully fast. In Canada, thank goodness, the most recent magazine merger stayed in Canadian hands and created a powerful capacity to distribute magazines in both official languages. It's clear that the mergers are changing the face of our industry in ways that we have to understand more fully. But what we're looking at largely is what is the impact on diverse Canadian content. That's the question we're posing, and we're doing that work now.

For us, the issue is how do we ensure Canadian space. One of the ways we've done it historically in Canada is by public intervention, creating a public lane. That's what we did with broadcasts, that's what we did with film through the NFB, and I'm convinced it's one of the things that we'll have to do with the Internet: create a public lane on the Internet and frankly invest significantly in accessible Internet content, rich and safe Internet content, in both languages for all Canadians. We're going to have to incent the creation of content in the private sector. We're going to have to create the right kinds of incentives to make sure our companies are producing Canadian choices.

As to regulation, I'm not sure. Right now, I think the majority of opinion is to focus on ensuring Canadian space, but it's an area that we're only dimly coming to understand.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The Americans obviously have a direct interest in ensuring that regulations are not applied to the Internet, since the present situation gives them access to the whole world, beginning with Canada.

For the last while, of course, the Department of Industry has more or less followed the American example, for reasons that are good or less good and which I am not discussing. As you just said, in this particular area, things are going awfully fast. I have the impression that if the Department of Canadian Heritage is not extremely proactive, you will be faced with a “fait accompli”. I wonder whether, to some extent, it is not already a “fait accompli”.

You have described a certain number of objectives which seem to have enough merit. Everyone is for motherhood, but in concrete terms, in the coming months, do you have specific projects that will shed more light on these problems and provide some partial answers?

[English]

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Things are moving fast and we are not—I take that to be your follow-up question. Let me talk about some specific projects already in place and specific projects planned.

• 1145

En place déjà, we have the connecting work that Industry Canada has already done. We are a very connected country. Our access is among the world's highest, both regular and high speed. SchoolNet has not only joined schools together on the Internet but has promoted content for young Canadians. The digital collections program in Industry is also promoting the production of Canadian content. We launched, I think it was in 1998, a new media fund to strengthen our own new media capacity and to ensure that our new media industries were strong and able to build Canadian content. We don't think that's enough, by the way.

We responded, as I said, with an action plan on French on the Internet to ensure

[Translation]

that choices in French are available.

[English]

We are building, with all the museums across Canada, the virtual museum of Canada, which has received some ridicule in the media but in fact makes key historical, heritage, and cultural content available to all Canadians. With the Archives and the National Library, with a bias to the French text that we have at our disposal, we are digitizing, because only 1% is now digitized. We're putting it in digital format and making that available to Canadians, with a focus on youth and making it attractive and available to Canadians so that youth can plug into the Canadian experience.

We have worked with the art gallery, the Museum of Civilization, and the NFB, all of whom developed digital strategies and websites that bring diverse products of Canadians together, and we are bringing that all in one place through what we're calling Canada Place, a gateway to a critical mass of Canadian content. That's the beginning of a public lane, and we are going to be accelerating that work this fiscal year. We're not waiting. That's key.

We're also intensifying our work with the private sector, and we've been meeting with them to ensure they are joined with us in producing Canadian content. Part of the work we've done is to create a rights clearance, because in fact helping on the clearance of rights is going to be key, and that too will be a concrete project, not a general objective. We have launched, although I can't see it happening this fiscal year or perhaps not even in this mandate, the necessary work with our partners on a copyright legislative reform.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

I will now turn to the government side, to the two questioners who are listed first, Mr. Limoges and Mrs. Bulte. Then I'll go back to the opposition and back to Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Limoges.

[Translation]

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

Mr. de Savoye has already asked my first question.

[English]

But further on the issue, I understand that Minister Copps is quite concerned with the iCraveTV.com situation and the precedent it might create. I also understand that our laws may not be as effective as we would like in terms of taking care of this situation, and that the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the protection of the rights of authors and creators.

I would like to know what the department has done to assist broadcasters and producers to defend their rights against unlawful use. Secondly, do you expect the department to come forward with any legislative solutions to make sure this situation does not continue?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I think I'm in the situation of having to provide you with an inadequate response. Because a number of broadcasters and producers have taken iCraveTV.com to court, this is now a matter before the courts. We're obviously monitoring this very closely to see if our current legislative framework does provide them the protections they're seeking and to learn from that experience. But it would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail while this matter is before the courts.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I'm more interested actually in the situation as a precedent-setting one and what we can do to prevent further erosion of the rights of artists and creators, producers, and so on.

