Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

No, I'm not going to bring up any laws at this point.

I would love to say that I'm the biggest flag-waver but I'm only five-foot-four, so.... But I do agree with what you said about a decade of shenanigans. It's refreshing to see because it would have been interesting otherwise if the Bloc had been here. But anyway, I digress.

In my hometown, we have a town hall that was built in 1967. It has a wonderful little plaque there celebrating the centennial. We have a few stadiums. I think the RInC program derived from the idea of helping to keep these infrastructure projects going after 1967.

Have we thought about what a legacy is going to be in physical infrastructure? I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. Are we going to drift away from that and put more money into a legacy of films, maybe things we do through the CBC or whatever? Have you thought about that at this point?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The physical infrastructure part is hard. You're right: I think if you ask most people for a quick response about the legacy of 1967, they'll point to the physical infrastructure. You can't go very far in this country without finding a centennial arena, a centennial park, a centennial bridge, a centennial waterfront, etc. They're now 50 years old. Of course, as you can appreciate, many of these were built in a rush to meet the deadline of 1967, as infrastructure projects are often put on the clock.

So a lot of those pieces of infrastructure are in tough shape, which is part of why we had the RInC program. It was part of the targeting of our stimulus infrastructure money in the economic action plan. We are doing a reassessment of all those projects. It wouldn't exactly be a great 150th celebration to have the infrastructure from the 100th celebration falling apart. We want to do a full assessment of how these arenas are doing and what part the government can take in that.

I think it's important for all communities and all members of Parliament to look around your districts, look around your riding--you mentioned the hall in your riding--and find projects that were funded as part of the centennial to see whether or not they could qualify for things like I just described to Tyrone, such as the infrastructure upgrades to upgrade things and to keep them seismically safe and the fire-suppression equipment and so on. We are looking at that.

As you know, technology comes, technology goes. A lot of cultural legacy things.... For example, to go back to the War of 1812, in 1998, if memory serves, we had a four-part series on the war of 1812. Obviously the story still holds up and the production value still holds up,but most copies of that movie are in 4:3 aspect ratio, not widescreen. So it's actually difficult to get that film to make sense on most people's televisions now. I think that for a lot of people, when they're watching their TVs and bring up a show that's in 4:3, they instantly think it's outdated. That's a small way of answering....

Yes, we want to invest in cultural events and legacy projects like films and documentaries that are important to Canadians,but whether or not they'll have saliency 50 years after this is hard to say.

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

Have you thought about having programs like the P3 model to entice major companies to get involved with a particular project? I'm not averse to that, quite frankly. I think that in many cases P3s work, but if you want to do it under the funding envelope of 150th.... I mean, that's what the Olympics were all about, right?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I plug this book often, Le Facteur C by Simon Brault, who is the vice-chair of the Canada Council for the Arts, and he makes the very passionate and precise argument that culture in Canada does not survive without the involvement of the private sector. It just doesn't. Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of land mass and the 36th largest in terms of population. You must have buy-in and cooperation from all levels of government and the private sector to support and promote Canadian culture. Otherwise, it doesn't have momentum. Yes, private sector involvement is going to be essential, certainly on the infrastructure side, but on other projects as well.

Look at TIFF in Toronto and the Bell Lightbox. Because of the Bell Lightbox--and it's a P3 and the private sector is involved--they now have a world-class institution for film that Ryerson University and U of T use. They can screen films of all sizes and all audience dimensions. It's now an institution now for teaching and learning because the private sector is involved. I think you're right. I think those who may ideologically just push back and say that this is about Canada, and we shouldn't have the private sector involved, completely miss the point about the pressure on a country this size to have the private sector evolve and be the opportunity that exists of involving the private sector in cultural projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Simms.

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

That's great.

When you envision this 150-year celebration.... I mean, 1812 is one thing, in that it's fairly focused and we know what we want to do. This one is not so focused. To celebrate 150 years, you celebrate its people and its contributors, but the other aspect of it is that you celebrate different cultures within one broad mix.

Being from Newfoundland and Labrador, that's one. The aboriginal community, the north.... How do you subdivide this 150th celebration? Have you gone as far as to say there are certain categories of the themes we have here or am I going too far ahead?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

No, you're just a little abstract.

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

You know what, that's on my resumé, I swear.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Maybe I'll answer it this way. My responsibility as Minister of Canadian Heritage isn't to say “here's what Canada is” and jam it down your throat, or “unless you share our narrative, you won't get funding”. That's not how we do things.

