CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 5, 1997

• 1533

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I now call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage which, in accordance with Standing Order 108(2), will proceed to examine the Canadian Heritage portfolio.

[English]

I declare open the meeting of the committee studying our heritage to have an overview under Standing Order 108(2) of the portfolio of Canadian Heritage. We're extremely happy to have the minister with us.

Minister, you should come more often. We've never had so much of a crowd. Welcome here to the committee, and to

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Hurtubise and departmental officials.

[English]

The floor is yours, Minister. We want to use all the time.

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee.

I wish I could claim that all these wonderful people are here to actually hear my fantastic presentation, but in fact they're part of the teachers' group that is here from across the country at the invitation of the Speaker, participating for the second year in a program to teach them about Parliament. Hopefully they can take the message back to their respective provinces and students.

• 1535

It's great that they could come to this committee, because I believe very firmly and strongly that this is the best committee in Parliament and that this is the best department in the government.

The member from the Reform Party is agreeing, right? Is that unanimous?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm going to do a very quick slide presentation to try to walk you through some of the areas we're involved in.

[Translation]

It's a pleasure for me to be part of the Department of Canadian Heritage. It's also an interesting job because this is a very diverse portfolio. It took me at least six months to find out who was attached to what service.

Briefly, therefore, I will try to give you an overview of the department's activities and priorities.

[English]

On the next slide you'll see the departmental areas of activity. A few years ago several different departments were merged into one, with the intention of putting a chapeau on patrimoine. So we're involved in a very diverse number of areas, including broadcasting; the cultural industries; the arts; heritage,

[Translation]

through, among other things, historic sites,

[English]

and Canadian identity. These are all branches of the department. Another area is official languages. In fact I just came from a meeting with one of the people who are going to be responsible for

[Translation]

the implementation of school governance in Ontario. We were involved in the financing side and also in ensuring access by members of minority language groups.

[English]

We also have multiculturalism, sport, parks, corporate services, and strategic management.

You will of course know that I also have with me, working very hard in the department, two secretaries of state. One is the Secretary of State for Parks, and he is going to be appearing before you in the next few weeks, so I just put the rubric out there so you know the overall span of the department. The other is the Secretary of State for the Status of Women and Multiculturalism. Status of Women happens to be an agency as opposed to a branch of the department; hence the differentiation.

If I could have the next slide, I'll show you the agencies we're also responsible for, because the other areas were branches of the department.

I do have with me my deputy minister, Suzanne Hurtubise, as well as the five assistant deputy ministers who make up various branches of the department, and I'd like to take a moment to introduce them, because

[Translation]

depending on the subject matter, you will be speaking directly to these assistant deputy ministers.

With me as well are Victor Rabinovich, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Development and Heritage; Norman Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Canadian Identity; Thomas Lee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada; Peter Homulos, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services; and Michael Wernick, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Management.

[English]

On the next slide I want to show you the portfolio agencies. These are the agencies we're involved with in terms of financing and in some cases establishing by way of the board of directors, but that in fact enjoy an arm's length relationship from the government. One of them, which is very well known, obviously, is the Canada Council for the Arts. The second one, very new, is the Canadian Information Office. The third one, obviously well known and with a long history, is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is also a part of that, and you may not see the Canadian War Museum on that list, because the Canadian War Museum is actually a part of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, although its budget and structure draw from the same portfolio of agencies, which is why sometimes you see us associated with issues around the War Museum.

The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is also a portfolio agency.

The CRTC decides on licensing policy, and where we merge with the Department of Industry is that they're looking at hardware issues and telephone issues, and we're looking at broadcasting issues. So if an issue is dealing with a broadcast licence, it would come to our department on the process of the CRTC approval. If it's an issue dealing with telephone and telecommunications, it would go to the Department of Industry.

The National Archives of Canada is another agency under our rubric, as well as the National Arts Centre.

The National Battlefields Commission, which is actually in Quebec City, is under our rubric. The National Capital Commission, which has a national mandate but is primarily here in the capital, is also under under our department, as are the National Film Board, the National Gallery of Canada, the National Library of Canada, the National Museum of Science and Technology, Status of Women Canada as a separate agency, Telefilm Canada,

• 1540

[Translation]

and the Public Service Commission. We appoint people to the PSC and ultimately, they are the ones who make the decisions.

[English]

This next slide attempts to give you a snapshot of what these areas do for the Canadian economy. If you look at sports, art, culture and parks—what I call the culture-nature identity of Canada—they're actually responsible for more than 750,000 jobs, and they generate more than $25 billion in annual economic impact on the economy. They also have a very significant role in sustaining the tourism industry, which represents....

A witness: That's $41.8 billion to $42 billion.

Ms. Sheila Copps: The tourism industry is over and above that, so the $25 billion is in direct spending. On top of that, you have 491,000 jobs in the tourism industry. Those jobs are partly derived from the work that we're actually doing.

Why is that? Much to my surprise, I discovered that two-thirds of the major Canadian attractions that are in the Michelin guide have a three-star rating and are actually either owned or operated by this department. So as well as actually operating on the direct side for grants and contributions, we're indirectly involved in sustaining the tourism industry overall, representing $41.8 billion in total spending—and that's growing spending, too.

The next slide walks you through a little bit of what we did in 1996. I'd like to say first of all that most of this happened because of the work of this committee

[Translation]

or because of the members of this committee who are no longer with us, either because they were not re-elected or because they now sit on another committee. The pièce de résistance of our last mandate was perhaps Bill C-32. Opposition members worked on it together with the government.

[English]

These are the accomplishments, and they're really your accomplishments, not my accomplishments. We put some of the ideas forward, but the committee worked very hard and came up with a very good bill. That bill really took a ten-year leap forward in terms of copyright protection.

Some of the other areas that we were involved with, obviously, were the creation of the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund, the creation of 60,000 square kilometres of new parks and new protected areas,

[Translation]

There was also the Francophone summit held in the Beauce region. This was the first opportunity to highlight the successes achieved in the region in terms of dealing with the rate of unemployment.

[English]

We finally managed to secure ongoing and permanent funding for Radio Canada International. It's a small-line item, but I think it's a great breakthrough.

We established the Banff management plan—and Andy is going to be here to talk in greater detail about the specifics of that plan and the ongoing challenges.

We also secured additional funding under the program known as BPIDP. For those of you who are in the vernacular, it was an additional amount of funding to help the Canadian publishing industry at a time when it was in a rather vulnerable situation.

Moving to the next slide, these are just some other things we've been involved in. We were obviously involved in establishing the rating system for violence in television programming.

For the first time, we have actually seen the establishment of secure annual funding for Canada's national training institutions. What are Canada's national training institutions? For the most part they are institutions of a cultural nature that span various interests in various provinces.

[Translation]

One such institution is the École de théâtre de Montréal. Others include the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, the National Ballet of Toronto

[English]

and there are a number of institutes that are now actually getting permanent, ongoing funding. In the past, it was done on a kind of ad hoc basis.

We did provide support to the establishment and presence of Canadian athletes in Brandon, in the previous Summer Olympics in Atlanta, and also the Paralympic Games. For the first time, we brought the Special Olympians into the process, which I think was quite a step forward.

• 1545

For the first time, we also developed an exchange component in the Young Canada Works program. You can actually exchange young people in museums and cultural institutions across the country through the Young Canada Works program. For the first time, we decided to make an exchange part of it, and I think that's worked rather successfully.

There are two other programs that were not mentioned. They're not big ticket items, but certainly they were very important to the recipients. One is the public lending right, under which we did increase the amount of money that's paid to authors whose books are in public libraries across the country. They get paid $40 a book. It's not a huge amount of money for the amount of books that are in the libraries, but as far as the authors are concerned, there are about 10,000 authors who get a small benefit from this and it certainly was very well appreciated.

The other thing that we did was increase the amount of support that we give to FACTOR and Musique Action. FACTOR and Musique Action are two groups deriving from the music industry, and which provide support to young and evolving musicians. Because we obviously have a system of radio content quotas for Canadian music, we've developed this critical mass of musicians, but we also provide support for young musicians who want to get out there to do promotion. I think it has really created a feeling of synergy and energy around the music industry in Canada.