• 1150

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: What we've done now is we've launched consultations on how best to protect and compensate for the creators' rights. It does look like this will require changes to our copyright framework. We have begun that process, but I can't promise you that this process will be quick, even if the issues are moving at an unbelievable rate.

Mr. Rick Limoges: It does seem that we're at some risk here in Canada, as compared to some of our neighbours in other countries, in terms of those rights.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: We'll know more clearly how urgent it is as the case progresses in the court. We're moving this kind of legislation probably as fast as this kind of legislation moves.

Mr. Rick Limoges: On a different subject, the issue of Canadian content seems to be a difficult concept to define. For example, we've heard of the issue with Céline Dion and others who might not qualify for Canadian content. I'd like to hear your comments on the need for more content, perhaps not just that content which is Canadian by definition, but on content that brings more meaning and relevance to our culture and reflects more our Canadian values and mores.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: You have hit on the issue that creates the most debate within the department and among the public servants even sitting at this table. We have a mix right now of definitions of “Canadian content”, depending on the program, and it reflects two polar concerns.

One concern is to make sure that it's meaningful and truly about the Canadian experience, about Canadian history, and that it captures our diverse sense of the country, our past and our future. So this is real, substantive content, which is what you're suggesting on one pole. The other pole says government shouldn't dictate content. Tell publishers what to publish, tell magazine writers what to write, and what's the right balance?

So we have some programs that are citizenship-based, and that creates real challenges. We're trying to shift increasingly, where it's possible and consistent with the role of government, to the Canadianness, to something distinctly Canadian. We've seen that shift, for example, in the Television Production Fund.

The Television Production Fund is now saying that to get the points necessary for funding, you're going to have to be set in Canada. The underlying rights ought to have been owned by Canadian...that is, Canadian books or Canadian screenplays, and they ought to have explicitly Canadian themes. So you can see that move, but we're doing it in a way that tries to respect the creative freedom of those we're supporting.

I think you've asked about the most important challenge that confronts us. We're looking at it sector by sector and instrument by instrument to see how we can move that way and still respect artistic freedom.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I thank Mr. Himelfarb for coming before us today. Certainly, from talking to people in both the arts and cultural communities, your reputation precedes you. They've been delighted with how receptive you have been since taking your position as deputy minister to listening and learning and talking to them about their priorities. So I thank you for that.

I want to talk about two subjects. Let's start with your fifth orientation, connecting Canada to the world.

Exactly a year ago SAGITS, the cultural advisory group to international trade, came in with its recommendation to create a separate cultural instrument. This is an instrument that was endorsed by this committee in its cultural report, as well as by the foreign affairs and international trade committee.

People have come to see me in the wake of the magazine decision, and members of SOCAN have come to see me as well. It's all wonderful that we're going to be leaders in that area. We've all patted ourselves on the back to say this is the direction we're going.

What is your department actually doing to ensure that there is a cultural instrument that is going to be respected by other countries? We want to connect to other countries and get them on our side for cultural diversity. Where is the agreement? Where are the groups?

I know about Mr. Pilon and the coalition in Quebec, and I know the work that the Canadian Conference of the Arts has been doing in this area. What is the department doing to move this thing forward so we stop patting ourselves on the back and saying this is great that we're going to do this? What are we doing?

• 1155

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I've just been given a note here with the answer, but I won't even look at it right now. We have been giving largely process answers to this hugely substantive question. I know that. And I won't pretend that this is an easy process. I don't want to minimize how daunting it is to build such a new instrument and to build the necessary consensus among all of the players, not just with like-minded countries, to make this thing stick.

Let me take it to the next step, from just the coalition and the meetings and so on, to tell you where we're at and how I think this is going to proceed.

Our strategy has been threefold. One is a multilateral process to build a consensus that this is the right thing. Over 40 countries have now joined the network, which changes the weight of the debate. Canada is no longer a lone voice. I know it's just process, but it's worth something. And the consensus is growing. It's not worth enough. I understand that too.

Secondly, we have now this liaison group that is lodged in Canada, which came out of Mexico, to follow up on the work of what this instrument might look at. We've now engaged concrete research on what instruments the various like-minded countries are using and what works so that we can actually get down to concrete instruments that we would want to specify as legitimate.

