CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 24, 1999

• 1104

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to officially call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the standing committee is conducting a series of round tables on the government's evolving role in support of Canadian culture in the context of a rapidly changing national and international environment.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome our guests and thank them for coming. We are honoured to have you here with us today.

• 1105

[English]

The usual practice of the committee is to listen to presentations of our witnesses, but this time we decided to have a round table, with members and invited speakers sitting together, in order to exchange a more fruitful dialogue and actually participate and listen to one another and raise the issues that are important to you.

Our committee is undertaking a study of the challenges facing culture on the eve of the next century, with the globalization of trade, the economy, emerging technologies, the Internet and others, and their impact on culture and our cultural instruments, along with the demographic changes that will transform present-day Canada into a completely different country in the 21st century.

Our predecessor committee began this study before the last election, and fortunately this committee decided this work should continue. The issues we are dealing with are the types of support already put in place by the federal government and how this support and roles such as ownership and cultural content, federal grants to federal institutions, or tax incentives will enable us to face the challenges of the next millennium.

[Translation]

As I was saying, the three main challenges facing us as far as the study goes are the advent of new technologies, the evolution of the global economy and global trade and the changing demographics in the country.

First, as committee members, we wanted to inform ourselves thoroughly. One year ago, we held a parliamentary forum on cultural policy, international trade and technology in the new millennium. At this forum, we organized round tables on various sectors: the arts, heritage, the television film and video industry and then broadcasting and sound recording.

The forum was very successful in identifying key themes which, I hope, we will have a chance to discuss with you today.

[English]

We have heard from representatives of the various federal cultural institutions and officials of various departments. We have had briefings from experts on the evolution of technology, international trade and demographics.

In this last phase, through these round tables, we want to cover certain sectors specifically and get input from you, as the people who practise culture on the front lines, to find out how you manage to survive in the cultural milieu and how you will face the challenges of the next century.

Obviously, in a format such as this and in the short time, it is impossible to cover a lot of ground, but we want to cover as much ground as possible. At the back of your programs you will see there are five questions we would like you to address, but not all of you may want to address these questions. You may want to address one or two, or any combination of them.

We are basically interested in your views, and hopefully by the end of this week we will have some answers as to what role the federal government should perform in the future to support the cultural sector. Should the federal government exercise its role as a regulator, a legislator, an owner/operator of national institutions, a funding partner, a patron of the arts, a business developer, promoter or other?

[Translation]

Naturally, both official languages are welcome here, so you can speak in your preferred language. We hope we won't get speeches, only brief remarks so there's an exchange of opinions all around the table.

[English]

To start our work, I would like to ask all the participants to introduce themselves very briefly—not a complete bio—and give your name, what you do and how you are involved in the arts and culture sector. Then I would like to invite comments from you as well. We would ask that you keep your interventions short, two to three minutes. That will give us the opportunity to come back to you five or six times. It will give us the ability to address issues that may come up from questions.

So I would like to start the introductions.

• 1110

Ms. Rose Marie Sackela (Representative, Rocky Mountain House French Immersion Kindergarten Society; Rocky Mountain House Chapter, Canadian Parents for French): My name is Rose Marie Sackela. I'm here representing the Rocky Mountain House French Immersion Kindergarten Society and the Rocky Mountain House chapter of Canadian Parents for French and the French immersion program in that community.

I'm an instructor with the Alberta Teachers' Association and I'm also a freelance writer now. I've been a public school teacher in social studies and English language arts for just under 20 years. I have two children in French immersion. One is in grade 11 and one is in grade 6.

