[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 10, 1995
.1544 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to this - [Technical Difficulty] -
.1545
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman.
I do have a statement, but to gain time I will suggest that it be distributed without my reading it, which will allow more time for questions.
Nonetheless, perhaps I can say a couple of things I have on my mind. The first one is to express my appreciation to this committee. You've had a lot of work to do and I'm largely responsible for moving all that work onto your agenda. Naturally I have in mind the reference to the CBC and related matters and the work you also had to do on the Heritage Department legislation. These are very important matters as far as the department is concerned.
You will also have to consider a direction for the CRTC, which is now before you. I think this is quite a considerable agenda, an agenda that is being very well handled by the committee. So I wish to express my appreciation to all of you.
The second point I would like to make is to emphasize the importance I attach to developing our information highway in a way that will be supportive of Canadian content and therefore the production of Canadian cultural products in the film and audio-visual sector.
We are going to move forward this year. Last year was a year for consultation. An extensive system of consultation was deployed so that all those who have stakes, an interest, public or private, would have the opportunity of participating in the elaboration of policy.
But let me be clear about one thing. This is a year for decision. This is not a year for studies, consultations, although there will be some still. It's a year of decision. We'll be making major decisions affecting not only the architecture of this information highway, but affecting also, as I said, the producers of Canadian content.
This is the reason Canadian video and film industries are uppermost on my agenda. This is also the reason the three institutions that belong to the people of Canada are now under close scrutiny.
Before the end of the year we shall have policies, charters - guidance, to the extent they need guidance - that will enable them to play the important role we all want them to play in the information highway. That is in keeping with the importance this government attaches to culture. Culture is part of our nationhood. It is an indispensable element of it. It has to reflect what we are, we Canadians.
Therefore, at a time when the world is globalizing and the means of communications become increasingly strong and interactive, it is important in the process of opening to the world not to lose our identity, not to lose our culture, and certainly not to lose our soul as Canada.
So, with this brief statement, Mr. Chairman, I'll be very pleased to respond to questions.
The Chair: [Technical Difficulty]
I guess, in the absence of our friends from the Bloc, we can pass immediately to Mrs. Brown for 10 minutes. We will come back if some of the Bloc come after you will have finished.
.1550
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay, do you prefer to start now or to let Mrs. Brown carry on for 10 minutes?
Mrs. Brown.
[English]
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for appearing before us today. I appreciate very much the fact that you are here.
I have some very specific questions that I have not been able to ask before this time. I'm very much looking forward to the answers you'll provide.
The government had charted a time line for developing direct-to-home satellite policy. In the heritage department business plan, on pages 4, 5 and 6, we see that indeed the government has indicated that it would have preferred to issue policy statements that favoured competition instead of issuing a cabinet directive, as it did, for direct-to-home satellite.
That having been said, I want you to accept these questions in the spirit in which they were given, because they are very specific to the events that unfolded regarding Joel Bell and the CRTC hearings.
With respect to Power and direct-to-home policy, did you meet with Joel Bell during the period of the CRTC hearings, or just after the issuance of the CRTC exemption order in August 1994?
Mr. Dupuy: I met with all stakeholders.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Does that include Mr. Bell?
Mr. Dupuy: It includes Mr. Bell. I also received material from all of the.... Perhaps I should be more specific. My department did, and I do not pretend to have seen every piece of paper that was handed to my department.
Their presentations were clear. They were articulate. As I said, I'm referring to all stakeholders. They were clear; they were articulate; they were anxious that there should be no misunderstanding on their plans. And I don't think there was any misunderstanding.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): In and around that time, Mr. Minister, did you receive from Joel Bell, Power Corp., or Power DirecTv a memo regarding direct-to-home policy?
Mr. Dupuy: I received several pieces of paper. The department did. Some were referred to me. Although I would not be able, off the top of my head, to give you an exact date, the papers that I saw covered the structure they were intending to put in place and the benefits they were expecting to derive from the DTH system they plan to operate.
Mr. Ianno (Trinity - Spadina): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I came late, so I don't know, but I'm hearing questions on DTH. I thought this meeting was on estimates. Are those one and the same, or what are we doing?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Chairman, I prefaced my questions with remarks that were relative to this document on the outlook on program priorities. There are statements made on pages 4, 5, and 6. These questions are asked just to clarify issues that have yet to be clarified for me. They were not clarified in the House, so I'm pursuing this line of questioning for the next few minutes.