So that work is ongoing too. Because it's international, it's moving at the pace that international initiatives tend to move at, but it's moving.

Thirdly, we're doing bilateral work with France, in particular, but also with the United States, which we just launched a few months ago. You can't pretend to make progress on this file unless you are reaching some of the key players in the United States.

We've had invitations now for a number of joint projects with the United States to give definition, and we've been explaining our position to key players in the U.S.

That's where we're at: the consensus building, the research necessary to design the instrument, and the bilaterals, particularly but not exclusively with the U.S.

So where's the instrument? My fear is that there are several drafts of instruments that have been floated by various constituents. It's not unimaginable what a draft could look like. And they vary. They vary from statements of broad principle that would guide countries to an actual rules-based approach...and there's no consensus right now. But where on the continuum between principles and rules can we get or how quickly can we move along that path? Keeping the consensus is going to be key. I know that's more process, but it's deeper process.

In that same tone, we got our foot in at the last round at WTO. We made more headway then we've ever made before actually getting in. It didn't get completed. It was frozen. Actually getting cultural diversity and the rights of countries to protect and promote their culture into the declaration to guide all negotiations is the key, because culture can inadvertently be affected at tables that have nothing to do with culture, given convergent technologies and so on.

So we're seeing that the principle is gaining greater acceptance. Our understanding of what the instrument could look like is deepening.

What is our next step? The next step is another ministerial meeting in Greece in September where we hope we can endorse the research work and get a commitment to actually build an instrument.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chair, I have a brief question on a totally different train of thought. You spoke about the importance of Canadian content in the stimulation and projection of quality Canadian content. This is something we heard also in the Speech from the Throne. When you talked about the importance of production in creation with cinema, you said that only 3% of our box office receipts are Canadian cinema. I think it's less than that, Mr. Himelfarb. I think it has actually declined to 2%.

• 1200

What are we doing to ensure and to help this industry that has been there for twenty years but hasn't had the same regulation or investment as sound recording?

You talk about the fund. We've seen incredible success in the fund, but we don't have a CRTC that can help to regulate or demand that the films be shown. We've given away those distribution rights. What are we doing for this potentially billion-dollar industry, and not just to make us an art form, but to make us competitive worldwide? It's something that's culturally specific but at the same time can garner the same type of box office receipts such as Muriel's Wedding, The Full Monty or The Devine Ryans. Surely this must or should be one of this department's priorities.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Let me assure you that it is one of the department's priorities. Film is at the heart of our cultural expression. It actually generates music and writing right across the cultural sectors. It generates creative work and keeps some of our creative talent in the country, and we will be issuing a policy within this mandate to intensify our partnership with the film industry.

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

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mark and I were just discussing that we used to like it better when the questioning went right around the table. We now find that some of our questions get asked before we have the opportunity.

An hon. member: They get asked beforehand, before you actually have a chance to ask a question or two.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Anyway, I'll try to come up with something new.

I appreciate the comments that you made about the importance of investing in content. It certainly is what Keith Kelly, who is at the Canada Council and is formerly from the CCA, is saying. That's what Mark Starowicz has just said recently—I think it was last night. The idea is that if we fail to invest in the production of content in the next generation of writers, designers, and programmers, we'll shut off our creative valves. We know our best line of defence is creation.

I want to come back now to the CBC, something that's near and dear to my heart. I'd like to focus on the government's response to the committee's report, and especially what they said about the CBC. We asked for stable funding and more sufficient funding to allow for the reduction of commercials. That's what this committee came up with. The government said the CBC is the largest cultural institution, and I guess that's what you're talking about when you mention the public broadcasting space. That's what we have created here. But we are seeing more cuts, more repeats, and a reorganization going on behind closed doors.

The government response identifies that the department has directly intervened at the CBC to help preserve both national radio service and Radio Canada International. I have some questions about what else you're willing to preserve. I'm wondering if the department is willing to intervene regarding the defence of local supper-hour shows, I'd like to know if you will protect other regional services, and I'd like to know whether you would intervene to protect the national system of transmitters. The question is, where is your line in the sand? We know 20% of people in this country would have no access to the CBC if you got rid of the transmitters. So I want to know exactly at what point you will stop helping the CBC continue to fulfil its mandate.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Let me begin by saying that I share your view that the CBC is a really crucial content institution, both now and for the future. I understand as well that Mr. Rabinovitch himself will be appearing before you, and he will be better able to address the objectives of his re-engineering and some of his vision for the future of the CBC, and it would be better if he were to do that. Given a new president and a new mandate, I certainly feel we should let him play out the re-engineering study and his visioning work now. Let's see just where he plans to take the organization in the context of the CRTC's recent decisions.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I was going to ask you whether the department is involved in the planning of this new re-engineering. Are you involved? Certainly I know the union isn't involved and I know the general population isn't involved, so who is involved in the re-engineering process? Is it completely internal, with the Department of Canadian Heritage not involved?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: That's right, we do get briefed, much in the way that you'll be briefed.

