HERI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 9, 2004
| ¹ | 1535 |
 |
The Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)) |
| º | 1610 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer (Minister of Canadian Heritage) |
| º | 1615 |
| º | 1620 |
| º | 1625 |
| º | 1630 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
| º | 1635 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
| º | 1640 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
| º | 1645 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mrs. Judith LaRocque (Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage) |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
| º | 1650 |
|
Mrs. Judith LaRocque |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.) |
| º | 1655 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mrs. Judith LaRocque |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
| » | 1700 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Ms. Wendy Lill |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, CPC) |
| » | 1705 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
| » | 1710 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Hon. John Harvard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.) |
| » | 1715 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
Mrs. Judith LaRocque |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1720 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Ms. Susan Peterson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Cutural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage) |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Judith LaRocque |
| » | 1725 |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
| » | 1730 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mrs. Judith LaRocque |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
| » | 1735 |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mrs. Judith LaRocque |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, March 9, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1535)
[English]
The Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome, Minister Scherrer, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by this committee on February 24, 2004, we are delighted, Minister, that you are joining us today to brief us.
Let me begin by congratulating you on your appointment as minister. We look forward to working with you in the days and months ahead. We think you have a very, very important job ahead of you, and we congratulate you on the impact you've already had.
As noted in the Speech from the Throne:
| Another defining characteristic of our communities and of our reputation around the world is the vitality and excellence of our cultural life. Canada’s artists and cultural enterprises are among our best ambassadors, as well as being an increasingly dynamic element of the knowledge economy. Their work holds a mirror on our society and builds a legacy for future generations. |
| The Government will work with parliamentarians to modernize our arts and culture policies and federal cultural institutions to bring to bear the new technological possibilities of the digital age and to reflect Canada’s regional diversity and multiculturalism. |
Obviously, work started immediately when you became minister. We are delighted to have you here.
I see that with you is Madame LaRocque, deputy minister. Welcome.
Also here is Ms. Peterson, deputy minister. Welcome.
Madame Minister, I understand that you will begin, and then we will open the floor to questions.
º 
(1610)
[Translation]
Hon. Hélène Scherrer (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Dear colleagues, members of the committee, I am pleased and very flattered to be the first person invited to speak before the new committee.
Let me start by congratulating Ms. Bulte on being elected chair of your committee, as well as my friend and colleague Jeannot Castonguay and Mr. Schellenberger on being elected vice-chairs. I am convinced that together we are going to succeed in moving forward the different files concerning the department for which I am responsible.
As you know, it is already almost three months since Prime Minister Martin entrusted to me the portfolio of Canadian Heritage, in my view, one of the most exciting jobs in Cabinet. Day by day, I realize how privileged I am to hold this position.
Since December, I have had the opportunity to meet individuals and get to know organizations in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, St. John's, and of course, in Quebec City. I have also welcomed representatives of a great number of organizations in every sector to Ottawa, in addition to representatives of our largest urban centres in our smallest communities. Each meeting has left me impressed by the talent, dynamism, and passion of people in the area of arts and culture. This energy and determination obligates us to provide Canadians with policies and programs consistent with their ambitions and expectations.
Over the coming months, I shall give special attention to three major areas of concern: the cultural expression that enriches all of us; the participation of individual Canadians in a national undertaking; and affirming Canada in the world.
º (1615)
[English]
In a society as diverse as ours, two things seem to be vital for succeeding in the 21st century. One is our capacity to promote creativity; the other is our capacity to involve all citizens in the vast collective undertaking that is Canada.
Quite obviously, I cannot carry out this task alone. You know as well as I do that the Department of Canadian Heritage has a very broad mandate and serves highly diverse clients. Ensuring the vitality and diversity of our cultural life is one of the priorities of the Government of Canada.
We must give young people the means to achieve their ambitions. We must enable them to innovate and become leaders in the field of new technology, which daily gives thousands of Canadians access to our rich heritage. We must also enable them to fully experience Canada.
Our Exchanges Canada program has helped more than 50,000 young Canadians meet each other and to establish ties throughout our country.
A survey conducted in 2000 indicated that Canada has lost one million volunteers within three years. This is why I support the efforts of organizations to increase the number of volunteers and to make the best use of their contribution.
In one of the world's most multicultural countries, it is equally important to promote Canadian citizenship as a symbol of openness and integration.
[Translation]
For the benefit of coming generations, we have a duty to protect the cultures of aboriginal peoples as well as linguistic duality, which gives us unique access to the countries of the Commonwealth and la Francophonie.
Our official languages are part of our shared heritage. I want to give our official language minority communities all the means for them to flourish. In addition, around 2.6 million people are studying French or English as a second official language in Canada.
Internationally, we intend to reaffirm loud and clear Canada's leadership role in promoting cultural diversity. We must act now if we want children here and in other countries to be able to find their lives reflected when they open a book, turn on the television or computer, or go to see a film.
We also want to help our artists, as well as our cultural industries and entrepreneurs, reach international markets. With our small domestic market, this is a guarantee of profitability.
According to Statistics Canada, we exported $5 billion worth of cultural goods and services in 2002. From broadcasting to copyright, from support for our artists, our cultural organizations and publishers, to the draft International Convention on Cultural Diversity, the issues we are required to consider are central to contemporary life.
[English]
It is essential to put into place the conditions needed to create a genuine synergy that will encourage the development of our artists and industries. One of the ways of doing this is by working more than ever in partnership.
This is why I want to launch a new era of cooperation with my provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as with the municipalities. Together, I want us to make common cause to ensure that culture flourishes in all of Canada's communities. I want to work closely with each of them while respecting our different jurisdictions. Since December, I've already met with my counterparts from Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
I also take this occasion to extend my hand to you, whose duty is to perform important work on complex issues behind the scenes. I would like to assure you of my full cooperation, as well as that of my staff and department, in working towards those objectives. Some of you have been with this committee for many years, because you made the decision to bring your experience and expertise to tackle the very challenging issues in the cultural sector.
We all agree that culture must become a more important mainstay of economic activity to help enhance the quality of life of our community.
In 1996, a Statistics Canada study found that culture accounted for $22.5 billion in economic activity and 610,000 jobs in our country. Five years later, culture-related economic activity amounted to $26 billion and supported 740,000 jobs. Those are really compelling figures.
º (1620)
[Translation]
In our streets, our neighbourhoods, and our ridings, we can observe the incredible potential of culture at work.
