[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 8, 1997
.1108 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare our meeting open. We will continue our work regarding the proposed study on Canadian culture.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux cannot be here; Mr. Guimond is replacing him.
[English]
We have several items of business to work on. First of all, there is the documentation. As discussed at the last meeting, you had received and we had gone over the first report from the researchers as a background document. The idea was that this should be supplemented by a further report to cover the items not covered in that document.
The report is ready. Unfortunately, the French translation was not available this morning. It'll be available some time during the day, so we'll have to send that report on to you.
We have received several documents from the ministry, including one of the latest reports on culture, the report from the March 1996 task force on the future of the Canadian music industry. The ministry will be sending us these reports and studies as they put them together. As soon we get enough English and French copies we'll be sending them to you.
.1110
Some time ago you were also sent a list of proposed witnesses for the committee. That list was sent on March 17, 1997. At the time of sending this list, of course, we had not received any briefs from interested parties. We have now received 57 briefs, which is extremely encouraging at this point because we have not formally requested them. People have heard about it. We have received briefs from a great number of institutions, and it seems as if there's a tremendous interest in what we are doing here. These briefs will be forwarded to members of the committee.
In addition, we are going to look at the briefs in connection with a list of suggested witnesses to see what correspondence there is between those who are listed as suggested witnesses and the briefs that have been received.
Committee members have also received questions from the researchers in relation to our own suggestion to the researchers that there should be a set of questions to guide members, which will hopefully be circulated to the public to make the discussion more relevant to our study.
I would appreciate hearing from you on two things. First of all, have you looked at the list of witnesses and do you have any comments or suggestions? Second, have you looked at the report from the researchers which is dated April 2, 1997, and includes all the questions they have suggested regarding the various items of our study? What are your comments and suggestions regarding the questions? Maybe we could start with those two, following which we should discuss more practical items of business such as the budget and the travel plans.
We'll start with the reports on the list of witnesses and the suggested questions. Do you have any comments or suggestions?
Mr. Hanhrahan, have you had a chance to look at these documents?
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona, Ref.): I'm sorry, I received this just as I came through the door and have not yet looked at it in any great detail. I do appreciate the issue at hand. I would like some time to peruse this.
The Chairman: Yes. I apologize. I didn't realize that the questions were only sent this morning. It's obviously impossible for members to comment intelligently.
Maybe for now we could discuss the list of witnesses, if you've had a chance to look at it, and we can discuss any ideas or comments you have so that we can start preparing to contact the witnesses.
[Translation]
I will ask the clerk to send you the list of briefs that we have received to date.
[English]
So she'll be sending you the list of the briefs we've received to date.
Go ahead, Ms Phinney.
.1115
Ms Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wondered how we were going to use these witnesses. Would they all be invited to Ottawa, or as we're travelling would we have them come to wherever their head offices are? Are all of these definitely witnesses, or do we still have to discuss that?
The Chairman: No, we still need to discuss it. It was just a suggested list prepared by the researchers, a list of organizations and institutions they felt would be relevant and important for us to hear about.
Ms Beth Phinney: Could you tell us, or would the researchers know, of the 59 requests you've had to appear, reports, are those people who have requested to appear?
The Chairman: Not necessarily. These are people who have sent in briefs. They've just sent in briefs. Some of them have requested to appear, but not all of them.
Ms Beth Phinney: How do they correspond to this list?
The Chairman: This is what we haven't done as yet. The clerk is going to take that list, because it has been coming in fast and furious. We got three just today. What we are going to do now is look at the correspondence between the briefs received and the list and send you an update to show you what the correspondence is.
Obviously those who have already sent briefs will be privileged as witnesses because they have taken the trouble to send briefs on their own. We can take it for granted that we will be inviting them in the first place. There are 57 of them to date. If it continues at this rate, I imagine we'll have as many briefs in as during the copyright study. It looks that way.
Ms Beth Phinney: Would the intention be to see them as we travel across the country, or would they all be invited here?
The Chairman: No, the idea was that we would see them where they are. For instance, a lot of them are located in cities other than Ottawa and we would try to see them in their own locations.
