CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

• 0910

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

[Translation]

I hereby call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to order. First of all, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the members of the committee, in particular to the new members who have joined us.

I am very happy to see that Mr. Abbott, who led the Reform Party delegation during the last session, has remained with us, this time as vice-chair of the committee.

I would also like to cordially welcome Ms. Tremblay, who has done a great deal of work with this committee in the past. We are very happy to see her back, as well as John Godfrey, who was the chair of this committee.

I think that we have an exceptional committee right now. When I took a look at the backgrounds of the committee members, I was pleased to see that several of you have very specific experience in the fields of art and culture.

Ms. St-Hilaire, I believe that you are a member of SODAC and ADISQ,

[English]

and Mrs. Lill has a tremendous record as a playwright and an author.

Sarmite Bulte, on our side, has had a considerable amount of experience in the field of arts and public theatre, and I think is in the field of telecommunications.

So we have a tremendous range of interests represented here, which is very fitting for a ministry such as the heritage ministry, which is very wide-ranging.

Before we go on to our business, I thought it might be nice to introduce ourselves and find out what our particular interests are.

As you know, the Ministry of Heritage is a huge ministry. It's almost a compendium of many ministries that were separate and free-standing in their own right a few years ago, such as the cultural side of government; art and culture; communications; Parks Canada, a huge field in itself; and Sport Canada. It's a multifaceted ministry with very varied missions and interests.

You might like to let us know where your fields of interest lie as you briefly introduce yourselves.

[Translation]

I think it would be a good idea to go around the table and find out where everyone's interests lie.

My name is Clifford Lincoln, I am a Liberal member representing the riding of Lac-St-Louis in Montreal West. I was the chair of this committee last session. We had talked about the idea of undertaking a study on Canadian culture and its evolution in the next century, particularly as this pertains to the new technologies and international trade.

I am very happy to be back here. I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Abbott.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Thank you.

As Mr. Lincoln mentioned, I had the good fortune of serving on this committee for, I believe, two years prior to the conclusion of the 35th Parliament and found it to be one of the most stimulating committees that I had anything to do with.

As for my personal passions relative to Canadian heritage, first and foremost would be Parks Canada. Having lived on a lake—my home is on a lake in the Rocky Mountains—I have four national parks in my constituency. That would probably be my number one interest in heritage.

• 0915

However, where I'm coming from and where I'm representing the Reform Party to a great extent is that with the issue of Canadian heritage, we believe in being minimalistic in terms of involvement with the issues of Canadian heritage—giving some direction but basically letting Canadians do their thing.

To give you an idea—and I'll conclude with this rather than going on for a long time—I would define Canadian culture very simply. Canadian culture is what Canadians do. If you think about that for just a second, what Canadians do is in the buildings we're in. We have high-speed races with cars. We have symphonies. We have ballet. We have baseball games. Those are the things we do. We sit in front of our TVs. Whatever we do is what Canadian culture is.

So we see ourselves as maintaining more of a minimalistic role, and that will probably be the general thrust of where we will be coming from.

The Chairman: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you.

This is a new experience for me as a new member to the House. Never having served on a committee before, that's somewhat new. So if I have the odd faux pas or make the odd mistake, I'm going to ask the indulgence of the committee here. I may not know all the etiquette perfectly, but I will attempt to get up to speed as quickly as I can.

My background is in telecommunications, as the chair mentioned. I have had a number of encounters with the CRTC on the telecommunications side. It will be interesting for me to see it from this side and see the issues they wrestle with, particularly.

From the heritage side, my peer looks at it as what Canadians do. I guess my interest lies more in what Canadians have done. I think it's interesting, the instant outpouring of Canadians to put forward funds on the medals that are up for auction. There's a tremendous amount of untapped patriotism in this country that this ministry has the potential to unlock. I would like to see that unlocked in whatever way we can, and that will largely be the position I'll be taking as the issues come forward.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Obhrai, would you like to introduce yourself briefly and tell us what your particular interests are in regard especially to the Ministry of Heritage?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Sure. My name is Deepak Obhrai. I'm from Calgary.

I'll share Eric's opening remarks here in that this is also completely new to me, so I will be listening and trying to learn and give the best I can. Again, I would ask that if I do make some mistakes, you excuse me for that. But we'll try to do our best and bring an objective analysis here.

My background has been as a community person involved in the community grassroots in Calgary. I'm a past president of the India Canada Association, the National Indo-Canadian Council, the Montgomery Community Association and the Hindu Society of Calgary.

In coming here I'll be listening and focusing primarily on the cultural aspect of it. We do have some questions and concerns based on our past experience with the multicultural policy, which we feel may not be serving Canadians very well in the current state. We'll look at that and I'll try to give my perspective from my experience at the grassroots level.

I'll be interested also in the other culture aspects and the parks and all that.

That's my background. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I am very pleased to be back at the Canadian Heritage Committee, of which I was a member for several years at the start. This is where I more or less learned the ropes and I felt like coming back to Heritage.

I was a university professor where I trained preschool and primary school teachers. This is quite removed from politics, but all the same I feel that I have been doing this all my life by trying to prepare the teachers who are educating the next generation of Quebeckers.

• 0920

I agree with some of the opinions that have been given up until now. Personally, I think that my approach to culture is much more anthropological than prescriptive, which makes me a lot more in favour of solutions that are not too restrictive, given the cultural complexity of Canada; this will probably result in our adopting a policy that is relatively flexible and asymmetrical, to use a word that has come up quite often in other debates.

For instance, let's look at what is going on with specialty television channels. English Canada may simply need to protect itself against the American invader, but as far as we are concerned, there are still 20 or so applications before the CRTC and we are wondering who will be the next one appearing on the bankruptcy list, because the market can't handle more than we have right now. We see that TVA and Radio-Canada, for instance, are trying to obtain available channels because they are probably the only ones who can sustain the competition, but this is part of another debate.

Today I am especially interested in ensuring that the work undertaken on Canada's policy on culture, which was begun during the last legislature, be continued so that we can examine the impact of the new technologies and free trade under NAFTA and WTO, on Canadian and Quebec culture. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): My name is Caroline St-Hilaire and I am the member representing Longueuil on Montreal's south shore.

Like my colleagues from the Reform Party, this is my first experience. I agree with Ms. Tremblay, and I am especially interested in copyright. I therefore intend to participate in a debate on the new technologies that have an impact on copyright and, as well, on Canadian policies pertaining to our Quebec artists, of course. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. As my colleagues from Reform have stated, this is very new to me and I look to the committee for some guidance. I see this very much as a learning experience, especially in the beginning.

[Translation]

As an Acadian from St. Mary's Bay, in Nova Scotia, one of the areas of particular interest to me is national unity and Canadian culture. In southwestern Nova Scotia, we have Fort Anne, Grand-Pré and other Acadian historic sites which I feel are very important.

[English]

La technologie, in reference to the heritage portfolio, interests me as well. CBC is something I'd also like to learn more about, and support. Of course, I have a lot of interest in parks.

At this point that's all I would like to say. Thank you.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm Wendy Lill and I come from an artistic background. I'm a cultural worker, a playwright, and film-writer, so one of the interests I have is looking at the 800,000-plus cultural workers in this country and the issue of status-of-the-artist legislation.

I'm interested in the potential impact of the multilateral trade agreement on culture in this country and also the various trade agreements and copyright. The areas of arts, arts programming, and policy are where I think I will be most useful in this committee, and I hope I can be very useful.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Lill.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairperson, first of all I apologize for being a little late. The agriculture committee is running as well.

My riding has a very strong historical component, so I look forward to working on the committee in that regard. Certainly, as a member representing that area, I realize how incredibly important the historical background and the concentration on Canada must be. I also look forward once again to working on bettering things like the CBC, and privatization of things like TV stations as well.