The program in Rocky Mountain House will graduate its first French immersion graduate this year in grade 12. It goes from K to 12, and we have only been able to establish and continue that program because of the federal government's support. Rocky Mountain House is in the cultural milieu of central Alberta.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome and thank you.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Eric Lowther. I'm the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre and the deputy critic for heritage with the Reform Party. I am here more to learn and get educated than to be an expert, that's for sure. I'm a family man with two daughters and a son who are all very actively involved in the arts, in music, drawing, the performing arts, choir, etc. We're a family that loves the arts, but more from the consumption or audience side than from the presentation side, until recently with my own children. I'm here to learn and ask questions and it's a pleasure to be here.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Louisette Villeneuve (President, Association canadienne française de l'Alberta): Good morning. My name is Louisette Villeneuve and I am president of the Association canadienne française de l'Alberta. I represent the 60,000 francophones who live in Alberta. Our association is involved in the arts and culture field. We have a special sector for arts and culture and we participate in the artistic and cultural development of francophones and francophiles in Alberta. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome.

[English]

Mr. John Mahon (Executive Director, Edmonton Arts Council): I'm John Mahon, the executive director of the Edmonton Arts Council. The Edmonton Arts Council is an organization of artists. We have over 250 members. It was created by the City of Edmonton to allocate the City of Edmonton funding for arts and festivals, and to advise the city on arts and cultural policy, as well as to participate in as many city forums as possible and applicable, to make sure artists, arts organizations and arts and culture are well served by the community of Edmonton.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Benoît Sauvageau. I am the Bloc Québécois member representing the riding of Repentigny, which is northeast of Montreal Island. I am also my party's international trade critic. As my colleague from the Reform Party said, we have embarked on this trip primarily to listen and, indeed, we are learning a great deal. I am, therefore, very pleased to be here with you. I'd like to thank you and wish you a pleasant afternoon.

[English]

Mr. Peter Savaryn (President, Alberta Ukrainian Commemorative Society): My name is Peter Savaryn. I'm the president of the Alberta Ukrainian Commemorative Society, and I'm interested in culture generally and multiculturalism in Canada.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome.

[Translation]

Ms. Adriana A. Davies (Executive Director, Museums Alberta): Good morning. My name is Adriana Davies. I am the Director of Museums Alberta, which represents more than 200 museums and more than 500 individual members.

[English]

My name is Adriana Davis. I'm the executive director of Museums Alberta, the association of Alberta's museums. We have over 200 institutional members as well as over 500 individual members.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): I'm glad to be joining the committee after a day of absence. I apologize.

My name is Mark Muise. I'm the member of Parliament for West Nova in Nova Scotia. I'm the Progressive Conservative critic for heritage on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and I'm glad to be with you today.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome.

Ms. Heather Redfern (General Manager, Catalyst Theatre): Hi. My name is Heather Redfern and I'm the artistic producer of the Catalyst Theatre here in Edmonton. My particular interest today is because funding from Heritage has actually affected our company quite directly. We do not receive funding ourselves, but had to cancel a tour to eastern Canada this spring because funds had been cut to festivals we had applied to and had been invited to perform at. That is my personal interest or my company's interest in this issue.

• 1115

Furthermore, our work is very much on the edge of experimental work. There are certainly a lot of companies like ours in the country who have had a great deal of luck finding forums for that work internationally, but within our own country we have found it extremely difficult to see each other's work or have forums where our work can be presented to audiences across the country.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome, Heather.

Mr. Todd Janes (Executive Director, Latitude 53 Society of Artists): Good morning, everyone. My name is Todd James. I'm the executive director of the Latitude 53 Society of Artists. We are a 26-year-old, artist-run centre representing over some 300 artists, writers and cultural producers throughout northern Alberta.

I'm very excited that the committee has chosen to come to Edmonton today for this round table discussion, and I applaud the efforts of the committee to do an ongoing examination of culture throughout our nation. I'm very interested in how we will be focusing cultural attention and initiative to nurture, support and develop experimental work throughout the nation.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome.

Ms. Elizabeth Whitlock (General Manager, Edmonton Opera): Good morning. I'm Elizabeth Whitlock, and I'm the general manager of Edmonton Opera. It's one of two professional companies here in Alberta, and our company is 35 years old this season.

As I'm sure you can appreciate, opera is a very costly business. We are of course reliant on government funding, as well as private funding and ticket revenues. One of the struggles that we have is trying to expand beyond the normal, traditional, mainstage grand opera, to try to look at ways to enhance new Canadian works while expanding the opportunities for young Canadian singers as well. We're very interested in seeing ways in which we can explore this together.