Ms Beth Phinney: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Have you any other comments or questions with respect to the witness list or other issues?
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to have this list indicate where the institutions are headquartered? For the most part these are institutions or business organizations, are they not? Again, I have just looked at it. I would like to know if these are all centred in Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal. Is there some broad Canadian perspective on the proposed witnesses?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier, Lib.): You mean you can't have a Canadian perspective if you're from Toronto.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan: That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm sorry.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan: If they are predominantly from Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal there would be some concern in the rest of the country. I recognize, for example, the National Museum of Science and Technology, the National Library of Canada, and so forth would all be centred in the nation's capital, with input from the various regions, and that is what I would like to see indicated on the list. But no, I think it's not at the exclusion of those particular cities. That would be somewhat absurd, sir.
The Chairman: I think the idea of this list was that it was just a tentative list to give an idea of the main organizations which deal with culture in the various sectors we want to touch. But it's purely a tentative list, so if you have ideas, that was the idea of it in the first place, to ask for your input. It's very flexible. We can change or add to it.
I think the point is well taken that if we are going to travel to other parts of the country we have to meet the relevant organizations and people who are interested in the issue there, rather than concentrate ourselves on the large head-office institutions, so to speak, recognizing at the same time that for better or worse most of these organizations are located in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal.
.1120
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur, Lib.): In keeping with the point raised, a lot of the witnesses are national bodies that represent the regions and whatever, but quite often at the national level they talk about national priorities and some of the regional concerns and priorities are missed. I think it would be wise for us to advise these national groups that we expect them to address the regional concerns as well as the national ones.
In other words, if there are priorities or concerns in certain regions of the country - and they should be aware of them, because they have memberships throughout Canada and representatives on their boards - their briefs and presentations should reflect the regions' input as well as the national perspective. That's important, because it was one of the reasons for this study and for our decision to go into the regions. We should not limit it to just the benefits of travelling to the regions, but should also gain the benefit of the regions' input into their national associations.
The Chairman: Thank you. I think Ms Phinney, Mr. Hanrahan, and you have raised an important issue here. If you look at this list of witnesses, it's very obvious they are the large institutions that are gathered around the big cities. If we were to travel to Newfoundland, for example, the idea would be to listen to what Newfoundlanders and their own institutions have to tell us about culture from their standpoint. We have to investigate what institutions and central organizations or which persons we should be seeing and hearing from when we are in the different regions we have targeted for travel. I think that's a really important point.
If we are to take for granted that a lot of the institutions listed here have to be heard from and we have to look at the regional aspect as well, that's a pretty formidable task, both from the point of view of collating it and from hearing from these people. We'll require a lot of time.
Perhaps we should do this in two ways, as a suggestion. I think it's a good idea to split it into the various sectors, as it is split here. At the same time, we should also look at the sectors as they relate to the various regions of the country. In other words, we have to know when we go to Halifax that who we're hearing from isn't just duplicating what we've heard in Toronto or Ottawa.
[Translation]
Mr. Lemieux, is this work...
Mr. René Lemieux (committee researcher): Feasible.
The Chairman: Is this feasible?
Mr. René Lemieux: Of course.
[English]
The Chairman: So could I suggest to you that we're going to revise the list?
We will send you a new report showing the correspondence between the briefs received and the list of witnesses suggested. We will add to the list of the witnesses on a regional basis for your review. Maybe you could look at it and let us have comments by e-mail so it would speed up the process. We'll send you the documentation received from the ministry as it comes in. We'll send you the additional report from the researchers today or tomorrow.
.1125
What I would like to address right now is the budget that was sent to you with my letter of March 26. I'm afraid there's a huge difference between the two budgets, as you could see. If we confine ourselves to the large centres, the total for the large centres was budgeted or estimated to be $207,000. It will be a bit less, because we don't need to take two researchers. One will be sufficient. So that will be reduced. Anyway, it will give you an idea. It's around $200,000.