• 1205

Ms. Wendy Lill: Will there be an adjustment to the CBC operating grant to allow for new collective agreements, a practice common in the past decade? We're finding that more and more money seems to be going into paying for things that used to be automatically produced within the department, and now instead it's just going as jobs. Another almost 190 jobs have disappeared since November. I'm wondering if the government will be providing additional funds to cover severance costs for the latest announced layoffs.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I honestly don't know the answer to that.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have one more question.

Does the Department of Canadian Heritage have a problem with the CBC renting out its underused regional facilities to private production in order to increase its revenues?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I don't know that we have an official position, but I can't tell you off the top of my head that it sounds problematic.

The Chair: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Himelfarb, and our other guests as well.

There are so many questions. Sam touched on one earlier. If I can, I'd just follow up a little bit on it.

We talk about protecting culture. You mentioned it in your presentation, we hear about it, and we discussed it at the committee when we were doing our research for the study. When I see all that took place during the C-55 debate and the magazine issue last spring, I'm truly concerned. Yes, you mentioned that there's an instrument that is being negotiated, but there's an issue that's even deeper than that. I question if our ability to negotiate such a thing has been compromised, because basically the minister drew a line in the sand and the U.S. just stepped right over it. I'm wondering if you could comment on that, because I just feel our ability to negotiate and be credible in those negotiations has been compromised.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I'd like to say that preceded my tenure here, but I won't.

There are a number of different takes on what happened in magazines. One of the takes is that it did enshrine the right to regulate. It did enshrine the right to set limits. Maybe they're not the limits that we would have proposed originally, but they're limits nonetheless. In other words, it wasn't a wide-open door. It still constrains foreign publications. It still does say that Canada has a right to regulate and limit. We can dispute where we drew that line, but there was a line drawn. That's number one.

Number two, that was done without the kind of consensus we've since been building. A lone voice doesn't speak as loudly, so we learned some lessons from that. It was done without the consensus that now exists, without the colleague countries that we can now call upon, without even the depth of understanding that I think is increasing within the United States about the legitimacy of our perspective, because we're not closing ourselves off from American markets. On your comment on film, it's mostly American film that we're watching. It's not that we're closing ourselves off. We explain to them that we're just desperately looking for 5% of a film audience or 10% of a film audience. We were caught without the framework, without the consensus, and without the research that I think we're building now.

By the way, that's not to say this is an easy challenge.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'm not suggesting in any way that it's easy.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: No, I'm agreeing with you on that.

Mr. Mark Muise: It's a very difficult one, but I think we really have to stand up to the U.S. They threatened us with sanctions that would not have held up, but they were substantial and they were scary. The Americans accomplished what they were trying to do, and that was to scare the minister off. I'm disappointed in that. I would have liked to see us stand up, because, as I said, we compromised our ability to protect our culture now and in the future.

• 1210

On another topic, Mr. Rabinovitch, the president of CBC, has been openly critical about the CRTC's decision in respect to the licence renewal, and he's threatening open defiance. I'm just wondering if we can have on the one hand a public broadcaster saying some things and living by certain rules, and then on the other hand the private sector having to live by other rules. If we go that route, are we not setting ourselves up for trouble?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I'm not entirely sure, but I hope I'm accurate in saying Mr. Rabinovitch didn't actively defy the rules. He reacted as many broadcasters do in hating the directions, and that kind of tension isn't unusual. It may not even be undesirable. But he has not sought a review of the decision.

I'm sure the CRTC will monitor the extent to which those decisions are implemented. The CRTC has signalled openness, given that they know he's in a new re-engineering process and a new visioning process, for him to return and ask for variance, if in fact it's consistent with a new direction. The CRTC has signalled that they would be willing to review such a thing. That kind of normal process is healthy.