On Canadian content, which is obviously one of the things we're interested in, while having gone through the period of program review that was very difficult for all of us, we have managed very recently to see a permanent increase in support to the Canada Council. We've also managed the establishment of the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund at a time when we were very tight.

We are currently working on the response to the WTO decision on magazines. I think this decision and our follow-up to the decision are crucial in terms of managing how we can protect and promote Canadian culture in the world context. One of the things I know this committee is going to be very interested in is an engagement in the discussions around what we might carve out as a specific cultural exemption in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which is going to be moving forward through a subcommittee of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We want to obviously follow through on the red book commitment for increased support to the publishing industries on a permanent basis, and to a multimedia fund. We're also positioned and must very shortly respond to the Information Highway Advisory Council, which I'm working on in concert with my colleague John Manley in order to determine how we might position Canada to be a world leader—and not only in the hardware of linking communities in Rescol canadien and SchoolNet, but also in the software and the kind of content that we get on it.

[Translation]

Two problems were identified early this week in Newfoundland: firstly, the lack of Canadian content and secondly, English content imported from the United States.

The latest multimedia figures indicate that while Canada's francophone community accounts for only 5 per cent of the world's total francophone population, it accounts for almost 30 per cent of the value added of the multimedia industry because it is the leader in this field. As usual, France is following our lead.

[English]

Renewal of the official languages program takes in part. That's one of the reasons I was meeting with some representatives from the Ontario Francophone Governance Movement just after 3 p.m., because we're going to be involved with the implementation of

[Translation]

Francophone school governance in Ontario.

[English]

We want to see the renewal of the officials languages in education program, and we'd like to see an increase.

We are also looking to identify a specific source of funding, because when Nunavut becomes a new territory, it also needs to expand on the provision of French-language services. Obviously, with a new parliament and new legislature, there are going to be some new expenses there, and those are some of the financial issues that I have on my plate.

There are some other priorities that we will be involved with. To a certain extent, I think we'll be guiding some of your work this fall and next spring. One of the commitments of the government in the red book was the establishment of aboriginal urban youth centres. In fact, the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for friendship centres across the country—which probably comes as a surprise to many people. The aboriginal urban youth centres have been a commitment, and we're working together in a multipartite fashion with a number of other departments and also the aboriginal communities to see how we might best get up and running rather quickly aboriginal urban youth centres across the country to complement the promises we made.

• 1550

We are also responsible for financing provincial governments and for supporting the preservation of aboriginal languages. I've had discussions with my colleague Ethel Blondin-Andrew, who is very concerned about the rate of disappearance of aboriginal languages, particularly in communities in the north. We are actually funding and are about to sign an agreement with the NWT government for financial support for the protection and preservation of aboriginal languages.

Support for sports is one of my key priorities. It's also a key priority of this committee. We asked, as a matter of fact, for you to focus in on some of the economic elements of sport, and I see that the chair of the subcommittee has been working very hard to get this issue front and centre.

In the red book, we promised that we would see $10 million set aside for the Canada Council Millennium Art Works, and that's another commitment we have to follow through on. It was not included in the $25 million annual increase we recently secured for the Canada Council.

With regard to the modernization of Parks Canada, you're familiar with the nature of Bill C-7, but the big piece is the creation of the Canada Parks Agency, on which you are going to be getting legislation probably within the next month. We're hoping to have the legislation tabled in early December. That will also involve a general overhaul of the National Parks Act.

I think there was a piece in the paper recently about how we had not brought through the legislation yet on Tuktut Nogait. Right now, the way the parks legislation is designed, every time you create a new park or take an area out you have to do a separate piece of legislation, having signed the agreement. What we'd like to do with the new parks act is create a mechanism whereby you could actually make the bilateral or trilateral agreement and give it the force of a legislative act. That's something you're going to be taking a look at in terms of your discussions.

Marine conservation areas legislation will form a part of that. Obviously, one of our goals is to make further progress on the completion of the national parks system, which we've tried to set for the year 2000 as a millennium objective. We'd like to see all 39 ecosystem areas represented by the year 2000.

We are obviously working very hard now on the pre-budget preparation. As you know, the Minister of Finance has asked groups and organizations, members of Parliament, and individuals of the public at large to focus in on their key priorities.

One of my key priorities is a renewal of the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund. Why? When we launched the fund originally, there were a number of people who said that it wouldn't work. Because we actually have a very interesting marriage of the public sector, the private sector, the independent film and television producers, the CBC, and even a couple of government members on the board, people said it would never work.

In fact, it has worked so well that now all aspects and all sectors are supporting the renewal of the fund because it did lead to 2,200 hours of new programming and created almost 20,000 jobs, and I think the critical thing is that it levered more dollars into Canadian content and Canadian programming.

On the leverage for $100 million of government investment, we were able to garner investment in the private sector and in the producers at a 3.2:1 ratio, which basically means for every dollar we put in, somebody else put in 3.2 dollars, which is a pretty good investment overall.

The productions actually doubled, and the strongest increase was on both of our coasts. But the nice thing about television production is that it can be done in any part of the country, and it also provides value-added, very directly to the economy, and it's a job creator at a per capita percentage that's rather low.

• 1555

This slide gives you a few examples of where work has been created. One of them is obviously Black Harbour, with the CBC, where the filming was done in Halifax by Topsoil Inc.; Urgence, Prisma, Montreal; Traders, CanWest Global, Insider III, Toronto; ReBoot—I don't know how many of you have young kids, but my daughter watches ReBoot—YTV and Mainframe Entertainment; and Pin Pon, Canal Famille, Téléfiction, Montreal.

We are going through a breakout of all the work that was done in every single area of the country, and you probably will receive it in the next two weeks. Those just give you a bit of a flavour.

Why is that important? I think the CBC took a real gamble in English when they went to a full Canadian listing in prime time, because a lot of people said people don't want to watch Canadian television. The figures show that about 39% of what we see on TV is Canadian. It garners about 43% of the audience. In fact, in prime time it goes up over 50%.

Also, 90% of Canadians believe music by Canadian artists is of equal or better quality than foreign music.

[Translation]

Fifty-six percent of all new French-language recordings sold in Canada in 1995 were recorded by French-speaking Canadians. In a brief span of about five years, producers have boosted Canadian content from 8 per cent to 13 per cent.

With the arrival on the scene of several new channels, we can see that the public wants something other that U.S. programming. The resulting momentum will lead to more Canadian programming.

The public's way of thinking is also changing. It is easy to tune in to the American channels, but we want to be different. The public broadcaster, the CBC, and private networks are now becoming increasingly interested in Canadian content.

[English]

The next slide talks a little bit about another aspect of culture, which is obviously books and magazines. I think the second line is a real success story. Books written by Canadians accounted for 46% of Canadian publishers' sales

[Translation]

in both French and English in 1994.

[English]

That's a pretty fantastic number. You can go to countries of a similar size in other parts of the world...and I'm not going to pull one out of the air because somebody will probably write an article saying I had it wrong. But if you go to certain other parts of the world where they have similar populations and are facing a similar challenge to what we have in the English language, of living so close to our American neighbours, they don't have such a strong indigenous industry.

How did that happen? It doesn't happen by accident. It also happens because we have distribution laws that favour Canadian distributors and Canadian publishers. I think it's part of the package of tools we've used in our tool kit over the last 25 years, which we have to safeguard.

In the French language, books written by Canadians in French accounted for 62% of their sales in Canada, which is a staggering figure. Canadian-owned companies published approximately 90% of Canadian-authored books.

So yes, you will have some American companies. I think Random House does some Canadian authors, but by and large, if you want to take a brut number, 90% of the Canadian-authored books that are on the market are actually published by Canadian-owned companies. That statistic is fairly recent.

What is my final pitch to you? As a government, as a country and as a committee, I think we need to ensure that we safeguard our capacity to tell our own stories.

