Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 18, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:04 a.m. to examine the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We have a quorum.
Our witness this morning is the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage. She is flanked this morning by a contingent of senior officials from the department. I have a suspicion she has been in her job longer than any of them have been in theirs. She has been minister in that department since 1996. If there is an institutional memory over there, she is it.
The occasion for inviting Ms. Copps is the interest of this committee in two issues in particular. One issue is the National Capital Commission, for whom she reports to Parliament. Two, the hosting by Canada of various international events such as World Youth Day, the Olympics, Commonwealth and Pan American games with the financing, budgeting, monitoring and accountability for these events. Those are two of the issues that the committee is interested in discussing with Ms. Copps.
She has an opening statement to make, and please proceed.
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage: Thank you for this opportunity to come before you. Because we have a significant amount of time, I will give you an overview of the Canadian Heritage portfolio, which will give you some understanding of how I do not get involved in the day-to-day operations of any of the 18 portfolio agencies I am responsible for. I wish to give an overview of who we are. Even my mother sometimes does not know what Canadian Heritage does, and this is a good opportunity to put some things on the record.
The department, 18 agencies and Crown corporations, form a portfolio of federal government activity that will be at the forefront of the major challenges facing Canada, securing a higher quality of life for Canadians, strengthening social cohesion, interculturalism, shared citizenship and enhanced cultural participation, making Canada a magnet for talent and investment, and fostering a new partnership between government and citizens. The agencies I am responsible for include the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canada Science and Technology Museum, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Museum of Nature, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the National Archives of Canada, the National Arts Centre, the National Battlefields Commission, the National Capital Commission, the National Film Board of Canada, the National Gallery of Canada, the National Library of Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Status of Women Canada, Telefilm Canada, and the Public Service Commission.
The portfolio of Canadian Heritage was created 10 years ago out of former Departments of Communications, Environment, Secretary of State and Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Sport was transferred from the former Department of National Health and Welfare. With the agencies and the Crown corporations, including the last agency created, Parks Canada, and the Department of Canadian Heritage, the portfolio brings together most of the key instruments related to cultural and artistic creativity and to our definition of country and shared citizenship, culture and nature.
Within the Government of Canada, the portfolio plays the central and most comprehensive role in supporting all cultural activity. The portfolio agencies and Crown corporations are among key Canadian cultural institutions that support artistic expression, creation, promotion, regulation and dissemination of Canadian choices to Canadians, and preservation and protection of cultural and natural heritage and shared history.
In May 2001, the government announced an investment of over $500 million over three years, in addition to the existing investments, to secure the growth and development of Canadian stories. This investment was an eloquent gesture in support of all aspects of the creative process, encouraging excellence amongst Canadian artists, promoting arts and heritage throughout the population as a whole, and providing Canadian cultural industries with the means to prosper in the new century.
My responsibility towards Canada's past and collective memory includes the major national heritage institutions, such as the four national museums, the soon-to-be-merged National Archives and National Library, and support to the broader heritage community through policies and programs in areas of conservation, exhibitions, collection management and the export of cultural property. Heritage institutions are in the forefront of applying new technologies and creating top quality Canadian content for the information highway.
I am the guardian of nearly 230,000 square kilometres of some of Canada's most precious landscape. Parks Canada manages 39 national parks, three national marine conservation areas, 145 of the country's 878 national historic sites, including heritage buildings, canals, and railway stations. We also contribute to the management of 78 national historic sites through cost-sharing agreements.
In October of last year, the government announced the addition over the next five years of 10 new national parks and five new marine conservation areas.
Our portfolio is instrumental in strengthening Canada's unique model of citizenship through deliberate efforts to connect Canadians across their differences and enhance understanding of who we are. This role is enacted through policies and programs that promote linguistic duality, that promote multiculturalism, that promote interculturalism, that underscore the unique contribution of Aboriginal peoples, that build on youth exchanges, that invest in Canadian studies, and that support the participation of Canadians in Canada's civic life.
The department also provides support to me in my role as minister responsible for the voluntary sector.
The cultural sector makes an important contribution to the Canadian economy. According to Statistics Canada, 3.1 per cent of the GDP, an estimated $22 billion in 1996-97, came from the cultural sector. That year the sector, including creation, production, preservation and support activities, as well as manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing, employed 640,000 people: 4.8 per cent of total jobs in Canada. For 2000, exports of Canadian cultural goods and services were valued at $4.47 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion in the last five years.
Parks Canada has also had a significant impact on national and regional economies, through visitors, job creation and direct spending in many remote and economically disadvantaged areas. In 1997-98, Canada's national parks, historic sites and heritage institutions attracted 114 million visits.
Sport and physical activity are powerful tools for the creation of a more inclusive society. They can also enhance the sense of citizenship and Canada's international voice. The economic impacts of sport are also considerable. In 1995-96, sport represented 1.1 per cent of Canada's GNP, $7.4 billion per year, including 360,000 jobs, $1.1 billion in government revenues, and $7.5 million in revenues to national sport and multi-sport organizations.
My ministry, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, plays a leading role in sport development in Canada. In March of last year, the Secretary of State led the government's participation in the Arctic Winter Games in Nunavut. We also led federal participation in the North American Indigenous Games in Winnipeg, July-August 2002. In the December 2001 budget, the government stated its commitment to support Vancouver-Whistler's bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics. On August 28, the International Olympic Committee announced Vancouver was one of four — now three — remaining cities on the shortlist for the 2010 Games.
The Physical Activity and Sport Act legislation passed third reading in the House in June and is pending Senate approval. The resources of the Canadian Heritage portfolio, including the department, are estimated for 2002-03 as a total of approximately $4 billion in appropriations and revenues. The department, portfolio, agencies and Crown corporations have a total of 18,306 employees. The Department of Canadian Heritage has 1,881 employees and the department's direct overall budget is $1.1 billion.
Our mission is to contribute to a cohesive and creative Canada. We have four strategic objectives. The first involves Canadian content: to promote the creation, dissemination and preservation of diverse Canadian cultural works, stories and symbols that reflect our past and express our values and aspirations.
[Translation]
Cultural participation and involvement to encourage participation in and accessibility to Canada's cultural life by all Canadian citizens. We encourage and strengthen ties among Canadians. We also encourage a deeper recognition among communities.
[English]
Active citizenship and civic participation involves promoting understanding of the rights and responsibilities of shared citizenship and fostering opportunities to participate in Canada's civic life. The department is responsible for policies and programs related to broadcasting.
Cultural industries include arts, heritage, official languages, shared citizenship and identity, citizen participation, youth, multiculturalism, human rights, Aboriginal peoples, state ceremonial, symbols and sport. The department provides services from our headquarters as well as from five regions with 26 points of service and through an extensive Web site. In 1999 the government outlined a broad vision for cultural affirmation.
Connecting to the Canadian experience involves diversity, creativity and choice. It was the Government of Canada's response to the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Our strategic objectives are inspired by this vision and were reinforced in the 2001 Speech from the Throne where Canadians were invited to create a more inclusive society and to share in our sense of enhanced citizenship.
The 2002 Speech from the Throne states:
Canada has a unique model of citizenship, based simultaneously on diversity and mutual responsibility. This model requires deliberate efforts to connect Canadians across their differences, to link them to their history and to enable their diverse voices to participate in choosing the Canada we want.
The department is administered by a deputy minister and an associate deputy minister. We are comprised of five sectors, each of which is headed by an assistant deputy minister. Five branches report directly to the deputy minister: portfolio affairs, policy and research, human resources, legal services, and the corporate secretariat. An ombudsman function was created in 2001, reporting directly to the deputy minister.
Underscoring the sectors: The cultural affairs sector draws together policy development and program delivery related to the arts, new media, broadcasting and cultural industries. The sector provides me with independent policy advice and support on new initiatives that shape overall cultural policy. The role is to foster access to and participation in Canada's cultural life, and to foster an environment conducive to the creation of artistic work and their access by Canadians.
The citizenship and heritage sector was created to deepen understanding of Canada's shared citizenship and to strengthen it. In order to build a comprehensive perspective on what it means to be a citizen of Canada, the sector integrates programs and policy in areas of heritage, multiculturalism, official languages, Aboriginal peoples, human rights, Canadian studies exchanges, and citizenship participation. The sector also provides advice and support to the minister and the Secretary of State responsible for multiculturalism. The sector manages nearly $390 million in grants and contributions, of which a large percentage supports multi-year agreements with provinces for official languages support and education.
