HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 25, 1999

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[Translation]

is meeting today to hear the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[English]

I would like to thank you very much for coming, Minister. The minister has advised me that she has to go to the funeral of the brother of a colleague from Parliament and she has to leave here at 11.45 a.m. to make it in time for the funeral. Under these exceptional circumstances, I really appreciate that you came in time to the meeting and we won't waste too much time. If the minister could take the floor and introduce her colleagues, go ahead, please.

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the members for understanding the circumstances...that I have to leave early.

First of all, I want to thank you. Some of the players around the table are new, but some are the same players who were involved in the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which was tabled in June. I think this has given us a wonderful template.

Now, you have a deck you can walk through, but I will just walk you through it from the beginning.

[Translation]

First of all, I want to thank you for your report which is perhaps the first ever in-depth analysis of this country's existing cultural policies. The agencies and artists who participated, and who continue to participate, in the process truly help to promote our heritage, not only as it relates to our past, but also as it related to our actions and the way we will tackle the major cultural challenges of the year 2000.

[English]

The response of the government, I think, establishes a framework. It actually addresses 42 of the 43 recommendations. The only one we did not touch was a recommendation that dealt with the machinery of government, which is out of the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage. I believe and I hope there are three objectives that have guided our work collectively, and in particular my work as Minister for Canadian Heritage.

First, I have sought a mandate to promote the cultural diversity in Canada and in particular the recognition of cultural diversity around the world.

[Translation]

We also made a commitment to Canada's youth to build the Canada of the future.

• 1110

Our third objective is protecting, enriching and developing our natural heritage. That is why, in the Speech from the Throne, we formulated several specific recommendations pertaining to artistic creation, the creativity of our youth and our natural areas.

[English]

Nationally our objective is to offer choices to Canadians and to put the diversity of our country within the reach of every single person. To that end, in the beginning of our mandate the first thing we did, in a very difficult financial time, was we increased the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts in order to reinforce that creativity and the spirit of innovation, and we created a Canada Television and Cable Production Fund to ensure that there is an increased number of quality Canadian shows that are accessible to all young people.

[Translation]

In 1997, we announced an annual increase of $25 million in the budget of the Canada Council. Last year, we provided funding to 17,000 organizations, 800 of which received long-term grants.

[English]

In 1996 we created the Canadian Television Fund, which has been extended to the year 2001. I think the really wonderful news about the fund is that with $100 million of additional investment we've been able to lever the production of 2,500 new hours of programming in the last fiscal year, 80% of which is designated for what we consider the under-represented categories of drama and children's programming. These are shows in areas that would not otherwise be available to all Canadians.

[Translation]

During 1998-1999, 458 films and television programs were produced, generating $1.1 billion in spinoffs on an investment of $100 million. This represents the highest rate of return on any government investment last year.

[English]

We have also signed co-production agreements with 54 countries, and in 1998 there was a certification process of 71 international co-productions, for a total value of $558 million Canadian in co-production.

In Canada the film and television industry currently represents about 30,000 direct jobs and its contribution to the GDP is $2.8 billion. That 30,000 figure is in direct jobs; that does not include indirect jobs. Canada is the second largest exporter of television programming in the French and English languages in the world.

[Translation]

There are reasons for this.

[English]

In 1998 we also created the Multimedia Fund, which is an area of new interest, and obviously interest for access for young Canadians, who are probably a lot more net-efficient than a lot of us are. The Multimedia Fund includes a $150 million investment over five years, and that is also an investment in young people. Six hundred and fifty Canadian enterprises are currently working in the multimedia sector; 17,000 jobs have been created, and the greatest number of those companies are new companies employing young people.

[Translation]

It should be noted that most of these multimedia organizations were established after 1994 and that 28 per cent have been in existence for less than one year. Although we account for only 5 per cent of the world's francophone population, we are home to 20 per cent of the multimedia organizations, thanks to the training available which gives young people an opportunity to find expression in the multimedia field.

[English]

I think Canada is recognized worldwide for our savoir faire—perhaps an accident of geography and our communications history, but we are recognized as world leaders in multimedia production, and that's an area that will continue to see government investment, partly because it reinforces choices for children. When you look at the fact that, even with the investments we've made, about 95% of what you see on the Internet is in one language only, there is obviously a need for further investments to enhance diversity of choice and diversity of language on the net.

• 1115

The Canadian stabilization program for the arts is intended to promote the creation of partnerships between businesses, different levels of government, and communities, and I think it reinforces the fact that communities must harness collective resources and finances for the long-term health of arts and heritage organizations. One of the pilot programs for arts stabilization was actually Nova Scotia, and it seems to be really making its mark.

The Vancouver stabilization team and the Alberta Performing Arts Stabilization Fund are in their fourth year of existence and have actually encouraged the kind of interconnection that really maximizes local input in cultural decision-making and investment.