The other budget includes the smaller centres. It obviously requires more travel and more time. The total is $328,000. If you reduce it for one researcher, we're still talking about more than $100,000 more for the larger budget. It seems to me it's very hard to justify that kind of additional expense.
This is for you to decide. We have to file these budgets with the committee, so I would appreciate getting a decision on this issue today, so we can finalize it.
Ms Beth Phinney: Other than the fact of one less researcher, could you go into some more detail on the difference between the two budgets? I don't think one researcher is paid $100,000.
The Chairman: No. The one researcher less in each case means there's $10,000 or $15,000 less on each budget. So what was $207,000 becomes $195,000, for the sake of argument, and what was $328,000 will become $315,000 or something like that.
Ms Beth Phinney: So what is the main difference in the two budgets which takes us up another $100,000?
The Chairman: The difference is first of all the travel, because you have to go to more places. You have to take planes that are more expensive, because you're moving from the big centres into smaller areas where travel is more expensive, less available. We might have to charter to get to some places. Secondly, it takes more time. Every time you travel to a smaller centre you have to add to the time it takes to hear witnesses, so it's hotels and meals and all the expenses.
I think the number of days is shown in there. If you look at page 6 of the first one and at page 8, that will give you the difference. On page 6 it's twelve days at $207,000 and travelling to big centres only. If you look at page 8, it's six more days, plus obviously there's more travel. So that's the difference. The details with regard to the number of days are shown here. We have to go to more places, that's all there is to it. It takes longer to get there, and it's not as accessible.
.1130
The first one refers to the large centres, where we would just hit the main travel routes and the main airports. The second one is obviously much more detailed. For example, we would go to Montreal, but we will also go to Trois-Rivières; we'd go to Toronto, but we would also go to Sudbury. And we would go to Winnipeg, St. Boniface, which is next door, and Saskatoon in the first leg of the trip.
Now, the other way to do it is to avoid the large centres and to go to the small centres, but then you have a problem, because a lot of the institutions are based in large centres. When we discussed this the other day, we discovered we can't avoid places like Montreal and Toronto, that it would just be counter-productive.
We're just giving you the details of the latest breakdowns.
Mr. Guy Arseneault: I'd like some details as to a comparison of the costs involved. For instance, the cost of accommodations is the same, according to the information I have, and the cost of meeting rooms is less for the smaller centres. You have to switch back and forth here to see what the costs are. I think basically the increase in cost is for transportation. Is that correct?
The Chairman: It's for transportation and time. There are six more days involved; instead of 12 days, it's 18 days. So more motels and meals are involved, and there's also the travel.
Mr. Guy Arseneault: But there's no increase in the cost of accommodations from what I see, unless I'm reading this incorrectly.
The Chairman: I see your point now.
Mr. Guy Arseneault: The cost of the accommodations in the small centres is the same as in the big centres. According to this, the cost of the meeting rooms is less in the small centres than in the big centres.
Ms Beth Phinney: There's one more page of expenses.
Mr. Guy Arseneault: That's what I mean, you have to go back and forth. If it was on one page we could see whether -
Ms Beth Phinney: There are only two pages for the first trip, and there are three pages for the second trip. That's five more days.
The Chairman: The second trip includes three weeks instead of two weeks, so you have to look at the third week.
The prices are all different. In the first week, because we're going to Whitehorse and Yellowknife, you're talking about $154,000. For the second week the expenditure is $91,000, and for the third week it's $82,000.
The committee on budget needs information in this format, so we just stuck to the format they need.
.1135
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: If it were all on one page, and being compared with plan A and plan B - the cost of accommodations there, the cost there, and the cost there... If the big cost is transportation, maybe some arrangements could be made where the members could use -
The Chairman: No, it's both accommodation and transportation.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: If it's transportation, and if we really wanted to do the small communities, we could maybe arrange to use, at just one trip, one of our points out of the system.
The Chairman: This doesn't include the usage of points. This is just the gross cost. If points are used, obviously it will reduce accordingly.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: That is what I mean.