• 0925

That's my song and dance.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): I guess I share the sentiments of my rookie colleagues. I'm new at this and am also looking forward to this being a learning experience.

In my former life I was a college teacher. I taught about eight of the last ten years internationally and spent about four years in Hungary. I confess I went over there with absolutely no cultural or heritage appreciation. I think that experience left a deep mark on me.

I have this recurring vision of seven- and eight-year-olds walking the streets of Hungary with violin cases and contrast that to Game Boys and things that are happening in Canada. I couldn't help but think—with what I admit is the flimsiest of empirical evidence—that as a society we are perhaps going to pay a price for that.

I really look forward to the work of this committee. Certainly, debating Mr. Abbott on the role of intervention and the form that takes will be worthwhile. Hopefully we can reinstate some of those values, because I think as a society we miss them and need them.

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Jordan.

M. Drouin.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, my name is Claude Drouin and I am the member for Beauce. This morning, I'm replacing Mr. Pat O'Brien.

The Chairman: Thank you for coming, Mr. Drouin.

Ms. Bulte

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you. My background is in business. I also happen to be a lawyer. In the last ten years of my life, something that started as a hobby and became a cause for me was the importance of the arts in Canada.

I bring this as the chairman of one of the largest, most successful, not-for-profit theatre companies in Canada. When I say successful, I mean from an artistic point of view, and also from a financial point of view. I believe we need that mix.

I see the arts and culture as a growth and investment industry, so as a businesswoman I see that's where we should look to create jobs. I also see the arts as both a patron of the arts and a person who has worked hard with the private and public sectors to bring innovative sponsorships to the arts. I think we require a mix of that in the arts.

For too long we have looked at it as a black hole. We need to redefine terms such as grants and look at them as investments. We should look to see what the arts as a whole contributes to the national identity of this country. Without our own voices we are not going to be heard. I believe very strongly in the development of original Canadian artistic product—R and D from a business side.

I also come from a neighbourhood that is full of artists. When I speak of artists I don't just speak of actors, I speak of playwrights, dramaturges, lighting designers, costume designers, and all the creative people who make things happen in our films, on our stages, and on television.

I also became very familiar, through my representation of the arts in Canada on the theatre side, with the broadcasting side and the television side. I believe that Telefilm works, I believe the Canada Council works, and I believe the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund works.

So I come from that kind of background. I believe one of the most wonderful things we have is heritage and what that means to everyone personally. I think it's important that we look at it across Canada and that it's truly representative. That's why I'm absolutely delighted to be here, to bring that passion, hobby, and the people I have met in the last ten years across Canada to this committee.

I'm a very strong supporter of the CBC, and my riding is full of artists from the CBC. I believe it is a cultural institution of Canada that this country must not only just preserve but enhance.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: What is your riding?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm sorry. It's Toronto, Parkdale—High Park. It's one of Canada's most culturally diverse ridings, from the multicultural side.

• 0930

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Good morning. My name is Jacques Saada and I am the member for Brossard—La Prairie in the Montreal region.

First of all, I would like to thank Sarmite for saying, for the first time, the word "passion", because I expected it to hear this word at some point at the Heritage Committee.

I come from an extremely multicultural riding. Of course, since I am a new member of Parliament, I find it very difficult to zero in on specific sectors of the field of culture, as I don't have a background in culture per say.

Nevertheless, I would like to talk about two fundamental principles which will be guiding me. The first principle consists in observing that in Canada, we never have to deny who we are in order to become what we will become. This is a fundamental principle that applies not only to the way we deal with what we refer to as multiculturalism but also to the way that we promote the francophonie and the way we perceive, in cultural terms, what goes on within and outside Quebec's borders, or within or outside of the francophonie.

The second principle, which in my mind is as fundamental as the first one, is that if culture becomes an instrument of propaganda, it is no longer culture. Accordingly, culture must not be used to convey propaganda of any type.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My riding is Broadview—Greenwood, which is the east side of downtown Toronto. It's the poor side. Unlike my friends in the Reform Party, I'm a passionate centralist, interventionist. I also have been a cultural worker for many years, and that part of fculture where I like to spend my time is sport, our national sport specifically, and I believe that through our national sport we have great untapped opportunities of pulling this country together.

I personally believe it is one of the greatest galvanizing agents we have in this country, but we don't give it enough time, or respect, and I am hoping this committee will support the notion that for the first time ever in our history we develop a set of books, numbers, that show that sport is not just something we feel good about when we have some private time, but its economic contribution to the fabric of the nation is more profound than anybody realizes. I hope this can be the particular focus I bring to this committee.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'm from just north of Dennis in Toronto, an area called Don Valley West.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: From the beautiful city of Toronto.

Mr. John Godfrey: I am an historian by profession, an historian in matters pertaining to Europe and particularly to France. Like Mr. Muise, I have spent quite a bit of time in Nova Scotia, 17 years at Dalhousie and I was director of King's College in Halifax.

[English]

I've had a steady downhill progression. I became a journalist after that, had a brief spell of recovery as a researcher, and then plunged headlong past used-car salesmen into politics. I was, as the chairman said, once chairman of this committee. Madam Tremblay and I were delightfully involved in looking at matters that still interest me, such as the future of the CBC. I'm very much picking up on the theme of the cultural policy review in the context of a multichannel universe.

My official job now is to be parliamentary secretary, which means that I am something of a pipeline between the ministry and the committee, and I suppose I try to act as eyes and ears in both directions. While I share many of the interests of the portfolio, which are numerous, I think that for purposes of focus beyond my official duties, I'm tempted to concentrate on perhaps four or five areas, notably the cultural industries, the not-for-profit arts sector, CBC and broadcasting, because of our previous interest and commitment, and new media, because this is an emerging field, which has huge implications. It certainly follows the technological scheme the committee has been following. Finally, there is the millennium, because I think it offers us some very interesting opportunities, and clearly when the government is searching for a policy this is a good time to be thinking about it.

• 0935

The Chairman: Thank you.

There are some routine motions that every committee adopts, and one or two might lead to particular discussions. Most of them are pretty straightforward. I would like us now to just go through them and see if we can get rid of them before we go on to substantive work. I think I sent you a note of them, a copy of them. The first one has to do with witnesses in absence of quorum,

[Translation]

in order to receive and authorize the printing of evidence when a quorum is not present.

[English]

You have had a copy of the motion. I don't know if you want me to read it.

Some hon. members: Dispense.

The Chairman: Dispense.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, are we going to be handling each of these independent of each other, or are we taking this as a package?

The Chairman: I think we should just take them one by one quickly, and I hope we won't spend time on those that are very routine. This one is a very standard motion.

Could I have a motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Saada, seconded by Ms. Tremblay, makes the motion.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Library of Parliament: That the Committee retain the services of one or more Research Officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the Committee in its works, at its discretion.

[English]

That also is self-evident.

At this point I would like to introduce two researchers who have worked with the committee before, Mr. René Lemieux and Madam Susan Alter.

[Translation]

These are two experts who have helped us a great deal in matters pertaining to culture. Mr. Lemieux has already worked with the committee for several years.

[English]

Ms. Alter has joined us as a specialist in certain areas, especially telecommunications, law, and various other areas. They've both been very active on the culture study that we started.

Could I have a motion to adopt?

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, seconded by Ms. Bulte, makes the motion.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: I would invite Mr. Lemieux and Ms. Alter to join us.

[English]

The third motion has to do with a notice to introduce motions. This was a standard practice of this committee before, and other committees, but it's not cast in stone.

[Translation]

What we're trying to do is to stipulate that a notice of motion must be given so that this committee is not receiving motions at any time. This practice applies both to the government and the opposition. I think that it's a good idea to have advance notice. This prevents us from becoming bogged down with all kinds of motions that are presented at any time.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: I so move.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'd like to move an amendment.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would like to amend 48 to 24.