Mr. Ianno: Is that part of the estimates?
The Chair: Actually, we are reviewing two different things. We are reviewing the estimates and we are reviewing the outlook document.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): May I continue?
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Minister, let's move ahead, then, to April 1995. I'm going to ask you again if you met with Joel Bell, Power Corp., or Power DirecTv in April 1995, and if indeed in April you received a memo from any of the people who are involved with these groups regarding the development of DTH policy.
Mr. Dupuy: Was it in April? It may well have been in April, yes.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): You did.
Mr. Dupuy: Yes. April or May.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): So you received a memo from these people regarding the development of DTH policy?
Mr. Dupuy: Not regarding the development of DTH policy; regarding the plans of Power Corp. to develop a DTH system.
.1555
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): According to an internal heritage department document from ADM Rabinovich, you had established a time line for direct-to-home policy development that would have been in June and would have taken the department and this whole process into the fall.
I want to ask you why you abandoned that department time line and if in fact it had anything to do with Power asking you to do just that.
Mr. Dupuy: It certainly had nothing to do with Power asking us to do just that, as you put it. If there was any wish that I could understand resulting from Power's plan, it was to move quickly rather than slowly. Therefore the pace at which we moved is an indication that we were not responding to Power in any way.
John Manley and myself - because it is not only I who is involved in developing DTH policy - were, at the time, last late spring and summer, developing a reference to the CRTC that we planned to make as general as possible in order to obtain advice from the CRTC on key issues relating to the development of the information highway issue of privacy, issues related to competition, to transition period, to changes in existing regulations.
We had to put together such a reference so that the CRTC, in its turn and on the basis of that reference, could engage in developing public hearings, and requesting documents that would form the basis on which public hearings would be held. This, as you will appreciate, takes some time. We're not dealing with a minute subject, but with a very large subject. The result of our work became visible when the reference to the CRTC was made. The CRTC, as you know, has been pursuing that reference and we are hoping to get their report and recommendations over the next several weeks.
It did not seem wise, as we were developing policy - or policy in the form of questions, because the policy ultimately will come later on this year - but the question or the reference to the CRTC was not to take care of DTH at all. And it did not seem wise to hurry a DTH reference when we were still putting the questions together on the CRTC. So we proceeded somewhat pari passu in the event. If my memory serves me right, the reference to the CRTC was made before the DTH reference to a special panel on DTH. But the exercises were complementary, and therefore this explains why we did not rush into any decision on DTH and why we had all the elements of transmission covered in the CRTC reference on the one hand and indeed in the DTH panel on the other.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): I guess I'm just scratching my head then when I look at the date of the end result, which was really to issue a cabinet directive with respect to policy development. It really did not unfold according to any specific time line. It really came down to a cabinet decision as to how that DTH policy was going to be developed and implemented.
Mr. Dupuy: There is one important element that we have to bring to the picture, naturally...and that is the action, the work and the decisions of the CRTC itself. As you may recall, the CRTC had started to look at DTH, long before the process I just described in response to your question, over last spring and summer. They did consider DTH in the early spring of last year, and in the early fall - it must have been August 30 or September 1 or so - they took a decision on DTH, the nature of which you are familiar with. That was ahead of the process we were completing, that is the reference to the CRTC on matters other than DTH and the reference to the panel on DTH. So these decisions were taken by the CRTC.
.1600
As you will understand from subsequent events, the decision of the CRTC did not seem to us to be in keeping with the basic thrust of the information highway policy, which is to be found in the Speech from the Throne.
The Chair: I am afraid I am going to have to intervene at this point because ten minutes is past.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): All right, fine. Thank you.
The Chair: Madam Tremblay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski - Témiscouata): I'm sorry I'm late, Mr. Minister. I'm happy to be able to meet you. I have four questions for you and as we only have 10 minutes, I'll get into it without further ado.
My first question is on copyright. When you assumed your duties, you said it was one of your priorities. When I was elected, the art world had already been waiting eight years for this and, 18 months later, they're still waiting.
I'll water it down. Last December, on the 22nd, you announced the broad outline of a possible bill in Toronto. I think you'll be able to answer my first question with a yes or a no. Is it possible that this bill might be tabled in the House before June 23 or will we have to wait till next fall?
Mr. Dupuy: You should put that question to the Minister of Justice because right now, it's not in my hands.
We gave instructions to the Justice Department to write out the bill and I know they're working at it because I ask them about it every now and then. I can't answer your question because I'm not the one controlling the flow of work at the Department of Justice.