Ms Beth Phinney: So we should put our cost in this? You put our travel in the...?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: Our travel is included. Let's say we had an agreement and decided that the small centres are really important to us and it would save $100,000 out of our budget as opposed to using our point system. It would still come out of the same pot in the long run, but it makes the study more feasible.
The Chairman: Absolutely. Mr. Arseneault, I'm quite amenable to this. It will be for the committee to decide. If you feel that this itinerary including the smaller centres is what you want, and members are prepared to use their points to reduce the costs, that's -
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: Don't get me wrong, Mr. Chairman. I'm not saying we would use our points for all of the travel.
The Chairman: No, no.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: If there were an agreement, with each member using one point for one trip and that's it, I think it would reduce the budgetary costs for the committee. It might be more reasonable, and that way you could get your small centres in, but we'd have to compare the costs and see what the benefits are.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Having done that for travel on the natural resources committee, with the greatest respect, I think it becomes something of a shell game. The cost is still borne by the Canadian taxpayer whether it's out of the member's points or out of the committee. I think it's a more transparent issue if the costs of the committee are the costs of the committee.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: I think that as a budgetary committee, the budget for the committee is limited as well, and this is a way of adding to it.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes. Again, Mr. Arseneault, I don't mean to be abrasive; I'm simply pointing out that if it's an issue of skirting around the restrictions of the committee, it's still taxpayers' dollars. I think all dollars for the committee travel should be charged to the committee travel.
Ms Beth Phinney: Mr. Arseneault mentioned using one point. Wouldn't there be more than one small area we'd want to visit? Wouldn't it be one point each of these weeks?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: It may make the difference in the total budget.
Ms Beth Phinney: But I'm just asking if... How many little side trips have we planned on the second part that will add considerably to the budget? I presume Whitehorse and Yellowknife would be two there.
The Chairman: Whitehorse and Yellowknife would be two there.
Ms Beth Phinney: That would be at least two points. On the next page it would be... How do we get to St. Boniface? Do we have to fly to St. Boniface? No.
The Chairman: No. St. Boniface is close to Winnipeg, but Sudbury...
Ms Beth Phinney: Okay, Sudbury. That's three so far. And on the next one...
The Chairman: Sydney to Glace Bay.
Ms Beth Phinney: Glace Bay - so that would be four. I'd need four points.
An hon. member: [Inaudible - Editor] ...go to the Yukon.
Ms Beth Phinney: Yes, but we'd also have to go to Glace Bay, and we have to go to these other places.
An hon. member: But we'd have the money to go, so we'd be saving... [Inaudible - Editor].
The Chairman: Mr. Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport - Montmorency - Orléans. B.Q.): If I could just clarify things for Ms Phinney, last year, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and we visited about 15 cities in two or three weeks. You can check what I'm saying with the accounting services, but the point system allowed us to use a point when we left from Ottawa or our riding and to travel to the farthest destination, and all of the stops that we made along the way were included in the same return point.
.1140
You don't use new points every time you have a stopover. You don't have to use four points. If you have to do so, you may be short some points. If you were to use up your 65 points for the trip, you would not have anything left for travelling in your riding. At any rate, the clerk could check what I'm saying, but a point is not deducted for each of the stopovers we make as we travel back towards our riding.
I don't want to throw sand into the gears, but I am now Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and, as you know, I sit on the Budget subcommittee. I would like to point out that this subcommittee will strongly encourage you to use your points.
Business class travel belongs to another era. Under the Conservatives, we travelled in business class, but those days are gone. There is a good chance that the amount you are seeking for air travel will be reduced if you present it like this, if the trip takes place in May, of course.
The Chairman: Mr. Guimond, I had not noticed that this was business class. I believe that this is unacceptable and that we should all agree to travel in economy class. It would be ridiculous to spend public money in this manner. I fully agree with you. What do the other members of the committee say? Mr. O'Brien.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Some of the estimates look like business-class travel. I wonder if we can economize on these trips.
The Chairman: That was mentioned. Mr. Guimond pointed it out. I missed it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: You are repeating what I just said. I appreciate this.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I didn't have the translation on all the time.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I can repeat it in English if you want.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, I appreciate it. I'm not fluently bilingual like my colleague, but I appreciate what you're saying. I think it's a good idea that we travel as economically as possible.