[Translation]

We need to ensure that all of us have the necessary tools to safeguard our own culture and to tell our own stories, whether it be on television, in books, through music or some other medium.

[English]

I think that should be the overriding objective of our work and the work of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

With those few comments, I will turn it over to questions.

• 1600

The Chairman: Could you tell us, Minister, how long you have to spend with us?

Ms. Sheila Copps: As long as you want.

The Chairman: That's great, fantastic.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'll be sorry I said that, after.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: You shouldn't have said that.

An hon. member: Until the vote.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, do you want to start?

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Yes, I'm looking forward to asking some questions. I'm also appreciative of the time the minister is spending with us, and I thank her for coming.

I'll try to keep my questions as brief as possible. I know the minister will answer in kind so we can get through a number of them.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Can I ask, just for the purposes of the discussion, do you want me to answer each questioner at the end, or do you want me to tally them up per side, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Just answer them as they come.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Okay.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Minister, you had the One in a Million flag challenge, where we spent $15 million or $17 million. Can you confirm that your department, the Department of Canadian Heritage, contracted with Boyd Moving and Storage to shred two million Canadian flags?

Ms. Sheila Copps: No!

Mr. Jim Abbott: That comes as a—

Ms. Sheila Copps: I certainly cannot confirm that, and believe me, if I could ever confirm it, a few heads would roll.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I've never heard that before. Why would—

Mr. Jim Abbott: This is Veterans' Week, and Remembrance Day is six days away. My question is regarding the Canadian War Museum. Specifically, the War Museum has collected about $70,000 for the acquisition of Lieutenant McCrae's medals. Can you confirm that these dollars will not be used for the museum building fund and that these funds will be used to bring the medals to the War Museum?

Ms. Sheila Copps: As a matter of fact, Mr. Lee is coming to Ottawa tomorrow to be honoured by the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada. It's my understanding that Mr. Lee himself—and certainly it's in keeping with the consortium that we had helped put together to buy the medals—wants to gift the medals to the museum in Guelph, the McCrae Museum, not the War Museum.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm a little confused with your response, because in the week prior to the auction, the reply I was receiving to questions in the House about the McCrae medals was that you and your department were questioning their authenticity. Yet you say you had put together this money to purchase them. When you did you suddenly discover they were authentic?

Ms. Sheila Copps: As a matter of fact, I spoke to your colleague, the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Similkameen, I think it is, who called me on the Monday. He called me, as the defence critic. I explained to him on Monday that in fact we had every intention of buying the medals if they were authentic, but we did not want to make an announcement before the auction, because we did not want to artificially inflate the cost of the medals. He was kind enough to take that information and respect it.

From the questions asked in the House on the Monday, I received a phone call, which was transferred to me. A member of the family, one of the McCrae grandchildren, called up saying they thought the medals were fake. They subsequently confirmed that to me in writing. On Monday in the House I was not asked by any member of the Reform Party, because Jim had called me, and I'd said, look, we want to bid on it if it's real; we are helping to put together the bid to bid on it. If you've ever been to an auction, usually you don't announce your deep pockets before you go into the thing, unless you would see the price go sky high.

On Tuesday or Wednesday, the family was satisfied of the authenticity. Once the authenticity was verified and we were satisfied, we were part of the consortium that was bidding on the medal at the auction.

The consortium had put together a total of about $270,000 from private individuals and organizations over the course of the period from.... We started working on this as soon as we found out about the medals, so in the course of about five days we were able to help pull together a consortium for $270,000. The bidding went above that by an unknown bidder. Then Mr. Lee came in at about $300,000 and bought the medals for, I believe, $400,000. And in fact he chooses to gift them to the McCrae Museum in Guelph, which is actually the home of the McCrae collection.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But didn't you know about the medals? Didn't officials in your department know five or six weeks ahead of time that the medals were going to be auctioned?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The first I heard of the medals was on the day we started putting together the consortium.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Which was only a week or five days before the auction.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, it was about seven days before.

Mr. Jim Abbott: That's kind of unusual, because my impression is that this information was in the public domain for five or six weeks.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, maybe you read more newspapers than I do, but I knew nothing about it until somebody approached me, and I said, wow, we don't want to see them leave the country.

• 1605

The reason we were willing to invoke the Cultural Property Import and Export Act is because if you go back to the case of the previous medals that almost left the country, the Jock MacGregor medals, we amended the Cultural Property Import and Export Act to ensure that national treasures don't leave the country. They were going to be put on the auction block in London, England. We were able to invoke the act, get the medals back, and then they were put on public auction.

As a government we don't have a mechanism to go to auctions for individual acquisitions, but we did have the interest and intention to help facilitate a consortium that was willing to buy the medal and then gift it back to the McCrae Museum, which is exactly what happened.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have many more question on the McCrae medals, but for sake of time, let's stay with the War Museum.

Can you give us any idea of what's going on over there with the absence of the director general? I understand that he has left to write a book. Considering that he's already written 10 or 11 books, that doesn't sound quite right. What's going on over there? It seems that there's a tremendous amount of turmoil.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I don't know who you're speaking about. I don't make the decisions on hiring and firing at the museum.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I was just wondering—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr. Chair, in light of the interest in the expansion of the Canadian War Museum, the committee could go over there to look at their plans at some point to see what it is they're proposing. But I certainly would never interfere in decisions around the hiring of an individual or personnel matters.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Does his leaving have anything to do with the suggestion that the museum should be renamed the museum of war and peace as opposed to the Canadian War Museum?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The first I heard about that museum of war and peace suggestion was when somebody wrote an article in the paper last week. I was at the Canadian War Museum about two weeks ago. I was joined by Minister Eggleton and we launched the GM pavilion. If you have a chance to go by it, they have GM vehicles from the First World War. We toured the facility and saw the proposed maquette for the expansion of the museum. At no time did anyone suggest to me that they were going to change the name. I'm certain, from a legislative point of view, that we would not want to see that name changed.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I think it probably goes back to a May 1996 meeting where the member from Ottawa—Vanier says:

...has anyone thought of calling it something other than the “War Museum”? What would you think of “War and Peace Museum”? I find that “War Museum” gives a violent impression.

Ms. Sheila Copps: What meeting are you talking about?

Mr. Jim Abbott: This is a heritage meeting where—

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, we'll come back to you.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Madam Minister, for your presentation. It was very clear and informative.

I have a question first about Option-Canada which, apparently, was funded through official language programs. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to establish a correlation proving beyond a doubt that the $9.3 million allocated to Option-Canada and to the Council for Canadian Unity was used for the 1995 referendum campaign, just as it has proven impossible to establish the opposite.

If it so happens that this $9.3 million was in fact used for the referendum, this would represent more than the total amount spent by both the Yes and No sides.

Since the Auditor General has questioned the relevance of taking money from the official languages component for Option- Canada, since you have agreed to an internal audit of your department, and since your office has a report showing how Option- Canada was financed, will you now undertake either to table this report or to make it public as soon as possible? If you cannot do this, why then are you keeping this report secret?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm not keeping any report secret. I was not the minister when all of these issues first came up. Questions were subsequently raised and I checked to see if these funds were spent in accordance with Treasury Board regulations. It would appear that they were.

• 1610

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: And what about the report on the outcome of the internal audit of your department? We've been told that a report detailing how money was spent does exists. Is that in fact the case?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Perhaps you could put that question to the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of corporate services. I do not handle the department's spending details. I believe that several expenditure analyses have been done.

Would you like me to ask Mr. Homulos to answer your question?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We have requested a copy of this report from the Access to Information Commission and we have called for the report to be made public. We've been told that we need permission from a third party, in accordance with the legislation. Therefore, it would indeed appear that a report does exist detailing how Option-Canada or the Council for Canadian Unity spent these funds.