The sector emphasizes creating greater sense of connection amongst Canadians through, for example, the promotion of intercultural understanding and responsible citizenship, broad engagement in the preservation of heritage, and a deeper understanding of the Canadian legacy. Among the sector's priorities are implementation of the government's accord with the voluntary sector, an initiative to preserve our built heritage, the development of a heritage policy framework, the renewal of Aboriginal programs, and the implementation of a new approach to multiculturalism. I am pleased to announce that in April we will have a national summit on this renewed approach to multiculturalism here in the nation's capital.
Turning to the international and intergovernmental affairs sector, it is hard to believe that when I became Minister of Canadian Heritage we had never met internationally as ministers of culture. I am proud to say that in 1998 Canada created the International Network on Cultural Policy. That international network led to the creation of an international and intergovernmental affairs sector, created in the spring of 2002. The sector is mandated to provide an integrated approach to intergovernmental and international relations and to give greater coherence to international and intergovernmental policies and programs. I am pleased to say that the President of France, the Honourable Jacques Chirac, only a few weeks ago underscored the need for an international instrument outside the WTO to deal with culture, an idea that was first put forward by a parliamentary committee of this house and endorsed by the Department of Canadian Heritage and myself as minister some five years ago. I am also proud to report that the German government has now come onside in pursuit of an instrument. The international sector is providing support to ensure that the 54 countries around the world that have now joined the Network on Cultural Policy will have the support they need.
The sector manages the department's federal-provincial and territorial relations, international relations and international affairs, such as the International Network on Cultural Policy, and is involved in La Francophonie internationale. The sector also ensures links between trade and international affairs, as it integrates the trade and investment branch.
Sport Canada is also a key component of this sector. Sport is directly linked to all of the key objectives in strategies of the department, and will continue to be a means to address participation and excellence. Within this sector, Sport is in a position of strengthening horizontal links to the whole department, to other departments and to key provincial and international partners.
I was in South Africa last week and can say that the Government of South Africa is most excited about the investment that the Canadian government is making in international development through Sport because they see Sport as a way of lifting people up and working in the ghettoes to build new leaders for the future.
In the Public Affairs and Communications sector, fostering shared experiences is an important aspect of creating a cohesive and creative Canada. In contributing to government's important role in bringing Canadians together, the sector communicates and delivers events stories and shared experiences domestically and internationally. The associate ADM of Public Affairs and Communications has particular responsibility to ensure regional perspectives are represented at the departmental executive table and that policies, communications and services are informed by regional perspective and delivered in a regionally sensitive way, not just regionally but demographically.
[Translation]
Everyone knows that in a few years, we are going to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Samuel de Champlain's arrival in Canada. How many of you know that, during that same period, the first black person arrived in Canada: Matthieu da Costa? It was the Heritage Department that took the first steps toward recognition of Matthieu da Costa throughout Canada's schools. The Heritage Department is making sure that the arrival of the first black person in Canada is not forgotten in the celebrations taking place for Samuel de Champlain.
[English]
The Planning and Corporate Affairs sector was created in April 2002. This sector brings together for the first time all of the department's planning and management functions. It provides integrated services, including financial management knowledge, information and technology management, audited evaluation and corporate planning and reporting. The goal of the sector is to ensure that the department has the information processes, technologies and tools necessary to deliver the highest possible service to Canadians.
Regarding other direct reporting to the deputy, the corporate secretariat group supports the deputy and the associate deputy ministerial offices through coordination and provision of a wide range of advisory and operational services. The corporate secretariat includes access to information and privacy secretariat, parliamentary and regulatory affairs, and the executive services secretariat.
The Portfolio Affairs Office ensures a strategic, integrated approach within the Canadian Heritage portfolio in support of the government's agenda, and it supports the minister with respect to portfolio responsibilities. The office offers a single window for a portfolio-related business integrating policy, planning, financial human resources and communications issues directly to organizations and agencies of the Canadian Heritage portfolio. The office also supports me by providing advice on appointments made by the Governor in Council within the Canadian Heritage portfolio, and we are responsible for half of the Governor in Council appointments of the government.
The Portfolio Affairs Office is currently coordinating a policy development process to develop integrated portfolio perspectives on arts, audiovisual and heritage history sectors and in international and outreach activities.
The Strategic Policy and Research Branch is responsible for providing corporate leadership and direction for the department's strategic policy agenda. The Strategic Policy and Cabinet Affairs Directorate provides policy initiatives that support our mission of building a cohesive and creative Canada. It manages preparation of briefing materials for me and the secretaries of state on all social and economic policy initiatives presented to cabinet, and it provides advice on the development of policy initiatives by sectors. The Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate provides a corporate research function which supports the long-term strategic direction of the department and contributes to the overall government research agenda in areas that can relate to the mandate of Canadian Heritage.
The Human Resources and Workplace Management Branch provides a full range of human resources, protection, safety and facilities management service and advice to managers and employees of all Canadian Heritage locations across the country.
Legal services is composed of legal experts from the Department of Justice. As the government's legal advisor, the Department of Justice helps departments reform, develop and interpret laws in the execution of our roles and responsibilities.
In the Office of the Senior Advisor to the Deputy, the senior advisor is responsible for developing the department's diversity strategy and is responsible for organizing a national forum on multiculturalism in the arts that will be held in the nation's capital in April.
The Ombudsman provides a confidential, neutral and informal process that facilitates fair and equitable solutions to concerns that arise at the department. The Ombudsman thus serves as an information and communications resource, feedback channel advisor, dispute resolution expert and change agent.
Those are the nuts and bolts of what I do in the department, and I thought it was important to give you that overview because one of the questions you will be asking is about the work of portfolio agencies, and, obviously, with the breadth and depth of portfolio agencies, those questions are better asked of the portfolio agencies.
Before I begin my direct presentation, I would like to introduce my colleagues, Jean-Pierre Blais, the Assistant Deputy Minister of International and Intergovernmental Affairs; Carole Lacombe, the Associate Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Affairs and Communications; and Jean Guérette, the Executive Director of Portfolio Affairs.
I understand your committee is interested in addressing two issues that fall under my domain: first, the National Capital Commission and, second, the process by which the federal government makes a financial commitment to support bids for international events and the mechanisms for accountability and reporting on the use of public funds.
I would like to take a few moments to explain the strategic framework of Canadian Heritage and how it translates into tangible results. I have explained our mission statement.
Regarding the objectives of achieving a more cohesive and creative Canada, we have four strategic objectives: Canadian content; cultural participation and engagements; connections and interconnections; and, active citizenship and civic participation.
[Translation]
In 2001-02, the Canadian Television Fund participated directly in the funding of over 583 programs, accounting for 2,822 hours of television. In Canada, the cultural sector employs more than 740 Canadians, and represents $22 billion of our gross domestic product annually.
[English]
The next areas are cultural participation and engagement fostering access to and participation in Canada's cultural life.
[Translation]
We have, for instance, an assistance, a support program for some 1,400 international calibre athletes, representing $15,800,000 in 2002-03. Canada has over 6,500,000 volunteers in all areas of activity and 180,000 not-for-profit agencies for which I am responsible.
[English]
My next point is fostering and strengthening connections among Canadians and deepening understanding across diverse communities.
[Translation]
My next point is concerned with the holding, in February 2003, in Paris, of a ministerial meeting of the countries belonging to the Working Group on Cultural Diversity and Globalization with a view to integrating an international instrument in UNESCO.
[English]
The idea of an instrument started here in Canada five years ago. It has now been endorsed by several important players in the international community and will be the subject of a vote at the UNESCO general assembly meeting in October. That is an example of deliverability for the diversity of stories, and it came from the magazine wars, which this committee was quite actively involved in.
The next area deals with active citizenship anticipation, promoting and understanding the rights and responsibilities of shared citizenship and fostering opportunities to participate in Canada's civic life.
[Translation]
The decision to recognize Notre-Dame-de-la-Défense church as having Italian status in Montreal is a specific example of how we have underscored the active participation of the Italian community in Canada.