Ms. Gagnon and I, representing the Greater Quebec City area, can see the benefits of events such as the Summer Festival, the New France Festival and many other important cultural events. Similar benefits are apparent to my committee colleagues representing regions such as Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia and even Nunavut. I believe that we have here an excellent representation of the Canadian society.
In every part of our country, culture as a special place in the lives of Canadians, and we must give it the means to thrive. For the next fiscal year, my department's expenditures will be about $1.1 billion. Of this amount, $260 million will go for operating expenditures, and $867 million for grants and contributions.
In this connection, I would like to correct some erroneous reports that recently circulated in the media, suggesting that the department's budget for the coming year would increase by 16% over last year. In fact, our budget is not increasing at all. The explanation lies rather in a series of measures announced in the 2003 federal budget, including the transfer of $15.5 million in operating funds from Radio-Canada international to the CBC, and the renewal of various programs such as Katimavik ($11.6 million) and the Canadian Television Fund ($62 million), plus changes to the level of funding for the official languages program ($56.4 million).
Of course, we will make sure that the money enables us to add to our recent successes in our different areas of activity. And I am counting on you to help me in this task. Over the past months, your committee performed an incredible job studying our broadcasting system in detail. The Lincoln report contains a set of recommendations indicating the direction we should take. This report has been very important to me since my appointment and it is definitely being used as a reference paper.
Let me plainly say that, in my opinion, the purpose of this report is not to gather dust on a shelf. Already, our government has made our overall response to the report public. We have established some of our priorities and announced that this is only the beginning. Several recommendations will certainly require investments of new money or increases in existing funding. I am thinking in particular of the recommendations concerning the Canadian Television Fund and the CBC.
As you know, I do not have the key to our country's cash box. But I am aware of the urgent need for action in certain sectors and I will do everything in my power to see that culture is not overlooked. The work of our artists and our cultural enterprises is—to quote the Throne Speech—“an interestingly dynamic element of the knowledge economy”.
I will therefore do my utmost to make my cabinet colleagues aware of the great challenges facing us in the cultural sector. Clearly, some policies and programs must be modernized. Over the coming weeks, we must ensure that organizations and programs supporting Canadian broadcasting work in concert. We must also modernize the legislation governing Telefilm Canada, and we must increase the number of viewers of English-language television drama—an issue currently under study by the CRTC.
In addition, we must tackle the issue of foreign ownership within the broadcasting system. Once again, your committee has done outstanding work on this subject. It has shown that the existing system enables Canadians to have access to made-in-Canada programs that reflect their own lives and bring them together, while still remaining open to productions from abroad. We must not fool ourselves. This issue goes far beyond matters of economics. Whatever decision we make, we must demonstrate vision and consider far more than just how to attract additional foreign investment.
Right now, officers in my department and Industry Canada are studying the issue in greater depth. We will soon be able to examine possible solutions.
One thing is certain: as Minister of Canadian Heritage, I will ensure that our response reflects the expectations of Canadians and the cultural objectives that we have set for ourselves.
º (1625)
[English]
During the hearings held by the committee, several people expressed their fear that liberalizing foreign ownership rules would undermine the ability of our broadcasting system to guarantee access to Canadian programming, thereby putting at risk our cultural objectives. I take their warnings seriously.
Another issue requiring our attention is copyright. There is no doubt that we must modernize the Copyright Act as soon as possible. The emergence of the Internet and new digital technology have shaken entire sectors of our society. I'm thinking in particular of protection for the intellectual property of our creative people. Some members of your committee have expressed your concern that we are making slow progress on this issue. Today I can assure you that this is not the case. The government is taking action on the issues that, according to the report on section 92 of the act, require action in the short term. This includes the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties of 1996.
In addition, in the coming days Minister Robillard and I will table in committee a report on government actions addressing these issues. This will help us properly determine the work still to be done.
I invite you to give us your views on this matter before we finalize our position. Ms. Robillard and I would like to obtain cabinet approval on this issue later this year. A bill to amend the Copyright Act would then be drafted, tabled in the House, and referred to committee for study.
[Translation]
As for the more specific issue of fees for private copying—a matter of requiring action in the medium term, according to this same report—it still raises a number of questions. I will ask you to analyze all aspects of this complex issue more deeply to determine what is the best possible solution for Canada.
I want to state that we still intend to ratify the WIPO treaties once we have properly identified the impacts of doing so.
Before closing, I would like to speak briefly about protecting our heritage. In her most recent report, the Auditor General highlighted concerns that I fully share. The government has a duty to protect and preserve the treasures of the past for the benefit of coming generations. Library and Archives Canada is performing remarkable work to achieve this goal. It has already taken important steps to better manage and preserve our country's treasures.
Historic sites are equally important to Canadians. With the transfer of Parks Canada on December 12, 2003, my colleague David Anderson, Minister of the Environment, is now responsible for initiatives dealing with these heritage resources.
[English]
Over the coming weeks I invite you to keep me informed about your discussions on the various issues relating to my portfolio. I can assure you that I will always listen carefully to your comments.
Thank you for your attention. I remain available to take up other issues during this session.
[Translation]
Now, I would like to start the dialogue by responding to your questions.
One more thing: I would like you to understand that I really wish to work in cooperation with you. As I have already noted, I know that several of you have years of knowledge and experience to contribute. You have spent hours discussing these matters and I believe that you can do much to help the department in understanding many of the issues I have mentioned.
You are the ears and the spokespersons of the people on the ground, and it is with that in mind that I want to work with you. I hope that you will view me as an ally and that we will be able to bring these various files up-to-date.
º (1630)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. We are absolutely delighted to have you here today and we welcome your comments.
You should also be very pleased that in this first half hour of leading up to having you come before us, the committee has already dealt with three of the issues that you have discussed. It has also put together an action plan and a work plan, which we hope we will start as early as Thursday, with respect to copyright, with respect to foreign ownership, and with respect to the Auditor General's report on the National Archives and the National Library. We are, you see, already working in collaboration and partnership.
We will begin our questions here with Mr. Schellenberger.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC): Thank you.
Thank you very much, Madam Minister, for coming today.
I'm relatively new on this committee, so maybe we'll have something in common here. I come from southwestern Ontario, from the riding Perth--Middlesex, where we are very proud to have the Stratford Festival situated. We also have the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame in St. Mary's, and various other acting institutions around.
I'm quite pleased to see in your report that you're for training and educating young people. In Stratford there's a lot of education, a lot of young actors, playwrights, artists, and so on, in various cases there.