Mr. Peter Homulos (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Canadian Heritage): There are two parts to the answer. An internal audit was conducted to see if the contribution was made in accordance with the program rules and a report is in the works. It is nearing completion. We've been in touch with the Auditor General to ensure he is pleased with the approach taken. The report will soon be available. It does not look at how the funds were spent, but rather at how the contribution was administered.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It's the same thing in the case of the Council for Canadian Unity. If we want to find out anything, I suppose we have to get in touch with Mrs. Robillard or with Mr. Massé, not with your department.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We've been making contributions to the Council for Canadian Unity for years. They must comply with the contribution standards set out by Treasury Board. To my knowledge, they did.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Why do you take these funds from official languages support programs? Why not create a separate budget item, "Support for the Council for Canadian Unity" or "Option-Canada", to ensure transparency?

Ms. Sheila Copps: In the case of the Council for Canadian Unity, we do have transparency. Why was this particular course of action taken? I was not there at the time so I couldn't tell you. As far as the Council for Canadian Unity is concerned, the money allocated was in the form of contributions.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: On another subject, when you announced the creation of the Canada Television and Cable Production fund— we have to acknowledge that this fund has worked very well and people are satisfied with it and we hope that it will continue and that the funds will be put to good use—, if my information is correct, you stated that $200 million would be allocated to the fund in the first year, $100 million in the second year and nothing in the third year.

In view of the success of this vital program and given that we are lagging behind in terms of Canadian content, do you intend to ask your colleague, the Finance Minister, to allocate new moneys to this successful program which has created jobs?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Initially, we announced an overall allocation of $250 million over three years. The figure mentioned was $200 million, with $100 million planned for the second year and $50 million in new funding for the third year.

A total of $50 million came from the existing Cable Production Fund and a further $50 million from Telefilm, for a total of $200 million. We are now in year three of the program and we are pressuring the Finance Minister to reinvest at least a minimum of $100 million.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Perfect.

The Chairman: Do you have another question, Mrs. Tremblay?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Apparently, members of artistic communities are quite concerned about the wording used by France in the MAI clause.

• 1615

They claim the wording is too general. This could pose a threat to Canada in that safeguards could be invoked if ever we were in a position of having to defend our cultural diversity or language. This would be easier for Quebec or for all of Canada's francophones to do, but it would be more difficult for Canada's anglophones to claim that their language was threatened given that they live next door to the Americans who speak the same language.

Do you intend to see that Canada exercises some leadership in this area and tables its own properly worded clause which would guarantee cultural protection to both anglophones and francophones alike?

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, I want to thank you for your question. As you know, a committee travelled with us recently to Paris to discuss MAI-related issues. We also appeared before UNESCO. With us were Mrs. Tremblay, Mr. Saada and Mr. Muise. We are very happy to announce to you that Canada was elected to UNESCO's Executive Council.

Some members: Bravo!

Ms. Sheila Copps: That's good news. As for the second part of your question, we really want this work to be done at the level of the subcommittee on the MAI. When I met with Mrs. Trautmann, France's Cultural Minister, we agreed to adopt a common position along with several countries. Is the wording adopted by France in its clause correct? Quite possibly, but we want to maintain our common front. We are also looking for other allies and that's why I will be meeting next week with the Council of European Ministers of Culture in Brussels. As we already discussed, I will be following up on this matter.

We hope that the subcommittee on the MAI will take a close look at what can be done. If we adopt one approach, while France and the other countries adopt another, our position will be weakened. The issue first and foremost is ensuring that we get the extension that we are seeking and secondly, that other countries seek this extension as well.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: As for the subcommittee in question, we tried to ensure that people from the cultural community would be part of it and apparently, our attempts were unsuccessful. Could you urge your colleague, Mr. Marchi, to take steps to ensure that the subcommittee membership includes representatives of the cultural community, not merely business representatives?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, absolutely. I thought that Mrs. Bulte...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Apparently not. She told me that her request had been denied.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I thought differently. In any event, we will follow up on this matter. Mrs. Bulte is on the committee and is pursuing this objective. However, this doesn't stop us from working with them and making some proposals.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

I have a couple of questions regarding parks. I'm being a team player here on behalf of Rick Laliberte, and then I hope I can ask you about culture, which is my main interest.

We would like to get a clarification on Tuktut Nogait. Almost a year and a half ago you travelled to the edge of the Arctic to establish that new national park, and the people of the region are still fearful about the legal status of it. Perhaps you were trying to get at that when you were talking about the new park. Could you clarify that for me?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The legislation we're bringing forward now on Saguenay was originally brought in almost ten years ago. The parks act is structured so that every time you create a new park, as well as signing a tripartite agreement that has the force of law, that agreement must be followed up by an act of Parliament.

I made a decision last fall, because we were dealing with Bill C-32 and because this committee wears many hats, that we would focus on Bill C-32. Because we were bringing in the parks act legislation, we would not bring in the enabling legislation on Tuktut Nogait until next spring. That cannot diminish the legal boundaries we've signed because it's a tripartite agreement that has the force of law, and the three parties who signed it would have to agree to have the boundaries changed.

• 1620

We have no intention of changing the boundaries. What we're hoping to do with the new legislation to update the National Parks Act is to create a mechanism whereby once a tripartite legal agreement is signed, it can be endorsed without requiring a separate act of Parliament for each park. That's what we're trying to do with the legislation that will be coming in as the Canadian parks update.

My understanding and the legal opinions I've had suggest that because we've signed a tripartite agreement, it has the force of law and nobody can change those boundaries unless the three parties consent.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would like to talk about Banff. Earlier this year you rejected the Banff town council's proposed community plan and sent it back to council for revision. There's a widespread perception throughout the country that you have put an end to the relentless development that's beset Banff National Park over the decade, yet the mayor of Banff maintains that council has not been required to reduce its plans for continued commercial expansion.

Elsewhere in the park there are proposals for many other commercial projects, including expanded ski area development, a huge new convention centre at the Château Lake Louise and expanded outlying commercial accommodations. So I guess the question is pretty clear. Is there a commitment to protecting Banff from commercial interests or is it just development and business as usual there?

Ms. Sheila Copps: What we tried to do with the follow-up to the Banff-Bow Valley Study...the first steps in that process were begun by my predecessor, Michel Dupuy. We followed it up with some of the actions that we took to endorse some of the recommendations of the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force.

The town council's plan did not balance the expansion of the commercial footage and the current lack of residences in the town. We told the town council—Andy Mitchell was out there last week for further discussions—that in its current form the plan was unbalanced and would favour expansion of commercial development at the expense of residential.

The Banff-Bow Valley Task Force recommended capping the population at 10,000. We did cap the population. At the time we didn't think capping the population would be used as a way to expand the amount of commercial space. The town plan said they would not only cap it at 10,000, they'd actually cap it under 8,000, but in the meantime they would bring in a big chunk of commercial development—up to about 800,000 square feet.

The intent of the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force and its recommendations was also to keep Banff a real community, because some of the recommendations in the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force would have seen the hospital close and some of the elements that keep the community intact compromised. We felt it was also important for Banff to have community spirit and not be a kind of giant shopping centre. That was the difficulty we had with the plan in its current form.

The overall look we took at all the aspects of Banff included developing a kind of an ecological footprint for the whole area, and that ecosystem approach we used in the Bow Valley will be translated into other parks around the country. I think a lot of people watch Banff, but other national parks have the potential to be compromised as well.

In terms of the local community, we would like to see them come back with a plan that has no negative environmental impacts. What does that mean? That means, for example, that in certain cases certain kinds of development would be permitted if it maximized energy efficiency and ecosystem preservation in a way better than it does at the moment.

So we didn't say no new development, we said we will agree to look at new development if it can be shown to result in no net negative environmental benefit. That's the blueprint they have to move forward on. That will be a challenge, but it's a doable challenge because Banff is recognized as a world UNESCO site. It was put on the watch list, and if they can create a town centre that is an ecocentre, they also have the advantage of being able to maintain that status as an environmental community, and not simply a commercial development. That's the blueprint they have to go back on.

• 1625

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Can I just say too that when Andy comes, he will give you an update on the status of the discussions that have been going on. We responded to their report, but we have sent them back to the drawing board.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I have three questions, or two if time does not permit.