[Translation]

In February 1999, I announced a $350 million increase over five years in the official languages budget. Again, it comes down to a matter of choice. Canadian Heritage has a direct funding role to play, given that Canada's francophone population needs more support from not only the federal government, but from the private sector and other provincial governments as well to survive and grow.

I am very pleased that with your support, we were able to secure new funding. This year, each agency's budget has been increased by a minimum of 30 per cent, and in a year's time, this will be increased to 50 per cent. This initiative recognizes the government's commitment to promoting the growth of French throughout Canada.

In addition, in all our programs, we stress the fact that even though Canada's francophones account for only 25 per cent of the general population, they are fairing better. For example, when we created the Multimedia Fund, 39 per cent of human resources were allocated to the francophone sector, because French-language productions are more costly to produce than English-language shows and less outside funding is available for this purpose.

Moreover, when we established the Canadian Television Fund, even though francophones account for only 25 per cent of the population, we insisted that one third of the funding available go to French-language programming because once again, when the critical mass is smaller, production costs increase.

[English]

So I make no apologies for that. I think it's good public policy and it's part of public policy that recognizes in a country that was founded on the very unique idea that two people speaking different languages and different religions can live together.

[Translation]

The respect which we owe to cultural diversity outweighs the concept of per capita return on investment which is so often touted as today's model.

[English]

The other task I set myself last year was to begin the process of internationalizing public policy when it comes to culture. It was shocking to me, and I think to some of the colleagues around the table, that until we had engaged in this process there had never been an international organization for culture ministers.

Fish ministers get together to talk about diminishing stock. Finance ministers get together to talk about harmonization of financial structures. There had never been an opportunity for culture ministers to come together, and we set as our objective the establishment of an international cultural network.

That network has in fact, I believe, struck a chord. The network was created in 1998 in Ottawa. The second meeting of the network was held in Mexico last year in Oaxaca, and I think we can see some really tangible results already. First of all, we have been asked to take on the role of the permanent network liaison office. We are planning future multilateral meetings in Greece, Switzerland, and South Africa in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Thirty-nine countries have joined the network. There are a number of others who would like to join the network and who are interested in bilaterally and multilaterally exploring some of the issues around how we deal with a global framework outside of simply a trade template.

• 1120

I'd have to say that the decision of the government, for example, to support a policy of a separate international instrument for culture really comes from this committee. You started the work two years ago. You delivered the report, along with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the government listened. That was no small change in public policy. I think it was a very significant change.

In November of this year, along with the French minister of culture, in France, I co-chaired

[Translation]

a meeting that brought together 55 of the world's cultural ministers. Mrs. Maltais, Quebec's Minister of Culture, was also a member of the Canadian delegation. We gave our country a stronger voice in promoting respect for cultural diversity. Through this international mechanism, we will succeed in promoting cultural diversity, despite the WTO. As we know, we cannot count on the WTO, as evidenced by its recent decision on magazines, to defend our right to freely define our own cultural policy for the marketplace.

[English]

Consultations are currently underway with industry and international partners, and in particular civil society, to ensure we get the best instrument possible. But we'll have a maximum opportunity for interconnection and also an international regime for respect for cultural diversity.

[Translation]

Moreover, it should be noted that these efforts are over an above those made within the framework of bilateral meetings and in addition to the contacts established by the stakeholders themselves.

NGOs held a meeting of their own in conjunction with the first meeting of the International Network on Cultural Policy held in Ottawa in June of 1998. NGOs developed the initial agenda which we then followed through on. This agenda is therefore not the result of a Cabinet or government policy, but rather the result of a consensus achieved by members of Canada's civil society. I am proud of that fact. There are some who may not share our viewpoint, but this view is generally accepted by this committee.

[English]

The second departmental objective, and the second objective I have as a minister and as a mother, is to ensure young people participate in the Canadian experience by giving them choices. We also need to give them chances to enrich the new Canada with their own perspectives and their own dreams. To that end, we've already begun to take some new measures.

First of all, we've worked very hard to expand the experience in the second official languages through exchange programs. One of the first things I undertook as Minister of Canadian Heritage was to launch the Young Canada Works in heritage languages in parks and in heritage language institutions. As a result of various exchange programs that are currently operating, we have about 25,000 young Canadians who are able to spend some time in another part of the country, and hopefully in an experience that is different culturally for each of them. We're hoping to expand that in the next fiscal year to 100,000 young Canadians. We are working on the modalities to make that happen, which are not going to be a sort of single-window program but rather ensuring the vast range of programs, many of which are already here, are known to young Canadians.

We've also announced in the Speech from the Throne the production of a first works by young artists program through the Young Canada Works program. Again, the idea is to

[Translation]

make Canadian youth accountable and to encourage them to express themselves and to be truly in the forefront of a new era of globalization and culturalization.

As I mentioned, the number of young people participating in exchange programs has quadrupled. We will certainly bear in mind the will of the Canadian public, which has said that youth exchanges are perhaps one of the best tools available to the Canadian government to help our youth.

