Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We are coming out of suspension and are now in public.

Monsieur Pomerleau, you have the floor.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will introduce the three motions one after the other, beginning with the first, on behalf of Ms. Lavallée, of course. I cannot express myself as passionately as she, as I am sure you can appreciate. Nevertheless, I will do my best.

With respect to the first motion, Deputy Minister Richard Dicerni told us at the time that the program had run out of funding, and that was why certain festivals did not receive the money they were expecting. Some major festivals did not get the funds they anticipated, namely the FrancoFolies de Montréal and the Toronto Pride festival, both of which met all the program requirements, in our view.

A quick examination revealed that the minister had added some criteria after the fact, criteria that were not initially included in the program requirements. For instance, he decided that there could be no more than two major events or major festivals per city, which was not the case in the beginning.

We also noticed that $8 million from the marquee tourism events program went to the Canadian Tourism Commission, which, as we all know, is already largely funded.

Let us consider the situation of the FrancoFolies festival, for example. We want to show that the festival's application not only met the eligibility requirements of the program, but also exceeded them. The event had to attract 250,000 participants, but in 2009, the FrancoFolies festival had just over 823,000 participants. Tourists had to make up at least 10% of participants, and in the case of the FrancoFolies festival, tourists accounted for 21% of its 823,000 participants. The festival had to be in operation for at least 3 years, and the FrancoFolies festival has been around for 22. The festival had to offer 3 days of programming, and the FrancoFolies festival offered 10. The festival had to employ a marketing strategy and offer package deals, things the FrancoFolies festival has been doing since the very beginning. Applications had to be in the mail by January 8, and the FrancoFolies festival submitted its application even earlier. The FrancoFolies festival was asking for just $3 million in funding, when it could have requested more.

On the flip side, however, the Canadian Tourism Commission obtained $8 million. Why did it need that money, when it was already receiving funding from other departments? What criteria did the Canadian Tourism Commission meet that the FrancoFolies festival did not? We want to know.

We believe that public money was moved around, so to speak. That is why we want to get to the bottom of this and hear from the minister or, at the very least, one of his representatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

While we're not opposed to a study on this, frankly it's at the wrong place. This, as members well know, was an Industry-led program. All of the decisions made for qualifications and approvals under the program were made out of the Department of Industry. It had nothing to do with heritage at all. If the member's party would like to bring this before the industry committee for a discussion, I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss it there.

But it is worth noting that the member is concerned about a program they never supported in the first place. It just seems odd that we would have this discussion here when we have very important matters before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I think this is the kind of study that we should be involved in. I don't know how many days I would want. I think I would like to have some clarification--perhaps one day. There might be witnesses who might want to attend, but I'm very jealous about our calendar and how we use our time.

But I think that even though this was under Industry, this really has always been the issue of festivals and cultural events, which really have been within the purview of this committee. Looking at what's on the industry plate, I think it's unlikely to be heard there. That's why I think Madame Lavallée brought it to our committee. I'm certainly willing to have an initial day.

I always feel that if we have an initial day and further issues result from that, then we can follow up. I'd like to have enough flexibility within our committee to do that, but at this point I'm willing to give a day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Angus.

I'd remind members we have 12 and possibly 14 meetings left, beginning on Tuesday of next week. That's all we have between now and the Christmas recess.

Monsieur Pomerleau.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I simply want to tell Mr. Angus that we had set aside one day to hear from the people at the commission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks.

I guess what I'd say, Mr. Chair, is that I'm disappointed that members want to spend time on this. We have had hearings on this, as members well know. The ones who were here already would remember, despite our previous discussion, that this program was not run out of Heritage and had nothing to do with Heritage. The Department of Canadian Heritage made no decisions on this program at all--including the bureaucrats there. So we did have a meeting in the past that dealt with this. Members had their questions answered.

We do have a finite number of meetings left. I think we've entered into a study. We've had discussions about other things that are worth the committee's time. I'd like to go onto something substantive. Given that we've already had our questions answered on this--or certainly it seemed to me that the questions were answered when we had this meeting previously--and I know that members across the way will recall that we've already had this, it just seems to me like a shocking and disturbing waste of time.

Conservative members, all four of them and the one who's missing, will vote against it, but if members choose to waste meetings on things we've already done, that's within the purview of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Simms, go ahead.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

We did decide that it's going to be one meeting, because as far as we're concerned, one meeting is ample time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. That's the direction the chair has received, provided the motion is adopted. Are there any further comments or questions on this motion in front of us? Okay. I'll call the vote. All those in favour of the motion? Opposed?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion is adopted. Thank you very much. We'll dedicate one meeting to this. We'll fit it in sometime between now and Christmas.

The second motion we have in front of us is one that we've also been given notice for.

Mr. Pomerleau, could you move the motion?

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes. I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Merci. Would you like to speak to the motion?

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, please.

I will start by reading the motion, which is as follows:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Committee on Canadian Heritage invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of International Trade, or their representatives, the Coalition for Cultural Diversity and any other relevant witness(es) to appear before the Committee and inform it of the progress of the negotiations on a free trade agreement with the European Union, particularly to ensure that any such agreement will respect the treaty on cultural diversity promoted and signed by Canada, and that the Committee report to the House accordingly.