Mr. Mark Muise: Based on those discussions we just touched on, Mr. Himelfarb, what is your vision for broadcasting in Canada, public versus private? What's your vision for the future on that?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Let me be very general and say the CBC has to be distinct—it has to provide something distinct that the private sector doesn't provide—it has to be Canadian, and it has to capture our rich diversity.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger, followed by Mr. Cotler, and then we'll revert to Mr. Mark.

[Translation]

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

[English]

The fourth item was connecting Canadians to each other. I'd like to explore that a little bit more, if you don't mind. I'm one of those Canadians who is not totally sold on “living on the net”, if you will. You said you want to plug in Canadians to the Canadian experience, and in saying that, you were referring to the net. We've expended considerable effort and money to make Canadians more connected, always through the net.

I'm one of those who still believes the net will never beat canoeing on Lake Louise, for instance. You can't do that over the net. And until you've done that, you haven't experienced what the Rockies are, and Banff and Lake Louise and the majesty of that. Or visiting some of the maritime trails and so forth.... It's just not the same thing.

I, for one, believe Canadians are better people once they've had a chance to absorb and experience firsthand—to touch, to smell, to talk to, to live with—other Canadians from other parts of the country, in whatever language.

As much as I can understand that the Americans seem to be driving the world into this further connectivity on the web, what are we doing, and what are we planning to do, sir, to make sure Canadians can actually have real experiences, and not just on the net?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Speaking as a parent who kept dragging my three kids from the Internet so that they could go out and play with other kids, I agree with your premise that face-to-face contact matters and experiencing these things directly matters.

The ecological integrity of our parks system is part of connecting Canadians to the Canadian experience. There will soon be a panel report, which you're aware of, that will ensure Canadians have access to truly natural spaces.

But more directly within the departmental responsibilities, you will see before the end of this fiscal year considerable increases in our activities to bring young Canadians together, face to face, in various parts of the country, to experience one another and to experience aspects of Canadian sporting life, cultural life, and industrial life. We still believe strongly in face-to-face human contact and the direct experience, and we will be enhancing our efforts in those areas.

• 1215

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So stay tuned, is that it? Wait? Fine.

For Wendy, I'm not sure either about your questions on the CBC in terms of severance packages and so forth. My impression is that the government has in the past increased the base funding to reflect salary increases that have been negotiated and severance packages in its institutions, so I suspect that is the case. If it's not, then we should highlight that.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Yes. I'll get an answer to you on that. Just to go back for a second, it's going to be a Treasury Board decision. It's not clear to me if it's a decision taken or a decision in process, but I will get back on the details.

The Chair: Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Himelfarb, you correctly identified the importance of the Internet in the promotion of Canadian heritage and Canadian values and in connecting Canadians one with another, if not also connecting Canada to the world. But as our foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, has stated—and the connection I'm going to get to in a moment—while the information highway can transport the best, it can also transport the worst. This connects somewhat to the question of Pierre de Savoye. I'm referring to the proliferation of hate sites, which target in particular the young.

At a recent conference it was stated that in 1995 there was one hate site, and now there are over 2,000 hate sites that are now targeting millions of users. Canadians are amongst the users of the Internet more than anyone, particularly the young. So my question is whether Canadian Heritage has explored, in concert with the departments of justice, foreign affairs, multiculturalism, and the like, the ways and means of protecting Canadian values, and in particular the Canadian young, from this proliferation of hate.

I mention this because, as you know, the CRTC, which has as its mandate to combat the promotion of hatred and contempt against identified groups, nonetheless stated recently that it is not going to involve itself in the regulation of hate on the Internet. It's somewhat of a premature retreat from this inquiry, but that is the reality with which we are faced, and that's why there's even more of a possible responsibility on departments such as Canadian Heritage in this regard.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: It's a question of huge importance. Canadian youth are most respectful of difference and at the same time most vulnerable to those kinds of messages, and it matters enormously that we address this.

The secretary of state, Hedy Fry, just recently completed a round table on these issues, in concert with the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice, to test whether our current legislative framework is adequate to deal with hate and whether other changes are necessary, and to get the best expert advice. We are pursuing, in a concerted way, with all of the affected departments, exactly those kinds of issues.

Simultaneously we've been working with a variety of organizations, such as the Media Awareness Network, that empower parents, teachers, and young people to decipher when they are being exploited or when they are in fact encountering hate, and give some of the tools to parents, teachers, and young people to detect these problems and to avoid them.