[Translation]
A member: You are very resourceful.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I come from Quebec City.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I thought the last time we discussed this with Mr. Abbott there was a reluctance; the Reform members didn't want to travel. Did I misunderstand that?
Mr. Jim Abbott: No, our position remains the same.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Oh, all right, I misunderstood.
The Chairman: Do I get a feeling now, after what Mr. Guimond, Mr. Arseneault, andMr. O'Brien have brought up, that first, all air travel will be coach or economy, if everybody is agreed, and secondly, the majority of the members are willing to use their points for at least one trip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Then what I will ask the clerk to do is to look at the revised budget on that basis, including the small places, and to send it to you as soon as possible. Is that fair enough?
[Translation]
Yes, Mr. Guimond.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Scenario ``B'' is to travel to smaller communities. I would ask that you give serious thought to the fact that Trois-Rivières is scarcely only an hour outside of Montreal. Although I am not a member of your committee, I would suggest that, if you want to hear from a variety of witnesses, you try to ensure that a greater number of them can come to see you, and also that you ensure that the community or region can appreciate the important work your committee is doing.
I don't know whether or not my colleague Mr. Leroux had made a similar proposal, but I would suggest that you not travel to both Montreal and Trois-Rivières, as these two cities are much too close to each other. Instead, travel to Quebec, Chicoutimi or Rimouski. I believe that at times you'll be travelling by bus. The witness from Trois-Rivières can easily travel to Montreal or to Quebec City, because Trois-Rivières is located between these two cities. Go a bit further afield. In Quebec City, you could hear from witnesses from the neighbouring regions. Are you sticking to the witness list that you had here or will you be calling other witnesses?
.1145
The Chairman: This list is merely a suggestion list which we are still working on. Your question was already raised by one of your colleagues, who suggested that we travel to Rivière-du-Loup, which is the hub of its own cultural watershed, or to Quebec City. We will be dealing with this issue when we review the budgets.
[English]
We'll get you a revised budget as soon as possible.
On your party's contribution otherwise, Mr. Abbott, do you have objections regarding travel? Will you be taking part in hearings in Ottawa and in your own riding area or areas? What is your position exactly?
Mr. Jim Abbott: I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. Our position is relative to the report itself. The likelihood is that we could discover all of the information we need from previous studies that have been conducted. An absolute wealth of information is presently available and could easily be considered by the committee.
Following that process, if there was a requirement to open it to outside testimony, it's our feeling that it would be best done here to minimize the cost.
While this is a very important issue, there seems to be a fairly significant difference of opinion between our party and the Liberals over the issue of defining Canadian culture, and particularly the management or the pushing, prodding and direction of Canadian culture by government pressure or government interference. As a consequence, the first thing we would do if we were in charge of this issue would be to take a look at the present wealth of information, have a serious discussion amongst ourselves as a committee, and then determine whether there was even any requirement to have witnesses.
The Chairman: We've decided as a committee to have hearings anyway. That is the fact. The minister asked us to go ahead. We agreed on a work plan and a mandate, so we're not going to go back on that now that it's in place. Are you going to take part in the portions in Ottawa, Vancouver, or the area where you'll be? Is it the travelling you're trying to avoid, or will you be abstaining from the hearings altogether?
Mr. Jim Abbott: No, we will take part in any of the hearings held in Ottawa.
The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I say this with respect to my colleague, but I find it a little passing strange that the Reform Party, whose political base right now is in the west - and given western concerns about being ignored by central Canada, and I think there's some validity in those concerns - is expressing no interest in taking the hearings away from the central part of Canada to go to the west to see the cultural differences that I know from my travels certainly exist in western Canada. My relatives in two different western provinces remind me of it all the time.
I just find it passing strange that you would adopt the philosophy that there's no need to go to western Canada - this side of the Rockies, the other side of the Rockies, the northwestern part of Canada - to see first-hand and hear from western Canadians on their own turf. It's certainly not consistent with the approach that was taken by the Reform Party, as you know, Mr. Chairman, when we did the CEPA hearings and travelled to western Canada to see environmental concerns first-hand.