Madam Minister, as we enter phase three of copyright, could you tell us when Canada will sign the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty, and the Rome Convention as well?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I was hoping that we'd actually be ready to sign WIPO before the end of December. Again, it's like the Tuktut Nogait issue. There are a number of other issues on the agenda, and it needs enabling legislation from the House and the cabinet. I'm not sure it's going to get that before December, but certainly we're well positioned to sign it fairly early in the new year.

The same holds true now for the Rome Convention. It's more a question of getting it moved up on the priority list.

Mr. Mark Muise: So it is something that....

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes. As a matter of fact, I've already spoken to Brian Robertson—who is in the music industry—about the WIPO convention, because his industry was certainly very interested. I think even the Americans have signed onto WIPO, so there's nothing holding us back except for the fact that it requires legislation that might get bumped back a little bit.

Mr. Mark Muise: But it would be good for us.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Oh, we want to do it. I would like to do it, if not the end of this year, then early next year.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay, thank you.

Before my next question, I'd like to clarify something. During your trip to Newfoundland, you had misrepresented my party's position on the CBC.

In an article published yesterday in the Evening Telegram, you questioned why the Tories are now rallying to the cause of the public broadcaster when the party ran on an election platform calling for it to be privatized. I'd like to reiterate for you and for the committee that the PC Party of Canada stated in its policy blueprint that we recognized that the CBC is a vital thread running through our national fabric. As such, we want to preserve the national institution. What our platform said was—and I'll quote: “We will restructure the CBC through a privatization of its substantial production facilities, but there will be no further cuts to the CBC programming budget.”

Now that our position is clear, what is your government going to do to stop the cuts that threaten the CBC?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mark, I read that position too, and there was one thing that I asked myself. A lot of the challenges facing the CBC are in fact related to substantial infrastructure costs, not just programming. What the Conservative Party recommended in the campaign was to.... Well, you can read what you just said.

If you don't invest, or if you privatize the production facilities, then I don't understand how you have a station, logically. Your idea is to privatize the station and then get the programming that would somehow come through on another vehicle. That was why I was most direct in my attack on your colleagues in St. John's. When I was going to try to find support for the CBC and support for financing the CBC, I didn't hear a lot from your party. Now, if you're going to be supporting the CBC in the future, I'm 110% with you.

Mr. Mark Muise: Well, I just wanted to clarify my point.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Okay.

Mr. Mark Muise: Let's come back to the question at hand. What's the government going to do, please?

Ms. Sheila Copps: On funding, we did agree—and we in fact put it in writing—and for the first time, we have a five-year funding plan for the CBC. The five-year funding plan for the CBC guarantees that it will get a minimum of $854 million per year, I think it is, over the next five years from the taxpayers. To add to that, in the way we structured the television fund, we had a condition written into the television fund that the CBC is guaranteed 50% of all of the public moneys in the television fund when it does partnered programming. If you add that together—the $854 million plus the $75 million from the television production fund that they also receive from Telefilm—it works out that the CBC is guaranteed somewhere around $913 million.

Now, that is a start. On top of that, obviously, they have revenues that accrue about between $200 million and $300 million, so they still have an operating budget of around $1.2 billion.

• 1630

It's not easy to operate a national bilingual television and radio operation with that amount of money. But looking at the overall cuts to the CBC, the total cuts were 22.3%, and they were smaller than the cuts to many other areas. Unfortunately we went through that, and now hopefully we've turned the corner and we have stable funding. Now the challenge is for a renewed and unique CBC over the next five years.

Mr. Mark Muise: Minister, could you please give us a brief outline of the status report on the millennium celebration activities.

Ms. Sheila Copps: At some point you may want to have the chair of the millennium committee come before you. Herb Gray, along with all his colleagues, including me, has been working to try to pull together some ideas.

As you know, the Prime Minister is making the scholarship fund the centrepiece of the millennium. We are looking for other ideas and opportunities, both for members of Parliament and the public. A millennium commission has been established. You may want to hear from them.

The whole activity is being co-ordinated by the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Minister, I was one of the members of the previous Parliament, in which we dealt with Bill C-32. I think it whetted the appetites of those of us who were there. I would be curious to know what your plans are for phase three of copyright legislation.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We need phase three. I'm also cognizant of the fact that phase two, in the long run, took us about ten years. I've asked for some work to be done on a very preliminary analysis of what shape phase three might take.

I think phase three will also be very interesting in the new world. Although the Americans have taken us to task for some of our cultural policies, I know they're also very anxious to see videotapes protected by copyright.

I think it'll be interesting to see how we can frame phase three to protect intellectual property and copyright on video, just as we do now with audio and other forms of communication.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is it the intention to try to bring something forward during this government?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I would like to. I think first we need a white paper on phase three. As you know, phase two involved about 89 different interest groups, etc. We need a lot of discussion before we can actually reach a bill form. It is my intention early in the new year to have work done on a white paper on phase three.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: With your permission, I would like to touch briefly on the information highway. In terms of the information highway infrastructure, Canada is quite advanced and is destined to be one of the best connected countries in the world, if that's not already the case. In your presentation, you referred to the instruments used to navigate this information highway. Could you elaborate a little on these? What are the government's intentions and how could the committee help Canadians to better navigate the information highway?

Ms. Sheila Copps: We are already well on the way to meeting our challenge to ensure that by next year, all schools are plugged into the information highway because young people are the most creative of all when it comes to this medium.

Quebec is currently way ahead of France in terms of the information highway. While far fewer in number, Canadians are nonetheless communications experts. We have been plugged into cable since 1960 and are therefore far more accustomed to this technology.

Furthermore, in the red book, we made a commitment to establish a multimedia fund to create some financial interests for those who develop content for the information highway.

• 1635

Without going into the specifics of new programs, we see that the National Film Board has digitized all of its collections and is now starting to digitize all of Telefilm's productions. We are currently working with John Manley's department to help the organization of francophone universities and colleges outside Quebec to establish the first ever virtual university and college in the world. Therefore, a great deal of progress is being made. We are now putting the University of Moncton's entire collection of laws on computer software through the official languages program.

We are working on many separate projects, but within the framework of the multimedia fund, we intend to establish a financial aid system for companies working in this field.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for being with us this afternoon.

This is my first opportunity to talk to you. I believe everyone here and probably everyone in Canada are well aware of your unending remarks about promoting our unique Canadian identity. I believe our museums and institutions, such as the National Library, play an important role in the preservation and promotion of our identity. I'm sure you agree with that.

So, Madam Copps, if you are personally committed to preserving our heritage, why is your government cutting funding quite dramatically in some cases to our museums and National Library? Specifically, I would like to point out three such institutions that had dramatic funding cuts.

My colleague spoke about the Canadian War Museum, but I would like to bring up a few points. While there has been a budget increase for the Museum of Civilization, under which the War Museum falls, the War Museum itself as per the estimates has faced a cut of over 18%.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Eighteen percent?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes. Its new budget is $2.848 million, which is down from $3.49 million.

The Canadian Museum of Nature has seen a drop, from the previous estimate, of over 7.5% in its budget. Now, we know that accommodation in this case for the Canadian Museum of Nature has been reduced while the Canadian War Museum's expenditure shows an increase in the accommodation sector. The National Library has seen a 3% decrease. Although this 3% may seem a small thing, it's almost a million dollars to their budget.

I repeat, why initiate cuts to institutions that promote our Canadian identity?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Realistically, in order to go from a $43 billion deficit to a zero deficit next year, we had to do it by reducing our expenditures. Considering that in the Department of Canadian Heritage we have one of the areas of expenditure for the government...you cannot take a department that has current operating expenditures of over $3 billion and not cut. Realistically, you have to cut.

When we went through the budget review process, the culture area was in fact cut less than other areas. As for individual circumstances, once an institution has a cut imposed, as was done in program review, it's up to it to decide how to carry it out.