The Chairman: There's a motion before us that 48 become 24.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Jim Abbott: May I speak to that?

The Chairman: Yes, you can speak to it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that we must do things in an orderly manner, and I also appreciate the fact that this is as much a safeguard for the opposition from the government as it is for the government from the opposition. However, I had occasion in the 35th Parliament when the 48 hours became a little onerous, a bit of a problem. I would suggest that 24 hours provides the necessary protection but gives more flexibility in being able to deal with issues.

• 0940

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chair, I would call on your wisdom for this. As a new MP, and with the logistics of travelling back and forth to my riding, which is six hours away, on the surface 48 hours seems much more appropriate to me, rather than getting 24 hours' notice and having to try to make arrangements to be here right away if in fact I don't have House duties. On the surface I suggest that 48 hours makes much more sense, but again, based on the wisdom of the chair, I would be prepared to follow his direction.

The Chairman: I should explain what Mr. Bonwick said so that members are quite clear. He doesn't mean to say that the motion has to be heard just after 24 hours; 24 hours is a minimum, and if members aren't available or the committee is not sitting, it will be considered afterwards.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: The difference is that any motion would have to have a delay of at least 24 hours, or at least 48 hours. But I understand your point.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I understand that, and I also understand under witnesses and absence of quorum that there is an opportunity for me not to attend within 24 hours, whereas it would give me a little bit more flexibility for 48 hours.

The Chairman: I take your point.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would concur with Paul. Because I'm also new, I'd like to see how this works at 48 hours, and maybe it could be reviewed at some further date. But at this point in time, it seems like a reasonable length of time.

The Chairman: I should explain, Ms. Lill, that the committee is empowered to do anything it wants with motions. So anything can be changed any time the members wish.

Does anybody else have a comment?

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm in favour of the amendment for a 24-hour period because our committee has a regular schedule. For instance, we know that this committee will be meeting every Tuesday and Thursday, etc.; there won't be any surprises and we will note these Tuesday and Thursday meetings in our agenda. Even if we are on duty in the House on these days, we will be here in Ottawa to attend our committee meetings.

Based on previous years' experience, I think that it is enough to inform us 24 hours in advance of the Tuesday or Thursday meeting that we will be debating such and such a motion. We all know our schedule ahead of time, this advance notification will not cause us to rush to Ottawa for an unscheduled meeting. This is not a motion that calls for an unscheduled session, but one which deals with the discussion of a motion during an already scheduled session. I support the Reform Party motion which will reduce the pre-notification from 48 to 24 hours.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments, Mr. Saada?

Mr. Jacques Saada: This is a question rather than a comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to everyone's arguments and I still can't understand why there's a problem with having a 24-hour notification as opposed to a 48-hour pre-notification, or vice versa. Would someone be so kind as to explain this to me?

The Chairman: Since, Mr. Abbott has suggested that we reduce this pre-notification period from 48 to 24 hours, I will ask him to explain his reasons. I'm open to both motions.

[English]

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: What basically happens in committee, in my experience, is that from time to time there will be issues that you feel very passionately about, or that arise in the media or come to your level of awareness. With the 48-hour provision.... Let's assume for a second that this came to your attention sometime on Tuesday afternoon. The first time that motion could be brought forward to the committee would be the following Tuesday as a result of the schedule that Madame Tremblay was talking about.

It is important for both sides, because after all this is Ottawa and this is a political environment. It is important that there be safeguards on both sides. That's why we have no objection to there being a notice of motion. We think there should be a safeguard. However, with the 24 hours versus the 48 hours, it gives more flexibility to be able to bring issues that are considered to be important by a committee member to this committee for its deliberation.

The Chairman: I think you've heard both sides of the argument. It's a matter of choice for members. We'll have to proceed, first of all, with the amendment, because I can see that some people prefer 48 hours and some people prefer 24 hours. The only way to find out is to have a vote on Mr. Abbott's amendment, and then we'll go from there.

• 0945

I will now call on Mr. Abbott's amendment, that the 48 hours' notice be changed to 24.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now vote on the main motion as amended. In other words, it will be 24 hours.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Distribution of documents. The wording has been distributed to you. In the work of the committee it does happen that documents are produced by witnesses in one or the other language, French or English. Sometimes we want to deal with them before access to translation.

Translation is carried out as soon as possible. Most of the time, the clerk will ensure that translation is available, but it could happen that we have a witness who only produces a document in French or English. The idea here is for the committee to be able to look at it in its original form, with the proviso that translation be obtained as promptly as possible. That is the nature of it.

[Translation]

Are there any further comments? If not, would one of the committee members make the motion? Mr. Saada, seconded by Mr. Godfrey, makes the motion.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: On time allocation, I have received a suggestion from Mr. Abbott. I believe it has been circulated to you. I think we should take a little time on this, because it's going to be very important to the work of our committee.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the committee. I did have an opportunity to fax a copy to both you and Mr. Godfrey. Because it wasn't translated—and it also included the other proposals—I have not had an opportunity to present it to the rest of the committee. So, if it is agreeable, I could read out my proposal.

The Chairman: I think it will be very hard for members to follow along unless they have it in front of them.

Anyway, could I just kind of summarize what the position is?

[Translation]

Five political parties are in attendance. To be frank, my philosophy as a chairman is not to stick to all of the routine of Parliamentary procedure. Accordingly, our meetings will be run on a very informal basis.

[English]

So new members can feel very much at home. I'm not a procedure artist, and I think the idea is to try to carry out our work. In light of this, I feel also that all our parties and all members here should be given as much of an equal chance as possible within the framework.

There are two ways of tackling this. Afterwards, because he has a suggestion, I will let Mr. Abbott present his proposal, which is to base party time allocation on recognition of the parties according to their order of seats in the House.

I would also suggest another way of looking at it. With three parties, it was much easier. With five parties, I would think we could perhaps look at the first round of questions being five minutes per party, starting with the opposition parties and then the government party. We could then turn it over to a member question period, where the first members to ask for a question would be listed, and then we would have five minutes per member in rotation—depending, of course, on the discretion of the time allocation. Obviously if we have 15 minutes left and we have an important witness we might cut it down to two minutes each or something. But the idea would be that the first round would be a party allocation, the second round would be a member allocation.

• 0950

That would be my suggestion. At the same time it's only one suggestion.

I would like Mr. Abbott to tell you what he feels. Then let's have a discussion on it and see what we arrive at.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Again my apologies that I did not have an opportunity.... I did not make the time—I will accept responsibility—to have this translated and distributed. However, if you have a piece of paper, I can give you our suggestion.

Normally when we have a witness a committee meeting is two hours. The time I'm speaking about here covers only 90 minutes, because we recognize there has to be flexibility for the chair. We also recognize the witnesses may go over their presentation time.

The net result of this 90-minute breakdown would see the Liberals with a total of 30 minutes of questioning, Reform with 20, the Bloc with 15, the NDP and PCs with 7. It would break down as follows. The witness' presentation would be 10 minutes; Reform, Bloc, and Liberals, 10 minutes each; Reform and Liberal, 5 minutes each, followed by the NDP with 7 minutes, Liberals with 5 minutes, PCs with 7, Liberals with 5, Reform 5, Bloc 5, Liberals 5.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It's too complicated.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Reform, Bloc, Liberals, 10, 10, 10. Then Reform 5, Liberals 5, NDP 7, Liberals 5, PCs 7, Liberals 5, Reform 5, Bloc 5, Liberals 5. The net result of that, as I say, equals Liberals 30 minutes, Reform 20 minutes, Bloc 15 minutes, NDP and the PCs 7 minutes.