Mrs. Tremblay: Fine.
My second question is on volunteer action programs. On May 4 last, the Institut canadien d'éducation des adultes wrote you about the importance of volunteer associations in the dynamics of a democracy. What I understood was that, in a way, there are many organizations that are supported because in a democracy, they act as a counterweight to powerful and well-funded lobbies who can have direct access to government.
Can you tell us today what's happening with the budget? Can you give us any information? Otherwise, could you soon be giving some information to the committee concerning the budget for volunteer action?
Mr. Dupuy: Actually, there are three programs. There's the adult education program. I think there's an English one and a French one and there's the volunteer action program itself.
My advisors might have something to add or they'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that adult education programs fall under the purview of the federal government. We're talking education. We're just ending them because of budgetary constraints.
On the other hand, the volunteer action program will still be funded. There are decreases in the funding but it is going to continue. A contribution is being made this year and I would like to have the time to contemplate the future beyond the present fiscal year. That's why I'm still waiting for an answer in the House. I said I'd be looking at the program and I couldn't give any indication concerning the future of that program beyond the present financial term.
.1605
Mrs. Tremblay: In the books, there is $65,000. Could we agree on the envelope being $65,000 for this year?
Mr. Dupuy: That's my understanding. Mr. Rochon, do you have any comments?
Mr. Marc Rochon (deputy minister, Heritage Canada): I don't have the precise figures.
Mrs. Tremblay: My third question has to do with the funds allocated to the Council for Canadian Unity. According to the 1992 Public Accounts, Secretary of State gave $1.8 million to the council. In 1993-94, it was $1,158,000. Through access to information, we learned that the council had received $2.4 million through the Official Languages Support Program.
Would it be possible to send the committee, within a reasonable time frame - it doesn't have to be tomorrow - the list of all subsidies and contributions that the council received from the different programs administered by your department for the years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and the estimates for 1995-96?
Mr. Dupuy: I think all that information is already public. It's already known. Anyway, if you don't mind my writing down your question, I'll have the figures checked out.
Mrs. Tremblay: It's very hard to find out the precise amounts. It's only by using access to information that we found out that in the supplementary estimates you had voted last year in the House for the Official Languages Support Program - Someone is going to have to tell us or we're going to have to do everything through access to information. We must have more detail on that. Otherwise, we can't find out that $2.4 million went to the Council for Canadian Unity.
Mr. Dupuy: Look, I'll have it researched. As I've already said, I think all those figures are public, but I'll have a bit of research done. I'm latching on to your question as it goes by because I personally think that the council is doing important work. You know that it's facilitating youth exchanges all across Canada.
It's funding the Terry Fox Center in Ottawa and that's an extremely important operation. It funds publications. It's true that, at this point in time, it is committed to defending Canadian unity, as its name implies, all across Canada including Quebec. Excepting for this year, which is a bit of an exceptional one, I think it's an institution that deserves the Government of Canada's support.
I would say to you quite frankly that way before I ever became the Minister for Canadian Heritage, when I was living abroad and I was able to see what foreign governments do to support knowledge of their countries and histories, I always got the impression that we didn't do enough in that area. You'll see, not just within the context of the council for unity, whose job is specifically to encourage Canadian identity, but also through other operations in my department, that I do give open and transparent support. So I'll follow up on your question.
Mrs. Tremblay: Thank you.
And now for my fourth and last question. In the budget tabled in the House recently, your department was in for $676 million in cuts over the next three years. We can't see very clearly, for the time being, where those cuts will be made. However, it's being revealed little by little. Amongst other things, we see that the Canada Council is going to lose $10 million over the next three years, from $22 million to $12 million; that the mailing subsidies will lose $19 million over three years and go from $77 million to $58 million; that the National Arts Center will be losing $4 million over three years; that the National Capital Commission will lose $21.4 million over three years and so on and so forth. And then there's Telefilm, CBC and the National Film Board.
.1610
Something really floored me while examining the budget with the team made available to us. While subsidy programs are being cut, aid to creative people and so forth, departmental administrative services, on the other hand, are increasing by 5%, or $4 million.
Do you think it would be possible to set up a committee of experts to look at how your department is managed and how it could be managed in such a way as to decrease administrative costs by about 10% which, next year, would allow you to find the $4 million you need for administration this year? So not only would you pick that up, your department would be more efficient.