I'm delighted to be here.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Mr. Bob McPhee (General Director and Chief Executive Officer, Calgary Opera Association): Good morning. I'm Bob McPhee, the recently appointed general director and CEO of the Calgary Opera. Prior to that, I was president and CEO of the Winspear Centre and the Edmonton Symphony.

For the last fifteen years I've worked in the orchestra area. When I left the orchestra to go to opera, it was pointed out to me that I was the longest-surviving—and I think “surviving” is an important word—director of an orchestra in this country, so I think that's one of the things we have to address in the course of this meeting.

It's my pleasure to be here.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Congratulations on your recent appointment, and welcome.

Mr. Vincent Varga (Executive Director, Edmonton Art Gallery): Good morning. My name is Vincent Varga, and I'm the executive director of the Edmonton Art Gallery. We too are celebrating an anniversary this year. It's our 75th anniversary. We're the longest-standing cultural institution in the province of Alberta. We're certainly proud to inform people about that and to celebrate it this year, and we're looking forward to our next 75 years, particularly in partnership with Canadian Heritage.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Congratulations. Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mauril Bélanger, Member for Ottawa—Vanier and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I'm very pleased to be here and I hope to learn a lot.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

My name is Sarmite Bulte, but everybody calls me Sam. I'm the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park in Toronto. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and I've been given the honour of chairing this western tour. I'm also the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment. Finally, in my former life I was the chairman of the Canadian Stage Company. I'm delighted to be here.

Just before we start, I want to point out that there are microphones at the back. I will come to the audience as well if you have some questions during our two hours. Again, I would ask that we keep our interventions brief, so that we can truly have an exchange and learn from one another.

Who would like to start? Ms. Davies.

Ms. Adriana Davies: As I said, the Alberta Museums Association represents over 200 museums. If you include museums in the formative stages and other heritage organizations, that probably bumps us up to nearly 300. Two-thirds of our museums are totally volunteer run. Of course, federal funding does not touch them directly.

I want to address a number of issues—first of all, museum funding. The 1990 new museum policy, which was the result of three years' worth of consultations with the museum community, proposed significant increases in museum funding through the museum assistance program. This did not happen. In fact, we saw funding to MAP eroded until this year, when we have seen a modest reinfusion of cash, which goes nowhere toward meeting the 1990 targets, nor does it address the erosion of real funding based on inflation over the years.

• 1120

In terms of museum human resources, as you know, museums across the country make extensive use of volunteers. In Alberta, over two-thirds of our over 200 museums are totally volunteer run. This places an enormous burden on our professionals within the system, and I include my own organization, which provides a museum advisory service. There are nine of us. I think we must address the staffing needs of our museums—small, medium, and large—as well as the continuing professional education needs of museum workers. The transfer of retraining moneys to the provinces has left major gaps that we need to address.

With respect to the role of governments in museum operations and development, in many European countries culture is viewed as a core function of all levels of government. I'd like to point out that in France roads are not a core service—you pay tolls virtually everywhere you go—but culture is funded by four governmental levels. They have a regional cultural funding program.

Unfortunately in Canada, cultural funding is viewed as a discretionary activity and user pay is expected to support much cultural activity. I believe the Liberal red book assigned to the arts and heritage the value they must have in a democratic society. They are about our identity and what makes us different as a nation from other countries.

We would ask the committee to return to the red book and look at the ways all of us around this table can reinforce Canadian identity and help shape good citizens.

In regard to the role and responsibilities of the national museum and service agencies, as you all know, we have a major resource in the national capital region. We must ensure that creative ways are found to make this accessible to other heritage institutions and individuals across the country, and to all Canadians. The travelling exhibition program, as an example, is underresourced. In terms of the new technology, museums do not have the funds to place all their knowledge resources into a form that is accessible through the Internet. As well, I think in the human resources areas opportunities for secondments, practicums, and job-sharing arrangements must be developed across the country.