[English]

In increasing our long-term investments, we also need to focus on young people. Those of you who have looked at the increased investment for the millennium that was announced by the Canada Council will know that there was a particular function, un volet that dealt with young people in the arts. That was part of our insistence that we have to move beyond the traditional artistic interconnections and we have to encourage young people. We have worked hard to promote the support of young people in high-tech sectors such as multimedia through the youth employment strategy, which again is trying to harness the power of employment strategies to go beyond the traditional areas.

• 1125

How did we do that? On November 3 of this year I announced what I consider to be a breakthrough agreement with my colleague, the Minister for Human Resources Development. We signed an agreement to transfer $23 million in permanent funding to the Department of Canadian Heritage with a view to improving the envelope for the national arts, film, and video training contribution.

Why? When I became minister, I discovered, again to my horror, that in an exploding area of employment for young people, there was no national strategy to deal with cultural training. Indeed, at the second last ministers of culture meeting, Madame Louise Beaudoin and every other culture minister unanimously endorsed the proposal that the national government should take responsibility for national training in the areas of culture. I believe that meeting took place under the chairmanship of the Government of Saskatchewan.

This is actually a flow-through from that recommendation, because if you look at the areas where we're really making good new investments in cultural jobs, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have 10 centres for circus training in a country of 30 million people. In fact, it makes no sense. So in the rationale for encouraging an interconnected structure, obviously the decision of Human Resources to participate in this envelope is a recognition that the human resource funding for training should also include professional training in the arts, because these are where the next jobs are. In fact, in many provinces right now the single fastest area of job growth is cultural jobs.

I was thrilled to meet with the Alberta film and video producers last week and find out that in the last year their production has gone from $50 million to $200 million. These are fabulous numbers in an area where we have a very strong record, and a record that can actually help us tell our stories to each other.

The total investment in the new envelope for funds...and we did establish an encadrement process.

[Translation]

When I became minister, money was being allocated right, left and center, but there was no funding framework in place. We established a funding mechanism. Over a two-year period, we analysed all existing agencies to determine the extent to which they satisfied the objectives of a national institutions. We are now committed to investing $65 million over the next five years for professional training in the arts. We have also increased our funding under the human resources development envelope.

[English]

Again, our work has to focus also on natural spaces

[Translation]

because, while supporting youth, we must also give them the opportunity to discover Canada's geographic richness, which we may take for granted, to create a “first work” that reflects their perspectives and concerns, to acquire new knowledge in the sectors of the future, that is multimedia and other fields, and finally, to prepare to contribute to the Canadian economy.

Some people perceive the money allocated under Canadian Heritage's budgetary envelopes merely as grants. However, when we consider that the area registering the strongest economic growth is employment in the cultural sector, then these outlays should be viewed as an investment. When the government invests in multimedia activities, it is creating opportunities for the long-term.

As we approach the 21st century, we are also firmly committed to extending Canada's national parks system. This was something we stressed in the Speech from the Throne.

[English]

The third objective of the three pillars of Canadian heritage policy is to ensure Canadians will benefit forever from the natural treasures we've inherited. We have the oldest park system in the world, not the first park. The first park was actually in the United States, but we have the oldest park system in the world because literally almost a hundred years ago a Canadian government had the foresight to establish a national park system. We can be very proud of it.

• 1130

Around the world, how do people look at Canada? They look at our natural beauty and they associate it with our country. So what we want to do with the completion of the park system is make sure that the 39 natural geographic areas are represented and at the same time that we reinforce the ecological integrity of the natural spaces we've already set aside.

In this regard, as a result of the Bow Valley study and the analysis of Bow Valley, which left us to understand that we have a number of areas of ecology that need to be reviewed in greater detail, we established the ecological integrity panel, under the chairmanship of Jacques Gérin, that will be reporting to me in early January. We expect that flowing from that will be some recommendations that also deal with how we nurture the natural spaces that have already been established as part of the park system.

So it's not just a question of acquisition. It's also a question of interconnection and ecological integrity. I think a lot of us were pretty surprised to learn from the preliminary discussions of the ecological integrity panel that there doesn't seem to be as much focus on science and biodiversity as there could be in the system. We'd like to see that reinforced.

We also have taken very specific measures for park recognition. We've established marine conservation areas.

[Translation]

The government has created five new parks since 1996, namely Wpusk, Tuktut Nogait, Quttinirpaaq, Sirmilik and Auyuittuq. Three of these parks are located in the new territory of Nunavut. Recently the government tabled a bill providing for the establishment of marine conservation areas in 29 marine regions in Canada.

The attendant guidelines and administrative policies were developed in concert with the provinces and concerned stakeholders.