The following point is concerned with bringing the Copyright Act up-to-date in order to take into account the new technologies and market realities.
[English]
Another example of how we ensure the capacity of Canadians to access their stories.
[Translation]
The next point is about the holding of an international conference in Montreal with a view to increasing the participation of women and challenge in physical activity and sports.
[English]
The importance of the work that we do in Canadian Heritage cannot be understated. I would like to quote from the Speech from the Throne because I think it underscores what we are up to.
[Translation]
Our cultural policies should aim for excellence in creativity, encourage diversity in Canadian content and foster access to the arts and our heritage.
[English]
In these times of rapid change and globalization, it is more important than ever that we know who we are as Canadians and what brings us together.
[Translation]
As we begin the millennium, the federal government's fundamental objective will be to continue its efforts with a view to strengthening Canada, making it an even more inclusive country and guaranteeing the Canadian people a better quality of life.
[English]
The government will help Canadians to strengthen their bonds of mutual understanding and respect, to celebrate their achievements in history and to exercise their shared citizenship.
I hope this has given honourable senators a better understanding of the relevance of my work and the work of Canadian Heritage and our portfolio agencies.
I am now ready to take questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I thought we might try to focus the discussion by having a round first on the NCC and, in particular, their policy with regard to disposal of surplus properties. Senator Cools led the discussion on this matter.
Senator Cools: I would like to welcome the minister here today. In my recollection, I do not think she has been before this committee before.
Ms. Copps: Yes, I have.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, I had been expecting the minister to cover some of the concerns we had raised in previous meetings with regard to the NCC. I move on the assumption that the minister is informed on the proceedings of this committee, especially in respect of the Estimates.
I listened carefully to see if the minister would respond to the issues that have been raised in this committee around the discussion of appropriations. The minister has not done that.
In this committee's thirteenth report, as printed in the Journals of the Senate of March 19, 2002, the report of the committee stated:
Senators expressed an interest in the operations of the National Capital Commission. Specifically, they noted that the Commission was seeking additional appropriations of $34.2 million, most of which is earmarked for real asset management and development. In this connection, Senators require further assurances that the legitimate planning concerns of local governments are given proper weight in the decisions of the Commission. Senators were also interested in the Commission's expenditures on professional services related to new projects in the National Capital Region.
Some months later, the committee presented its nineteenth report, which is printed in the Journals of the Senate for June 13, 2002. This was a fairly comprehensive report on the National Capital Commission. It was my hope and wish that the minister would respond to the questions raised in the report item by item and point by point.
I would like to record here two of the conclusions and recommendations of that committee. The first one has to do with the committee's examination and Mr. Shortliffe's report, ``Enhancing Relations,'' which, as the minister would know, was a report commissioned by the National Capital Commission itself, particularly, honourable senators, around the issues of the coming together of the mega-city of Ottawa and looking at the whole question of the relationship between the NCC and the expanded Ottawa, since Ottawa was now a hugely expanded municipality. In issues and matters of planning there was a time when the NCC was the only ``game'' in town. However, with an expanded municipal structure, the business of planning was greatly expanded and made more complex.
In the committee's report, as recorded at page 1770 of the Journals of the Senate, the committee made the following recommendation:
We recommend that the National Capital Commission develop a meaningful public consultation process which would apply to either the disposal or change of use of property held by the Commission.
Honourable senators, since the committee looked particularly at developments along the Rideau River, in particular one called Moffatt Farm, the committee stated in recommendation number 4:
The appeal of the National Capital Commission before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the rezoning of the Moffatt Farm be withdrawn.
That was the recommendation. The committee had a lot more to say. I am not too sure if the minister has read the report or studied the report. I just wonder if she could at least respond to those issues in those two reports. It is a parliamentary tradition that a report of the Estimates committee of the Senate, which this is, is supposed to be deeply considered and taken to heart by the ministry.
The Chairman: Excuse me, senator, you might as well put the whole issue on the table. There was also the recommendation calling on Treasury Board to rescind the policy with regard to disposal of surplus real estate and the idea that the proceeds there from do remain with the commission rather than going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Senator Cools: I would be happy to put them on the record.
The Chairman: That is all right, senator. I think the minister understands.
Unusually, I have to advise the committee that we are running out of time. The minister is leaving at 10 o'clock. I want to leave some time for discussion of the other issue in which the committee is interested.
Ms. Copps: First, the Shortliffe report came about because I received representations from a number of members of Parliament who were not happy with the lack of public consultation that they perceived in terms of planning issues, including disposal of Crown lands, et cetera.
As honourable senators know, there is a strict arm's-length relationship between myself and all Crown corporations.
I have been asked to intervene a number of times with regard to various Crown corporations, and I have not intervened, on the substance of their day-to-day operations. I had discussions with the National Capital Commission. In fact, I wrote to the chairman some years ago because I was concerned about the impact that this particular policy on Crown asset disposal was having on them in terms of pressuring them to make decisions vis-à-vis their own financial status. At the same time, there was concern about the requirement of the National Capital Commission to be cognizant of local input on issues.
I believe that, when the Shortliffe report was issued, and you should perhaps check this with the National Capital Commission, they did undertake a series of changes to their structure to ensure a broader consultation on any decisions under their mandate. I believe that was codified. I did not sign off the codification because they are an arm's-length agency and I am not in a position to sign off their day-to-day operations. However, I am in a position to say that it should be an open and transparent entity, in the same way as every other government department, and subject to the kind of scrutiny that this committee and others can carry out through the Estimates directly with the Crown Corporations.
In respect of Crown Asset Disposal, you may want to obtain clarification from the Treasury Board of Canada because I am not involved. It is my understanding that it is the responsibility of the Treasury Board when any government agency — Canada Post, the National Capital Commission or any other — decides that it is in a position to dispose of real property. There is a process to be followed in concert with Treasury Board. It is my understanding that, in lieu of the rescinding of this particular regulatory imperative, they fund their capital assets by selling off property under what the Treasury Board has agreed to as an informal agreement such that they would then be able to carry the costs of any capital overruns, up to a certain amount. In that way, the National Capital Commission would not be forced into the business of selling land. I believe that, if you were to examine the real property acquisitions and disposals of the National Capital Commission over the last number of years, you would find that they actually have a net surplus status — they have acquired more than they have sold.
These are issues that you must explore with the NCC directly. I do not become involved in Crown Asset disposal. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage, it would be inappropriate for me to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the Crown Corporations. We expect the Canada Council to make decisions based on their assessments of the world of culture and Parks Canada has agency independence for its day-to-day operations.
However, when there was a problem in Parks Canada, I tried to facilitate a dialogue between Senator Wiebe and officials at Parks Canada. Several months ago, when Senator Cools approached me on this matter, I offered to facilitate a liaison that would permit a discussion of the matter directly with officials from the National Capital Commission. I told Senator Cools that I do not become involved in the day-to-day purchase or liquidation of any assets of the National Capital Commission.
I would be happy to supply the committee with the names of board members and of the people in the system that can assist you. Certainly, in respect of Crown Asset Disposal, we do not want to put the National Capital Commission in such a position that it must sell land to stay afloat. I believe that those questions and processes have to be directed to the National Capital Commission. That is why I suggested a process in which you could engage other members of Parliament along with officials from the National Capital Commission. I believe that you made some contact with other members of Parliament but I do not know the outcome of those contacts.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: Good morning, Minister. I realize that the NCC is a corporation with an arm's-length relationship with the government. You must stay out of the day-to-day operations of this corporation. Recently, however, there has been a trend toward privatization of some services in certain government departments, including yours. This bothers me a bit, since once something is privatized, we no longer wish to acknowledge our responsibility. The NCC has privatized its buildings. It has entrusted this mandate to Minto. Try phoning Minto and getting service in French. It is impossible, madam! We are asked to speak English: «Sorry, could you speak English, please?»
What sort of image are we conveying to the Canadian public when a Crown corporation privatizes a public service and then we are told, «Would you speak English, please?» I cannot speak English. I seriously think we are not projecting an acceptable image to the average Canadian who comes to Ottawa and who wants to have an image of Canada — linguistic duality is a reality. A while ago, you mentioned a more coherent and more united image.