One thing in the short time I was on the committee was--I don't know the new number for the bill--Bill C-36, the amalgamation of the library and the archives. I was quite disappointed that as we proceeded through the particular bill, we found there was some copyright in it that seemed to hold the bill up. That concerned me quite a bit because I know there are treasures, both in the library and the archives, that stand the risk of damage and possible loss because we haven't been able to move that bill through. So that's one of the particular things I would like to see proceed rather quickly, that we get the archives and the library together.
I don't have a lot of questions. I'm going to leave it up to some of the more experienced people who have been here for a long time. But again, I want to bring those things to your attention, and I thank you for coming here today.
The Chair: Madame Gagnon.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I would like to talk about two issues, the first being foreign ownership.
I am somewhat concerned as you do not seem truly determined to maintain restrictions to foreign ownership. You said “Whatever decision we make...”. This means that you have not already decided to remove restrictions on foreign ownership.
I am worried because of the rumours going around. I know that a committee is examining this issue and is trying to understand the consequences of various decisions, but some newspapers have said that there seems to be a will to take down the barriers to foreign ownership.
First, I would like to know to which areas of telecommunications or broadcasting this would apply. You must be aware of the various processes that have been undertaken.
Second, you are no doubt aware that, in Quebec, the cultural community is strongly opposed to the removal of these barriers to foreign ownership. We already have the highest rate of acceptance of foreign ownership among highly industrialized countries.
I am worried. I would have preferred to hear that you are opposed to such a possibility and that, as Minister of Canadian Heritage, you will be defending broadcasting. I have brought something to show how well we have been working and how long we have reflected on this. This report is not on a shelf in my office, but it is really a bible for us and we can read in it how the committee did not want the restrictions on foreign ownership to be lifted. Contamination between the contents and the container is very strong. Look what has happened since we witnessed media consolidation: it is very difficult to control the contents of the various media.
I would like to know what you think. Thank you.
º (1635)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Madame Gagnon.
Just before I let the minister answer, Madame Gagnon will also know that the broadcasting study report is not just her bible, but is also being used as reference material at universities throughout Canada.
Madame Scherrer.
[Translation]
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you very much, Ms. Gagnon.
Madam Chair, I would first like to tell Ms. Gagnon that I may not have been clear; your report is not on a shelf but just within reach, close to my desk, and that it is a work of reference for me. I hope to be able to go through the 800 pages soon. If I had it on hard disk, I could already refer to it more easily.
I would like to clear up any ambiguity that might have slipped into my remarks with regard to intellectual property. As Minister of Canadian Heritage, I intend to vigorously defend Canadian content. I do have to work with the Department of Industry. The good news is that that has not been done before, the relationship between the two departments was not particularly good whereas now, the officials are talking. We are looking for a solution and I can assure you that I do not intend to compromise.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We can therefore expect no compromise on your part, is that right? That would mean that the barrier on foreign ownership will not be relaxed.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: For now, I do not intend to relax foreign ownership barriers.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Will the decision be made before the end of March?
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I certainly hope so but it might be a little difficult under the present circumstances. Still that decision will be made soon; I do not intend to put off indefinitely. The decision will be made soon and if you see that it is taking too long, I count on you to call me to order.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Certainly before the election.
Let us talk about cultural events. The sponsorship scandal has hurt many sport and cultural events in Quebec. I have a technical question on the numbers. How much money does that represent for Quebec? There is $250 million minus the $100 million given out for sponsorship which leaves us with $150 million. But how much is there really?
According to my calculations, there were $37 million going to Quebec for sport and cultural events alone. I would like to know if you can tell us how much Quebec will get this year for sport and cultural events. There is a lot of pressure to find an alternative. Some events are at risk.
I also want to know what criteria were put in place to ensure that the money given out is not used for propaganda but to truly help the sport and cultural community? And I want to know how the members can have access to that information?
Thank you.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I do not have numbers that go back to the beginning of the program, but I can tell you about last year's numbers, for example, because last week I met with the representatives of the Regroupement des événements majeurs internationaux and Festivals et Événements Québec. They gave me written information and seemed to be saying that all-in-all, $5 million in total were invested last year in Quebec of which a little more than half went to recurring events and the rest to one-time events.
For the whole of Canada last year, I believe the total was approximately $20 million from which a certain amount was spent on management, and last year's management of these events was extremely stringent. Since then the program has been abolished. The amounts dedicated to that purpose within the public works were not transferred, but the Prime Minister has given me the fun challenge of seeing how, within my department's existing programs, within the terms and conditions of the existing programs, I could help these organizations.
We are reviewing all of that or will be doing it this week or the next. The organizers of all the events that received a grant last year will get a letter this year inviting them to send an application to Canadian Heritage and to briefly describe the event for which a grant is requested. They will not be required to indicate how they intend to give exposure to the Canadian government during their event. They will be asked to describe the event, its nature, its impact on the community; the events will be assessed based on these criteria.
I will also be in touch with all the members by sending them a signed letter, explaining the procedure. There will also be very soon details on how the program works on the Canadian Heritage Department's website. Of course we will try to address the events being held this summer as soon as possible because these are the ones that are most at risk. It is important to note that the events that had received a positive response from Public Works or Communication Canada in the whole program will be funded until March 31st of this year. After that date, we will try to find a way to help them financially within Canadian Heritage's existing programs. That is where we are at right now.
º (1640)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Lincoln.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I have three brief questions. The first deals with the CBC and Radio-Canada because in its reply to our report the government said it was only a beginning, due to the change in government, and that the final reply would come later. I would like to know in this regard whether you would agree with our recommendation asking for a stable, long-term and increased financing and, as a trade-off we would require the CBC and Radio-Canada to table a yearly strategic plan in the House, including a local and regional broadcasting component. I would like to have your opinion.
There are also two questions about two departments: Industry and Canadian Heritage. The first is about the government's reply to the effect that both departments would review the licence fees under Part II. What is the present situation in this regard?
[English]
Finalement, there is the question of foreign ownership, which is really key to us, perhaps the biggest question before us. I want to make quite sure I've understood you well. I really welcome your position, but I would like to know this. The whole debate has been that the distributors are saying there's no problem with lifting the ownership limits on distribution because it won't affect content. Do you agree with us--from what you said I want to make sure you agree with us--when we say we don't see any way of splitting the two apart? We think they are intertwined, that if you lift foreign ownership on distribution, you effectively lift it on content. Could you tell us, so we're quite clear, that you agree with us in the committee when you say you're going to defend the question of foreign ownership before the cabinet, that you see it the same way we do, that both distribution and content are intertwined for purposes of foreign ownership limits?