For example, if the Canadian War Museum is not satisfied with its relationship with the Museum of Civilization when the packages are decided, it should be dealt with at the board of directors level. I don't go to them and say tell them they have to do this, or buy this, or whatever. On the other side, if I were to tell them what to buy and what to do, I'd be accused of micro-managing the agencies that are supposed to be at arm's length.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The Canadian Museum of Nature has seen a cut, the National Library has seen a cut—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, everybody was cut.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, but museums are very important. Now we see increases in areas that—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Increases in which areas?

• 1640

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: In other areas in your supplementary budget here, we have seen certain increases—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, what we've tried to do—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm making the point that the museums are an important factor in preserving our identity.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I agree.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: While budget cuts are budget cuts, you can always justify any kind of a cut. But taking that into account, I'm just wondering why you yourself did not see that the museums were an important part in maintaining our identity.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, I totally agree with you, and I think it's fantastic to have the Reform Party supporting the Department of Canadian Heritage expenditures—

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Sheila Copps: —because I don't want—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We are a hot wind from the west.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I don't want to draw the member's mind back to the election campaign—

An hon. member: Thank you.

Ms. Sheila Copps: —but it seems to me that one of the areas that Reform Party—I may be wrong—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You are.

Ms. Sheila Copps: If I'm wrong, correct me, but one of the—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You are.

Ms. Sheila Copps: —ways they were going to balance their budget was by actually abolishing the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Museums and parks were excluded.

An hon. member: Oh boy.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Okay, well, they were going to get rid of the department.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Well, we didn't want to, but the museums and the parks were—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Oh, I see. Okay. I'm happy. Actually, to be fair, Mr. Obhrai, the reason we came back with supplementary estimates was precisely because at the end of the budget process we did the cuts. I was able to go to my cabinet colleagues and make the case that when we have some small strategic investments to make, as we did most recently in the Canada Council, we thought it was important that they go into culture.

I made exactly the argument you're making, that it's very important to the identity of the country to be able to see and hear our own stories.

I'm going to take that support back. I'm going to go back to my colleagues and seek an increase in the museums budget in the next fiscal year—

An hon. member: Well, there you go.

The Chairman: One last question.

Ms. Sheila Copps: —having respected the fiscal parameters of program review.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Well, we want tax cuts first, but we would like—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Okay, okay.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: —to verify where you're going to spend the money. So with respect to many of these programs estimates that we have had in here, we can feel that this one takes a lot of priority, because this is our identity.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, that's good. I agree.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Briefly, Mrs. Tremblay. We want to give as many people as possible a chance to ask questions.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I want to get back to the multimedia program. If my memory serves me correctly, in the red book, you made a commitment to allocate $3 million for five years, for a total of $15 million. In recommendation 5.10 of its report Preparing for a Digital World, the Information Highway Advisory Council recommended a commitment of $50 million. Have you given any thought to the Council's recommendation?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes. I'm working with my colleague, the Industry Minister, on a response to the Advisory Council's report. The Council is recommending the creation of fund totalling $50 million. Since we are talking about a new media, a number of funds have been set up, including the Stentor fund, a $50 million private sector initiative. The Department of Canadian Heritage wants to work together with Industry Canada and its partners to ensure that as much money as possible is available.

The red book lists the minimum amount that we have set aside. Certainly we want to

[English]

grow the money, as they say in English. We will have to do that in partnership with other partners.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: When you talk about financial assistance, are you thinking of something along the lines of the draft legislation tabled by the Minister of Finance regarding tax credits for those involved in film production?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I know that Ms. Beaudoin has a tax credit policy. That is separate—

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That's something different.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We are looking at other options. There's direct financing, but we are also considering long-term options. Once we have re-established funding for the television fund, we will consider formulating a policy for feature-length films and other multimedia which could involve other, less direct instruments.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci.

Mrs. Lill.

• 1645

Ms. Wendy Lill: I hate to be negative, and I know that the Canadian television and cable fund is a wonderful thing right now for film-makers. At the same time, however, I am very concerned about the fact that basically we have seen a scorched earth policy for many years in the arts, in terms of Telefilm, the CBC, and the National Film Board. All the cultural infrastructures this country has had in place—they've been the pillars of the cultural policy—have in fact taken incredible hits. I don't think we've seen the real impact of that in terms of the new voices.

As to this business about being able to tell our own stories, I would say it's thin on the ground when it comes to the voices out there. And they're going to get thinner and thinner, because younger people are not having the opportunities as before.

This fund is quite an elitist fund. It's hitting the large companies. It's accessible to the big players, for the most part. I don't think you could disagree with that.

How are we going to start getting new voices into the cultural mix in this country? When I hear people mention Ashley McIsaac, Laura Smith.... All the new and wonderful singers we have in this country now started out on the afternoon radio shows, which are always at risk of being axed. In fact, they now basically just have no Canadian content, or they're just disk shows. We're not developing; we're just sort of maintaining.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, that's obviously the challenge that faces all of us. I think that if you look at where we were 25 years ago and where we are today, we're much stronger today than we were 25 years ago. It's not just because of direct subsidies, but it is because of policies.

For all its warts, the CRTC did develop a policy of Canadian content that requires common carriers of television to carry one Canadian station for each foreign station. That has 30% Canadian English content and 65% French content.

If you look at magazines, in 1965 this country only had two magazines. We now have 700.

So I think that over the last 30 years we have been incredibly successful in developing a mix that is partly direct financing, but it is partly other instruments of réglementation. The challenge now for all of us is to ensure that in the global world we don't lose the levers we have.

Now let me turn to the overall cultural industries. In fact, the numbers show that this year the number of people going to the performing arts in Canada is up dramatically. The number of people who are purchasing Canadian books has grown immensely in the last five years. There are a lot of bright spots.

About a week and a half ago I had a meeting with the Canadian book publishers association. When we got into discussing the mega-bookstores, some of us were concerned about how that might shake out with Canadian book publishing.

So far we've seen that Canadians are actually buying more books, and more Canadian books. David Foot might tell you that it's because we're an older population that is watching more hockey than playing it. I don't know. But I think the story of Canada's culture is a story of success. Now, as we go into the global world, the challenge is how we maintain the tools to keep that story unique. Of course, how do we Canadianize?

I find something very positive on the television side. It used to be that the CBC was “responsible for Canadian television” and the other guys basically bought rebroadcasts. Now the privates are saying, hey, their numbers are better when they actually get Canadian shows. You see the success of companies like Salter Street Films with This Hour Has 22 Minutes. People are watching that, and it's creating a market in the same way as Canadian music is hot.

So Ashley McIsaac...that's why we have FACTOR and Musique Action. We do have some direct promotional tools.

I think we have to be cautious about characterizing it all as a scorched earth policy. We have challenges. I'm very disturbed by the possibility that we're the first line of defence in terms of an American agenda that would see kind of a homogenized culture. That's where we really have to focus our attention, and that's going to be tough.

It's not going to be easy to find the second trend of globalism over strictly globalization. Globalization is marketing commodities; globalism is kind of living in a world where you're partners but you also manage to secure your own identity. As I say, that would be the bigger challenge.

• 1650

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, do you have any questions?

Mr. Mark Muise: Not at this time, thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any questions on the Liberal side? Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

Minister, I note that tomorrow, as I understand it, you're going to be saying to Mr. Lee: we're honoured to meet the man who made it possible to preserve an important piece of our Canadian heritage. That is from your speech for tomorrow, which is fine—

Ms. Sheila Copps: I haven't seen it yet, so maybe you could just pass me a copy.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jim Abbott: So obviously, as we've established, we're in agreement that the Reform Party really sees a place for the Canadian government, for the taxpayers' involvement, with museums, the maintenance of museums, and things of that nature.

It was, therefore, a little disturbing to see that when Paul Martin opened up the chequebook to you and announced the $125 million increase in the Canada Council budget, there wasn't any money for the museums, that indeed you chose to go in that particular direction.

Now, I have two questions on that $125 million over the five years. Can you tell us if your department is also coming forward with further tax incentives in support of Canadian artists?