“I am a Canadian because...”. That sentence gets ended in very different ways in different parts of this country. Daniel Jean is a francophone. I'm an anglophone from the west coast of British Columbia, so it means a very different thing to me. I'm Irish, Scottish, English, and German, and I speak both official languages. I have a different perspective of things, a different lens.

Other Canadians have a very different experience. Some people come from very tragic circumstances. They're first-generation Canadian and they come here and they're making a go of it and they have a great thing to celebrate. Some people come here from other parts of the world full of hope and aspiration, and their experience, linguistically and culturally, is very different from mine; it could be completely foreign to me in many ways.

The sentence “I am proud to be Canadian because...” gets finished in different ways, and people should have a full sense of their own identity within Canada. I think that's important.

That said, we do have things we believe in and that we identify with collectively as Canadians. We do believe in democracy, in human rights, in institutions. It's a balancing act, but people balance it in their own ways.

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

The narrative is quite broad here; this is what I'm trying to say. I don't know how you begin to do that. I'm not so much offering an opinion as questioning it myself. When I thought about this, I thought, where does one start?

I suppose you start maybe with infrastructure, maybe with what the general themes are. Everybody wants to play a part in it. I would love to celebrate Newfoundland and Labrador as “you're saving the best for last”—as in joining this country—but, you know, I understand....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

On that note, Mr. Simms, we're a minute over.

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

Well, I got in my province, I suppose,

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Brown.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

You mentioned the Sir John A. Macdonald program. I truly enjoyed that. It was a great opportunity for many Canadians to learn about the history in that period. I'm left wanting more. It only went up to 1864, and there's so much more history that involves Sir John A. Macdonald. Hopefully, we will see a continuation of that program from the CBC.

Also, I just want to note that the first battle of the War of 1812 actually happened in my hometown of Gananoque. It was a raid by Americans in September of 1812. In my riding, a lot of things happened during the War of 1812, so I am looking forward to those commemorations. I know that the government is doing a lot to support this, so congratulations to you and the government.

Minister, the country of Canada has a rich and diverse history. Maybe you can talk a bit about the importance of promoting and encouraging our citizens to learn even more about Canadian history.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

On the Sir John A. Macdonald program and the CBC, there's more of a barrier between me and the CBC than members of Parliament and the CBC, you should know, because they're a crown corporation for which I am responsible. We provide funding oversight. I'm responsible for the Broadcasting Act that governs the CBC, but they're not a government broadcaster. I don't pick up the phone and tell them what they should show and what they should show less. That's for the board and Canadians to talk about.

Speaking as a Canadian, not as the Minister of Heritage, I agree with you that the program on Sir John A. Macdonald was fantastic. I actually think that Canadians are calling the CBC to say they'd like to see more and to learn more about their founders and the great moments in Canadian history. We need more of these dramatizations that are rooted in fact.

If anybody agrees with that sentiment, I encourage you to write to Hubert Lacroix, the board at the CBC, and Kirstine Stewart in English programming--they're still doing a job search for the head of French language programming at CBC--and encourage them to do more.

The second part of your question was on why it is important. Not to be too political, but the Bloc Québécois was defeated in the last election campaign. But they weren't wiped out. There's still a large number of Canadians who don't fully feel part of the Canadian family, and I think we need to do better than that. I think one of the reasons is that we don't teach history; we don't teach a pan-Canadian narrative of Canadian history.

I think we very often identify ourselves with our community. Only because it's obvious, and we've just talked about it, is the War of 1812. When you go to Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort George—it's a city of 25,000 or so people in Niagara-on-the-Lake.... Fort George has 15,000 school kids going through it every year. This coming year that will double as a consequence of the 200th anniversary. Niagara-on-the-Lake people very much understand Queenston Heights, Sir Isaac Brock, Fort George, what mattered, and what happened. But as soon as you get beyond there, people don't know, and I find that's true not just of the War of 1812, but across the country.

People know their local history very well. I know about Captain Vancouver and what happened in Port Moody. I can tell you to a T what happened in my hometown, but I couldn't say the same thing about Gander. I know about Cupids because we celebrated that, but I couldn't tell you about the pre-history of Gananoque. We need to do a better job of that.