That said, Canada was the first country to promote and sign the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, in October 2005. The treaty protects arts and cultural industries during the negotiation of free-trade agreements with countries that consider culture to be an especially important commodity requiring special protection. Culture is a separate commodity, and signatory countries are choosing to protect their culture to help it flourish at home, of course, but also abroad. That is what Quebec has done in the case of Cirque du Soleil, for instance, and shows that are put on abroad, namely Notre-Dame de Paris, or films such as Incendies, which the minister recently invited us to see.

This is basically what the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Mr. Laforest, said today. He said, more or less, that the Bloc Québécois had been calling for a free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union for 10 years, but not at any cost, and that the head of economic affairs for the European delegation had said that everything was potentially up for negotiation. He also said that the European Union did not support the cultural exemption clause.

Can the Minister of International Trade give us clear assurance that he is going to fight for that clause? That is what we want to know. In fact, we want him to insist on incorporating the rules that govern access to government contracts into the agreement with European Union partners.We want the rules that apply to our partners to also apply to the case before us. It is essential that the minister understand how important it is to protect cultural diversity, which is at the heart of our identity, for both Quebeckers and Canadians. Because of its sheer size, the European Union dominates negotiations. Given that Canada has more to lose here, we are concerned that should these talks break down, Ottawa will end up making a few too many concessions to the Europeans. We know perfectly well that this treaty will influence future treaties with the Americans, who will demand the exact same thing. So this is a treaty that we want to make sure includes some guarantees. That is why we want the minister or his representatives to tell us what their intentions are regarding the matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Pomerleau.

Monsieur Angus, puis monsieur Simms, et puis monsieur Del Mastro.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Well, I will always keep going back to how we used to do things on this committee, where we would lay out a whole bunch of possible narratives and then start to construct a plan. In these one-off motions, what we end up with is that whoever gets the motion in first, we can start setting the agenda. I'm concerned about that. I recognize that we're going in that direction.

I think the issue of the EU trade is a big deal, but it's also a big deal in light of the next motion we're going to deal with, which is ACTA. I'm concerned about us saying that we'll have one day on ACTA and one day on the EU.

I would prefer to start grouping some of these together, putting them into a slot when we'll actually start to look at them, because it's not just the issue of cultural diversity with the EU. There are issues of copyright and how international copyright will affect domestic copyright. We have a copyright bill before the House now that will have to be addressed. ACTA is definitely part of this. I mean, there were secret negotiations for the last two years and many concerns about how ACTA was going to play out. It appears that various players in the ACTA negotiations have split off. Now, are we dealing with WIPO 2010, or we are dealing with ACTA? We have the EU....

I would prefer to take those two as a group, rather than have one day, and hear from ministers and officials, and actually put this into the slot, but not now--perhaps beginning in the new year. We could bring in enough witnesses so that we actually can have a couple of days on what the implications are of ACTA and the EU. If there are going to be implications, what do we need to address, as opposed to simply saying we'll have a day and we'll hear it and move on? I don't think we're going to justice to it.

I'm not opposing the motion, but I'm saying that this and the next motion I think have to somehow be put together into a larger frame, and then we have to fit that into our agenda of what are our priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We're going to Mr. Simms and Mr. Del Mastro, but you have two options, Mr. Angus. If motions 2 and 3 get defeated, Madame Lavallée can easily reintroduce them any time she wants in December or January when we are ready to consider these subjects.

If the committee adopts this now and gives the chair the instruction to hold off until the new year on calling witnesses on motions 2 and 3, on ACTA and on the Canada-European Union trade negotiations, then I'll do that. Those are your two options. You can choose either path and I will follow it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Then I will add an addendum to my statement--

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

--that I would prefer to defeat these motions now and rewrite them into a motion where we actually have something that I feel would be more suitable. It's not that I'm against it, but I will say that I would rather...and if other people want to join me on that, then that should be the direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes, and I encourage you to work with Madame Lavallée to come up with a new motion that combines the two. All the committee needs is 48 hours' notice. At any point in time, you can introduce the motion.

We're going to Mr. Simms and then to Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Well, it seems like you have some agreement on that. I just wanted to speak to the issue itself. Personally, I really like this, because right now we're into a comprehensive negotiation. Right now, culture is not talked about as much, I assume, as things like the marketing boards, say, and so on, and even copyright, for that matter. But I think it's very important. It was a huge issue with NAFTA.

It hasn't been as big an issue, at least not in the public discussion about what we're about to sign in the Canada-European, because it's the European Union, which means they still have individual member states, and if you've ever dealt with fish, like I have internationally, you'll know that one state says one thing and the other does something completely different. I won't belabour that point.

The other point, of course, is the ACTA stuff, and that, too, is crucial. I'm not so sure, though, that it can be handled in one meeting, quite frankly. I would rather have two separate meetings. However, to delay it into the New Year, I have no problem with that either, given the time constraints that I'm sure Mr. Del Mastro will talk about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Simms.

Mr. Del Mastro.