Secondly, could you tell the committee how this is done in detail? What is the money for? How do you justify what seems unjustifiable to me when you're cutting everywhere else? Why do you need $4 million more to administer your department?
Mr. Dupuy: I'm making note of your questions. I'd point out that we're not talking politics here but departmental administration.
Mrs. Tremblay: Administration.
Mr. Dupuy: So I might invite you, when the opportunity comes up, to put those questions to my deputy minister who is in charge of administration in the department. It's an extremely complex department, as you know, that is quite decentralized.
I wouldn't want to be giving you answers without having all the information I need. I would invite you to put the question to those who are responsible for managing the department.
Mrs. Tremblay: There are two important things. It would be important for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to know what general cutback plan you have. I know there are cutbacks and that after certain people went to see you, certain things changed. Some budgets are not cutback as much. Sometimes things are deferred or made to happen over a longer period of time. It would be important for us to be informed about your total cutback plan.
You told me to put my question on administration to your deputy minister. I would ask you to ask your deputy minister if he could perhaps tell the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage why, in your department's estimates for departmental services, you're going to have to add $4 million as compared to last year. What justification is there for that kind of increase?
The Chair: Unfortunately, I must interrupt you. We can get back to this point during the second turn.
[English]
I think Mr. Peric said he wanted about five minutes. We'll go to Mr. McTeague for the next five minutes and then we'll come back over here.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Thank you Mr. Minister. You stated on page 1 that the raison d'être of the whole Canadian Heritage portfolio is to protect and to strengthen this vital link that binds Canadians together.
On page 2 you say that on the radio up to 70% of the works heard come from outside Canada, primarily from the United States. In the sound recording industry 75% of the titles offered are foreign - once again, most of them American titles.
On page 3, and I fully agree with you, you say that deficit reduction is in the interests of all Canadians and is a priority of our government.
Can you explain to us what your budget is, and how can you protect such an important factor in the identity of the Canadian nation as Canadian heritage?
Mr. Dupuy: We obviously have to reconcile two important factors. One is budget reduction, the reduction of the deficit through the reduction of expenditures. This is not the subject I will expound on because we are all very familiar with it. It's essential if we are going to put Canada financially on the right track again.
.1615
The other problem derived from the first, the other requirement, is to strengthen the Canadian producers of Canadian artistic and cultural products. Financing is one aspect. So one might say, look you're going to contradict yourself because you're weak on the financing. But this is a superficial view.
First of all, the Canadian cultural industries are not solely dependent on public funding. They earn money. Even the publicly funded institutions, such as the CBC, have - some of them - their own sources of funds other than parliamentary appropriations. So we have to encourage funding, other than parliamentary appropriations, so that the reduction in parliamentary appropriations are more than compensated by access to other sources of funding.
How do we achieve that? We achieve that through structural reform and policies designed to support these industries. That's how we do it. Because there are budgetary reductions that produce parliamentary appropriation reductions for some of these programs and some of these institutions, it doesn't mean that the government is totally helpless when it comes to strengthening the institutions or improving the situation of any particular industry. We can do it through taxation measures.
One of them, for instance, is currently being worked out between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Justice for the film industry, tax credits, refunds. This is being worked out now, and it's an important measure for the film industry.
In another field, we are looking at foreign investment guidelines to improve net benefits to Canadian industries, and so on and so forth. So you can see we have other instruments to strengthen the cultural industries. The industries themselves tell us that as they mature, as they are able to draw investment, to draw money into their business, and as they are able to export in the world, they'll be less and less dependent on public funding.
That being said, I would not like to leave the impression that one day in the future public funding will become totally unnecessary. You'll always have young men and women who want to create and who are not in the market in a commercial sense. We have to ensure that they are supported, because they will be the great artists and possibly the great moneymakers of tomorrow.
[Translation]
Mr. McTeague (Ontario): Welcome, Mr. Minister. You presence here is a great honor for us as members of Parliament. All the more so since we have several questions to ask you.
[English]
I was reviewing the document provided for us, and on page 4 I noticed the comment on the background of the Canadian Heritage portfolio that its basic purpose, its design, really, is necessary in response to a growing public demand for greater accountability of government institutions.
I want to turn the discussion a little bit over to an event regarding which I think consumers in this country generally would challenge that statement rather radically for two reasons. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, it is the whole issue of negative billing, which a lot of consumers protested vehemently against. While I realize it is not squarely within your portfolio, and I certainly understand the arm's-length relationship between yourself and the CRTC, it is nevertheless something I think Canadians expect parliamentarians to respond to, and in particular the ministers accountable for those departments.