.1150
I offer that as a statement, but I guess philosophically it's also a question. I just don't understand why we wouldn't want to go to the various regions and see the culture first-hand, in whatever time we can, and hear from people on their own ground. I would have thought a western-based party would be insisting that we do that. I think they should be insisting. I think we should do it.
The Chairman: Mr. Guimond and then -
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: That's all right; I will speak after him.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott: Again, I find it a little bit frustrating when I take a look at the suggested itinerary of week two, for example, recognizing that some of these things could change.
How much of the culture is someone going to see in Montreal in the morning and then be involved in going to an airport or onto a bus or whatever the travel arrangements are and go to Trois Rivières and sit in another committee room and then go to an airport and fly to Toronto? Rather than taking the time of the committee, I won't go down this list, but we've got Montreal, Trois Rivières, Toronto, Sudbury, Winnipeg, St. Boniface, and Saskatoon in one week.
Again, with the greatest respect, I see this as nothing more than window dressing, as nothing more than saying ``See - we were there. We were in St. Boniface, so we now understand all aboutSt. Boniface because we spent an afternoon there.''
Come on. We just see this as window dressing. And the reason we would be taking part in the committee hearings in Ottawa is that the Canadian taxpayer has already paid to get us here. I am here, and I will take the time to be here and take part in the committee meeting because it's here.
The Chairman: Monsieur Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: I do not want to continue debating this issue, Mr. Chair, but I would simply like to make the following comment. Regardless of our political label, I would imagine that we are all basically honest and democratic people. That is the assumption I have made at the start. At any rate, I don't think we should be questioning Mr. O'Brien, although I do not really agree with what he has said. We should not question the reasons why the members of the Reform Party do not wish to participate in the trip. They were elected democratically and this has been their approach. I think that we should simply accept their decision.
The only thing that I would say to Mr. Abbott, is that not all of his colleagues think the same way. The Standing Committee on Transport, of which I was a member for two-and-half years, visited 15 cities in Canada, including all of the capital cities, in order to study the privatization of the air services. Your colleagues, Jim Gouk and Dick Harris, were with us. At any rate, a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant; either she is or she isn't. That's the only comment that I wish to make.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault.
Mr. Guy Arseneault: I don't want to get into a debate with the Reform Party either. I just want to give an example. I don't think we can go to a small community and learn and live that culture. What happens quite often is that the regions express the concern that their views are not heard often enough in Ottawa, that we sit here isolated and make decisions away from them.
I think there are two benefits to going to the regions, and maybe there are more. First, it is an educational process for the communities we visit. It shows how parliamentarians work and it shows the communities the type of work we do. I'll give you an example of the other thing that's important.
We've just come back from our two-week stint in the riding. We've all met our constituents on this and that. The other day I had a meeting with people from the Restigouche Art Gallery who are going through some very trying times in trying to get a five-year work plan together and get the finances up to date so they can be self-sufficient. They are taking the gallery from a completely non-profit organization that had some federal, provincial, and municipal funding to a situation where they're going to go ``semi-commercial non-profit''. Have you ever heard of that? I spent 45 minutes with them, going over their work plans, the plans they wanted to do for the next five years.
.1155
I would think that information would never appear here in Ottawa through their national organization, if there is one that represents them. I think it would be of great benefit for members of a committee to sit back and see how some of these operations handle the problems they are being faced with, especially the budgetary problems.
I had a chance
[Translation]
to visit Gilles Guerrette of Edmunston and Les Danseurs du Madawaska, a folklore group. It's the same thing.
[English]
They have concerns.
I wouldn't expect members to come into my area and become fully versed in the culture, but I would expect them to have their eyes opened: hey, something different is going on in all parts of the country. I think there is a benefit to visiting the smaller communities. Give them a chance to to have their voice heard apart from through their parliamentarians. It's good they can direct their concerns and views directly to people from other parts of the country too.