º (1645)
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: You could answer the first two questions, Madame.
Mrs. Judith LaRocque (Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage): I want to make sure we understand your question, Mr. Lincoln.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What I would like to add is that, according to the cable operators and those in charge of the signal distribution system, the foreign ownership barrier ceiling could very well be taken down without affecting the content. They consider that there is a distinction between the two. As far as we are concerned, our belief is that you cannot affect one without affecting the other since both are closely interrelated.
You are saying that you are in agreement with this position of ours, and I would like to know whether, in your opinion, this means that both foreign ownership ceilings should be maintained at their present level and that, consequently, we should not play around with either?
[English]
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I'm new, you know. I'm just trying to learn everything at the same time.
[Translation]
Mr. Lincoln, as far as Radio-Canada is concerned, let me tell you first that last Sunday, at the official opening of Radio-Canada's offices in Quebec City, I have had the pleasure to meet once again with Mr. Rabinovitch and Ms. Taylor and to reiterate my objectives and my vision for Radio-Canada. I had an earlier opportunity to meet Mr. Rabinovitch in my office.
I fully share your opinion. As for Mr. Rabinovitch, of course his wish is to obtain financing over a longer term to allow for better planning. I would really like to give you the assurance that this is what I am going to do. In fact, I was a bit late today because I had first to go to confession at Mr. Goodale's in order to set priorities and to ensure that culture will not be left behind in the next budget.
Obviously, long-time financing is something we are promoting. This would allow Radio-Canada to plan more adequately for the years to come. After all, nobody is against motherhood. Indeed, it is the kind of priority that had been put forward by Mr. Rabinovitch himself.
Now, in terms of the strategic plan, I think I have managed to impress upon him that it was also the objective of the Prime Minister to be able to reach out to all Canadians everywhere. I have also made it clear that I would not like to see an amplification of this movement in favour of big cities. I think he really got the message. Later on, he quite openly submitted his proposals with regard to a strategic plan. As a committee, you will be informed about it so as to ensure that Radio-Canada can become a truly national public broadcaster, not only in larger cities, but also in each and every smaller community. He gave me his commitment to that effect, and I even think that he would have been willing to put it in writing.
As for the licence fees under Part II, you are probably aware that this matter is before the courts. Your recommendation has been heard in certain circles, and some people have decided to challenge this before the courts, which explains why I am not in a position to discuss it with you today.
As for your third question, which is slightly more difficult for me, you are totally right to say that both committees, yours and the Committee on Industry, hold opposite positions in this regard.
º (1650)
Mrs. Judith LaRocque: As requested by both committee reports, there are ongoing discussions between the public servants. As for us, we would certainly not start those discussions in a way that might be prejudicial to the Canadian content.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: As far as I am concerned, I would like to know what you mean, as a minister, when you are telling us that you are going to promote foreign ownership.
Do you intend to promote ownership in total, as per our recommendations? As far as we are concerned, we are talking about distribution and about content; we consider both to be intricately interrelated. That is our position.
As an example, in replying to Ms. Gagnon, I would ask you to tell us what your position is in this regard.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: What I want is to protect the Canadian content at any cost.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But do you think that includes the distribution system? This is a key question because we can easily say that we protect the Canadian content system, but without protecting distribution as well. I would like to know whether your thinking went as far as that.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: You know what is my position now, but the fact is that we have to continue working with the Committee on Industry. Their position has to be taken into consideration as well, but I can honestly and openly tell you today that it is not my intention to make any concession whatsoever in terms of Canadian content.
[English]
The Chair: I'm being very lenient with time here. We all want to hear what the minister has to say, but I still have a number of people: Mr. Bonwick, Ms. Lill, Mr. Grewal, and then Madame Allard. So perhaps we could make our questions a little bit shorter, if at all possible.
Mr. Bonwick.
Hon. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): It's the art of the impossible, Madam Chair.
Minister, I too want to join the chairperson in offering my congratulations on your posting. I think the Prime Minister made a very wise decision in posting you to that position. I think you have the ability to become a true champion of the cultural sector in this country. I think you are effectively at a crossroads right now and have the ability to go down a road that for generations to come certainly those within the cultural sector will feel a debt of gratitude based on your leadership.
I can't help but be incredibly pleased about your comments surrounding your commitment, and the Minister of Industry's commitment, to ratify the WIPO treaty. I think it is, quite frankly, as you certainly recognize, long overdue. It was a commitment, no less a promise, this government made seven years ago. I think it's timely, and it's very good news that, according to you, in the next few days we should see something coming forward.
I think it's also pleasing to the ears that you recognize the many years of experience collectively sitting around this table, and your open-door approach I think is going to be taken up very quickly.
I notice that you specifically referenced, when you spoke about tabling your report, private copying as an issue that--and I'll use your quote--“still raises a number of questions”. I suspect, going back to your comment about the collective years of experience on this committee, that we might be able to play a role in helping you to address those issues surrounding the private copy regime. So I would simply say that, for the record, this committee in arguably the next few days should put both departments on notice that they will be having their officials in, that they will be asking for an explanation as to what their position is, and the rationale as to why they've made those decisions. Then hopefully we will be able to advise you accordingly as to the depth or quality of their position.
I'm interested, Minister, if you could please give us a more defined role, or inform us as to what kind of role we can actually play in developing this policy in helping to create what I think would be a very balanced approach in allowing you to move forward and ratify WIPO. Could you lay it out in days for me, please?
º (1655)
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you for your nice comments.
As I also said in my speech, I invite you to give your comments before we finalize the draft. After that, we are going to table a draft, and I sure hope the committee will work on that draft and come back with many suggestions.
Hon. Paul Bonwick: Coming back to those timelines, Madam Minister, I would like you to tell this committee specifically what timelines you would provide us. Do you see us playing a role in working with officials to first overcome the issue you've identified within the private copy regime, and beyond that, with our collective experience, providing you the opportunity to move forward to cabinet this year? Could you please identify some timelines for us?
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Sure. Madame LaRocque will answer that.
Mrs. Judith LaRocque: It is our intention, Mr. Bonwick, to be in a position to table with this committee a report with options within the next 10 days or two weeks. We're working very closely with our colleagues at Industry on this, and it would be our hope that the committee would look at this and provide us recommendations and views on the range of issues that would be in that report. Of course, following that, it would be our intention, as the minister said in her statement, to go back to cabinet in the fall to try to get drafting instructions for legislation.