I also wanted to ask, if I could - because I'm only permitted a few minutes here - without boring the audience, if you could also shed some light on how it was possible for the cable companies in this country to acquire what will amount to be a $300 million windfall for which there has been no accountability, thanks in large part to a regulation the CRTC put in place. It was a carryover of the capital expenditures given to them through subscription fees as early as 1986.
.1620
That too has created a number of questions as to its legality, but I want to talk about its practical implications. I was wondering if perhaps you could give us your thoughts on those two rather controversial areas of public policy in recent months.
Mr. Dupuy: I will have to preface my comments, as you did, by emphasizing that some of the decisions that have an effect on the issues you raise are taken by the CRTC. They operate on the basis of the law and they are an arm's-length agency.
Now I gather the CRTC or CRTC representatives will be before this committee on May 16, so you may wish to pursue these very questions with them. I will answer in a general way.
These issues are related to competition or the lack thereof. The irritation of the consumer is also related to lack of competition or, as the consumer would put it, lack of choice or lack of alternative. The cable system in Canada has developed in a way that creates a virtual monopoly in certain areas. Therefore the consumer is quite right in saying they would like to have a choice. If they dislike it, the only choice they have is to say they're not going to have the cable, period, and this is not an attractive choice for many consumers.
What the government can do, of course, is to make it possible for competition to exist. That is indeed the fundamental issue of DTH. DTH is a way of reaching the consumer by means other than land lines. This is the competition policy the government is putting into place as a result of all the work I was referring to earlier with respect to the information highway, which will enable the consumer to have access to various forms of distribution.
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Minister, knowing what has happened recently, I think the consumer expects that as of January 1 of this year, when the CRTC has been able to use a questionable regulation in order not to give back $2 or $3 or $4 a month to every consumer - I think consumers are less concerned about the future of competition; they're concerned about being ripped off today. That's really what I'm trying to address with you now.
Is there any attempt by your department throughout the resources that it's presenting here today, throughout the expenditures, to address the legitimate concerns Canadians have that we have a cable system and a CRTC that is playing fast and loose with their money?
The Chair: I'm afraid we only have time for a very short response, Minister.
Mr. Dupuy: The answer is that the responsibility for regulating either the content or the price to consumers is with the CRTC. That's the answer.
We can make policy in a general way; we can give direction to the CRTC, and we've taken the move of taking direction on this specific issue, which is DTH and is related to competition, but we do not have the power, unless we change the law or issue more direction -
Mr. McTeague: That's not what I'm talking about.
Mr. Dupuy: - to force the CRTC to adopt this, that or the other policy on rates.
Just as a quick footnote, you will appreciate that here again it goes back to the DTH issue. When the CRTC issues licences, these can be appealed to the cabinet, and then the cabinet, through this authority given to it by law, can tell the CRTC, ``We approve'', or, ``We disapprove'', or, ``Go back and do your homework''. When the CRTC chooses to regulate through exemptions, these are not appealable, and therefore the government cannot act except through direction, and this is what we did in the case of DTH.
.1625
So I would invite you to raise these issues with the CRTC.
The Chair: We will have a couple of occasions on which to do that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Minister, I'd like to get back to budget or subsidy cuts especially in the field of adult education. If I understood you correctly, you said that adult education was under provincial jurisdiction, that there was perhaps an overlapping and that the decision had been made for cutbacks in the field of adult education because it wasn't really within the federal government's purview. I'd love it if that policy were to apply to all departments. Maybe you could help your colleagues understand what you have understood.
What I really find astonishing, at least according to the information we've just been given, is that the Institut canadien d'éducation des adultes still hasn't received any letter on the subject. On May 3 last, one of your deputy ministers read the contents of a letter to the director general informing her that since the first of April she didn't have any budget any more. At this very moment, 3:00 p.m., there's still no confirmation by letter that there was actually any cutback.
I'm not going to blame you for trying to find ways of being reasonable and putting an end to overlaps, and you know that very well. On the other hand, telling on the 3rd of May that they haven't any budget since the 1st of April without advising them beforehand or providing for a transitional period is very hard for me to accept, in the area of human relations, even though I can understand the theory of the thing.
In this case, would it be possible for your deputy minister to table with this committee a copy of all the letters sent to people and organizations and so forth to find out what kind of cutbacks they've been subject to or whether they were subject to any cutbacks at all? Would it be possible for us to get a copy of those letters?