With respect to federal-provincial government responsibilities in the area of heritage, I believe we have not even begun to tap that potential, and I think we seriously have to address how the senior levels of government—federal and provincial—can collaborate in this area. But I will also throw in the municipal area, because many cultural organizations are linked with the municipal level of government.

Our minister, Sheila Copps, has placed an emphasis on pan-Canadian initiatives, and I believe the museum community is ready to act on that request, and that we would like... As you know, responsibilities for heritage are split. There's the built environment, the natural environment, and then there is all the material culture, collections-based. I think we have to address how all government departments that have responsibilities in this area can collaborate.

Finally, in regard to the role of museum associations, federal funding only touches the largest of our museums. Through funding to museum associations for training and other activities, the federal government impacts on every museum in the country. This funding support should increase, and associations should not be placed in a position of competition with member museums through the museum assistance program and other funding sources.

Thank you very much for hearing me.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much for opening.

Who would like to follow, either on this topic or on something else? Mr. McPhee.

• 1125

Mr. Bob McPhee: I think you could take museum out of everything that Adriana said and put orchestra, or opera, or art gallery, or anything into her statements. She's covered a great deal of the issues.

I guess the level of frustration that I have personally is that—maybe I've been around too long—over the last two decades we've been asking for cultural policy in this country on behalf of the arts companies, and I think there's a high level of frustration that this hasn't been accomplished over the last 20 years, or even before that. That's a frustration that I bring to the table.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Okay, Mr. McPhee, maybe before we go on I will challenge you on this. Yesterday we had representatives from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, who actually have come together in a working group that is working on a cultural policy for the 21st century.

One of the things they did examine was Canada's cultural policy to date, which of course is made up of two things. One is the emphasis on the artist and the creative process, and the other is the emphasis on the infrastructure to ensure that the artist is showcased.

I guess one of the questions we'd like to hear answers to is whether that policy is still relevant today, and if not, why not. One of the ways we're trying to do that is to address it through the... I'll let you think about it. I don't want an immediate answer.

Mr. Bob McPhee: Certainly I think it's relative to the support of the individual artist, but it depends on the discipline you're in too. I think it's greatly different from an orchestra, which needs, as musicians, the infrastructure and the institution within which to present their art form. Ultimately the training and the development of the individual artist is vital, but you can't neglect the companies that then give them the support to present their craft.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Mr. Janes, you had your hand up.

Mr. Todd Janes: Yes, I would like to support what Ms. Davies said.

I think one thing that certainly is important is that the arts have been constantly underfunded and attacked for the past 20 years at least in Canada. One is seeing more and more, with the evolution or the devolution of arts funding, that organizations—presenting institutions, training institutions for artists as well—need a stable, consistent core funding to survive.

More and more, there is less operational funding out there to do things like pay rent, manage facilities, actually reward and retain the expertise that has developed in human resource industries, and there needs to be a commitment from the federal government. The federal government, I would say, needs to take some political strength and show some political will and to put forward stable core funding support for art and cultural institutions throughout the country. That may take a number of different forms, and—to reflect back to the CCA's suggestion for a moment—infrastructure is incredibly important. I think we perhaps need to look at a paradigm shift for infrastructure and look at that just a little bit differently from what it was.

We're not just talking about buildings. We're also talking about core support and programs that enable dreams to become reality, allow artists and cultural producers an opportunity to dream and to realize that possibility. We have incredibly strong examples throughout Canada of this occurring, but we need a mechanism and the funding and the support to make that more of an occurrence throughout the country. This infrastructure support should look at addressing the deficits that occur in cultural industries that we have today. It should address such things as support for arts managers, artistic directors, to retain those people.

The art and cultural industry relies a great, great deal on the support of volunteers. There needs to be a realization that this too is a human resource and it needs to be managed, appreciated, and recruited properly. That includes the support for trained professional staff to manage and to realize those programs. We are faced more and more with having to go to corporations or other people for support.