[English]

Since 1998, for example, Parks Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources have been exploring the feasibility of a marine conservation area on the north shore of Lake Superior, but we have to do it in partnership. If it's imposed top-down, it's not going to work. We want to make sure it's done in partnership. We are progressing—not as quickly as we'd like, but we're progressing.

Obviously one of the issues we had to address was commercial development in our national parks. Control of commercial development is essential for the benefit of future generations.

We've also worked at the creation of bursaries for recruitment of Innu and Inuit who are working in national parks, but we need to do more in terms of the aboriginal parks relationship. It's not as strong as it could be. I've asked the Parks Agency to do some more work in that area.

We need to encourage increased access, and that's why we've established the discovery centres, which will develop our natural heritage and also provide the link with the human story of Canada.

These measures from Banff, Bow Valley, through to the ecological integrity panel, through to the

[Translation]

discovery centres reflects our desire to establish centres of knowledge. Visitors to Riding Mountain National Park must come away feeling that not only have they learned a great deal about this park, they have also established a link with their heritage.

[English]

I'd just like to add quickly—and I know we're getting tight on time—that since 1996 we have added 65 historic sites across the country, and I'm very proud to say we've added the first historic sites outside Canada that recognize the great wars. There are four sites in Europe: Flanders Fields, Vimy Ridge, Beaumont Hamel, and the beaches of Normandy. These are recognition of the fact that Canadian heritage doesn't stop at our borders. We hope that with your help we can do more in that area of recognition.

We've also signed 17 cost-sharing agreements to ensure the protection and restoration of buildings of historical significance, and we've been working very hard on a template that might see future architectural conservancy encouraged by public-private partnerships. So we will not just be working to protect national historic sites, but we will also provide support and potential support for those in the private sector and non-profit area who also want to see non-designated national buildings saved.

In the last 30 years we've lost about 20% of the built heritage in Canada. We're cognizant of the fact that heritage is not just natural; it's also architectural built heritage, and we're doing some work in that area.

With that I will close, because I know we're going to be tight on time for questions.

• 1135

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

As indicated, we have a short time before us. As you know, the deputy minister is going to make himself available on a date we will advise you of, so we will have a chance to carry on farther. But perhaps today we could be concise so that all of us will be given a chance to ask questions.

Mr. Mark.

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

First, let me welcome the minister here today. It's always good to see her before the committee.

There is no doubt that we do spend a lot of money on heritage in this country, and it does have a huge impact on our tourism and entertainment industries as well as other sectors. I certainly support government leveraging dollars.

The problem, as you indicated, is not what actually occurred but the perception of and the controversy caused by a lot of these public funds, with such things over the past year as pornography, joke books, and dead rabbits. My first question is, can the minister assure Canadians that this kind of activity will not be repeated or will be kept to a minimum?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr Chair, do you want me to write down all your questions and then answer them? That way you can get all your points on the record.

Mr. Inky Mark: Okay. I have a couple of other short questions. The next one is there's no doubt that there's a renewed interest in Canadian heritage and history. Just look at all the work being done in this community regarding the new war museum proposals and the interest in establishing a genocide museum. My understanding is that all the work has been done, people are working hard at raising funds, and they're waiting for the government to put in their cash. That's my other question.

The last one is, just exactly what will you be putting on the table at the WTO negotiations?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'll take those in reverse order. We have received support from the Government of Canada collectively that we will not be putting culture on the table at the WTO, and what we're seeking is an expressed statement to that effect at the beginning of the declaratory statements. What we've also agreed to is an approach to have an international instrument for cultural governance that would be outside of the WTO, and that's the area I have been working on as minister.

What you may want to do is have the Minister for International Trade come and speak to the other issues of the WTO. We have basically said that culture is not on the table at the WTO, and we would like to have other countries express such in a declaratory statement. So that's the WTO.

With regard to museums, last Remembrance Day, Art Eggleton and I set aside a portion of land in this community to renew the work of the Canadian War Museum and to give them an opportunity to have a much larger museum. At that time there was a suggestion by them that they would have no problem raising about $15 million to $20 million as a show of public support, at which point we would then be asked to come up to the plate, as it were. Unfortunately, their fundraising has not been as successful as they had anticipated, and we're working on that. Certainly, we are hopeful that we will be able to come up with a collective solution. But, as you understand, Inky, being fiscally prudent we want to make sure that we're meeting a lot of the needs of the taxpayers. To paraphrase your comment on rabbits, we can't just pull live rabbits out of hats. So we're working on it, and there is a process in place. We're confident that we will have an opportunity to ensure that Canada's war memories are not lost.

In terms of the Canada Council and granting procedures, as an organization that gives out literally thousands and thousands of awards per year, they have obviously not been perfect. But I want to assure you and double assure you that cognizant of the arm's-length relationship I strive to maintain with the Canada Council, I in no way pick any of their grants. I think the last thing you want is a politician deciding who gets funding, and if there's a way of ensuring that.... Obviously we have to ensure that Treasury Board guidelines are met and that the process is transparent and available, but I don't think we want to see a situation where the government takes over the job of the Canada Council. If they hit a couple of duds along the way...it does happen.