While I respect the fact that each of us is an individual and we have our own particular perspective, on the other side of the coin, to a great extent we also represent our party perspective. That is why I'm making the recommendation of a breakdown of time on a party basis as opposed to an individual basis.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, usually the committee has two-hour meetings. We very rarely work for 120 minutes because we take time to sit down, have our coffee and greet one another. Sometimes we welcome the witnesses and it takes them about five minutes to sit down. If we are hearing from two groups of witnesses during the same meeting, we say good morning to them and we greet them each in turn. Furthermore, we have to leave at least five minutes before the end of the meeting because the members for the next committee are already taking over our still-warm chairs.

If you take all of that into consideration, you can see that during a two-hour work session, the intense work lasts only an hour and a half. If we start getting caught up in the details—five minutes for you, seven minutes for me, three minutes for him, two minutes for the other.. we're going to start losing interest in the committee. We will be more concerned about this infamous timer; we will keep score and we will point out that the government side has had two minutes more than the opposition or that the opposition has had one minute more than the government side.

Things don't work like that in real life. I may have a great deal of interest in one group who is testifying about concerns that are perhaps far removed from yours. It may also have happened that we have given our time over to another party who was more interested in a given issue. For example, if a group were to speak to us about parks in the Rockies, I would be willing to turn my time over to Mr. Abbott, whose riding contains four parks, whereas mine doesn't have any. If we are too rigid, we may lose interest in the discussion and in the exchange of ideas. I listened to the committee members introduce themselves and I noted that we bring different skills to the table. We would be more interested in getting more involved in certain debates rather than tracking the number of minutes allocated to us. We are here to work together.

• 0955

We are here to work and not to be adversaries; we should work together to accomplish things. I will tell you at the outset that I will be quite prepared to turn my time over to somebody else, if asked to do so, if the person can put this time to better use than I can. Fulfilling our mandate is what really counts. If there's one place where we should not resort to political partisanship, it is here, around this table.

Needless to say, we aren't going to change our political spots; these will remain the same. However, as we have already demonstrated in the past, we are capable of working together. We did so when we had to work on the future of the CBC. We are still capable of doing this.

I'm against this motion, primarily because it seems far too complicated to me. Our clerk has not heard the last of it; he had better find himself a huge clock with a bell.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, being a rookie—and I certainly am a rookie—I find that the House of Commons—

The Chairman: Please don't feel constrained. There are no rookies here. Everyone is the same.

Mr. Mark Muise: Maybe because of my being new to this place, I see the House of Commons as very complex and very rigid and a place, as we saw yesterday, that can be quite manipulated by the people who know the rules very well.

As Mrs. Tremblay has said, this is a place where we could sit down at a more relaxed pace and really do what has to be done and debate things as they should be debated, without the formality that exists in the House.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Just speaking for the change that Mr. Abbott's detailed here, listening to the people around this table, there is clearly quite a bit of divergence and difference in how we approach the issue of heritage. Of all the committees, there's probably more potential for a motion in passion to be forthcoming here.

With that in mind, I think that we're probably better served to have a greater degree of structure rather than a lesser degree of structure.

I point out also that the motion does allow for a degree of discretion on behalf of the chair with this time allocation.

So I point out that what Mr. Abbott has put forward here is more a guideline than a law. I think it's better that we have some sort of guideline to fall back on, within the discretion of the chair, if things start to get out of hand or where people aren't feeling that they're getting their opinions expressed. That still leaves room for what the member here said about giving up your time to someone else if need be.

So I would really think that we'd be wise to have a greater degree of structure, in this committee particularly, rather than to step away from it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Certainly we need some structure, but my concern is, as I write down the numbers and I look at our side, that I would find myself probably doing what I'd do on Jeopardy, and that's hitting the buzzer before I know the question and getting myself in the queue just in case I have a question. Being a politician, I am certainly capable of filling the time.

So I think that if we plan too far ahead we're going to force people to get in the queue and it's going to create a bottleneck unnecessarily. So, if we have the authority to change down the road, why don't we just try the co-operative, flexible approach and see if that works?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chairman, under the proposal that you made do you have the discretion to extend time to allow witnesses the opportunity to go a little bit further and to allow questions to go a little bit further, no matter which colleague is questioning the witness?

The Chairman: Absolutely. Listen, the fact is that you can't be held to a sort of clock, rigidly. Obviously we have to have some guidelines, because otherwise you would have people who would speak for 20 minutes and the other members would be shut out. So you have to have a starting guideline, and within this guideline surely, as Madame Tremblay said, the thing is very flexible. I hope we'll work in that kind of spirit.

If people go on too long, I'll just cut them off. But I'm not going to look at the clock and say that you're at five minutes and five seconds, so you are punished. I don't think this is the spirit at all.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chairperson, I fail to see the strategy behind going into this proportionate type of voting when you have the discretion. There are members here with much more background in certain areas than I have, and I wouldn't want to take time away from them when they have an opportunity to expose their experience as opposed to my lack of experience. So I like the five minutes.

[Translation]

• 1000

The Chairman: I think that...

[English]

Sorry, Mr. Abbott. Go ahead.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'd just like to speak to Mr. Jordan's comments. I would suggest that quite the opposite would happen. If I did not know that I had a particular time allocation, I would be hitting the Jeopardy button early. That's precisely the point of this structure. Again, to reiterate what Mr. Lowther said, it allows flexibility at the discretion of the chair.

Mr. Chairman, you and I have always worked together very co-operatively, so my question does not imply that our co-operation will not continue. But just as a point of information for myself, my understanding is that strictly speaking, under the strict parliamentary rules of the committee, when members have the floor, they have the floor and the chair in fact cannot cut them off. Understand that I would never, ever contemplate doing that, but I'm just suggesting that your assurance that you will cut us off is not based on the actual rules of committee.

Therefore, if we have something of an order like this, it will resolve the situation that Mr. Jordan has brought up. Permit me to say that with the agreement of the committee that we're going to be going for ten minutes and that's it, it will also get you out of the parliamentary box of the rules of Parliament.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, are we at the amendment stage? How does this work?

The Chairman: No, we are looking at a formula. As you know, the wording of this motion suggests that we give members the time they need to express themselves freely. I'm suggesting that we give five minutes and five minutes. It will be up to us to make the decision.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm not finished, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I apologize.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to move that we adopt the formula that you are suggesting and that we keep Mr. Abbott's suggestion in mind, in the hope that it will never come to that. I'm therefore moving that we adopt the position that you proposed.

The Chairman: First of all, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Obhrai.

[English]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: As a rookie over here, in looking at the parliamentary procedures that I'm learning, I'm coming to the conclusion that we politicians love to talk. I'm sorry, but my small experience indicates that we will just be going on and on. Some of us will probably not even have a chance to talk. I suggest that we can try out the proposal that Mr. Abbott has put forward. I think it will also give the flexibility to the new members to come in, as opposed to the old members. That's been my experience in a short period of time.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, one last intervention, and I think we'll then move on.

Mr. Mark Muise: I would just like to second the motion of Mr. Saada.

The Chairman: Okay, there's a motion from Mr. Saada, seconded by Mr. Muise, that we go on to a question of a five-minute period per party and a five-minute period per member.

I should mention very briefly that I think we can always change this. As a Liberal, however, I must say that I would feel very badly to find that our party was given thirty minutes when the NDP and Conservatives got only seven minutes. It just doesn't seem right to me, so I'd much rather that we work as members rather than parties, but this is just one view.

Mr. Jim Abbott: May I propose the amendment of my formula so that we would be voting on—

The Chairman: By all means.

Mr. Jim Abbott: My amendment to the five minutes was in this formula that I had read out.

The Chairman: I think that's fair. You are quite allowed to do this.

Mr. Abbott suggests—

Mr. John Godfrey: You can't have an amendment on something that hasn't been—

The Chairman: It's been proposed.

Mr. John Godfrey: Oh, it has been moved? Okay.