That two-pronged strategy of empowering people to be much more effective users of the Internet and looking at what kinds of legislative remedies may be necessary is in process.

The Chair: Do you have any other questions, Mr. Cotler?

Mr. Irwin Cotler: No, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

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

I'd like to focus on history, because that's really key to our heritage. I believe Canadians sell their history short. We talked about Canadian content. When I look at what we're taught in schools and in the public place, it probably amounts to very little in terms of what is really out there. In other words, the stories of Canada, going back to the days of the aboriginal stories, are virtually untapped. That's what marketing Canadianism is, Canadian culture.

• 1220

But I think the more important note is that we must first, as a people, accept and be honest about all our history, even the parts we don't like. I still think, even to this very day, we tend to run away from it and leave it in the closet, even aboriginal history and French history prior to 1776. Almost everything we learn about is post-1776.

There was the Ukrainian internment period. I've been working like the dickens to get that story out, and it's very difficult. I don't know what it is about it, whether it's this department or just Canadians as we are today. We tend to forget the things that teach us the biggest and best lessons.

There was the internment period during the First World War, when over 5,000 people were interned and 80,000 were made to register. We know what Japanese internment has done to the Japanese culture.

There's the Chinese history in this country, right from the railway worker to the exclusion act. The exclusion act teaches us a big lesson. Why don't we talk about this time period and learn from it so that we don't make those mistakes again in the future?

The Chair: Mr. Mark, what is your question?

Mr. Inky Mark: I'm coming to it.

There's Jewish history and black history. We're so rich and so diverse in this country, and we tend to ignore that at times.

Military history is almost negligent. We don't even talk about our rich military history.

Will your department accept a challenge to talk about the real stories, the real history of this country?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: To some extent, perhaps not to an entirely satisfactory extent but to some extent, the portfolio has been doing that. The Canadian Museum of Civilization, for example, not without controversy, has shown exhibits of our history, the best, the most noble, the worst, and the most shameful.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's only one location. This is a big country.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: But it has done that. It has made some of those exhibits available through the Internet.

The NFB has just put together a series of its historical works, very challenging work, which it's going to make much more accessible to Canadians.

The CBC is doing a very major series on Canadian history, which I have no doubt will have some controversy in it. We are working with some private sector organizations that are trying to make the diversity of our history available.

Clearly, there's more we could do.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Listening to you, I get the impression that there are a few missing components in your department's vision. I may be wrong, and there may be some aspects that you have not mentioned. I will explain.

We are living in a world where, if we do not take our place, the others will take it. Worse still, they will take it right here in Canada. So if we are not fairly careful, our cultural fabric will soon cease to exist. This problem can be dealt with in a number of ways. You approach, it seems to me, is to say that we will produce things, put them in our virtual libraries and create a Canadian space that will enable all of us to see ourselves in a mirror. Personally, I do not think that that is what we should do. Here is what I mean.

It is like the balance of payments. I can import from abroad, but I also need to export. As long as my balance of payments is relatively stable, my foreign trade balance is good. In my view, we need to do the same thing in the cultural field; we need to have a kind of cultural balance. It is not so much a matter of putting our own images in our libraries so that we can see ourselves, but of ensuring that we put who we are in other people's libraries so that they can see us. We will never be able to prevent others from putting their images in our libraries.

• 1225

I am looking somewhat at the Quebec experience. You will excuse me for being less familiar with the Canadian experience. As a Francophone, I am more familiar with Quebec culture. Someone on the television was saying recently that there were currently four major shows in Las Vegas: Choquette was doing his magic show, Notre-Dame de Paris was starting, Louis-Philippe Gagnon had a five- year contract, and the Cirque du Soleil was already well established there, and I haven't even mentioned Céline Dion. In other words, these are cultural exports. Of course, culture is imported into Quebec as well.

It seems to me that if the Department of Canadian Heritage does not enable Canadian and Quebec culture to produce enough to be able to penetrate foreign markets and assert itself, our culture will wither away and die. What do you answer to that?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: I would simply say that I agree completely with the preamble to your question.

[English]

We are working now with both parts of DFAIT and with other departments truly to expand our international strategy, to make use of Hanover Expo 2000 as a marketing, export, and cultural promotion opportunity.