• 1140

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Minister, I know you're on a tight schedule. Therefore, like my colleague, I too would like to ask you a few questions, as might my colleague Ms. St-Hilaire. Subsequently you could respond to them.

First, I'd like to talk about Quebec culture. Your department's strategic agenda refers to Canadian culture, reducing in the process Quebec culture to a mere component of the former. The fact is that these are two separate and distinct cultures. Would you care to comment on that point? The CBC also seems to have the same bias. It refers to Canadian culture and makes no specific mention of Quebec culture.

I'd also like to talk about the audiovisual sector. Last spring, the Feature Film Advisory Committee tabled a report commissioned by your department. The consultations revealed that the film industry was suffering from chronic underfunding. One of your assistants, Mr. Lefebvre, implied that no further investments could be made in the industry at this time. Where do you stand on this issue and how to you propose that we resolve this dilemma?

The government is also concerned about reinvesting in culture. Your department's budget has been slashed by 30 per cent. It was one of the hardest hit departments, and the cuts went deeper than they did elsewhere. New funding is needed. Artists live below the poverty line. What do you intend to do about this? Where do you plan to reinvest and when?

Let's come back for a minute to the CBC. You mentioned that you were committed to implementing this committee's recommendations, one of which called for adequate funding to be provided to the CBC. At the very moment that you were announcing your plans to implement the committee's recommendations, two of the CBC's vice-presidents were announcing a hiring freeze. These actions stand in stark contrast to your announcement. Things are not going very well at the CBC. Worse still, the CRTC could order advertising revenues to be reduced. How will you compensate for the CBC's revenue shortfall?

I have one final question. In Bill C-276, the Member for Sarnia broached the question of negative optioning. Your department, through its officials, supported this initiative. Despite everything, the bill has been amended since the 35th Parliament and you now have some discretionary authority to exempt certain broadcasting services. What's your position on this issue and how to you intend to exercise your discretionary right vis-à- vis Quebec television?

Finally, I'd like to comment on Astronomie Québec. There's no need for you to respond at this time. As you know, this magazine has had somewhat of a rough ride and this is a very sensitive matter for us. We know that talks have been held with your department and we hope that a solution amenable to all parties can be found.

Madam Minister, you're a friend of Quebec. As such, I hope you'll present these arguments in Quebec's favour in the days to come. I'll now turn the floor over to my colleague.

The Chair: Ms. St-Hilaire, Mr. Breitkreuz had also asked to be recognized, but I think we'll go to Ms. Lill because the minister has to leave shortly.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow my colleague one short question.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'll answer your questions all at the same time.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): I'd like to know who is responsible for running the Francophone Games? Is it your department? Now that we have a Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, I was wondering if your department was in fact organizing this event?

You talked a great deal of giving our youth opportunities to grow and of the importance of allowing francophones to grow. How do you feel about the fact that sports federations operate mostly in English?

The Chair: If I could interrupt for a moment, we have invited the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport to appear before our committee and he should be appearing shortly.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, the Secretary of State will indeed be appearing. It's important that we support the efforts of all sports organizations to work in both official languages. My daughter is involved in baseball and I know that most organizations rely on volunteers. That's one of the reasons why I have asked my colleagues to support expanding communications in both official languages.

• 1145

Obviously, we support the Francophone Games and view this as an important event. Since the establishment of the office of Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, Mr. Coderre and I have been working together. However, I also want minority languages to develop. We want to support the Francophone Games in a unique way, quite apart from the support allocated under the sports envelope. I'm working very closely with Mr. Coderre to ensure that our policies allow as many young athletes as possible to take part in these Games.

You talked about cultures being impervious. We are mindful of Quebec's distinct culture. We also realize that many people outside Quebec can benefit from your cultural endeavours. I want to stress that no one culture in the world is completely impervious to others. We live in a world in which people are increasingly interconnected.

For instance, you talked about Quebec television. Quebec television owes its existence in part to the fact that 60 years ago, people in government made a national decision in the interests of our country, a decision to establish a national broadcasting system operating in both languages. Thirty years ago, the CRTC was established. Before granting an English-language radio operating license, the CRTC requires 30 per cent Canadian content; next year, this percentage will be increased to 35 per cent. In the case of a French-language operating licence, the content requirement is 75 per cent. If Canadian governments -not only Liberal ones but all governments since the birth of our nation - had not had the courage to take these steps, I would not have had the opportunity to learn a second language, which I've embraced and which has open my eyes to many things in life.

[English]

I'd like to say this in English. One of the reasons I am very connected to exchanges is when I was a university student I wanted to go and study at the University of Laval, and I was told by the provincial authorities of the day that Laval and the Quebec education system were not up to snuff, so I had to go to France. Going to France in 1971 wasn't painful, but I must say that as part of my cultural experience I wanted to go to Quebec and I was denied that right by my own province. I sought it out individually. I went over to a country with no exchange program, no support, and I did it myself, and the capacity to really explore a second language opened my mind to so many things as a person. It helped me to grow as a person.