You could use your department to write to the NCC. Certainly we know that when you rent a building to the private sector for any operation that tourists frequent such places. You could tell them, you can do it because you have the power to do so, to make sure Canada's official languages are respected under their leases. An article in the NCC's leases stipulates that any tenant must display and serve its clients in both official languages. They do not do so.
In the country's capital, on Sparks St., you would think you were in London, in England because nothing is posted in French. You would think it was a foreign language. But it is one of two official languages. You could telephone them and tell them that if they want to privatize, they will have to comply with section 25 and that they must answer Canadians in both official languages. How do you react to that?
Ms. Copps: I could not agree with you more. We are trying now to make sure of this when we sign federal-provincial agreements. It is a bit what we try to promote with the official languages action plan. If government agencies do not do it, who will? If you are interested, I could certainly order a review of all Heritage agencies to see how things stand.
Senator Gauthier: You could talk about it to your colleague, the Minister of Public Works Canada, Mr. Goodale. They do not have any provision specifying respect for official languages.
Ms. Copps: Is that so?
Senator Gauthier: The minister has expressed the wish that the same requirements be observed in all buildings in Canada by Public Works Canada. This will have to be repeated. They have forgotten.
The Chairman: The minister understands you quite well.
[English]
The Chairman: We will move now to international events hosted by Canada. I will ask Senator Lynch-Staunton to put his question because he has a particular interest in this subject.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: My question will be on the Canada Games. However, the anxiety that I will express will be the same as it would be for international events.
When we look at the Estimates to have an idea of the cost of a particular event, it is difficult to find a total because most of them are in individual departments and no summary is provided. I will take the Canada Games as an example.
They were estimated to cost between $16 million and $21 million, with the federal government contributing about $5 million. Thus far, the government has committed to $17 million, shared by Canadian Heritage, Indian and Northern Affairs, Human Resources Development, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, et cetera. For international and national events that have financial commitments, is there a budget? Is there a federal overseer to coordinate the appropriate spending of that funding? Are these grants simply fulfilled on-demand?
Who determined initially, some years ago, that Canada would have spent $5 million on the games, and who has allowed that amount to get up to $17 million and perhaps even more when the games are over?
Ms. Copps: First, when I became the minister, one of the first recommendations that came to my table is that we abolish the Canada Games.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am not arguing the benefits or disadvantages of the Canada Games, I am asking the procedure of controls over the spending and what budgetary controls there may or may not be.
Ms. Copps: It was proposed that we abolish the Canada Games. I disagreed vigorously. I felt that if there is one thing we need in a country that crosses six time zones, it is opportunities for Canadians to celebrate and get together in regions of the country other than just the capital cities. If you look at the success of the games in Corner Brook, if you look at the investment that was made in the Miramichi — in a depressed area of New Brunswick — it was decided by the provincial government to award the Canada Games to that area because they felt it would be both a sport boost and a psychological boost for the province. The $5 million is the analyzed cost of the federal government's participation in getting people to the games. I know this because I had many discussions internally with those who thought we should fund only Olympic athletes, and we should not be bothered with things like the Canada Games.
The Canada Games federal-provincial agreement is such that athletes are equipped by their province and delivered to the provincial capital by their province. It is the federal government's responsibility to operate the games, operate the organization of the games on a ongoing basis and provide transportation for all the athletes who come to the games. The $5 million that you see in the annual budget is the amortized cost of bringing students, for example, to the Miramichi from across the country on an annualized basis. The games run every second year — we have one that is a winter game and one that is a summer game — and that is the amortized cost of transporting the students to the place where the games are being held.
Certainly, we do not write a blank cheque. On the contrary, we scrape and grab for every cent. In most areas of the country, when you talk about sending games into smaller communities, which has been the strategic approach of the Canada Games, most of the infrastructure in the communities is incapable of holding games without having upgrades.
For example, the Yukon is the next recipient of the games. In order for them to hold the games, they need a $20 million upgrade. The Department of Canadian Heritage cannot afford that. We have set aside $7 million, and the Department of Finance has promised $13 million for the upgrade. There is discussion now over whether that upgrade comes from the general infrastructure fund or from a specific set-aside.
When you have a country as large as Canada, and you do not have a specific national infrastructure fund for cultural and sporting investment, you do need upgrades. What has happened is the Canada Games have been an opportunity for regional sporting centres to get specific capital upgrades that are necessary for them to hold the games. These are funded through a number of different sources.
If you go back to the Corner Brook games, when we were coming out of program review, we actually got partnership from ACOA and several different departments of the government because they saw the strategic advantage for regional development in bringing sport into the region. The specific cost — the $5 million — is attached to the annualized amortized cost of running the operation, choosing the site and getting the students to the site. The balance is the additional cost attached to capital upgrades, which must be done on an as-needs basis, and which go through the regular process of Treasury Board for a decision.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I will reword my question. The total budget at the time the Canada Winter Games for New Brunswick were announced was to be between $16 and $21 million for all levels and private enterprise. Your $5 million is in your budget to help athletes travel to and from the site. That is fine. That is included in the $5 million at the time, but now that $5 million, which was identified as total federal expenditures, has risen to $17 million in only three or four years. What allows it to grow practically without limit through other departments suddenly coming in and being asked for, and giving additional funding, following the original budget being announced? Are there any controls over the spending or is it open-ended? This question applies today to the Canada Games only because the figures are more current. I do not think your department was involved in the World Youth Day during the papal visit — I did not see Canadian Heritage there. However, there are about $10 million of federal funds so far that have been committed to that; and we have asked, and will continue to ask, the Treasury Board of Canada about that. There is also Vancouver, which you mentioned, along with Whitehorse at $20 million.
Let us take Whitehorse, where $20 million has been announced. Can anyone in the government say that, once the Whitehorse games take place, there will not be more than $20 million of federal funds spent?
Ms. Copps: The $20 million refers to two different packages. One is the operational package —
Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is not announced when these figures are given.
Ms. Copps: I am here to give you the information. The information is that the cost of operating the games, which is what shows up in the budget under Canada Games, is the cost simply of getting the students to the site. Period.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is not my question.
Ms. Copps: I know it is not. The $20 million you are talking about is an infrastructure investment that was required by the territory of the Yukon in order to hold the games. In order for that to be approved, there was a process whereby we, from Canadian Heritage, under the sport budget, made a commitment of $7 million to be carried out between now and 2007. That was to be supplemented by $13 million from the Department of Finance out of new revenues. The discussion now is whether those new revenues come from the overall infrastructure budget, which is the federal- provincial infrastructure budget, or whether they come from a separate fund. I must tell you, senator, when it comes to infrastructure for sport, we do have a problem because we do not have an ongoing way of investing in sport infrastructure across this country. If we are going to ensure that, in the long term, we are not faced with one-off costs — as we are with 2010, the Canada Games, Miramichi and the ski lift, for example — we need to be able to predict and prepare for long-term improvements in sporting infrastructure. At the moment, there are no such federal targets; as dates come up upon us, we get specific sign-off authority in concert with the Department of Finance. You will be able to find every single penny of that money accounted for in either the Department of Finance estimates or through the infrastructure fund.
That is all part of the cost to the territory of hosting the games, which is different from — and separated from — the budget for operating the Canada Games. For operating the games, there is a central secretariat and there are federal- provincial agreements that have to be signed. Every province has to agree to equip their people and get them to the point of departure for transportation. We have to arrange transportation costs across the country, which is all funded in just straight operation; it is not infrastructure. The other piece is infrastructure and it is well-documented in the financial system.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I agree that the $20 million for Whitehorse is well identified. Is there an overall budget for the Canada Games?
Ms. Copps: Only for the operations and that is a problem.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes, the figure that went from $5 million to $17 million. Originally, it was budgeted that the federal government would spend $5 million and the provincial government would spend $3 million. Now the figure has gone to $17 million for the federal government and another $14 million for New Brunswick.
Ms. Copps: Part of that is tied to the infrastructure costs. The infrastructure costs are being met. We have a Winter Games coming on and, if we had not managed to improve the infrastructure, they would not have been capable of holding the games.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Was that not known at the time? That is the point of my question. Were the infrastructure problems not known when New Brunswick decided where the games would be held? Surely, the Sugarloaf upgrades, Eel River and the like must have been known then. Why were the figures not given that the games would cost a total of X million dollars and get it over with? Why do it piecemeal?