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, the reason we did support the Canada Council very directly with the $25 million annual contribution is that it was one of the things we promised as a direct promise in the red book.

Second, if you listen to the new director of the Canada Council—I think you were there when her appointment was launched—she, for example, got her training to end up being the head of the National Gallery, partly on scholarship from the Canada Council.

So you can't separate the Canada Council from museums; there is a relationship.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, of course, it's coming out of the same pocket—the taxpayer's pocket—but they are two quite significantly different things.

Let me put it to you this way: on a weekly basis, without any solicitation whatsoever, I have at least a dozen letters from people who express a tremendous concern about some of the projects that are sponsored by the Canada Council.

In a letter by Andrew McDermott, one of your senior policy advisers, to my colleague Mr. Lowther, when he drew to your attention a particular publication that was called Neurotic Erotica.... In that letter he said—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Who drew this to his attention? I'm surprised at your reading material there, Jim.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, this is exactly the problem.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Now we know what the Reform Party is doing with their research money.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jim Abbott: However, on a more serious note, I guess where people are upset is that they have no difficulty understanding medals in museums; they do have difficulty understanding the sponsorship by the Canadian taxpayer, through that particular organization, of materials, much of which is very demeaning and degrading, particularly to women, when there is the status of women department, even under Canadian Heritage.

The response to my colleague was:

The Minister appreciates your advising her of your concern on the issues you have raised. It is, however, beyond the scope of her position as Minister of Canadian Heritage to regulate public artistic taste and tolerance, or to intervene in these matters.

Now, Minister, I'm not a sensationalist. Therefore, I am not going to read any of the stuff. But it is really.... I wouldn't want the words coming out of my mouth, much less even reading them on the page.

Now, is there not an issue of accountability? In other words, as the minister, you are here today because you are accountable to Parliament, and we appreciate that. But the point is that if you're just turning over $114 million and then saying, oh well, that's all right, away you go....

I am not the censor. I do not want to become the censor as a politician, or to be the censor for Canada. But I do ask the question, how in the world can Canadians who are writing to me, and are writing to many of our colleagues, who express extreme distaste towards some of this material hold you accountable for the expenditure of these dollars on the production of some of this vile material?

• 1655

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think you have to separate out the two issues. First of all, you say that you don't want to be a censor. Surely you don't expect me to read every book that is funded by the Canada Council.

If you had an opportunity, did you see the Group of Seven O Canada exhibit that was put on by the National Gallery and travelled around?

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, I didn't. I would like to have seen it.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, it's very interesting. If you go to the O Canada exhibit, they do a whole analysis of how the Group of Seven was treated back in the 1920. They were treated as artistic pariahs, and they had all these people writing to the newspapers saying that theirs was not acceptable art.

I take the view that once you establish the Canada Council and you put people in their jobs in the Canada Council, on a board, the process.... We have to ensure that in fact the Canada Council accounts for its money through proper budgeting and proper Treasury Board guidelines, but we don't sit in judgment on every application.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, I sit in judgment on your comment that you would compare the Group of Seven to some of the filth that's—

Ms. Sheila Copps: I don't know what book you're talking about. I'm just saying that I do not think it's my job as minister for heritage to read the books that are funded by the Canada Council. And if I did start doing that, if you remember, a few years ago they had a big controversy at the National Gallery. One of them was Voice of Fire, and then the slab of beef. People said all this stuff like, “Voice of Fire? Why did we pay this money?”

I'm not an artist. I'd love to be an artist. I admire people who can create with their hands, or make other types of creation. I did take singing lessons, and that was scary.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Sheila Copps: But I don't think that I should be deciding who gets the grants. I think that if I were, you'd be the first one to say I was politicizing the granting process by deciding who gets the grants.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Let's talk about audio tapes.

Under Bill C-32 there's supposed to be a revenue flow of approximately $12 million to Canadian artists, however described. At the time my prediction was that by our putting the levy on the blank tapes, the U.S.A., in all likelihood, was going to be trying to retrieve some of that $12 million. Much of the work that is copied onto the tapes, if indeed it is being pirated—which is what the action on Bill C-32 is targeting—is U.S.-produced material.

Can you tell us if the U.S.A. has contacted the department, or if the U.S.A. or any interest from the embassy...or if there has been any indication that this is starting?

I still predict that it will happen. I'm just curious to know if it's happened yet.

Ms. Sheila Copps: It may happen. The fact is that they're not signatories to the neighbouring rights provision. Ergo, they would have great difficulty in getting a positive finding on a case when, in their own instance, I think they're seeking copyright protection for their own videotapes.

The Chairman: Last question, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. I hope we'll get back again, but just to conclude that one, I would suggest that although there is a relationship to the neighbouring rights issue, the blank tape levy is a different issue, a different section, of Bill C-32.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, I've just been informed that the Minister has to leave in—

Ms. Sheila Copps: I have another meeting at 5 p.m., but I can—

The Chairman: Will you take one final question from Mrs. Tremblay?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a very brief question, but first, I would like to say something to Mr. Abbott. I would be more concerned about the people writing to him after reading this material than I would be about the minister's accountability.

Having said this, perhaps I'm standing on a somewhat slippery slope, because I'm not clear on the respective fields of jurisdiction of the provinces and of the federal government. I recently attended three book fairs, and the exhibitors all told me the same thing: they would very much like the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to examine the whole issue of the publishing industry. They are concerned about the concentration taking place in the industry and, in some cases, the virtual monopoly situation that exists.

Apparently, some firms have their own printing press and publish and distribute their own material. If you're not on good terms with them, you'll have trouble getting your work published. That's one of the things I was told.

• 1700

I was also told, and I don't know if this is true, that grants are in proportion to sales figures.

Ms. Sheila Copps: They are or they aren't?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They are. The higher these sales figures, the higher the grants. If that's in fact the case, then the publishing house that put out Céline Dion's book this year is certainly going to make a lot of money because there are already 100,000 copies of the book in print. If this is in fact the case, then perhaps the committee should really look into the publishing industry. Too much concentration in the industry could prove to be extremely dangerous. Maybe we need to know more about the grants program so that I can get back to the people who spoke to me.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Several weeks ago, I met with members of an organization representing publishing houses in Canada. They pointed to another possible problem which has yet to arise. They are concerned that the large distribution companies will establish a monopoly which could create a problem when it comes to distributing books. We want to monitor this situation closely and we are working with them on this issue.

In the red book, we also promised to increase funding for publishing houses. We want to work with the association and its membership to maximize our investment.

I believe the association has 22 or 23 members. They should get together and agree on the kind of policy they want.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have any more time?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I can take one more question from Wendy, and if somebody else has a question....

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I have more of a comment than an actual question.

Regarding the announcement that you made earlier about Canada's election to UNESCO's executive council, we should put things into perspective. You and your department have done absolutely extraordinary work on this file. In my opinion, the three parties represented all deserve a tip of the hat.

Furthermore, I absolutely want to underscore something that Canada does not know, but that we experienced first hand, namely the quality of the speech that you gave to UNESCO. I just wanted to point that out.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I want to mirror what Suzanne Tremblay had to say about the concerns about the MAI. We all are concerned about the MAI and protecting culture in that agreement. I'm glad to hear that Mr. Volpe is on that committee with Marchi. I want to know more. We all feel that. How do you feel?

Do you actually feel, as you said earlier, that we're looking at a very different world now? We weren't dealing with World Trade Organization decisions on our magazines 25 years ago. We're looking at a new world. Do we have the skills here? Are we able to do something here without being totally finessed at a trade level, when in fact we are not talking about trade but about our unique voices? This thing called culture is not an export that can be just traded away.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Last February, when I was meeting with the former cultural minister of France, I took the time to meet with the Canadian ambassador and the Canadian negotiator at the OECD and UNESCO to get some details on what they had on the table.

I think the discussion has become much more public and that's good. In the spring when questions were answered and people said we can't say anything because we're negotiating—everybody was concerned about it not being open and transparent.