We are working on proposals on Canadian history that will be very ambitious about teaching Canada's history. I'll have more to say on that in the future.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

That's good news.

Being from Vancouver, you know about the celebration that was the Vancouver Olympics and the huge success that had in unifying Canadians. It really ushered in a new era of pride in Canada. An example is the torch relay that went across the country. I had the opportunity to participate in some of the celebrations around that.

Maybe you can talk a bit about what happened with the Olympic experience and how we can take those lessons that were learned in 2010 and apply them in 2017.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The big take-away is that everybody knew Canadians would rally around the athletes if hockey both for men and for women went the way it did: seven games against the Americans--growl--Sidney Crosby scoring the goal, and overtime. We all knew the Canadians would just rise up, jersey sales would go through the roof, and it would be an historic moment.

To be honest, the biggest surprise for me--which shouldn't have been a surprise--was the Cultural Olympiad, which included the torch relay and cost so little money. People have almost as much memory about the torch relay coming through their town as they do about the athletic components of the game. Everybody remembers when the torch came through. It came through my riding at the crack of dawn. It was actually ridiculous because it was dark, but there were school kids lined up at five in the morning by the side of the road in a dumping, awful Vancouver rain in January. I was standing there with them. They had their little red mitts and frozen cheeks and they were waving at the torch going by. They loved it. All those kids will remember it.

On top of that, we had the Place de la Francophonie, which was a $7-million investment by the Government of Canada over the course of the Olympic and Paralympic Games to have a French quarter during the games. As you know, bilingualism was a big part of the debate in the Olympics.

When I went to the Place de la Francophonie it was full every single night, and 80% of the people were anglophones, standing there and cheering, loving Roch Voisine, Stéphanie Lapointe, and all the great Quebec artists who were there. They were anglophones seeing French Canadian music for the first time, with Quebeckers standing up there with their brilliant talent, just strumming amazing songs. English Canadians were saying that it was unbelievable, that they had heard that on the radio out here. “Damn”, they said, “we have some pretty impressive people in this country”.

That surprised me, as did the Cultural Olympiad across the board, which cost so little money. You would go to a hockey game or the curling rink, come out and have dinner, and then want to do something to keep the party going. People had the opportunity to see Jim Cuddy, Dallas Green, and all these great groups: Canadian talent in a Canadian venue in a Canadian city before a world audience. It was absolutely the icing on the cake, and the smallest amount of money we spent on the Olympics was for the Cultural Olympiad. Everybody can tell you about a sport they saw, the torch relay, and the brilliant Canadian artists they had the opportunity to see for the first time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Mr. Nantel will begin our five-minute rounds.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Moore, I'd first like to thank you for being here this morning.

I would like to ask you what was planned. What's the next step for the more specific thematic direction? For example, have directors been asked or people who would have a more lyrical vision of the big picture for these celebrations?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

On one side, the theme must be something that can be received anywhere in the country. It's the 150th anniversary. For most Canadians, that's enough. But I understand what you are talking about.

It's difficult to have a national theme that involves all regions and that relates to the great diversity of the programming that we'll have in 2017. Perhaps you could discuss that with your witnesses here, in committee.

Our role as leader on this issue means that we are approaching all the departments and institutions, whether it's the Department of Finance, Agriculture, Industry, the Environment or Parks Canada, and asking them what they have planned.

Once we have all the elements on the table, we will be able to find an appropriate theme.

I can assure you that the main theme of 2017 for the 150th anniversary will be something pan-Canadian that inspires, speaks of the past and of the future and that will no doubt be able to involve all of Canada's regions and perspectives.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I ask you this question because, earlier, you mentioned that there were various eligibility criteria for submitting plans. Can you already say what these criteria are?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

There are a number of criteria. It depends on the program we're talking about. As you know, it must respect Canada's two official languages and must be open to the public. It depends on the project.

Some projects receive part of their funding from the private sector or from a partnership with the local, provincial or territorial governments.

There are a number of criteria and, frankly, they change all the time, based on previous experiences.

I'm trying to say “it seems like”....

Almost every week, requests are put on my desk indicating where the changes are. Someone might tell me that there is one group that found our points system not quite appropriate and that we should change it. We're changing things all the time.

Is there something to add?

[Daniel Jean]

I would also like to say that, for our existing programs, there is always the possibility of adjusting, with the minister's support, the criteria that reflect particular perspectives. We did that for 1812, and we can do it for 2017.