Mr. Jim Abbott: The five minutes has been moved. I'm moving the amendment of the specific time allocation.

The Chairman: I think that's fair enough. The amendment is receivable, so we will proceed with Mr. Abbott's. Does anybody want to have a reading of what Mr. Abbott suggests? As he has presented, Mr. Abbott suggests time allocation on a rotational party basis, as an amendment to Mr. Saada's motion. We'll consider this first.

[Translation]

We will vote on Mr. Abbott's amendment.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

• 1005

The Chairman: We'll now go on to Mr. Saada's motion of five minutes for a party and five minutes for a member.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We now go to witness expenses, which are a standard resolution and motion. I hope we won't have any discussion, so we can move on.

[Translation]

You have the exact wording of the text. Would one of the committee members make the motion? Mr. Godfrey, seconded by Mr. Bonwick, moves

[English]

that the motion regarding witness expenses be adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Over the last three and a half or four years, we have been asking the artists, who are just about the least well-off members of our society, to travel. If we were to do some consulting on a broad scale, we should perhaps determine the most economic way to do this. Should the committee travel or should the artists continue to travel? We are always asking the same people to come testify. I have seen ADISQ come here every year.

The Chairman: I fully agree with you, Ms. Tremblay. As part of the consultations that we were to undertake on culture, we had agreed that it was essential that we travel. We had asked the House of Commons for a budget which was discussed here, at the committee. When we talk about undertaking a major study, I think that we should examine this aspect and make decisions accordingly. I fully agree with you.

The resolution on working luncheons is quite standard. Could one of the committee members move

[English]

for working lunches?

Mrs. Bulte, seconded by Ms. St-Hilaire.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now, I think the last motion is something that should require attention, so I would like to suggest that when we have a committee of 16 there would be a steering committee

[Translation]

to establish the work underway.

[English]

I think it would be well worth while having a steering committee, in view of the size of our committee here.

What I would propose, and it's not carved in stone.... We have looked at various models in various committees, and what I suggest is that we have a steering committee composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, two other government members, one member from the Bloc Québécois, one member from the PCs, and one member from the NDP; and that three members, including a member of the opposition, could form a quorum if it's for discussion only.

[Translation]

Do you have any other ideas? Do you think that we need an Agenda and Procedure Sub-Committee?

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Would you mind repeating that? I didn't write it down.

The Chairman: The chair, two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary—and I think the parliamentary secretary is an essential link to the ministry—two government members, one member from the Bloc Québécois, one member from the PCs, and one member from the NDP.

What this would do is effectively have five and four, or nine members; five, including the chairman, on the Liberal side, and four on the opposition side. In other words, it would be four and four, including the chair.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Bearing in mind the old adage that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, I'm a bit concerned about the size of that committee, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering just how workable a steering committee of nine really would be. I recognize we have the difficulty of the five parties at the table. I'm cognizant of that. But nine is just so many on what is supposed to be an efficient committee.

• 1010

The Chairman: We would certainly have a provision that three would form a quorum, with one a member of the opposition. I'm open to suggestions as to whether you want one, and secondly, whether you want one in that format or smaller.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I heard that other committees were established with a much more limited number of people, either six or seven depending on whether or not you count the parliamentary secretary. I'd be willing to have a seven-member committee, since it is a committee that does not make any decisions.

The Chairman: That's correct.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: This is a committee that would explore what the standing committee could be doing. So we would have to have a representative from each party and, in addition, the parliamentary secretary who is a link between the department and the work of the committee, the chair and the two vice-chairs. At any rate, we would know that the full range of opinions would be presented when a type of pre-selection is done as to what issues will be put before the committee, since it is the latter that will be making the decision.

You have more than enough of a majority to make the decisions. I don't think you need that many people on the steering committee. Personally, I'd restrict the number of members to seven. I'd do away with the two extra representatives of the party in power. The committee would be back to seven members. As it has no decision-making powers, it wouldn't be much of a risk.

Mr. John Godfrey: You wouldn't have a majority on the government side.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No, but we're not deciding anything.

The Chairman: Yes, but some decisions are made, Ms. Tremblay, concerning the work of the committee as a whole. This committee has the right to make decisions having to do with the program, amongst other things.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Oh, yes!

Mr. John Godfrey: Unless you set up a five-member committee. However, in that case there would be no...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: How come the other committees can do with only six or seven members?

The Chairman: Well, for example, there's the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. They have the chair, the two vice-chairs, a member from the NDP, one from the Conservative Party and one from the Bloc Québécois. That's six members and the parliamentary secretary is not counted amongst them.

At the Finance Committee, there's the chairman, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary and a representative from the Bloc Québécois, one from the NDP and one from the Conservative Party, which gives us seven members.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That's the information I was given this morning, that there were six or seven members in these committees depending on whether the parliamentary secretary was counted or not.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, we went around and around on the proposal on the turns of questioning and said that we weren't too concerned about making sure various parties were represented, and so on and so forth. If we apply that to this, it seems to me we could reach five with the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and a member from the Bloc. That would equal five. Every time you add another opposition member you must add one more...it's not just a matter of adding one. You have to add two in order for the government to have the majority on the steering committee. The base number is five.

The Chairman: But at the same time I really feel very strongly that the two parties are parties recognized in the House now, and I don't want to shut them out. They have a voice and I think they deserve a voice.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, you've just told us about the experience of our predecessors. There are at least two committees, the one on aboriginal affairs and the other on finance, not the least important one, that have set themselves up with a seven-member subcommittee with one representative from each of the parties, two additional representatives for the party in power, that already has one of the vice-chairs and parliamentary secretary. I think the committee looking at culture could use the same model without prejudice to anyone. Just as you are, I'm favourable to each one of the parties having a right to be heard here.

• 1015

The four opposition parties, even though they don't have the same number of members in the House, would each have a voice and the government would have three. The model of the Finance Committee is the one I think we should follow and I move that there be seven members on the subcommittee.

The Chairman: Are you making this a motion?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, I'm making this a motion.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay moves that there be seven members on the subcommittee. Let's be clear about this; there would be the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary and one representative each from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservative Party.

Is that clear in everyone's mind? Does anyone second the motion? Mr. Jacques Saada.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We have 45 minutes left. I think we should get to the main business of the committee for the coming weeks.

Just as a matter of information

[Translation]

for future work, first we have a bill, Bill C-7 on the Saguenay Marine Park that went to first reading on 26 September, 1997.

[English]

We don't know yet when it will come up for second reading.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That bill is simply the mirror of what already exists in Quebec. The Quebec government has already passed its own legislation and the Canadian government has to pass more because Quebec owns the bottom of those waters and the federal government owns the surface of those waters. It's just mirror legislation. Ms. Copps told me it would go through the House rather quickly as it's just a mere formality.

The Chairman: I'm in agreement with you.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: She told me she didn't know exactly when this would happen but that it would be extremely quick. Things should be settled rather rapidly between the two governments on this matter.

The Chairman: I was just saying, for your information, that this should come back to us. I don't think there is any problem at all. It will be a routine procedure for the committee. In any case, this is the only Canadian Heritage bill on the list.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman and Madam Tremblay, just for your information, I think that while what Madam Tremblay says is correct in practice, the reality is that it does have a potential of setting some national precedence and has piqued the interest of commercial fishing groups and so on. I would suggest that to think that this is going to be a routine bill and to be disposed of very quickly might not.... I'm not suggesting there are going to be massive problems. All I'm saying is let's not go into this saying one or two days of committee hearings and that's it, because I think there are some significant interests around the country, particularly on the various coasts, relative to fishing interests.

The Chairman: That's good. Mr. Abbott has given us an outline of his possible strategy in the House.

Anyway, just for your information, it's going to come up here at the committee and will be dealt with the way it should be.