Hon. Paul Bonwick: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bonwick.
Ms. Lill.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.
Thank you for coming here today.
I was the one who asked for you to come early on, because as a committee we were concerned with the response we received from your department around the broadcasting study. We didn't feel it was adequate. We didn't feel it actually looked carefully at the areas of foreign ownership, Canadian content, the Canadian broadcasting system, many areas, and we really wanted to express that deeply, that we have some serious concerns.
There are some optics out there right now that I think you have to be concerned about, that I'm concerned about. There are the optics that the Prime Minister dumped a minister of culture who really did care deeply about the Canadian broadcasting system, who had a solid grasp of broadcasting issues and a clear position in favour of maintaining Canadian control. I think that's a really important piece of what we're all about here. This committee grew very close together over two years. We heard over and over that we have to maintain our culture and control of our culture.
There is a great deal of concern about the fact that Francis Fox, who was the executive for Rogers AT&T, is now in the PMO. He was lobbying very hard for the end of foreign ownership up until he became a member of the PMO. This has to be a major concern for everybody in that cultural sector in this country, and I would think a major concern for you.
So I'd like to know how you are addressing those concerns, that in fact you don't have a grasp or a real passion for keeping the Canadian broadcasting system Canadian, that you actually have some foxes in the henhouse. You seem to be saying some nice vague things, but we're not getting the kinds of answers that we feel we need in terms of protecting Canadian interests.
Continuing on from what Mr. Lincoln said, what kinds of assurances can we get from you that you are going to be putting the interests of Canadians above the corporate profits of the cable companies and that you really do understand this business of Canadian broadcasting and how it's created and what sustains it?
» (1700)
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you, Ms. Lill.
I can understand that you might feel insecure because there's a new minister, and you had a minister who was very passionate before. I agree with that. I understand that on the passionate side and on the expertise and experience side these are huge shoes to fill.
I've been working very hard. It's not an excuse, but I've been here only three months. I am trying to learn as much as I can and am meeting as many groups as I can. Maybe I cannot give you all the pertinent answers on every question and every issue after three months, but I can tell you that the passion is there. I can tell you the hard work is there, as is the goodwill to be your ally on all the issues on the table, to work with you and not against you, and to work in a collaborative way.
The work you're doing at the committee, for me, is a priority because you are the ones who are working on the ground, you are the ones who have been there for so long, and you are the people who did come up with that huge bible--which is a bible to me. I really wish I could be more informed on all the issues. Maybe I should ask for a little time just to make sure I have more experience and as much experience as you have.
I have a vision. I hope you understand that I really want to be the champion of Canadian content and work in that way. I really want to reach out to every community and make sure every citizen is involved, and I want Canada to be a leader on the international level.
I probably don't know all the issues and all the small points; I agree with you. That's why you're here and that's why I want you to support me.
When I say I want to work with you, I'm very sincere in doing that. So if you have any comments, if you can inform me on any subject that you feel I don't have enough information on, I'm very much open to that.
Ms. Wendy Lill: There's one more thing then. We did a great deal of work and the industry committee also did a great deal of work, so you have two parliamentary committees that worked very hard on this file. In the throne speech there was mention of the fact that more contributions from parliamentarians were going to be requested and all of that.
I'm wondering this. We're hearing now that your committee and industry are talking and you're coming up with something, but I think this committee feels, where is the parliamentary role in this? Where are the MPs? What about a joint committee of MPs from these two committees who can actually have some input at this point, instead of leaving us the sense that it's being done behind closed doors and it's a fait accompli? This does not give anybody any confidence, and I think if you want to really come some way in helping to improve the situation, get it out in the open, back at the parliamentary level.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I'd agree with that 100%. Why not? It is a great suggestion. Why don't we do that? I'm very open to that.
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll go to Mr. Grewal, then back to Mr. Harvard and Madame Allard.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, CPC): Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, I welcome the remarks and the spirit of cooperation from the minister. I have a few sharp and brief questions, and I will expect sharp and brief answers as well.
The first one is about the licensing fee tier two charged to broadcasters. This is the service provided by CRTC through your ministry. The broadcasters paid a fee, and the fee should be equal to the amount of services provided. In the previous year, your department charged $92 million in total fees, and the services that were provided were to the tune of only $10 million.
The Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations tabled a report stating that $82 million was illegally charged to the broadcasters. The report was tabled in the last session.
When can we expect an answer to that report, a response from the ministry, and are the broadcasters being refunded for the illegal amount charged to them? That's the first question.
Second, I have four radio broadcasting stations in my constituency. They are ethnic radio stations. They are not governed under Canadian regulations because they are broadcasting through the United States of America, though Internet and telephone, whatever the mechanism. I believe that whatever content they are airing, the audience happens to be in Canada and we have no control over the content. They are not governed by the regulations of the Canadian government. Sometimes they supply false information, and we cannot do anything about that.
Why is it difficult for ethnic radio stations to get licences? Why are there barriers and impediments? If they are utilizing the services anyway and targeting Canadian listeners, I think the CRTC or your ministry should facilitate their getting Canadian licences so the Canadian government can control their content so they are not supplying false information...control over the language they are using.
I would like to know if there is anything in the plans to facilitate the ethnic radio stations getting licences. One of the radio stations, Radio India, has more listeners than even CKNW radio station in British Columbia. They're broadcasting all the way up to Toronto and in various other provinces. So I would like to see what is in the plans for licensing.
Those are my two questions. I have one more, if I have time.
» (1705)
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: On the first one, I have to tell you that this matter is before the Federal Court of Canada, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on the part II fee problem.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But you will be tabling a response to the report by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations on this issue?
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: We'll also reply by March 26 to the more recent report from the joint committee.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: As for the second question, I don't know if any official around here would have the answer. We will take it into consideration, because I don't think anybody has heard about the problem you're talking about. We'll bring back the answer to the committee.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Minister, would you like me to put it in writing and send it to you?
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: That would be great.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.
Madam Minister, you talked about integration and openness to various communities. The three main objectives of multiculturalism are promoting Canadian identity and belonging, promoting integration with various communities, and eliminating barriers to equality. I think your ministry promotes tolerance in Canada, in our diverse country, in multicultural communities. Is it not time that we move from tolerance to acceptance?