Mr. Dupuy: If they didn't get the letter, without trying to put the blame on my colleagues at Canada Post, I must say that the problem will probably be found there because the letter was sent. I think that we'll get confirmation from the people who manage these programs.
I should consult my deputy minister because we don't want to drown you in correspondence.
Mrs. Tremblay: Information isn't correspondence.
Mr. Dupuy: I must also explain that for this kind of program you can cut off funding the operational budget of the organization while, on occasion, funding specific projects within the context of the programs. I'm speaking in general terms. I'm not addressing the specific case of the adult education program.
It's unfortunately a bit more complicated than you think because we don't give a yes at the outset. At the beginning of the year, we say: here are the funds that will be available for your operations. However, there may be projects added on later or covering several years which mean that those funds aren't the only help received. And sometimes there's nothing for the operating funds but there could be something for specific projects.
So if we had to give you a copy of all that correspondence, I think it would create more confusion than enlightenment.
As for the working funds announced at the beginning of the year, I'll have a word with my deputy minister.
.1630
Mrs. Tremblay: In Mr. Martin's budget, we saw that a committee of experts chaired byMr. Juneau was to examine the mandate of CBC, Telefilm and the National Film Board. In the light of budget cutbacks, does that mean the Juneau Committee will be informed of the intentions of your department for future years? I don't necessarily mean the decisions made by your department, but at least what your orientation will be for those three organizations.
Mr. Dupuy: He answered that question himself and I think it was an excellent answer. I can repeat it for you. It was during a press conference.
Essentially, he said he looked at the government's budget decisions. This decision is for the votes from Parliament for the current financial year. He understood very well that the CBC, in its budget, is not limited because of those parliamentary votes. The CBC has other sources. When you look at the estimates, you will see that the CBC's budget - I'm not talking about the parliamentary votes - has not decreased. Of course it's a factor that will have to be taken into account.
For future years, he said: "The recommendations I make may include several scenarios, based on the decisions the government makes through its parliamentary votes." That's what he said and I think it's the proper position.
We know that in the fall, the government is going to start working on next year's estimates. So there's nothing mysterious there. There's going to be a budget for the CBC's parliamentary votes for next year, but it won't be examined before the fall and, of course, will not be announced before the budget is tabled.
I think that Mr. Juneau understands all that full well. He knows there's uncertainty as to the CBC's budget for the coming financial year. He knows it and he's going to make recommendations taking that uncertainty into account and which will help the government to make its future budget decisions.
The Chair: I'm sorry to have to interrupt. We only have about 10 minutes left and three people have questions. I would suggest that you take three minutes each.
[English]
I will go Mr. Ianno, Ms Brown, and then finally a quick -
Mr. Ianno: I'm going to take five minutes.
The Chair: Start her up and ask her fast.
Mr. Ianno: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for appearing before us re the estimates. I have several questions.
First, you know that we are going to be finishing our report on the CBC. Could you explain to us how our committee report differs from the panel you appointed?
Mr. Dupuy: In two major ways. The first one is that the two mandates are not the same. The report of this committee, when I receive it, will have had the benefit of a range of consultation, public hearings, even partisan views exchanged during this period, which obviously the panel will not have.
In brief, what I am saying is that the work I'm sure you will have done would have been created, would have been searching.... You have accumulated a lot of material in testimony that is of great value.
.1635
The panel is there more to synthesize than to duplicate. Indeed, it should not duplicate, and here again Mr. Juneau was quite clear. He said rightly that this panel is not a mechanism for research and investigation. Its task is to take all that has been put on the table, foremost the report of the standing committee, and then from that base to see whether recommendations or comments can be made that will touch not only the CBC but the other two institutions concerned as well.
So the two exercises are not competitive and the report of the committee will be of paramount importance for the panel.
Mr. Ianno: Considering that your department is having to face scarce resources, and culture being very important to us, how are you going to make the dollars work more effectively so that the cultural communities are able to sustain growth and to survive?
Mr. Dupuy: It's a constant struggle. Obviously, we have to make sure that the administrative overheads are kept as low as possible. The guiding figure we try to keep is 5%. Few administrations, even in the private sector, manage to be below 5%, but this is really quite important.
The second is to ensure the programs are effective. This is why we have some programs under review, to make sure they are looked at to get value for money. This is a constant process. We looked at one and the other. The other means is to find out whether our programs can be coupled with contribution by partners. This is why I attach so much importance to getting joint funding in the cultural sector, so that whenever we put some money on the table, other levels of government or the private sector also contribute so that we can go further with our money. In other terms, we try to leverage what we have. All of these elements enter our management.