Ms. Copps: I agree we need a new —
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It reminds me of another government program, which went up to $1 billion. Why not put it all on the table at the beginning and get it over with?
Ms. Copps: The Canada Games do not have an infrastructure budget.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I agree.
Ms. Copps: I would be happy to have an unlimited amount.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: Minister, Senator Lynch-Staunton is trying to tell you that there is no budget. This is bad management. We would like there to be a total budget. If it is 20 million, it is 20 million. When a city is selected somewhere, we can find out whether there is any equipment or not. It seems to me that this is common sense! No private business could operate like this. If you decide that this year the event is being held at such and such a place, you are going to find out whether they have the necessary equipment for the winter or the summer. We have several examples — not just for the Games — like the Pope's visit. People decide they are going to have the Pope visit and then worry about the bills later! In other words, whatever it costs to have the Pope, we are going to pay for it in the end.
We are recommending that there be a budget so that it is clear. When you go somewhere, a year ahead of time, you look at the details and you say how much it is going to cost. If it is $28 million, there will be a budget for $28 million and then we go to work. Otherwise, no one knows where they stand! It is a complete joke!
Ms. Copps: I agree with you completely. This is why I have asked my associate deputy minister to meet with the associate deputy minister in Industry so that he can find out what our infrastructure needs are between now and 2010. It is crazy to have an infrastructure policy that not cover major events. We have to manage big events, not create an infrastructure.
Let us take an example. In 2005, it is the anniversary of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Alberta government wants the Canadian government to invest in a new museum. It wants us to invest between 25 and 50 million. Our budget, however, for historical infrastructures for Canada is $10 million. When they come and see me to ask for 25 million, I tell them it would be good to know what the other major events are. We know there is Samuel de Champlain, Saskatchewan's and Alberta's joining Confederation, the Canada Games, and possibly the Native Games. Six deputy minister meetings were required to invest $1 million in the Nunavut arena.
Senator Bolduc: What has always struck me in public administration is that there is not a budget, but one is still found! There is a second serving underneath. One plate is emptied, but underneath, there is another one! It does not make any sense. So try, among ministers, to set a budget! It is ridiculous to say that you do not have any money, but the other department does! Where does it get its money? I do not understand. It looks as though the public administration finds ingenious ways of diversifying sources so that we never know what the costs are. What we want is simple, we want a budget!
Ms. Copps: I agree with you. I have even asked my associate deputy minister to get together with the associate deputy minister from Industry. The major issue is infrastructure. We are not responsible for infrastructure. We are responsible for managing events. Of course, to manage events, we need infrastructure funds and everyone arrives with large amounts. I would like each cultural investment by 2010 to be established according to a set schedule so that we know where we are heading. Otherwise, we are told we have a lot of money and that we have to spend it.
When we take the example of the infrastructure, the 20 million in the Yukon, it is 25 per cent more than our investment for all top athletes. The budget for the top athletes is $15 million. I do not want to spend 20 million from Heritage, I prefer to give it directly to the athletes. This is why we are always negotiating with other departments in order to tell them that they are responsible for infrastructure. We were so frustrated in the case of Nunavut. Everyone said it was a good project for the Natives, but no one had any money. We were almost on the point of abandoning the Arctic Native and Indigenous Games because we did not have the funds to improve the arena. People had known for a long time that this was an international event. I am as frustrated as you are.
The Chairman: We will have a chance to discuss this again a little later with the public servants who will stay with us after the Minister leaves.
Ms. Copps: That is a very good recommendation.
[English]
The Chairman: We must look at our exposure. In order of magnitude, much greater than Canada Games in respect of Vancouver or Whistler because, as your briefing notes will show, there is a certain amount required and committed by the federal government with regard to the operation of those games. However, there is also a whole wish list of infrastructure, having to do with transportation on the Lower Mainland, which goes into the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is not clear to me whether the federal treasury is committed at all to those things.
Ms. Copps: In the bid book process, we are committed to the $310 million that has been outlined, which actually deal with current modifications and operations. That is the piece that is covered. In terms of any other requests, those are simply that. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister. The officials will stay behind and I think we can look in some more detail at these matters with them.
If there are questions about the NCC, we do have Mr. Guérette present.
Senator Cools: I would like to thank the minister for her all-too-brief visit with us. I have a couple of questions, some of which are political and will therefore not be that easy for the officials to answer.
The minister referred to a private conversation she had with me. In that private conversation, she was surprised that the NCC was not deferring to a unanimous decision of city council. My question to you is not about what the minister said to me, but about the protocol that existed, which always stated that the NCC should defer to the municipal, elected people on planning issues.
I wonder if you could tell me about the origins of that protocol and why it is no longer observed by the NCC today. Not only the minister has told me about that protocol. Mention of this protocol is made a lot around Ottawa. At the time, I inquired of the minister if she had a copy of such a protocol in writing. Why is it that the NCC no longer observes this protocol?
Mr. Jean Guérette, Executive Director, Portfolio Affairs, Canadian Heritage: I am not familiar with the protocol about which you speak. Perhaps part of the answer is that this is not the first time that the NCC has entered into similar situations. When there is not an agreement between the NCC and the municipality, the dispute is usually referred to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Senator Cools: There is no doubt about this protocol. I have been able to glean that it may have its origins in a process that may be 100 years old — of the NCC never being too far away from the city council and the municipality. Certainly, neither the NCC Act, nor the original act as it was passed in 1899, which was called the Ottawa Improvement Commission at the time, ever anticipated that the NCC would be locked into such conflict with the municipal decision-makers. The constitutional entity, a commission, is simply not intended to subject itself to inferior tribunals, especially provincial ones, which the Ontario Municipal Board is.
Therefore, I do not accept the proposition that the NCC adopt a different position from the municipal government and then depend on an inferior tribunal to resolve disputes. I am told that I am not the only person with these concerns.
The NCC's literature, Web site and public relations materials abundantly state, as did the minister, that the NCC is an arm's length Crown corporation. This reference to an arm's length Crown corporation is a very new development. It is something that has grown over time.
The use of the term ``arm's length Crown corporation'' conjures in the public mind a government agency that somehow is supposed to execute a commercial purpose. My understanding of the NCC is that it is a commission. A commission is a peculiar constitutional entity intended to do particular jobs.
The NCC has its origins in the concept of a body corporate of land commissioners whose job it was to perform a public trust of husbanding and stewarding the lands. It did not have a commercial purpose at all.
Could Mr. Guérette comment on that? I believe that the description of the NCC as an arm's length corporation is insufficient and misleading, because it undermines the public purpose, public trust and public character of the task of holding lands in trust.
I can assure you that the constitutional and historical legal meaning of the term ``commission,'' as in land commissioners and Crown commissioners, never envisaged a commercial operation of land speculation or involvement in the business of the distortion of land prices. I am sure that the witness knows that there are large numbers of Canadians who are very concerned that the NCC is now being viewed as a land speculator involved in the business of driving prices up.
The distortion of land prices is not helpful or useful to the public finances. As a matter of fact, the distortion of land prices in these situations assists to distort the records of public finances.
Mr. Guérette: I would refer back to what the minister said with regards to the role of the NCC and their land deals. Those are subject to the Treasury Board of Canada guidelines. Those guidelines will direct the NCC. Whether the NCC is a commission or corporation, it is an agency at arm's length from the government and makes its own decisions on those matters.
If you allow me, Senator Cools, I would like to go back to your previous question and bring some precision. As a Crown corporation, or as a Crown commission, if you prefer, the NCC is not subject to municipal process. However, in their presentation to you previously, the NCC has made it clear that they are committed to work within the municipal zoning process. The NCC voluntarily observes that process, which provides for the possibility of review by the Ontario Municipal Board.
Senator Cools: Yes, but I am not completely convinced that what you are saying is entirely constitutionally appropriate. When we say ``defer,'' we are not talking about subjection. We are talking about deferring to decisions.
There are some principles here. The Ottawa City Council and municipal government is a duly and democratically elected collection of people. It is a level of government. The NCC is a Crown commission — a land commission, so to speak. The system never envisaged that a provincial inferior tribunal would resolve a difference between the two.