That's why I'm very committed to the fact that the support that French Canadians, and in particular the Quebec people, have given to their culture is something that could be a sign for all of us. It didn't happen in a vacuum; it didn't happen in an impermeable vacuum.

If you look at how we've designed the Canadian Television Fund, we've designed the Canadian Television Fund to make sure that one-third of the funding goes to French language television programming, even though they only represent 25% of the population, because we understand that it costs more to develop programming in a minority language. We spend, in the province of Quebec, $113 per capita. We spend less in Ontario. The Premier of Ontario spends less on culture than Quebec does, and not on a per capita basis, but on a gross basis.

• 1150

So they've made a choice. We try to assist in that choice, but at the same time, if you look at the Quebec expenditures, in the last fiscal year the Quebec government, in support of their culture, spent $78 per person and we spend $113.

So we are there and we believe in it. It's part of the institutions we've developed, and I'm proud to say that and I will say that in any part of the country. I'm not ashamed to say that in English. I think it's important, if you believe in support, that it has to be reflected in your policies.

[Translation]

You say that culture is impervious, but I disagree. Not only do I want francophones to have the opportunity to grow and develop in their own language throughout the country, I also want other Canadians to learn from Quebeckers, who have never lost sight of their identity and culture. English Canadians have much to learn about this from Quebeckers.

Sometimes, people refer to me as a nationalist in English. Some take this as an insult. However, I don't. I see it as acknowledging one's language and culture. We share the English language with the Americans. Does that make me an American? Many things that I've inherited reflect the cultural diversity of the country's two founding peoples. If we can spread this message across our country, then people will benefit from the knowledge they acquire.

Right now, Preston Manning is learning French in the Saguenay region. This shows his desire to broaden his horizons. You recall the fuss 20 years ago about French on boxes of Corn Flakes. We've come a long way since then. We still have a way to go, but we have made some progress.

As for Astronomie Québec, I'm not familiar with the details of this case. I'm sorry, but you'll have to get that information from the deputy minister.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm conscious of your time here. I know there are a lot of questions that probably have arisen for many of us around your department's response to our report, and I'm not sure when those are going to be answered, but I specifically want to ask you a question about the upcoming WTO talks. I'm still not at all confident that we're going to be able to protect our culture at those rounds.

The WTO definition of services includes communication services such as activities that suggest film and video production and distribution, radio and television services, and sound recording. I understand that countries such as the U.S., Israel, New Zealand, and Mexico have already included these services on their list of specific commitments in which the WTO trade rules apply. Despite the declaratory statements and despite your efforts—and I understand them to be vast—to get a separate instrument to protect culture, it's fine to have a nice culture club at the UN, but without protection from the U.S. under NAFTA and the WTO, we have no cultural protection. When formal cultural agreements are already being signed by Mexico and New Zealand, who are our allies...if they're putting stuff on the table around the film industry at the WTO, it's all moving around. I'm still very nervous about what we're going to see in Seattle.

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, do you have any other questions?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have questions about overall funding, because we did hear that there was going to be more money in the throne speech. There have been severe cuts from the government in culture, over $220 million since you've come to office. I'd say that expectations are now high that taps are going to open and we're going to see more money. I want to know how much we are really going to see culture being refunded under the new budget, or are we just talking about little dribs and drabs and are we just supposed to be grateful for the little bits of money? How do you see that?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think if you look at what we've done last year...I made official languages the priority last year and we had significant budget increases. We're literally going to be in the process of increasing the envelope in some communities, in some provinces, by 50%. That's a significant increase in community-based funding.

• 1155

When we did go through program review, which everybody bled through—I was Minister of the Environment when we carried out the process—the Department of Canadian Heritage was actually cut less on a percentage basis than most of the other departments. Because we had a fairly big budget to start off with and you deal with percentages, it still meant significant cuts.

I think what we're trying to do, if you look at the television fund, for example, is ensure that our investment brings more dollars to the table. That's why I cited the ratio that for $100 million we've invested, we've created a sphere of activity of $1.1 billion. Those are pretty good returns on our investment.

In terms of the WTO, rather than creating a culture discussion table, which was one of the original proposals being floated internationally, we have come together with France, Italy, and other like-minded partners to state basically that we will not be discussing culture. Under the services agreement of the WTO, culture is only on the table if a country offers it up in the course of their discussions. Culture will not be one of the services included in the discussions. They're out. So we actually have a statement of policy of the Government of Canada that the cultural industries will not be dealt with at the WTO.

What we're also seeking—and this is where we're going to have some difficulty. We've taken this position as a country, but we've also taken a position that we would like to have such a declaratory statement made by the whole WTO so that we can have some interest in that overall.