The measure of our success is basically whether we can move good projects or not.
Mr. Ianno: That brings me to one specific question, which is the Cinématheque Ontario-Toronto International Film Festival. I have been speaking to some of them and the indication is that they've received notice they will only be receiving $100,000 versus the $200,000 they were receiving in the past, and it's already five months into their mandate. Could you possibly explain what has taken place there?
The Chair: I'll hear a point of order first.
Mr. Peric: I have a point of order. I would like to ask the minister to come and have a meeting as soon as possible.
The Chair: That's perhaps a warning that we will want to discuss as a committee whether we would like collectively to see the minister in camera.
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to that because I think -
The Chair: Wait. At this point we're still in the middle -
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): I would like them to finish the questioning process because we really are out of time.
The Chair: Exactly. If we could perhaps hold on that, understanding that these are very valuable ideas, but we would -
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Chairman - Mr. Ianno, with your indulgence - this is not an idea. I'm speaking of a matter of what I believe to be a prerogative of this committee that's been infringed with the establishment of this three-member blue chip panel. It is doing work that is concurrent with this committee. I think it's important we try to meet with the minister in camera on a committee basis.
The Chair: I would suggest this is a discussion the committee should have when it's not right in the middle of questioning the minister. I think it's a very useful discussion, but I take notice of the fact that we shall have to talk about it.
.1640
Back to the answer, please. The question was about Cinématheque Ontario, I think, Minister.
Mr. Dupuy: No, the film festival. Ms Roszell will respond.
Ms Jane Roszell (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Canadian Heritage): I think you were talking about last year's figures when you were referring to the $200,000. In fact, now we're giving them $65,000 more, over and above the $200,000. So greater support is being given to that organization in this particular fiscal year.
Mr. Ianno: So you're saying it's not $100,000; they are receiving $265,000?
Ms Roszell: In total, because there's an operating piece there and a relocation of funds from within -
Mr. Ianno: So for the fiscal year they've already been in for five months, it will mean they will have received $265,000?
Ms Roszell: That's right. They will have received $265,000, which has come from allocation from other programs and some of the traditional support that the federal government has given them from the existing programs.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Minister, I would like to look at the management of funds and your budget. I am going to roll my questions into one.
You use underfunded ministerial priorities in some creative ways, I would suggest. The first involves the renovation of a theatre in Mr. Gray's riding. Apparently this money was not budgeted, but I understand that $2 million was taken out of other departmental programs and in fact came out of book publishing and postal subsidies. Mr. Axworthy had money given to his riding for a ballet school and a college. I would like to know, in that context, out of what particular budget or program that came, and also the $2 million for funding to prop up Harbourfront.
These are all cultural supports, but it would be appropriate if you could be very explicit about where that money comes from and the programs that are being reduced in terms of their budgets in order to prop up these somewhat questionable priorities: in Mr. Gray's riding, renovation of a theatre; in Mr. Axworthy's -
Mr. Ianno: That is not a questionable entity. I take exception -
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Excuse me, Mr. Ianno, my questions were tabled to the minister, not to you. Do I interrupt you when you ask your questions? I don't think so. I don't think I interrupt your questions.
The Chair: In the interests of both civility and timeliness, is that more or less the question?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): That's the question.
The Chair: Minister, what's the answer?
Mr. Dupuy: The main source is the cultural initiatives program. There is funding both for capital investments and for funding various activities. That's the main source of funding. If you wish to pursue the details, then you might wish to talk to my officials on the details of the funding.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): That's all.
The Chair: A final, quick question from Mr. de Jong.
Mr. de Jong (Regina - Qu'Appelle): Some of it Mrs. Brown has already asked.
Mr. Minister, I think some of the cut-backs to your department are the severest. After years of Conservative cut-backs, the cut-backs on top of them have severely wounded many of the cultural industries in this country.
Has your department done any feasibility study to see which of the cultural industries will be so severely cut that they will not be sustainable? I'm thinking particularly of the postal subsidy. The budget announced a cut-back of 8%; the reality is that over 13 months it will be cut back by 25%. Is it really going to be sustainable? Are Canadian magazines going to be viable given these types of cut-backs? And who knows how many more are yet to come?