I think that process is being addressed, but it might be helpful if at some point in the future you engage that discussion between this committee and the other committee. You might invite the Canadian ambassador to come before this committee to give us an update as to where we are with the negotiations. I think the more people and countries that are out there making common front, the better it is.

• 1705

The Chairman: You like the Conservative Party so much—Mr. Muise wants permission to ask a small question, a very short one.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'll disregard your introduction and just say that you're recognizing me. Thank you.

I want to be on the record to say that cultural policy is a concern of mine. I'm afraid of what happened with the magazine situation that went to the WTO, and I would be terrified to see such a thing happen to our cultural industries with regard to MAI. I'd just like that to be on the record.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you for appearing. We appreciate it.

Would the members stay? We have a motion to look after.

• 1706

• 1708

The Chairman: Could the meeting come to order please?

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): We worked with the clerk of the committee this past week and we had membership organized that was tabled in the House today, so I guess it would be appropriate for Madame Tremblay to move the motion—she did the last time—and we'll just go from there.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are you ready to read the motion, Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Could you give me two seconds to finish reading it?

The Chairman: Of course. By the way,

[English]

the mention of four members from the government should be five—I think it was a typo—otherwise you won't make up nine.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Could I ask a question while we're waiting?

The Chairman: By all means.

Mr. John Godfrey: The four points of reference are quite general. There is no specific reference to hockey, which is all I've been reading about in the papers. Did something happen or what?

Mr. Dennis Mills: No, it's just that the journalists have obviously tried to skew it one way. But I can tell you that you've never seen any of my quotes that said anything different from what is said on this.

• 1710

So there you go. Talk about grandstanding—already you're leading the pack.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm ready to move the motion. I would prefer it if the sub-committee were known simply as the sub- committee on sport in Canada, rather than as the sub-committee on the industry of sport in Canada.

The Chairman: Or the sub-committee for the study of sport.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, the sub-committee for the study of sport in Canada rather than on the industry of sport, because the industry of sport is only one of the four points of reference listed. This would be a much broader designation and would be less subject to interpretation by the media.

The Chairman: Mr. Mills.

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, somehow we want to link in the economic impact of sport in Canada. Is that softer?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Are you talking about the economic—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, but this could be inserted very clearly into the terms of reference. Perhaps we could specify who is behind the terms of reference. I think that this would be more relevant to include this in the first paragraph of the terms of reference.

[English]

The Chairman: The suggestion would be that the name of the committee

[Translation]

that is the sub-committee for the study of sport in Canada,

[English]

Sub-Committee for the Study of Sport in Canada.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In the first paragraph, we could specify the following: "examine the economic impact of professional sport on amateur sport" or... that would make no sense. No, we have to include something somewhere.

The Chairman: I think that this gives you all the...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: All the latitude required. This has everything we need. Therefore, I would like to move the motion.

The Chairman: Thank you. Therefore,

[English]

four becomes five in the first line of the subcommittee composed of nine members.

[Translation]

Is everyone agreed on Mrs. Tremblay's motion?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Just a moment.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Has the motion been moved?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, I would like to debate.

The Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the amount of $3,000, which I think underscores the position that I and the Reform Party have been taking on this particular study. If this committee saw fit to bring just one expert from Vancouver to Ottawa, we would use up the $3,000.

So one of two things is going to be happening with this proposed committee. One, it will be a lightweight, superfluous report without any real value, because the committee is not voting sufficient resources to make it happen, or two, Mr. Mills and the committee will be revisiting the standing committee and saying we need another $3,000 and another $3,000.

My projection is that if this is going to have any chance of coming back with recommendations of any value, the $3,000 should probably be multiplied by ten. I'm not recommending that—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jim Abbott: I see this motion as an attempt by the member to low-ball, to get the committee drawn into this so that we can have Jean Belliveau come in from here, and Gordie Howe come in from there, and we can fly in Guy Lafleur from here, there and everywhere. These people are not going to be using their Aeroplan points to get here. There would be an expectation that their flights would be paid for. Indeed, if we don't have experts from around Canada, if we sit around the table and navel-gaze, what is the value of the report once we're done? It cannot be done.

• 1715

Mr. Dennis Mills: May I respond to that?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Please respond.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I find it perplexing that the Reform Party would suggest that we would be subsidizing Gary Bettman's trip to come and speak in front of this committee. I say it in jest, because I know that's what you're not promoting.

The fact of the matter is that several of us on this committee have already talked to leaders in all facets of sport from across Canada, and by and large most of these people have said they have the resources and feel so strongly about this issue they can make it here on their own.

Most of these people involved in sport, especially at the amateur level, are people who volunteer hundreds and hundreds of hours of their own time for community and youth across Canada. They're respected by their sponsors. To get here on an airplane, a bus, or a train is not going to be a problem for them.

This is not in any way, shape, or form an attempt to low-ball to get the committee going and then come back for more. So just dismiss that from your thought process.

The Chairman: Perhaps I may interject. The clerk advises me that when you were discussing this with Mr. Mills, he suggested that a nominal amount be put in. The funds come out of the committee funds anyway. Because Mr. Mills had explained to the clerk exactly what he explained to us just now, the clerk suggested we put in a nominal amount in case there were expenses.

I think we have to agree that if the members represent all the parties and eventually more money is needed, so long as it is not an outrageous amount we can come back with a request and then see whether it's reasonable or not. However, I appreciate what you say.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm rather surprised to find myself on the other side of this argument, because it is the Liberals invariably who take the egalitarian approach and say everybody has to have equal access. While we're talking about Mr. Bettman—I guess Pat Quinn won't be coming now.

But you know what I'm saying. We're talking about people who have the resources to get here. What the committee is really saying is that as long as we invite people who have the resources to get here, it's not going to cost us anything.

I'm very, very frustrated by this effort. I don't see how it is possibly going to be able to do what Mr. Mills wants it to do. I see it as being a fly examining an elephant.

The Chairman: Excuse me, I would like to make a suggestion.

[Translation]

Before I recognize you, Mr. Bélanger,

[English]

I would like to make a suggestion that

[Translation]

the mover of the motion can agree to this or not. That can easily be stricken.

[English]

The reference to 3,000—that whole paragraph can come out. In any case, the funds have to come from the committee. We're responsible to the House; the subcommittee is responsible to the committee. So if it makes you feel better, we'll just take it out.

Mr. Dennis Mills: No.

The Chairman: You'd prefer to leave it. Okay.

Mauril.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, would you put the question please.

[English]

Put the question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The question then.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Recorded vote, please.

• 1720

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 9; nays, 1)

The Chairman: Before we break up,

[Translation]

we will meet here tomorrow at 9 a.m.

[English]

to look at Bill C-7. The officials of the ministry will come in to give us a briefing on Bill C-7 so that we can carry out the clause-by-clause discussion very soon.

[Translation]

The following week,

[English]

the week of November 10,

[Translation]

there are no meetings scheduled,

[English]

and the week of November 17 we are booked with Mrs. Fry, on Tuesday; Bill C-7 on the Wednesday for clause-by-clause;

[Translation]

and Minister Andy Mitchell on Thursday.

[English]

The week after that we could start the schedule at 11 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. That's the week of November 24. Is that okay with you?

Mr. Jim Abbott: With one exception, with respect to Bill C-7. You will recall the concerns that I raised in the House yesterday. I would hate to see us not address most of those concerns before we go to clause-by-clause. Please understand, I am not in any way, shape, or form trying to obstruct here.

The Chairman: I understand.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm trying to get good legislation.

The Chairman: I understand, that's fine. If you're not satisfied with the information we get on the Thursday, then we'll discuss it, by all means.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Is it possible for us to have that schedule? I saw you reading from it, and it would be wonderful if we had a copy.

The Chairman: Yes, we'll give you a copy.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a question concerning Bill C-7. Will there be any amendments to this legislation?

The Chairman: So far, I think not, but I can't be certain. Mr. Godfrey isn't here. I will let you know during the vote in the House.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: If there is no further business, I declare the meeting adjourned.