We accept intolerances: I have to deal with you, but somehow I don't like that. Acceptance is where we accept the reality of ethnic diversity and multiculturalism in Canada. The ministry should promote acceptance rather than tolerance.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Maybe it starts with tolerance before we get to acceptance.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But we have been promoting tolerance for 29 years.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: You have such a good ambassador by the name of Jean Augustine, and I will bring your message to her. I think you have the best ambassador you could have in the person of Ms. Augustine, who probably works on what you're talking about. I don't think she's talking about tolerance. She's talking about integration and acceptance all the time. So you'll see some concrete action in the next platform in the months to come.
The Chair: You're out of time.
Mr. Harvard, and then Madame Allard. If time permits, I will just ask one tiny question at the end.
Hon. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Minister, you said some nice things about the committee members in your earlier remarks, and I want to thank you for that. It's always nice to be stroked. In return, I certainly want to offer my congratulations to you and wish you well in your portfolio. I sense from you that you're still feeling you're on a steep learning curve. I think I can understand that, and I certainly wish you well.
Having said that, I want to get down to business. It has to do with foreign ownership, and it's a follow-up to what Mr. Lincoln and Ms. Lill asked you.
This committee, Madam Minister, has made it very clear that we are opposed to any relaxation of foreign ownership limits on broadcasting outlets and distributing outlets. What I want to know from you, Madam Minister, is whether we can really count on you, not only in cabinet but also in those negotiations with Industry Canada. Are you going to go to bat for us? Are you going to stand behind us?
I think I want to know where you're going to be starting in your negotiations. I would like to feel some comfort from some remarks you might want to offer to us. Are you going to go into the negotiations from the point of view or with the position that you are going to oppose any relaxation of foreign ownership limits? In the final analysis, you may have to make a concession, but at least if your starting position is that you are opposed unalterably to the relaxation of foreign ownership limits, I would feel a little bit more comfortable.
In one of your answers to Ms. Lill—or to Mr. Lincoln, though it doesn't really matter—you said you were not going to make any concessions on Canadian content. Well, with respect, Madam Minister, the question was not about content. It's quite easy for anybody around here to wave the flag for Canadian content; that's motherhood. The tougher question is foreign ownership; that's the question.
To get to what Mr. Lincoln was saying, if you fiddle around with foreign ownership, if you relax foreign ownership limits, it may well have an impact on Canadian content. That's where the link is. That's why in my opinion the most important question is—and this is what I want to know from you, even if it's only from your gut—where do you stand on foreign ownership? Are you going to oppose it? Are you going to walk into the cabinet and into those meetings with Industry Canada and say, “I am opposed to the relaxation of foreign ownership limits”?
That's what I want to know. Give me some comfort, because I haven't gotten any yet.
» (1710)
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I think I have to be very clear today. What I want to do, and the position I'm going to have in any negotiation, is to have your position. It's going to be your recommendation. You are representatives from all provinces, and you have been working on this. You probably know what you're talking about, as you've been working so long and hard on that recommendation. I'm going to carry what you said today; I'm going to carry the position of the committee. I won't go into a negotiation telling anybody that I'm going to make a concession on the first part.
If it is the only thing you remember from our meeting today, it should be that I'm not working on one side and you on the other side. You are the committee who have been working very hard, who know what you are, and who are in touch with all arts and culture in Canada. You probably represent exactly what they want, so why would I have a position different from yours?
So if you want to help me, and if you want to give me any more than you've already done, I'm open to it. Otherwise, what we've got on the table is your recommendation. I'm starting with that, and I'm sticking with that as long as I don't have a concession to make. Before I do, I'll come back to the committee and we'll talk about it. Is that clear?
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Hon. John Harvard: That makes me feel pretty comfortable, so go for it.
Thank you.
An hon. member: That's very good.
The Chair: Madame Allard.
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Madam Minister, I sympathize with you. Having been the parliamentary secretary for this department last year, I know how large and complicated it is. I am convinced that you want above all else that our artists have the means to create.
Last year, there was a lot of debate about the Canadian Television Fund. I do not know whether you have read the reports of this committee, but several times witnesses who appeared before us criticized the fact that this very costly fund—$15 million a year—was under dual management. At one point, according to an announcement, negotiations were set up to try to recover these amounts and to set up a new management system. I do not know whether you or Ms. LaRocque could tell us what progress has taken place in that regard and whether we are about to have a decision.
» (1715)
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you, Carole-Marie. I have to say that ever since my first consultations, no matter with what group, be they the leaders, the small communities, the artists, the producers or the distributors, there was a common priority that always came back, and that was the Canadian Television Fund. The impact of last year's cuts was major and even the last minute addition did not prevent it from having a very negative impact, particularly for independent production and small producers. I believe we heard everything throughout Canada. I made it my first priority with the Minister of Finance by explaining how negative the impact had been and how in fact we had to go back to the amount originally invested, which is a priority for the whole cultural community.
Furthermore, I met with all of the people in charge under the umbrella of the Canadian Television Fund. I think the message was very clear: if ever the budget is re-established, we ought to all sit around the table and go to a single administration and, as I mentioned in my speech, to redefine the mandates of some of the stakeholders within the Canadian Television Fund in order to see how we can come up with a strategic plan for future years and to see how we could look at savings that would definitely be re-invested to support production and the artists. So that message was made very clear to the people who are the main stakeholders of the Canadian Television Fund. I believe it was also very well understood by the Minister of Finance. We do hope that, come March 23, we will have excellent news.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: More specifically, are we likely to be able to announce that progress was made in regard to the dual management system that existed? Does it still exist? Has there been any progress in that regard?
Mrs. Judith LaRocque: It still exists, Ms. Allard, except that we are developing options. We will be consulting communities very soon to ensure that we are on the right track. However, the Canadian Television Fund has already reviewed the administrative workings with a view to simplifying the process, and I believe it has recently announced some changes. So it is a beginning. The larger question of governance, if you will, that of having a single board or a single administration, is a matter we still have to determine, but we are working on it and we hope to have something to communicate publicly very soon.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: As a matter of fact, there already is an opening. Among the people we have met with, this was not news. I believe they had already been made aware of the Lincoln report and they knew this was desirable. They as well as other stakeholders whom we met individually looked very positively upon ways of avoiding duplication and ensuring that, at some point, the mandate be redefined in keeping with the new stakes, which will be considerable.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Perhaps if we have time the committee will allow me a few little questions before we go into the third round.
This is just to follow up on Madame Allard's question about the fund. One of the things, certainly, that's happened in my riding, which is home to many artists, filmmakers, directors, and writers, is that in fact this is the first time all the groups have come together to support the fund. I think it is very important that when you spoke before the committee, you talked about the importance of drama and working with drama. We can have as many CRTC decisions as we want, but unless the funds are put in place to allow that drama to be produced, we won't be able to work on it. So, Minister, I urge you to make the case to the finance minister. If we have the tool of the CRTC that is going to ensure more programming is produced, we need the funds and the tools to do it. You can't have policy without the funds; that's first and foremost.