To me it is simply not satisfactory that we say that regardless of what wrongs, ills or misunderstandings are going on in the NCC, we can do nothing. One of these days we may look around and see that Parliament Hill has been sold because someone thought a residential development would fetch quite a high price.
There are some principles. I would submit to you that the NCC is subject to these principles.
Based on what you are saying, Mr. Guérette, there is no accountability at all. How is the NCC accountable to the public? What is the mechanism? If the minister can do nothing, then pray tell, who can?
The Chairman: The Governor in Council can issue a directive to the NCC. The minister cannot do it on her own.
Senator Cools: If you go through the act carefully, you can see it is not so arm's length. They can be cut off easily.
The Chairman: Their funds can be cut off.
Senator Cools: I was speaking at the cabinet level.
On the principle of accountability, it is simply not agreeable or sufficient to the public to say that we can do nothing. It is a serious matter.
It is very hurtful for me as a government supporter in the Senate to be constantly seeing our side under attack because of these sorts of things. There is something very wrong with that.
If this is too difficult a question, perhaps it is time to look at the overhaul of the NCC act. Perhaps we should go back and determine the intentions of the act. What are the true purposes and the true duties and obligations of land commissioners and bodies corporate of commissioners.
Perhaps we should start at the beginning. When I look at the situation around Ottawa, whether it is Lac Leamy or Moffatt Farm, something has to be done. This must be investigated, with so many questions unanswered. It is simply not proper.
The proper role of a body corporate of commissioners, such a fiduciary trust, is not to be in conflict with the citizens for whom it is supposed to be executing the trust. It is not proper.
Perhaps you think that it is proper. Do you have a view? Perhaps you are not permitted to have a view. I am sensitive to your position, and I do not want to upset it.
Mr. Guérette: The constitutionality has been discussed in your previous debates. I read the transcript with regard to that. I am not a lawyer so therefore am not in a position to make the distinctions that you are trying to make. I am not sure the discussion has been resolved in any way with regard to those principles.
With regard to accountability, I would mention that Crown corporations, whatever they are, are in fact accountable to the Parliament of Canada. I would also point out that if the corporation does not protect the public interest in any of its activities, the powers of direction that you mentioned of the Governor in Council do exist in the Federal Administration Act and could apply in the kind of cases that you were speculating on, with regard to selling the property of Parliament for other purposes.
Senator Cools: From what we have heard here, we have not been able to discern any rational basis for the reasons that certain properties are being declared surplus. For example, not myself but other members here have thought to find out what was the rationale for Montfort Woods versus Moffatt Farm. We have not been able to glean any set of standards or any clear-cut criteria. That is one reason this recommendation came forth. Most of us admire greatly much of the work that the NCC does, and one has a feeling that the capital should be a certain place with lots of green space and lots of natural beauty. It is not so simple. As the situation has unfolded, it seems someone is looking at the NCC lands and saying, ``This one is very valuable; this one will fetch a good price; let us put this one on the auction block.''
The Chairman: Senator, there are two other senators who want to ask questions.
Senator Cools: He is obviously uncomfortable. I do not want to put him under pressure because I do not think he should be answering some of these political questions.
The Chairman: Right. Two other senators have questions as well.
Senator Cools: Those questions are quite in order.
The Chairman: Two other senators want to get into the discussion on the NCC, then I have a number of senators who will want to discuss sporting events and our financial exposure there. We do not have too much time.
Senator Gauthier: To go back to the discussion you were just having, 40 years ago, when I came into politics, Mr. Chairman, neither the City of Ottawa nor the City of Hull had a planning department. The NCC was the only planning in the whole National Capital Region. That may be one of the reasons why they own or administer so much property.
[Translation]
My question is for Mr. Guérette. In large part, NCC activities are the ones that attract tourists and get the population to take part in activities such as Winterlude, and to consume service, hotel, restaurant and other products in the National Capital Region.
No one can deny that the NCC is mandated to promote Canada's linguistic duality. This is a federal institution, first and foremost. Is it not ironic that by wishing to draw Canadian and foreign consumers to the country's capital, the NCC sometimes forgets to promote linguistic duality in its commercial exchanges, in its advertising done by third parties, and in the administration of its real property portfolio? I asked the Minister this question earlier.
My office has tried to find out how federal buildings in which people rent restaurants and stores are leased. They make money in them. They do not make sure that these people really reflect the country's policy concerning linguistic duality. The site they occupy is important and prestigious. Why are we so chary?
Mr. Blais, internationally, Canada is the country that spends the least to promote our Canadian-ness, our linguistic duality and our multiculturalism, compared to all other industrialized countries. Japan spends $15 per capita per year, France, about $14, England, about $12. In Canada, we spend three dollars a year.
These figures are five or six years old. Could you give me some more up-to-date figures on the matter of cultural promotion? I really believe in it. I think that the cultural industry is a very important industry.
Last year, Tourism Canada, a corporation a bit like the NCC, had a similar budget, close to 85 million. No ads were done in the U.S. in French. The answer? Americans do not speak French. We are selling a product called Canada, which has two official languages.
When you do an international ad, do you use both official languages or do you just use English?
Ms. Carole Lacombe, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Affairs and Communications, Canadian Heritage: To understand your question better, you talk about three dollars a head. Are these figures for our department or the government in general?
Senator Gauthier: The government in general. I did this exercise when I chaired the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Ms. Lacombe: The Department of Foreign Affairs promotes abroad. There are several departments. We can only talk about our cultural activities.
Ms. Copps earlier, in her departmental overview — and you must realize her commitment concerning the cultural promotion of the duality and unique characteristics of Canada's diversity — mentioned that our department was pretty active, considering the small player that we are in the firmament of international activities in this country.
Senator Gauthier: Could you send me some figures?
Ms. Lacombe: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: How much does the department spend on cultural promotion, cultural events? I am not talking about infrastructure costs. I want to know how much you spend in the department to promote Canada outside the country, and how much you spend inside Canada?
Ms. Lacombe: Regarding the promotion of Canada, obviously within our mandate, our programs. We do not do commercial promotion directly, but through our programs, whether sports, as we mentioned earlier, or culture.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, Assistant Deputy Minister, International and Intergovernmental Affairs, Canadian Heritage: Some programs are within our area of responsibility. I am thinking of TV5. This is an instrument that we use to advertise Canada around the world. We use TV5 and it is very important to see the image of Canada abroad. We partially fund TV5 Monde. We also have a program called Trade Routes, to support the export of cultural products abroad. It is done with respect for what makes Canada Canadian, its bilingualism, its multiculturalism, and that is our strength. This is what we promote.
Senator Gauthier: The minister announced that there would soon be a multiculturalism summit. Can you give us any more information about what is coming?
Ms. Lacombe: As part of our responsibilities, we will organize a conference next April. Right now, we are in the organization phase. We are holding forums across the country with the various representatives of multi-ethnic communities.
The primary objective of this conference is to ensure better access to the panoply of the department's programs and services. We want to ensure that access to these programs is fair throughout all the ethnic communities. For instance, we have a multiculturalism program and we think that only ethnic groups can have access to this program, but we also have programs for the arts, music and publication. We want to make sure that all the country's communities have access to these programs rather than setting certain group quotas.
All this organization occurs in collaboration with the portfolio organizations so that they are made fully aware of these objectives concerning diversity. This conference will be held in mid-April.
Senator LaPierre: I belong to the committee and I chair all the forums. I will also chair the forum on April 22 to 23, in Gatineau. The forum will deal mainly with diversity and culture. We are inviting 500 people representing various groups.
This is not an international or a national summit, as far as political or governmental structure is concerned. We will hear artists of all kinds, groups of all sorts, who are having trouble with the rules and regulations, and how to go about things.
[English]
They fall between the cracks, and the minister has created this to be able to arrive at a composite and general philosophy. However, that is not the point I wanted to make.
I have two points I wish to make on the NCC. However, I must preface this by saying I am prejudiced. I have served for many years on one of the constitutional committees of the NCC. I have watched it since it was created in 1899, which was the idea of Lady Aberdeen. She was the Governor General, in essence, of Canada. She was very concerned that the city was an ugly place, and there was a need and battle between the various levels of government. Therefore, I have always supported the NCC, and I continue to do so. I have no property whatever that is adjacent to any property of the NCC.