The Chairman: I sent members an excerpt from Hansard of a speech made by Mr. White, the MP for North Vancouver. I didn't do it on a partisan basis. That's not my style at all. I picked this up because I feel we should really put the record straight. People read this, they hear it, and first of all, it's not factual. It says:
- Yesterday there was a meeting of the heritage committee. One of the matters to be discussed in
camera was a new trip around the country, a junket for the people on the heritage committee.
- What were they to do on this junket? They were to study Canadian culture and try to define it.
They were to go to Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal. They were to define Canadian culture.
That is like trying to define love or why a cat is a cat. What a ridiculous, stupid exercise.
We can agree or disagree about what this committee should do. At the same time, we can say fine, there have been countless studies on culture in Canada. The fact is that right today a huge discussion is going on about what Canada's cultural position should be on trade around the world. What is our position on the WTO? Even within our own government there are different spheres of opinion. There certainly are different opinions from one party to another about cultural protection of our national institutions of culture and our cultural industries.
A whole debate about publishing is raging. Should we open it up or should we keep protection? Every day this debate keeps raising its head. People are discussing it. It's in the press all the time. We're talking about what we do with the Internet. What kind of protection do we seek? What is our position on copyright in the information highway?
More relevant, and raised by the party of the member from North Vancouver itself, is a far greater degree of privatization of cultural industries, if I sense it right. There is a whole debate raging in many sectors of our country about whether many of the cultural institutions should be away from the shelter of government and funded by private industry.
These are the questions people are certainly asking me. They are asking us. They are writing to us. This is not folderol or just an exercise in futility. In just a matter of the few weeks since we have started, we have received 57 briefs - and those are just the invited briefs. If we published an ad in the papers, I'm sure we would get many times 57 briefs, because people are extremely concerned.
.1200
The minister felt this is something she wanted the committee to do, and I think we agreed with this very fundamentally. Otherwise, we wouldn't have gone through all the exercise of setting up a mandate and work plan.
I would therefore like to put on record that I totally disagree with this sort of superficial drivel that really doesn't help the cause of anybody. I just take exception to it.
I would also like to put on record that what we did in regard to the mandate, the work plan, and the discussions of the trip around the country was all done in the public forum the last time and today, and it will be the next time. Sometimes we do have sessions in camera, but we have a motion to agree that there should be a meeting in camera and people state their case whether it should or shouldn't be. But it certainly was not this time, and I don't intend to have in camera discussions as far as our use of public moneys goes. But I just wanted to bring this up.
I will agree with Mr. Guimond that I think we have to leave it to the wisdom and freedom of the Reform Party, or any other members, to attend or not attend. However, in the light of what happens with this study, and when all the research documents are put forward and the ministry's reports are sent to all members, I hope that you might reconsider the seriousness of the work, Mr. Abbott. We want your input. You have a different point of view. On the copyright legislation, you took a different point of view from those of the other parties, and I think this is really what makes democratic debate useful. We have to have different points of view, and I think we would be missing a point of view that represents a large voice in the country, a significant voice.
I would ask you to let the budget come forward. There is a subcommittee that will examine it, and we'll see whether or not it's valid. If it's valid, I think it would be a real pity if either you or Mr. Hanrahan, or both of you, didn't participate, or participated in only some of the hearings and not others. It seems to me that if you have a point of view to defend - and you always do - this is the time, so that your views will be reflected in whatever report will come out of our work.
I say this very constructively. I hope you can be convinced to change your mind as we go along. If you don't, that is the way it goes; we certainly will respect your choice.
Are there any other points of view or comments?
I have one item of information for you. The British High Commission has advised us that it wants to invite the committee
[Translation]
to lunch on Monday, June 2nd, at around 11:00 or 12:00, with the National Trust for Scotland committee, who will be here on a visit.
[English]
I know we might be in an election, but I don't know that for sure. You just have to go on the basis that there will be or there won't be. But if there is no election, I want to know if the committee members will be available to attend the lunch. We'll be sending you information about it. It's on June 2, but you might know more than I do.
The meeting is adjourned.