I think that, especially for the new members of the committee, it would be important for you to have a session with the officials of the ministry to get a bit of a briefing on what the ministry does and the various components. One way we can do this is to look at the main estimates for 1997-98, which, as you know, are referred to our committee. The officials of the ministry will not be available before November 6. So what I would suggest, if you agree, is that the ministry could be convened for three or four sessions, at the same time we could look at the main estimates there. Nothing else will give you a better idea of what it's about and what kind of budgets are involved in regard to the different divisions of the ministry.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, may we assume that the minister would also be available?

The Chairman: We certainly will ask the minister.

• 1020

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a procedural question.

Did the committee have time—and I suspect the answer is probably no—to look at the estimates before the dissolution of Parliament?

Also, could you remind us, perhaps, of what our constitutional obligations are vis-à-vis the estimates? I think it's useful to remind ourselves of what we have to do, and if we don't do it by a certain time certain things are deemed to have been passed, aren't they?

The Chairman: That's correct.

First of all, the answer to the first question is that the committee did not look at the estimates before the prorogation of the House.

Number two, the estimates are referred to the committee. Some committees look at them in detail, some don't, depending on their own work schedule and agendas. If they are not looked at in detail by the committees, they are deemed adopted.

Mr. John Godfrey: By which date, given where we are in the parliamentary calendar?

The Clerk of the Committee: It depends on which supply period we are in and how many days are left. My understanding is that there are approximately two supply days left, so they would be reported back, I would guess, around December.

Mr. John Godfrey: From a technical point of view, if we were to start looking at the estimates, that would be seen as the review of estimates before they are reported to the House?

The Chairman: That's correct.

Mr. John Godfrey: We are actually doing a piece of formal work here.

The Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to leave this business of the minister appearing or not appearing. Would it require a motion from this committee requesting that the minister appear to discuss the main estimates?

The Chairman: It's up to you. You are quite free to produce a motion. I'm sure the minister would be very happy to appear. We'll ask her.

The parliamentary secretary will ask the minister, but if you want to make it a motion, by all means do. It's up to you.

We'll ask the minister. She's always been very agreeable to appearing before the committee, and I'm sure she would, but if you want to produce a motion you could, as long as you don't put a set timetable. We don't know what our schedule is.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would like to move that the committee request the minister to appear prior to the date that the parliamentary secretary was referring to.

The Chairman: Invite the minister.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Invite—whatever the appropriate wording is.

The Chairman: Seconded by Mr. Lowther.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: This proposal makes me a little uncomfortable, because meeting with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is part of the Canadian Heritage Minister's duties. She has always met with us, as have all ministers. So why do we suddenly feel obliged to move a motion that requires the minister's presence, as if we feared she would not appear? This makes me a little uncomfortable, because we know that appearing here is one of her duties.

The Chairman: I agree, Ms. Tremblay. However, if we formulate the request as an invitation, I do not think she will find it... In any case, it is your decision.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Couldn't we just say that the committee is inviting the Minister to appear before the members, to come and meet the members, at a convenient time? We know she has a very full schedule. If we did that, we would not have to vote for or against a motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, you've heard Mrs. Tremblay's suggestion, that we just make a note in the report of the committee that the minister be invited to appear—as I'm sure sure she will—so that there wouldn't be a formal motion almost telling her that she must.

Mr. Jim Abbott: As long as the net result is the same, I don't really care.

The Chairman: All right. Why don't we do it that way?

I think it will save Mrs. Tremblay having to vote against it, that's all.

Order in council appointments. You have been given a list of all the order in council appointments. You are given information on the background of the people and what they've been appointed to.

It's up to the committee members and the committee to interview and invite the people who have been nominated to appear before the committee, if you so wish. It's up to you.

• 1025

I just want to mention this in passing. If you look at the list and you want to interview anybody who has been appointed, let the clerk know and we'll follow it up accordingly.

We'll discuss through the steering committee our invitation to the officials of the ministry, including the minister, to appear to discuss the estimates.

As the next item of business, I would like to discuss the main work that was before the committee when it prorogued before the election. We were studying impacts on Canadian cultural policy as we go into the next millennium, the impact on our culture of items such as the technological changes in communications and computer technology, and also the trade impacts on culture, given the free trade agreement, the WTO, and now the forthcoming MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

So what I would like to do is ask our researchers to distribute to you the work plan that we had agreed on at the time. I don't expect you to decide today, but for those of you who are new to the committee I'd ask you to look at what we had proposed and adopted during the last committee's existence. I also will ask the researchers, now that they have agreed to be part of our committee, to send you a report that was made in support of the starting work of our committee.

Once you have that, I would suggest that as soon as possible you give us an idea as to whether you want to carry this on, whether you feel it's too broad as it stands, whether it should be more circumscribed, what your views are in regard to this study, because if we are to carry on with it, it will mean an intensive amount of work. It will mean hearings. It will mean the committee will travel. So it's a very important commitment.

I would like you to look at it, and let me know as soon as possible what your reactions are.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary.

While this is a leftover issue from the last Parliament, my understanding was that this committee was initially going to be involved with park issues, particularly the park agency, and possibly some travel relative to parks. Is this an indication that it is not going to be the case, that in fact this would take priority over parks initially?

Mr. John Godfrey: My understanding is that parks issues will take precedence insofar as there is legislation. There is going to be, in addition to the piece before you, at least two or three other pieces of legislation that will be coming at us, including an act to create a separate agency for Parks Canada.

Therefore, we will have lots on parks. We are going to be reviewing the legislation anyway—and it's a bit of a question as to when it's going to come down at us, but we will have to do it, it will be a priority—whether we want to take advantage of that to broaden it out in ways we might collectively find interesting is, I think, an open question. But sooner or later—and in the case of this particular piece of legislation, sooner—we're going to be doing parks as an absolute priority because it's legislative.

Perhaps the chairman can refresh all of our memories on this. Was the reason we were about to undertake the study of cultural policy in response to a request by the minister?

The Chairman: Certainly there was a lot of discussion with the minister. The minister had suggested that she would really appreciate the committee looking into it. It just happened to coincide with what we wanted to do ourselves, so it was really a common wish on the part of the minister and the members, who were very anxious to do it. It worked out. I must say I spoke to the minister before taking on this job and I asked her what she felt about it. She said she would definitely like this to carry on. Certainly she is very much for it.

• 1030

I want to suggest to members at the same time that this is a large issue and you have to realize it's an important commitment for a committee to undertake. At the same time it mustn't ignore the other issues we should deal with. You should look at this as an ongoing study that will take a lot of time and commitment on our part, but at the same time we can't ignore a few topical issues that are going to come up.

Considering there are 16 people on this committee, it would be nice for us to feel that we will all have a chance to participate in things that are more important to us than others. Just as a suggestion, maybe we could look at the possibility of opening up subcommittees to look at certain issues.

The deputy prime minister, who is in charge of the millennium celebrations, may ask our committee—he has already broached it with the minister and I have already spoken to the minister—to look at ideas for the millennium. I thought we might strike a subcommittee to look at this.

Another item I think would be interesting is the parks. As you know, there has been a massive study on Banff National Park. The Auditor General was convened before this committee before it broke up. He has a report on the parks and the ecological integrity of the parks. There is the whole question of the Cheviot Mine next to the park. It's a huge issue. There might be one subcommittee on parks.

There is another item that Mr. Mills referred to. I see it in two ways. First, the Olympic games are going to take place in Nagano, Japan in January. We are a winter nation. It seems to me it might be nice to hear what our ministry is doing in regard to the Olympic games. What kind of funding will our athletes get? That issue might interest some members as a subcommittee, including the broader issue of sports because sports is one of the missions of the ministry.