We are working with each industrial sector to enhance their capacity to have Canadian content not only produced but exported, to create a greater balance of cultural trade. It is one of the department's highest priorities to exploit international festivals, international sporting events, activities we already engage in but don't use to the full advantage of our cultural industries. That ingredient should well be added to the mix.

[Translation]

I completely agree on that.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like to add something on that point.

I understand the argument being made and I agree with it, but it is not all doom and gloom. Canada ranks second in the world as an exporter of both English and French television programming. It is second place for both. Our exports of cultural products have at least doubled in the last two or three years. There are things happening in this area, and we need to recognize that.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Bélanger, you are an excellent witness.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I am not a witness. I am a proud Canadian.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You understand that I was addressing my question to our expert, but I see that you have expertise as well.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just wasn't sure whether we had to put our hand up for a second round. I'm not trying to jump the queue.

The Chair: That's quite okay, Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would like to ask you what will happen if the CBC totally ignores the CRTC licence renewal conditions set out. That's one key cultural agency against another, and they're both your cultural agencies. Will the department intervene with money, for example, if the CBC has turned its back on its regional mandate?

I'm just trying to get at what's going to happen here in terms of more money for the CBC, more commitment to the CBC for cultural content. That's how I see it. I see our public broadcaster as one of the central producers of content. I find it just stunning that we see it being starved at the same time as we all know cultural content is the only way we're going to be able to survive culturally out there with the big players.

So that's a central question. What happens if the CBC does not comply with the CRTC's regulation?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Well, it's a fairly long-term question because some of the regulations don't kick in for, say, three years, and we have time to see what division of the CBC is well in advance of that and whether the CBC will seek any variance of the decisions.

I'm just going to speculate, and it's probably totally inappropriate and my immediate advisers will tell me I shouldn't have done this. There you go. Nonetheless, here I go. I am confident that the CBC vision that will come forward soon—I don't think necessarily Thursday, but soon—will be one that doesn't back away from the regional mandate and will be distinctly Canadian and focus very much on Canadian content. That's what I anticipate.

• 1230

The CBC does have access to funds such as the Canadian Television Fund, for example, where it's a major consumer, to produce Canadian content. I'm not going to pretend money is not important. That would be misleading. I think we have to let the new management play out its process now and propose a vision before we comment on how much money would be necessary or whether there is a disconnection between the CRTC and the CBC.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I know there are more jobs that are going to be lost, and these are the creators. These are the cultural workers who make the product, and they are the announcers and the writers and the editors. I can't put that together. We have lost thousands of people from the CBC now. Was it too fat to begin with? Who knows?

I wonder how you're feeling about that. How do you feel about the continual sucking out of people, our human resources, in our public broadcast system? It's a very subjective question, I guess.

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Well, I can tell you I feel Canada is better served by a strong Radio-Canada and CBC than without.

The Chair: Ms. Lill, I think you'll have a lot of opportunity on Thursday, when Mr. Rabinovitch is here, to go into depth with these questions with him and get the feelings of the person who runs the CBC himself.

Are there any other questions from the members? If not, I would like to ask you one brief question, Mr. Himelfarb.

You referred on one or two occasions to copyright and the need to proceed with copyright number three. Several of us here took part in copyright number two and it was quite an exercise. We remember it. We're glad it's behind us, and I imagine it's a formidable challenge to get into number three. Can you give us an order of time and where we are? How long will it take to get to number three before it becomes legislation? Is it a one-year, two-year, three-year stretch, in your view?

Mr. Alex Himelfarb: Without presuming when the next election might come, I expect it's a new mandate issue.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Himelfarb, I think I am translating the views of members. You've been very forthright. I think your testimony has been quite impressive for somebody who just took over the department. It gives us a lot of hope for the future. I thank you very much for coming before us, and I thank your colleagues as well.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, may I say something?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Next week, I believe that we will be starting a more in-depth study of book publishing in Canada. If I am correct, we decided to hold an in camera meeting on February 22. Would it be possible for observers or people from the department who are responsible for publishing assistance programs and so on to attend the in camera meeting?

The Chair: I don't see any problem if the members of the committee agree since it is the department that will give us the briefing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In part, but would this pose a problem if department representatives wished to be present?

The Chair: I don't see any problem with that.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: What would be the purpose of their presence at this sitting? Would it be to provide us with information or would it be to obtain information for themselves?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Both, Pierre.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If they are here to provide us with information, I don't see any problem, on the contrary.

The Chair: So then, it's decided. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.