[Translation]
I was scandalized by the message of my colleague, Senator Gauthier, concerning the privatization of buildings and the administration of NCC buildings. Minto was not advised to respect the official languages. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister. She should evaluate all the agencies, commissions and areas in which she is involved to find out exactly how official languages are part of the existence of these things. I do not know if she can talk to Mr. Beaudry. I intend to do so and tell him that it is scandalous and much more important than the Moffatt Farm.
I find it difficult, Mr. Guérette, that the NCC cannot turn to a lower court, but that it can turn to a municipal institution. This logic seems a little irrational to me.
I wish to talk about the tension between the NCC and the regional municipal authority.
[English]
After all, the National Capital Commission is an instrument of the Canadian people. It is paid for by all the Canadian people to embellish the capital region of our country, and it is its fundamental role to do that. Therefore, it must take into account the national need as opposed to the municipal need. If there is a conflict between the two, it must, therefore, take the national need.
My question to you, sir, is as follows: How is that tension resolved in the midst of the National Capital Commission? What is the criteria that makes something national? Take those trees that have been kept for the national purpose as opposed to the Moffatt Farm, which I understand will not be kept. What is it that tries to resolve that tension, operating within a regional area with a municipal government, and also operating in the name of the Canadian people responsible to the Canadian Parliament? Do you know the answer to that long question, and if not, could you please find out?
[Translation]
Mr. Guérette: I know something about one point on the question you have asked. I undertake immediately to look into this question further to find out whether this relationship may or may not exist.
I would like to point out that, because of its independence, the NCC is granted the autonomy it needs to establish this type of relationship with the municipalities within which it works. The Shortliffe report was a means of suggesting ways in which to improve this relationship for the common good.
You mention that the NCC, in its discussions, must first consider national interests and that is quite right. When I am told that I am uncomfortable discussing questions such as the Moffatt Farm or issues, it is because these are cases that fall entirely within the autonomy of the agency. If you have any questions about these particular points, it would be more appropriate to ask the agency, rather than me, as a department employee. It would be quite inappropriate to answer such questions.
[English]
The Chairman: Now, we will move to the question of international events hosted by Canada.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Well, I will now get to an international event. I did not want to embarrass the minister by bringing this one up because her enthusiastic remarks about it may have been longer than her original presentation.
I am talking about Hamilton's bid for the Commonwealth Games of 2010. Hamilton has estimated that the cost to stage the event will be $381 million. Whether that includes infrastructure, I do not know because there has been talk of the stadium being renovated or they may build a new stadium. Whether those costs are in this, I do not know.
We are looking at an event for which, as far as I know, no federal commitments have been made, although, in the Hamilton paper of January 8, 2003, a spokesman for Hamilton says that the federal government is expected to contribute $100 million.
Has the Government of Canada made a commitment of $100 million, or any amount, for that matter, should Hamilton be successful in winning the bid to stage the Commonwealth Games in 2010?
Mr. Blais: Thank you, senator, for the question. When we look at hosting international sporting events, we have to realize that there is a whole spectrum of them. Some events are very small.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We are just talking about the Hamilton Games.
Mr. Blais: I will just give you the context of that.
The department's annual budget to support the hosting of sporting events is $10 million. Large games, such as the Commonwealth Games, require the department, with other departments, to approach cabinet to see whether or not there ought to be support.
In the case of the Commonwealth Games, the deadline for submitting the bid book is the end of May. The bid book, depending on the decision of cabinet, indicates if the Canadian government would or would not support the bid. We are currently putting together and analyzing in detail the business plan, the proposals and the funding. Keep in mind there will also be partners involved, such as the local municipalities and the Province of Ontario. We are going through the due diligence process at this time and no decision has been made by the government.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you mean the government has not supported the bid formally?
Mr. Blais: The government has not rendered its decision public at this time. We are still approaching cabinet on it.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The minister, when in South Africa, made a pitch on behalf of the Canadian government before the Commonwealth Games Federation to accept the Hamilton bid.
Mr. Blais: There is support for hosting international events, but the funding decision has yet to be made. I think you quoted from the Hamilton Spectator.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes, I am quoting from the February 10 edition.
Mr. Blais: The wording is that there is an expectation of funding. However, as I said, the decision has not been made formally.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You mean the minister and the organizing committee went before the selection committee in South Africa without any commitment from any body, private or public, for funding, and expected to be taken seriously?
The Chairman: You are helping to fund the bid, are you not?
Mr. Blais: In the case of the Commonwealth Games, there is no funding support for the bid officially as there is in the case of the Olympics. There is a two-phase process in the Olympics. There is actually a bid budget, where we have contributed, and then there is the actual Games budget down the road should we be successful.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: In the minister's presentation to the Commonwealth Games Federation executive board, money was not mentioned; facilities were not mentioned; housing facilities for the athletes were not mentioned; and the cost of holding the Games was not mentioned.
Mr. Blais: I was not at that particular meeting.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: However, you are here to talk about international events.
Mr. Blais: I was not at that particular meeting, so I cannot answer what exactly was discussed in South Africa. I can tell you that, currently, officials of the department are reviewing and analyzing the proposals, and doing our due diligence to ensure that, as senators have mentioned earlier, we are protecting Canadian money when we invest in these processes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is political talk. Now let us get down to business talk. Has your department seen and vetted the budget figure of $381 million?
Mr. Blais: We are examining the budget in front of us right now.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: In that budget, is there included a $100 million request from the federal government?
Mr. Blais: The funding of hosting international sporting events is done within a policy that has existed since 1983.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Time is running out, so I will interrupt. I do not intend to be rude. If I sound impatient, it is because I am.
In the $381 million that Hamilton claims is needed to hold the event, which I gather you have before you, is there an item identified as federal government contribution, $100 million? Is there any figure, for that matter, identified with the federal government as a participant financially?
Mr. Blais: Since 1983, the government has a funding policy for sporting events that includes a percentage —
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Am I the only one understanding my question?
Senator Cools: No, your questions are excellent.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Perhaps I can say it in French.
[Translation]
Senator Lynch-Staunton: In its presentation, the city of Hamilton claims that it would need $381 million for the Commonwealth Games to be a big success in 2010. Is there in this presentation a request to the federal government for $100 million?
Mr. Blais: There is a request consistent with the policy because we were transparent. We tell them that since 1983, we have been able to fund a maximum of 35 per cent of the total budget for the event. They have an expectation, but that does not bind the government. This is a political decision that remains to be made.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am not asking you whether the government is going to accept the request, but whether the government has received a request of this order.
Mr. Blais: I do not know the amount of the request.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: My impatience has come to an end. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[English]
Senator Furey: My question concerns a word that we all like to hear. It is surplus. We understand that there have been surpluses in the past from many of these international events. For example, we understand the 1994 Victoria Commonwealth Games and the 1999 Winnipeg Pan Am Games each had a surplus. If you consider the often complicated financial structure involved in supporting these events, how does one arrive at a surplus? How is it determined? Does it include, for example, monies that are granted to these events? How do you arrive at the surplus? How do you calculate it?
Mr. Blais: There is obviously a due diligence process that occurs ahead of time. To the best of our knowledge, we try to forecast the operating revenues and expenses. It occurs sometimes that there are unforeseen higher ticket sales that would not have been expected because it is a sport that traditionally has not been in Canada. Those are the sorts of overages that there could be. The policy involves, however, for those overages to be reinvested into legacy for the Canadian sporting system.
Senator Furey: Normally when we are talking about a surplus we say that the cost is ``X'' and the revenue is ``Y''. If ``Y'' is larger than ``X'', then the difference is a surplus; correct? It is far more complicated to try to determine a surplus when you have revenue coming from different sources, particularly, for example, government grants. Are those grants paid back when we are talking about a surplus?
Mr. Blais: Generally, the surpluses are not associated with the grants.
Senator Furey: To use a phrase that would more accurately describe it, it is a subsidized surplus that we are talking about?
Senator Bolduc: That is new in public administration.
Senator Furey: Just to let you know where I am going with my question, Mr. Blais, what happens to that surplus? Where does it go? Is there any kind of policy for dealing with it?