I just toss these to you as ideas. Maybe we can have one large study as an ongoing thing that will take time and commitment, and then members can split into subcommittees if they want to look at specific issues. That's one way we could deal with it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to throw out a strong word of caution. The members of the NDP and the PC party, with one member on this committee, would then be forced to split themselves among the subjects of the millennium, the parks, sports and hockey, and this major study. I don't see how, even breaking into subcommittees, we can do these things simultaneously. With the resources we have, even in our party of 60 people, our members simply wouldn't be able to do this as well as take care of our responsibilities in the House.

The Chairman: Point well taken.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would just like to point out that an extremely important topic is missing here, though it does flow from the issue under study. It is the status of women. Throughout the last Parliament, we did everything we could to have that issue studied, to form a subcommittee if necessary, and take other measures.

• 1035

Our Canadian Heritage Minister is a woman, and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women is also a woman. During this Parliament, I would like to see what can be done to advance the cause of women. I think it is extremely important that the issue be a part of this topic.

The Chairman: On this issue, I see that recent order-in-council appointments include Ms. Ievers, who was appointed coordinator of the Council on the Status of Women. We could perhaps invite her to one of our meetings.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Do we need a motion for that?

The Chairman: Well, a motion would expedite things.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I gladly move that we invite Ms. Ievers to appear before the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Could I have a seconder?

[Translation]

Do we need that? No, we don't.

There is a motion on the table to invite Ms. Florence Ievers, who is

[English]

co-ordinator of the Status of Women, just appointed, to discuss this issue before the committee. Is there any discussion?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I agree with Madam Tremblay that the status of women is a very important area and it's worth looking to a subcommittee, but I just question.... Mrs. Ievers has just been appointed. What is she going to be able to bring to the table? Should we not give her some time before she comes out to the committee?

I'm just concerned from a logistical point. She's going to be learning. She's going to be briefed on what is happening. Should we not give her some time?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The motion does not specify we have to invite her tomorrow.

[English]

The Chairman: That's right. We'll agree within the steering committee. If we agree she should be heard we can do it in three months. We can do it in January or February.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I think so; so it's worth while.

The Chairman: Yes, I think it's fair.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That was my only comment.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have two comments on the second topic.

The Chairman: Could we deal with this one now? We have—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chair, we were chatting about subcommittees and then we rolled over to the invitation.

The Chairman: I know, but Mrs. Tremblay presented a motion, so we'll deal with that.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: And that's what I was going to speak to. Okay.

The Chairman: It's that we invite Mrs. Ievers. There's no time limit, so we'll do it when she has had time to look at her files and be in a position to tell us what she has in mind. So we'll deal with that first. Okay?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Okay. I'll speak to that one, please.

The Chairman: Oh, you want to speak. Sorry.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Yes, thank you. I was going to speak to that one first.

It comes back to the same thing as the minister, motion by invitation. Why do we need a motion to extend an invitation to somebody? As Sue said, we'll decide if it's three months, if it's three weeks, if it's—

The Chairman: I think it's different, because in the case of the minister there has been a tradition in the House that all the ministers and all the deputy ministers, when called upon by the committees to appear, take it as a matter of course. It's part of their function. But in the case of Mrs. Ievers and all the nominees, the committee has the option of inviting them or not inviting them. There are a lot of these nominations. We are entitled to see all of them if we want, or none of them. So if we want to target one particular person for a reason, I think it's in order to ask for a motion. I think it's different.

There's a motion before us now to invite Mrs. Ievers.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Could we go on, then, to Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Dealing on this issue of subcommittees, Mr. Abbott talked about the fact that we wouldn't have enough talent in each party, or time, to deal with some of these issues.

An hon. members: Warm bodies.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Sometimes, depending on the issue, members will scrape and find the time if they feel deeply about it. I think if a particular member has a particular passion about a certain issue, generally they can find or they know members in other parties who would collectively create within their timetables the space to make that type of subcommittee happen in a productive way. So I wonder if it's possible if when these subcommittees are put forward as an idea we could try to find such members to make that kind of commitment, rather than just dismiss it.

• 1040

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm not suggesting that we dismiss it, but the government has to realize that they have almost eight times as many members as either the PCs or NDP. They have four times as many members as the Bloc. They have three times as many members as the Reform Party. So we can talk euphemistically about warm bodies, but the problem is that there are not enough warm bodies to go around to four or five or even three subcommittees.

It's conceivable with the subcommittee that has been suggested by Mr. Mills, relative to hockey and sports and so on and so forth...without denigrating it, it's rather an esoteric committee. It will have some impact, but with respect, it will not have the impact that the parks committee, let's say, would have.

I know the member disagrees with me, but the point is that in this Parliament, because of the closeness of the numbers in the House, we also have to bear in mind that strategically maybe the opposition members are not going to want to be travelling to Windsor to take a look at a hockey arena or—-

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: We're not suggesting that.

Mr. Jim Abbott:—or to Jasper to look at parks.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills: We're—

The Chairman: Order. May I suggest something? We have now made a decision about the Status of Women. We are going to be listening to Mrs. Ievers and will have a discussion on it at a specific session, so for now let us leave this aside.

In regard to the parks, the parliamentary secretary has advised us that there is a major piece of legislation coming on the total reorganization of Parks Canada. Obviously that will give us a tremendous opportunity to spend a lot of time...we will have to. We won't have any other option. It may not be immediate. It may be in two or three months. I don't know when it's coming up, but when it comes, we will have to drop everything we are doing to look at this.

So in regard to parks we can say that sooner or later there is going to be a massive opportunity to look at the whole structure of parks and where they go from here, and we'll question people...we will have to do this anyway.

We may be asked by the deputy prime minister to look at the millennium. He has already indicated that he might ask the heritage committee, and if he asks us there are different ways of doing it. If you prefer not to do it in a subcommittee, we could have a panel. When I was on the environment committee we used that format quite a lot. We had panels to which we would invite experts to give us ideas. It was very informal. A forum or a panel could be one way of doing it. I'm just suggesting some items that I feel we should be looking at.

If Mr. Mills is very keen on looking at the issue of sports, and if he can find support here for the idea of a subcommittee or us looking at it, I certainly have no objection to it at all.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, Ms. Bulte and Mr. Saada.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think it is extremely important that we continue to consider the possibility of establishing temporary subcommittees with very specific mandates, perhaps for a limited period.

For example, I would very much like to take part in the committee studying sports in Canada as a whole. It's a very important issue: if we look at professional teams, everything is always exaggerated, to the point that stadiums everywhere are deserted. Soon, there won't be anyone left in Canada to organize hockey, football or baseball, for example, because no one will be able to afford going to the games.

And then there's amateur sports. We get all puffed up with pride and fly the flag for the Olympic Games, for the Canadian Games and for other events of that kind, but how are athletes supposed to survive in between events? So we could have a very short mandate to examine the issue of sports, which constitutes a very important dimension of culture. Let's not neglect it.

And after that subcommittee finished its work, it would report to the Standing Committee. This broadens our opportunities. One thing I found enormously frustrating in the first two and a half years I worked here was that the CBC was such a major issue that we put all our energy into it and postponed everything until later. But we had no time to get to anything else. If we could have set up temporary subcommittees, we could among other things have considered the issue of breast cancer. It is a leading cause of death in women. In three and a half years, we had no time to devote a single meeting to that issue, neither from the health standpoint, nor from the status of women standpoint.

• 1045

So this seems very important to me. We can see that the committee's time will be taken up with important questions. If we have to study the Act on reorganizing parks, this will be a major point. We will be busy with the study over several sessions. So, it seems to me that we must find a way out to be able to create temporary committees, very specific ad hoc committees with very clear mandates. We ask people if they want to participate. If a party can not send a representative to this subcommittee, it will be informed of the results of the subcommittee work when these are reported to the committee.