As you say on page 1: ``Our collective soul hangs in the balance and we must safeguard it with all the means at our disposal''. Are we really protecting it with all the means at our disposal? When the government considered cut-backs, did it do this in a wise way?
Previous studies, such as the one in Toronto, suggested that cut-backs to the Canada Council in fact lost the government money through loss of tax revenues and income tax and through increased payments in welfare and UI. Many of the artists really live right on the edge. Take away that little bit of extra that organizations like the Canada Council provided and you throw them on unemployment insurance. The Van der Hoof study shows that in fact the cut-backs cost the government more money.
.1645
So I'm wondering as well if a cost-effectiveness study was done by your department as to the type of cut-backs.
The Chair: If you could roll all of those questions into one glorious answer, that would be terrific.
Mr. Dupuy: In a two-part answer, the first part is that if you compare the average cuts in my portfolio, it is 15% spread over three years. Compare it with other government departments and you will see that my department fared very well. Canada Council - and I pick you up on that particular point - as you will recall, was exempted from any cuts last year, and for the next three years will be cut by 3% for a cumulative cut of 9%. The reason is obviously that it's privileged. That was my decision.
The management of the Canada Council - which is an arm's-length institution, but I keep informed - hopes to eliminate some administrative overheads to save there in order to keep the flow to the creators unimpaired. I cannot, obviously, go over each and every one of the 25 or so major programs we handle, but we've been very careful to pick and choose in a way that would be least negative for the interests concerned.
You asked me whether any industry will disappear as a result. I don't think so. It's tough, it's hard, it may last a few years, but my overriding concern has been to ensure that nobody goes down, or belly up - precisely because we may have to tighten our belts for several years, and they will have to, but the goal of reducing or eliminating the budget deficit is to come back to more affluent years. If the industries concerned can achieve that, they will have a bright future.
I won't repeat what I said about their other sources of money. There are other ways of helping them. Obviously, in the magazine sector, the decision we took to prevent the split runs was a major decision, and this is the kind of decision we can take of a politic kind that will have considerable effect financially, and in that case this effect is clearly beneficial.
The Chair: Minister, thank you very much for appearing before us. You are such a popular figure that others wish to meet with you privately - We will have to discuss this, but thank you, both you and your associates, for coming. It's always enlightening and helpful.
As you make your departure, I have to inform the committee of two procedural questions. One is that we are threatened, possibly, with a vote at 5:30 p.m. Madam Tremblay describes it as an enormous battle between the Reform Party and the Liberals as to whether there will be a vote at 5:30 p.m. I can't tell you how the battle is going. We'll bring you up-to-date reports from the battlefield.
Secondly, we are threatened with another vote tomorrow, possibly at 10:15 a.m., and the question has arisen - because we know once we get in there we'll never get back here - whether it would be helpful to meet at 8:45 a.m. tomorrow perhaps, just to give ourselves time for the last chapter of the report, which no one has seen.
Mrs. Tremblay: At 8:45 tomorrow morning?
The Chair: I'm suggesting it in case there's a vote at 10 a.m., just to come earlier. Ça va?
Mrs. Tremblay: We are having breakfast.
The Chair: Can I get people to agree to come back afterwards if we haven't finished the chapter, please? I'm hoping we may get lucky. Who knows? All right, we'll meet at 9 a.m. then, but we have agreed to come back if we have to, to finish the chapter. Did I hear that?
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): You heard it.
The Chair: Good.
All right, we'll welcome Ms Finestone.
.1650
PAUSE
.1653
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, as I understand what's happening, there's some kind of an obscure little conflict going on that involves there not being quorum. I'm afraid we have a vote. We are all bidden to vote.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)):Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question, now that you haven't welcomed me yet?
First of all, hello to all my colleagues, who I know have been working very hard. I regret that I will not be able to speak with you. I would like to leave the speaking notes for those who would like to read them, and if at some other time you find a moment when you'd like to hear about over half the population of Canada, the women, and you'd like to hear about another three-quarters of the population who fall under the multiculturalism concerns - really all Canadians - I'd be happy to come back. How's that?
.1655
The Chair: I can't resist an offer like that, so we will - I'm afraid we're having a vote.
Mrs. Finestone: You can just take the notes.
The Chair: Yes, we'll take the notes and when we have our extensive discussions on procedures, we'll figure out what we do about inviting you back, if we can. We thank you for coming.
Mrs. Finestone: May I wish you well on your deliberations. I know you've been working hard in camera.
The Chair: Sometimes out of camera, too.
The meeting is adjourned.