I must say that even though I agree with you.... I don't know how you phrased it, but it was kind of a neat way.

Ms. Wendy Lill: A culture club.

Ms. Sheila Copps: A culture club. The fact that we're actually engaging in these discussions has meant that a number of other countries that are on the edge of looking at these issues are very interested in the Canadian model. For example, we've engaged in a process with South Africa to see a model for copyright based on the work you did as a copyright committee. A lot of that work flows from the interconnections that literally did not exist before.

So I agree with you that it's going to be very challenging to actually create another functioning instrument.

There are some concerns around treaties versus agreements, because some people feel that if you have treaties, it takes too long to get everybody to sign them, and by the time they do sign them, the gate....

But there are a lot of countries who do take heart from the fact that Canada has adopted this position. I had a meeting with the Indian cultural minister. India has adopted the Canadian position. They are the single largest audio-visual country in the world, bigger than the United States, with a billion-person market. They are taking the Canadian model. So it is having a bit of a boule de neige effect.

But I agree with you that the process has to continue, because one of the challenges we're facing is that we live in a global world, and we have national instruments of governance but global instruments for trade. If our only interconnection is what we can sell and buy from each other, it diminishes the value of civilization.

Ms. Wendy Lill: This is a final concern, and it is part of this. We don't talk about a carve-out any more. That phrase seems to have gone out the window. It's now a cultural instrument. Are we looking for such a carve-out from the WTO that we have in NAFTA? If we are looking for that, I don't find it very satisfactory. Witness what happened with the magazine deal. We can do what we want, but we have to face the consequences; we face countervail.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, but if you look at what happened with the magazines, at the end of the day it was a remedy through the NAFTA. The problem with the original discussion around the NAFTA was that we had cited the exit strategy but without refining the remedy. That is something we'll have to engage in, in the longer term. In other words, you can exempt culture, but the remedies are not defined in the same way as you do with the CITT, for example, in the WTO.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess the only problem is that six months down the line we have our club and we have our instruments, and a big issue comes up and the United States wants something. Where is the protection going to be at the end of the day? I don't have a lot of comfort level at this point on this.

• 1200

Ms. Sheila Copps: It's a work in progress. I don't say that tongue-in-cheek; I say that because I think we are breaking new ground.

You can go back to June 1998 when we had the culture ministers' meeting here. We now have a permanent encadrement. We've also created a working group of like-minded countries, including Sweden, France, Greece, and Italy, to look at the issue of the cultural instruments. So there is work going on internationally that literally didn't exist a year ago. You don't take an issue this complex and move it from conception to delivery in a year. We're moving, but you've really helped us, because the work you did, and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, also helped to move even the thinking in this place. So thank you.

The Chair: Minister, I got the signal from your staff that you're already over time and that you have to go.

I apologize to our Liberal friends here that because of the circumstances they couldn't fit in their questions.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Former Liberal friends.

The Chair: Former Liberal friends.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We can have a further discussion at a future point, but Walt's brother died and I'd like to get to the funeral.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Himelfarb. We'll see you very soon. Thank you, Madame d'Auray.

If members will bear with me a minute, Mr. Bélanger wants to bring something before us, so we'll allow him to do that.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, of course it would depend quite a bit on the workload and what has been scheduled, but there is another issue that I'm a little remiss for not having brought up. There has been a development that I'd like to bring to the attention of the committee, and perhaps the committee may want to set some time aside to look into it. It is the matter of book distribution, book publishing, and the sale of books in Canada.

There has been a preliminary opinion of some sort issued by the Competition Bureau, saying essentially that as of now, they believe Chapters has not done anything wrong, in particular as it pertains to its wholesale arm, Pegasus, but that they have some concerns and they're going to be following them closely.

We've dealt with the book publishing industry in this committee. We've even amended the copyright legislation to try to help the industry, and some argue that we actually did the opposite by doing what we did. Nonetheless, there has been a considerable evolution in the country over the past three years in the book publishing and book selling industry in Canada, and I think it might be something we as a committee may want to take a very close look at by calling in—perhaps this is along the lines of Chapters, definitely—the book writers, book publishers, and book distributors to get a clear sense.

Maybe I'm a little romantic or archaic in this, but I do believe books are perhaps the most important of all our instruments to propagate our culture, our histories, and our knowledge. I would be remiss, and I think this committee would be remiss also, if we didn't take a look at a situation that is becoming, in some quarters, rather alarming.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I'm not speaking to this specific issue, so if there's somebody else who wants to add something....

The Chair: All right. Let's tackle this specific issue.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I meant to...[Inaudible—Editor]...and I apologize to my colleagues; I have not done that yet. If you prefer, I shall do so later this afternoon and send it off to you, but I thought I'd use this occasion, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, and I'm very grateful for that to bring the subject up. I've talked to two or three of our colleagues and there seems to be a shared concern.