Second, with respect to copyright, and following up on Mr. Bonwick's question, I note that we too will be looking at a draft in this committee in the days to come. I noticed in your speech you've actually picked out the specific issue of fees for private copying. I have reason to believe--correct me if I'm wrong--that there is a legal opinion on this matter. Is that something your department is prepared to share with this committee as we move forward on this matter? That's number two.
For my last comment before we go into the third round, Minister, I urge you to heed the words that have been said by my colleagues Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Harvard, Ms. Lill, and Mr. Bonwick with respect to foreign ownership. You said you did not have the advantage of the many hearings we'd had. Well, there was one hearing where we actually heard how the two, content and distribution, are related. If we just look at opening up foreign ownership to the cable companies, we will say, oh, it is just a matter of ensuring more competition. But you can't make that argument and allow the telecommunications industry to open up to foreign ownership without opening up the cable industry, without opening up the broadcasting industry, and then without opening up competition for the CBC. So where does it stop?
There is a continuum that cannot be ignored. It is one thing to be fair, but this is not just about competition policy. In your speech you speak about the importance of putting our cultural objectives at risk. I believe, Madam Minister, our cultural objectives will be put at risk if we budge at all on foreign ownership. And, Madam Minister, you should also know that even in the United States broadcasting is not subject to foreign ownership on the simple basis of national security, so I urge you to take that message back to cabinet.
» (1720)
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: On the CTF, you're quite right. I heard it from everybody in the country and even in some round tables. I asked the question, if you were Minister of Canadian Heritage, what would you do first? No matter where they came from and no matter what their interest was, they always said they'd restore the Canadian television fund.
Maybe I could ask you for your support also to go to the microphone any time you want to in front of the Prime Minister and in front of the finance minister, to say, this is what we want. As chair and maybe as colleagues, you could go to the microphone and ask for that. It would probably help me.
I think we're on the right track. It smells positive, and it's been the priority of the moment for every community, every city, every organization, and every individual artist I've met. So you're right, there is a consensus; that's what they want. The impact was very negative, and it would be very great to have it restored. I'm working on that. Let me tell you, it's been my priority to point it out to the finance minister.
As for the second question, it was a legal opinion.
Can you answer that?
Ms. Susan Peterson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Cutural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage): When we ask for legal opinions on policy matters that are under discussion within the department and within the ministry, they aren't shared, basically because cabinet has to be free to make its own decisions in light of the total range of advice it's getting, including legal advice.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: We would very much welcome your advice, though, on that issue.
The Chair: I think, because you specifically addressed the specific issue of fees for private copying, which I understand seems to be what's holding up the ratification of the WIPO treaties, that if there is a legal opinion that, again, in the new openness and transparency.... What may not have been done in the past is one thing; we're asking you to reconsider and to provide it to this committee.
Mrs. Judith LaRocque: I think the view is that legal advice in this matter would constitute advice to cabinet. Therefore, as I was just explaining to the minister, I don't believe these are our rules to break, in a sense. I think it's a larger issue of cabinet confidence or what constitutes advice to cabinet.
» (1725)
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: What's the third question? Foreign ownership.
I told you, I'm going to be a champion. I'm going to represent you as much as I can. I know exactly what it means. I have to deal with very complex issues. I'm going to represent the committee, the opinion of the committee, what you put forward, and I won't budge on that.
The Chair: Mr. Castonguay, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, Mr. Grewal, and then Mr. Bonwick, if we have time.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Congratulations, Minister. But enough flattery. You mentioned in your presentation that in the following months, you will be paying particular attention to three large fields of intervention, the first of which is cultural expression, which is an enrichment to all of us. I am delighted to hear that. In a riding such as the one I represent, there are many small communities. Most of them have activities that are called festivals. Very often this is seen as a gateway for many of our young people who can express themselves in the cultural arena. I believe these activities ought to be supported. Obviously, with all that is happening right now with Communication Canada, there is cause to be concerned. You mentioned earlier, while responding to Ms. Gagnon, that there would be support. I simply want to remind you that time is running out for many of these people.
My other concern is that you will likely often find yourself defending your issues in cabinet. I would say that we hear the phrase “bottom line” far too often. I would remind you that, for the citizens in our ridings, quality of life is not just a matter of the bottom line. There are things in life that are not measured in terms of dollars. There are more important things that are a part of our well-being and, I would even say, of our intellectual health and, in the end, these are extremely important for our physical health.
In cabinet, will you be championing a position according to which the bottom line is not the only important thing, and that there are also other values that cannot be measured that way? Are there things we can do to assist you in convincing your cabinet colleagues, where you will have to defend these issues? I would like to know your position on this.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Mr. Castonguay, indeed, I think I am going to hire you to promote the Department. You are absolutely right, it is not always easy to talk about the bottom line as well as culture throughout Canada because too often, culture is identified as cultural activities or as a luxury. It is often said, that eventually, once we try to meet the needs of everyone, only then can we start talking about culture; whereas, when I talk about the Department of Canadian Heritage—and you do a very good job at promoting it—I am talking about the very essence of Canada. It is a way to reach out to each and every Canadian everywhere in their own realities, in their daily lives. It is like the blood that flows in the body. It is true that sometimes we have to fight in cabinet because people think too often that we operate in a vacuum. Indeed, the Department of Heritage is like the spirit that embodies this responsibility with respect to values, with respect to identity and social cohesion for all Canadians.
Therefore, if you want to promote the Department as something other than a list of buildings or a list of archives... I have always said that I have the best Department because I truly believe that this Department is the common link between all other departments, it has a particular essence we must maintain. On that point, I agree with you completely. Yes, you can help me by promoting culture as a value, and not as an element of a cultural activity. Only then, can we marry tolerance and integration. We must act in such a way so that each Canadian, in all communities, has the urge to get involved in civic life. This is how we are not only to get to thebottom line, but how to achieve an exceptional quality of life in Canada.
I want to come back very briefly to the issue of events. I am totally convinced that one way to reach out to our communities is through our festivals, through our events on the economic level, the social level, the level of mobilizing our youth, as well as the level of involving our entire volunteer force. This is how regions become known and how different values are promoted. It is with that in mind that we are trying to work right now. We will no longer talk about visibility and we will not trade in the value of an event for its visibility component, but rather for the influence of the event itself.