The Chairman: This is more or less the idea that I had put forward when I said that we have 16 members here, that there are divergent interests, and different interests. Some people are more interested in arts and culture, others in sports and others yet are more interested in Parks Canada. This department has a very broad mandate.

I wouldn't want to see a big study launched and neglect all these other essential topics that interest many people. So, if we can allot certain topics to forums, round tables or special subcommittees, I think that this should be encouraged. Otherwise, we might not benefit from the participation of all the people whom we'd like to invite.

[English]

Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I just wanted to address the issue about the millennium subcommittee. I think time is of the essence there. I truly do. There are communities all across Canada.... I know in Toronto they've already put together a group, a millennium council, of different arts organizations. This is happening in Vancouver; it's happening out east. I think it's important that we access that information and that as a government we show some leadership, not to tell people what to do but to act as a co-ordinator, if there is no money, to publicize these events.

Call it a subcommittee, call it a task force, call it whatever, but that must be put in place immediately. As Madam Tremblay says, we'll deal with that and then it can come back to the committee. I also feel it's something we must do right away or we are going to be left behind, because the rest of Canada is already doing it.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We're already late.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes. In the Globe and Mail there appeared an article stating that Mr. Grey had been appointed as the millennium.... Their people are coming; what are the guidelines? I think that's very important, even to say, will there be consultations? People are asking the questions, yet no one is in a position to have an answer.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that that committee be established, and I volunteer to be part of that committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: My intervention will be very brief. I'd simply like to confirm the principle of special committees besides the regular committees.

The Chairman: Yes, fine.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's all.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Muise.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: I have just a brief question, because we're obviously thrashing around. I wasn't totally clear from your opening remarks. We started on the review of cultural policy and went around to other things, how far did you actually get; in other words, had you just simply had a work plan and no witnesses had yet been heard? Was that where you were?

The Chairman: We had a work plan; the researchers had made a first report to us; we had compiled a list of witnesses, which we can send to you; we had a budget prepared, which we had submitted to the House and had got approval on; and we had worked out a schedule of travel to different parts of the country—and this was when the election happened.

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, it's a good—

The Chairman: Oh yes, we received 60 briefs.

[Translation]

This provoked an explosion of interest. It was extraordinary and we hadn't even publicized it. There had been a brief report by Ms. King on CBC, a few reports in La Presse saying that we were thinking of launching a study, and the briefs started flowing in. It was awesome. So, I expect this to be something that... Naturally we still have the briefs.

• 1050

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: Given the time and given what you've just said, it seems to me that unless there is something we actually have to do on Thursday, which I'm not sure of, it would be very useful to give that additional information to committee members between now and then—the work plan, the witness lists, all that sort of stuff that hasn't gone out—to bring us up to date.

It seems to me, just as an observer, that the timing is good in the sense that a lot of the pre-work has been done, and yet we don't have to re-hear witnesses, because you didn't hear any. The other point I might make is that should we decide to proceed with this and re-endorse the concept, maybe we could save a little work. In the briefings regarding Canadian heritage, for the ones that will particularly touch on this, rather than having them come back twice, can we take advantage of those folks coming in to address us? Can we slot them into the work plan so we're doubling up: we're getting a briefing, but one that will give a particular aspect or focus on the cultural policy elements we talked about?

The Chairman: That's a very good point, Mr. Godfrey. I should mention that we asked the ministry to compile a summary of the existing studies that have been done on the same thing, so we don't reinvent the wheel. They are in the process of doing this. So it would be a very good idea to question them on this when they appear.

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: On this point, could we also have a list of the institutions and people you've identified and the witnesses, so we can have an idea? Maybe that list is incomplete. Could we add some to that? As well, could we see what has been done before Thursday?

The Chairman: Yes. We will give you everything we have done so far. Now that the researchers are officially in place, we'll turn everything out to you.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have a quick point of clarification. My understanding was that the budget had been discussed and brought back a number of times to committee—

The Chairman: That's correct.

Mr. Jim Abbott:—but the committee had never approved it, so it has not gone to the House.

The Chairman: You might be quite right. I know there was a lot of discussion on it, so you might be quite right.

In any case, could I make one suggestion? We now have a steering committee. We have talked about the study on culture. We've also talked about specific subjects, one of which we have cleared up. The others we have to take decisions on. I would like to suggest to you two things.

First of all, we will send you all information we can on the cultural study, including the list of the witnesses we had, the list of those who have submitted briefs already, and the report of the researchers.

There are two ways of dealing with it. We can come back here as a full committee on Thursday, now that you've had time to think about these things, and set up a subcommittee on sports, if that is your wish, and it seems to me some members are very interested in that. Parks we will deal with as they come up, and we could also strike an ad hoc committee on the millennium. Or we can have a meeting of the steering committee on Thursday to look at these things and report back to you at a future session, when decisions will be taken.

Either alternative is fine with me. It's your committee and you decide. We can come back as a full committee on Thursday and make decisions or have the steering committee clear up all the work and come back with specific proposals for the next Tuesday following. It is your decision.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think that first of all it would be better for the subcommittee to look at the work plan and the organization of topics so as to give us a clear report of the results of its work next Tuesday rather than having us debate this here. This meeting could have been over in an hour and now it's already gone on for two hours.

[English]

The Chairman: By the way, at the meeting of the steering committee, all members can join in if they want to. I'm not going to stop anybody from coming in if they want to add their piece there. There are seven members, but the others can be observers.

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey: I often agree with Ms. Tremblay, but not this time.

[English]

I would take the opposite view, that in the early days, when we have new members, folks who are here for the first time, and when there needs to be a bit of thrashing around, the kinds of decisions we are inching towards, thanks to your chairmanship, I think we will be able....

• 1055

The advantage of meeting as a group on Thursday is, first of all, we have it in our schedules and we're not doing other things when we shouldn't be. Secondly, if we can get some consensus amongst ourselves, that can lead to an action faster than a subcommittee, which will then have to report back to the full committee for debate anyway, presumably. So if perchance we can get some things accomplished in the committee of the whole on Thursday, we can actually make some decisions by Thursday.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Agreed.

The Chairman: There you go; you've heard two.

Do I take it that there's a consensus here? Mrs. Lill, Mr. Muise, representing your parties, do I get a consensus that you would rather meet as a full committee on Thursday?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would be very happy to do that at this point.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Muise, is that your wish too?

Mr. Mark Muise: I agree with your comments. In the early stages it's very important that we have a feel for what's happening and how it evolves, and then we can look at some other options.

The Chairman: They were Mr. Godfrey's comments; I don't want to take credit for them.

On Thursday, then, we are going to have a meeting of the full committee. To recap, we are going to be sending you all the stuff we have on the cultural study. We'll send it to you as soon as possible. You'll have barely a day to look at it, on Wednesday. We'll send it to you as soon as possible today. If you can, look at it so that on Thursday hopefully we can just move forward.

The second thing is, do you have any ideas as to what you want to do with regard to subcommittee work? If you want to take part in the millennium subcommittee or the sport subcommittee, would you please give your names and let us know your interests and how many of you are interested in those particular things so that we can take decisions and move on?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I spoke to you about this in private, but I'd like to mention it here. I had expressed to you my wish to change the time of our meetings. As I sit on the question period committee, this committee's scheduled meeting time is not suitable for me. It will be impossible for me to attend regularly twice a week.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, I can confirm to you that I've already written to our whip to ask him to have the meeting time of the committee which is now 9 A.M. to 11 A.M., changed to 11 A.M. to 1:00 PM, because I think that some others on this committee are also busy at 9 A.M.. As a matter of fact, 11 o'clock was the hour we preferred. It was the time at which the previous committee meetings used to be held. So I made this request. It's up to him to change the other committee rooms, etc. I'm almost certain that this will get done because you must be present at all costs and this is clear.

[English]

If there is no further business, we'll declare the meeting adjourned.