The Chair: Let me bring this before you before we break. I think you have the sheet before you. On November 29, which is next Tuesday, we have the deputy minister, and on December 2, we have Minister Hedy Fry, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women). We have a blank on December 7, and we could tackle the subject if you want. On December 9 we have the National Archives and on December 14 we have the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport). We left December 16 blank because we are supposed to break on December 17, and I'm sure there will be all kinds of work in the House.

• 1205

So could you give me a feeling of whether you want to slot this in on December 7? If we need another meeting, maybe we could have it on December 9 and reorganize with the National Archives. I don't know. The floor is yours. Let's discuss it.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If that's possible.

The Chair: Right, if that's possible.

[English]

Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I agree completely that this is an issue we should be dealing with here. I would say that our book publishers are working at very slim margins at this point in time. This new relationship between Chapters and Pegasus could completely dissolve this industry if we don't take some concern for it.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: My only suggestion would be that if we do this, we do it right and we see this as a system. It has many components as a distribution system. There is a production-of-books system, and we have to understand the basic business these folks are in. If we take an approach that understands how everybody fits in and how the Internet, for example, is challenging all those strategies in terms of sales and all the rest of it, it would be, in a sense, leveraging off our previous report, but getting into the detail of one cultural ecosystem that is under threat from the various things we've talked about, whether it's international trade, perhaps less so demographics, and certainly technology. I think it would be a very worthwhile study, and as far as I know, there has not been a major discrete study on book publishing in this country for 20 years. I could be wrong, but I think the last one was an Ontario government one in the 1970s.

The Chair: Mr. Mark, have you anything to add?

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree.

The Chair: Are there any other remarks? Should we start on December 7, and hopefully December 9, and then if we want to do a more in-depth study, we can just carry on after the recess? Is that in order? Okay.

So we'll see if we can postpone this and have the two dates, December 7 and December 9, and then carry on afterward.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Just on a separate issue, what I wanted to do was have the chair on the record recognize—coming back to a discussion we had a few committee meetings ago—the amount of time that's being allotted for opposition members to question as well as provide advice to the minister on specific issues when we have a set period of time allotted for a witness, and in turn acknowledge, at the committee level, the lack of the same opportunity for members of the government.

This isn't the first time it's happened that all the opposition parties have chewed up the entire amount of time for a specific witness, yet we'll have five, six, or eight members of the government sitting here without any opportunity provided to them at a committee level to do the same.

So in that respect, I don't think it's fair, and I would ask that you reconsider the allotment of time in some fashion. You had six or seven members of Parliament sitting here who did not have an opportunity to participate on the government side, when three or four opposition parties were provided the opportunity that we weren't, and I don't think that's fair.

The Chair: I appreciate it, Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, in the year and a half that I have been here, and I have been here most times—I have missed very few meetings—this is the first occasion that I remember that the government has not asked any questions.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I wasn't raising it for the purpose of debate, Mr. Speaker, but Mr. Mark must not have been paying attention, because on many occasions it has happened that the vast majority of time has been spent with opposition and not with government.

Mr. Inky Mark: I disagree.

The Chair: Mr. Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I agree with my Reform Party colleague.

[English]

An hon. member: Wow, I'm surprised about that.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I'm sorry. I listened to you...

[English]

The Chair: Hold it. Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: ...respectfully. Could you do the same thing for me?

If our Liberal friends haven't had the chance to ask questions this morning and if we, on the other hand, have tried to condense our questions, it's because the Minister was pressed for time. Otherwise, she would have been able to stay until 1 p.m.

• 1210

We still have 55 minutes remaining and I'm certain that this will give everyone enough time to speak. We shouldn't make generalizations. Mr. Chairman, these circumstances are beyond your control. I think you did your best, given the circumstances. We would have preferred to have more time to put questions to the minister, but under the circumstances, we had no choice.

[English]

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I agree with that. We didn't have enough time. Clearly there wasn't enough time. At the very beginning we could have said, well, let's not do it at all because we don't have enough time. Let's reschedule. We didn't do that. We instead had half a loaf and....

The Chair: Could I make a suggestion? I don't think today is typical, because of circumstances that happened. At the same time, Mr. Bonwick brought up the point before that sometimes, as a member who may not be recognized as the representative member for the Liberal Party in the first place, he might sit there all meeting and not have a chance to have a round. There are meetings coming up. Let's look at it between now and the break, and if something needs to be reorganized...I can assure you that I believe in fairness on both sides. I don't want to see members frustrated. We'll look at it again. We won't decide it today, but I can assure you that we'll look at it again. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Inky Mark: Is his name on the list to represent the government?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: It's not about Paul Bonwick; it's about seven members.

The Chair: I understand one hundred percent. I understand your point of view fully, and next time we'll try to monitor it very carefully. I can assure you that if I feel there is unfairness there, I'm sure everybody will cooperate to change it.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.