Sometimes indicators are not always economic indicators. Some say that there is a return for a region. Perhaps one day we will set aside the economic indicator and say that this is a way to reach out to people, a way to bring people together, a way to promote a region--
Very often, it is a way to attract people to a region. In fact having met the Quebec Minister of Culture very recently, we were able to exchange ideas, I think we share the same points of view, and we will be able to work together very soon.
» (1730)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
I apologize to Madame Gagnon. She was next, because she missed her second round.
Madame Gagnon.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I hope we have convinced you on the issue of foreign ownership, because the idea of controlling content, whether it be Canada or Quebec, is not purely theoretical. There must be a political will, and that falls under your mandate.
I would like some clarification on another issue, that of the Canadian Television Fund. If I have understood correctly, you mentioned in your speech that the government will be making up for the missing $62 million. Or is this issue still being debated?
Secondly, concerning the Canadian Television Fund, in the report there was a lot of emphasis on the difficulties regions encountered in getting their fair share. When the budgets for regions are voted on, for example, for the region of Quebec City, the capital, even through Radio-Canada, it is always difficult to obtain funds. I would like to see some agreed upon percentages for the regions and that they not be convertible into cash, but reserved. Only then, will the regions be able to hire their own artists and create a significant industry there.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I would like to respond to the question on the Canadian Television Fund. When it comes to the $62 million investment, last year the budget was drawn up without allocating funds to the Canadian Television Fund. When we say that there was an increase in the budget, it is because there were allocations made, on top of the budget. I cannot guarantee that we will go back to...
Mrs. Judith LaRocque: I want to make sure I have the right information, but I think the sum of $62 million is the sum that the Canadian Television Fund would receive this year.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: If it is maintained.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: But there are arrears. An amount of $12.5 million was taken out of the budget because we were told that there would be a $50 million cut over two years.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Normally, it was $75 million that should have been given.
» (1735)
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That is it. So are you going to make up for the shortfalls in order to allow for productions to attain good cruising speed?
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: In fact, Ms. Gagnon, I asked not to go back to what we had last year, but I asked to go back to what we had the year before, that is a sum of $100 million for the Canadian Television Fund. Our request was to go back to the initial amount. I do not know how our request was received, but it was not to go back to last year's sum but rather to the original sum on which people were already planning, before last year's cuts. Last year we announced $75 million over two years, possibly in increasing loss, which would disappear definitively. Since this caused a major uproar in the community, we re-divided the $25 million to give $12.5 million more, I think, taking from this year's sum. This year, I asked the Minister of Finance not $62 million, $67 million, $87 million, but to go back to the $100 million, which was there from the start, and ultimately worked well.
When it comes to the regions, I think you made an excellent suggestion. I received several suggestions with respect to the sharing of different envelopes, even more this year, given the fact that we are experiencing an exceptional situation in light of the exceptional performance of the francophone sector, and in light of the problems which the anglophone drama sector is still grappling with. I think this is what we are reviewing at present: how will the envelopes be shared, given the enormous changes that have taken place over the last three years?
I repeat, all of your suggestions are welcome, it will be reviewed. And so, you have a huge mandate in the months to come.
[English]
The Chair: Madam Minister, you've been more than generous with your time. There are three quick questions, if we could just quickly hear them, and then if you have time....
Ms. Karetak-Lindell, Mr. Grewal, and Mr. Bonwick.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): It's just a very quick one.
I spoke to you before about aboriginal languages and protection of aboriginal culture, and I think the two are very closely linked. I understand the Official Languages Act, but being from an area where aboriginal languages are the main languages spoken, I think we need to do more to fund the aboriginal languages. Right now, the amount of money the territory has, or as far as Nunavut is concerned, is just not sufficient to keep it as a working language. I just want to make sure I bring that to your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Mr. Grewal, then Mr. Bonwick, and then if there's time, the minister can reply.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Minister, you agreed that it was the responsibility of the government to promote integration of communities rather than segregation. One big impediment to promoting integration--and I'm talking about 10, 15, 20 years down the road, not today--is the hyphenation of Canadians. Various departments of government, when advertising for jobs, ask the ethnicity of the individual. Even though like every one else I am very proud of my ethnicity and my cultural background and so on, that little tiny splash of ink that divides words to unite words, that drives a wedge and keeps words apart--called hyphenation--is an impediment. It creates different tiers of Canadians. It brands Canadians like commodities, and it hurts the pride, I think, of some Canadians more than others.
We need to create a spirit of treating all Canadians equally. Is your department planning to do something to get rid of hyphenation officially?
The Chair: Mr. Grewal, we'll go to Mr. Bonwick, and then we're going to have to close--we have a vote.
Hon. Paul Bonwick: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Minister, quite frankly, your officials' answers are totally unacceptable. This is the time I think you need to be a leader. To have your officials using language like “I think” and “we believe”, when you're asking us to help you, to advise you on a particular issue, and they're telling you and this committee that they're not prepared to share information with us, is unacceptable.
We are elected officials. This committee is charged with a responsibility. You're asking us to fill that responsibility and you have officials telling you that we cannot have access to that information.
If we can't get it that way, then you can't have a cooperative relationship with this committee. Quite frankly, the committee would have to look at bringing in experts on their own to develop their own opinions.
So I would suggest, Madam Minister, that you instruct your officials by Friday to get us that information so that we can play the supporting role you're asking us to play.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bonwick.
Madam Minister, very quickly, if you would like to comment.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I understand very well what you're saying and we're going to follow up on that.
Ms. Karetak, there's a new task force on aboriginal languages and culture that was appointed recently. That task force has the mandate to advise on the structure, composition, and activities of the Aboriginal Languages and Cultures Centre.
I've met with that group. That group has been chosen by peers, I think, and they seem to work very hard. They have...how much every year--$172 million?
Mrs. Judith LaRocque: That's the total that was budgeted for that initiative over a 10-year period. Right now it's through the chairmanship of Ron Ignace, and a committee of aboriginal advisers are in the process of holding hearings and making recommendations to the minister.
The Chair: Could you go to the last point? Then we must conclude.
Hon. Hélène Scherrer: My officials probably gave you the official response saying that there are rules and they cannot overcome the rules. Let me look into that and give you an answer.
The Chair: Once again, Madam Minister, on behalf of all members of the committee, I thank you very much for coming. Thank you for your frankness. We look forward to working with you as we address these issues.
Thank you, colleagues. The meeting is adjourned.