Mr. Blais: When we get involved in one of these large events, a multiparty agreement that is signed manages the context of it with the municipal, provincial and federal level of governments, and how the surplus is dictated, is dealt with in those cases. Surpluses are the exception rather than the rule. When it comes to deficits, it is clear that we on the federal side will not assume any deficits.
The Chairman: Mr. Blais, with regard to the Commonwealth Games in Hamilton, if they are held there, I take it the federal government would be called on to contribute about 30 per cent of the cost of the Games, the total costs being $381.5 million. Thirty per cent would be $100 million, as indicated by Senator Lynch-Staunton. In addition to that proposal, are you aware of other proposals before the government to have the federal treasury fund other matters supposedly related to the Games, such as infrastructure and so on? Are you familiar with any other proposals now before the government?
Mr. Blais: In the case of the Hamilton games, as the minister mentioned, when we get into capital costs, there is some discussion right now about whether the source of funding could be the infrastructure projects.
The Chairman: Do you know Terry Whitehead, special adviser to Heritage Minister Sheila Copps?
Mr. Blais: I do not know. I have not met him.
The Chairman: He is quoted on January 10 in the Hamilton Spectator fairly extensively on this matter as to whether Pier 8 will be the site of a facility, how much money from infrastructure might be tied to waterfront development and so forth. You understand the concern of the committee. We like to know what the total exposure of the federal treasury is likely to be in the case of any of these large projects.
Mr. Blais: I understand your impatience. It is complicated, as the minister suggested, because the infrastructure costs just are not funded from our budget at Heritage Canada. An infrastructure aspect would come under the responsibility of the Industry Canada.
The Chairman: When would such decisions be made? Would they all be made at the same time as the decision to fund the games is made?
Mr. Blais: It would be done within the context of the cabinet decision because it is an amount over $10 million for a sporting event. The funding sources would be identified when we go to cabinet.
The Chairman: To move to Whistler, speaking of spending, we are told that that government, of course, is helping with the bid. Then the capital budget for the various sporting venues is $600 million, 27 per cent of which would come from Ottawa, 27 from the province and the remainder from corporations. We are talking about 27 per cent of $600 million. You can do the arithmetic.
In addition to that, there is what I referred to earlier as a ``wish list.'' They call it ``non-OCOG.'' That would be the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games. Non-OCOG capital investments include the following: roads and railways, $387 million; sports venues, $33.4 million; Olympic village, $171 million; media, $9.6 million; and, other, $43.6 million, for a total of $845 million. Those are matters that are not covered in that 27 per cent of $600 million, I take it. Those are supposedly related to widening the highway to Whistler to four lanes, adding a light-rail transit system from downtown Vancouver and building two convention centres, one in Vancouver and one in Richmond.
Again, the concern of this committee is that we are on the hook for 27 per cent of $600 million, but what about all this other stuff? What is our total exposure? How many agencies and departments would be tapped for all these other things? Does anybody know?
Mr. Blais: I can only answer for Heritage Canada. The commitment of the Government of Canada so far for the Vancouver games is capped at $310 million, which is part of the capital cost and the legacy of the games. It is consistent with the policy I mentioned earlier.
You are quite right. There have been recent requests to fund projects that are not immediately directly linked to the Olympic games per se, but the B.C. government and others have approached the federal government. Some of these relate to infrastructure projects, and, again, the Department of Industry will be dealing with that.
The Chairman: No commitments have been made on these other matters so far?
Mr. Blais: Not to my knowledge. The only commitment I will mention down the road is in these large international events we always provide essential services dealing with security, whether it is the RCMP or National Defence. That has been budgeted for $100 million.
The Chairman: There was a piece in the media in December, as matter of fact, stating that the Prime Minister and the British Columbia premier were expected to jointly announce their respective government's strong support for $495 million for a Vancouver convention centre expansion. Of course, this is considered, need I add, ``a key component'' of Vancouver's bid to host the 2010 winter Olympics. Do you know anything about that?
Mr. Blais: That was done under the strategic infrastructure plan outside the department.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: Does that not seem curious to you, we are talking about one and half billion dollars. The data we have for sports activities are $600 million. There is $800 million for roads, Olympic villages and the rest. That takes one and a half billion. Would it not seem wise to you to recommend a budget to Treasury Board for this so that we know how much it is going to cost? Is it going to cost two billion dollars? I am beginning to wonder whether Mr. Drapeau was not a bit frugal in Montreal.
Mr. Blais: We have learned a lot of things since 1976. Recently, the British Columbia auditor general conducted an in-depth study of the proposals for Vancouver. The conclusions were very positive. You are right, it is our responsibility to ensure that the funds are properly spent. The part that I manage in this budget is the 310 million that is already on the table. There are accountabilities, contracts in place, and management will be very tight.
Senator Bolduc: That accounts for 20 per cent. Could you not get together (Public Works, infrastructures and Treasury Board) to tell the government that we are talking about one and a half billion dollars. Is this the subject you wish to discuss? In other words, not budgets, but accounts, are administered. That does not make any sense!
Mr. Blais: I did not express myself properly. The total budget is managed as part of a multipartite agreement in which all the players are at the table. It is managed together. The total budget is managed as part of an accountability agreement.
The Chairman: This is not the total budget, but the total budget for the Olympics.
Mr. Blais: The direct costs.
The Chairman: That does not include the other projects as I mentioned.
[English]
I do not think any one here is questioning the desirability of, or begrudging Vancouver, these facilities. Still less are we questioning the probity of the people who are running the show out there. They are able people we see on television all the time who are doing a great job promoting their games.
From the point of view of the federal treasury, we want to know what our exposure is and how the thing will be run here from the point of view of the federal government. That is all.
Mr. Blais: We could always be better in being transparent, in showing where the money is and where it is coming from.
[Translation]
Senator LaPierre: You said that there was a municipal-provincial-federal agreement and that this agreement was managed. Is there a director general, a deputy minister who manages this whole thing and who keeps you informed or to whom you must report in carrying out your responsibilities?
Mr. Blais: In Vancouver, we are still at the stage prior to the granting of the Olympics. We think it will be successful. There is a bidding corporation in place. We are partners and we said there would be an agreement before July 2003. Once Canada gets the Games, if necessary, we will set up an organizing committee, which will be covered by this multipartite agreement. There will be federal, provincial, municipal representatives. I also have representatives reporting to me.
[English]
Senator Lynch-Staunton: There was a corporation set up under the New Brunswick Companies Act to administer the Canada Games. Is Canada represented in that corporation?
Mr. Blais: Yes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you know the name of the federal person there?
Mr. Blais: I am afraid I do not.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I looked at the names of all the directors and they all seemed to be local people. I did not identify any of them as being with the federal government.
The Chairman: They are all Canadians, though.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are all New Brunswickers and Canadians, yes.
Would you let me know?
Mr. Blais: Yes, I will let you know the name of the individual.
The Chairman: Senator Cools wanted to confirm something for the record.
Senator Cools: Yes, there was a study done by Jackson Planning Associates Inc. in 1986, or thereabouts, and it says on the inside, ``Submitted to Environment Canada Parks.'' Was that your study?
Mr. Guérette: I am not aware of that study.
Senator Cools: Did your department commission this study?
Mr. Guérette: Not that I am aware of. If you do not mind, I will look at it and get you an answer on this.
Senator Cools: I am very curious, because the name of the study is ``Black Rapids to Hog's Back: Water Management Study and Hog's Back Marina Facility Study, Rideau Canal 1986'', and the subject of the study is the entire area of Black Rapids, Mooney's Bay, Hog's Back. One of the recommendations was that the green corridor into the city, which this section of the Rideau River still is, constitutes one of Ottawa's major assets both for its citizens and its visitors and it must not be lost.
I am just curious because these names are not always that clear.
The Chairman: Parks Canada was not under the witness's portfolio that long ago. In any case, he can trace it.
Senator Cools: I am very curious about the background of this report.
Mr. Guérette: You are correct, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, Parks Canada was with Environment Canada before it came to our department.
Senator Cools: I am very interested because the terminology keeps changing.
The Chairman: Will you undertake to find out, Mr. Guérette?
Mr. Guérette: I will, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I want to thank the officials for having stayed behind and helping us with these matters.
The committee adjourned.