• 1130

I believe a vision of a nation involves a government that believes culture and artistic growth are not only vital but also paramount to our culture. That needs to be included in an infrastructure. There needs to be an environment where, when people develop some degree of success, they don't just leave. There needs to be the support for innovative artists and cultural producers to take risks to forward the level of artistic exploration, and that needs financial support.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Janes.

Mr. Varga, you're nodding your head, so go ahead.

Mr. Vincent Varga: Thank you very much.

Certainly I'd like to echo what Bob suggested about the need for a comprehensive cultural policy that dovetails more appropriately—and I'll give you an example—the relationship between the museum assistance program and the Canada Council, for example.

But there's one thing I think the policy should also reflect. Although culture is important in defining national identity, it's also, let's face it, part and parcel of how we attract international investment to this country. I think we should remember that. It is part of the way we draw business to the country and retain it here. Certainly within our communities, we use that as a very active feature relative to how we are trying to work with our business partners in the city.

In terms of what I was suggesting about the Canada Council, one of the difficulties we do have is the infrastructure problem we're currently facing. This morning I received a fax about the museum assistance program receiving additional funding, which I think is really wonderful. But what happens is that within the context of that increase, facilities such as the Edmonton Art Gallery find it increasingly difficult to access funding from the museum assistance program. For the last 15 years we've seen a constant erosion of those funds that, in essence, made it possible for the Edmonton Art Gallery and other institutions like it to manage, care, and develop our historical collections.

The national patrimony exists throughout the country, not just in Ottawa. I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding and a miscomprehension that we don't do collecting activity outside of Ottawa. The reality is that the museum assistance program was the core of what allowed us to maintain and build those collections. We've just made a commitment toward hiring a collections curator for the gallery, but we're going to find it increasingly difficult to support that position, because now we see that the access to services program has been eliminated. So we're going to be facing a very difficult problem.

The other issue is the physical plant infrastructure. The reality is that many of the institutions across the country, particularly galleries, were founded as centennial projects. We're all reaching the end of the life cycles of our buildings, and it's time the federal government recognized its fiduciary responsibility to also maintain that infrastructure. They encouraged communities to build these buildings 30-some years ago, so let's make sure we maintain them for future generations as well.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Varga. You can rest assured that this is something that has come up time and time again in our consultations, not just with galleries but also with theatres, especially where they're not provincially or municipally owned.

Ms. Rose Marie Sackela: I think a number of the points that were made earlier also apply to the French immersion program—for example, shaping good citizens, establishing an identity, even business and commerce. I just read an article by the president of the University of Alberta that said that international experiences have to be a part of every university student's experience, because they're not going to spend their life just in Alberta or just in Canada.

We have the same problem of a lack of stable and adequate funding in order to survive. When French immersion began about 10 years ago in Rocky Mountain House, the federal government, through what is now Canadian Heritage, would provide approximately $300 per student of extra funding because of the cost of additional teachers—and sometimes the classrooms would be smaller than other classrooms—and also the extra cost of materials in French, which are more expensive. We would have the services of a French monitor upon application, as in other communities across the country. With that we built a very successful program.

• 1135

Today the funding is about $61 per student. It's making it very difficult for us to maintain even the split classrooms we run when we have a smaller number of French immersion students. We don't have enough textbooks. In Alberta for three or four years there has been no additional funding for French immersion programs, basically because the provincial government doesn't agree with the concept.

I brought with me a document, and I'd like to read a couple of excerpts from it to give you an idea of the benefits of French immersion beyond just learning and being able to converse fluently in two languages. I asked the guidance counsellor at Rocky Mountain House Elementary School, who is provincially recognized and was sent as only one of two teacher-counsellors to the Mandela gathering in Toronto this fall, to write down a few of the things she has told me over the years about working with the French immersion students. She works in a dual-track school, so there's English and our French immersion program from kindergarten to grade six. So she wrote this for me yesterday. She said:

At Rocky Elementary we have a very successful Conflict Resolution Process where the conflicts are mediated by Grade 5 and 6 students. It has been my experience that the french immersion students are more proficient than others. This might be attributed to the fact that the french immersion students have better communication skills because of their ability to converse in both languages. They also seem to have a better understanding of and consequently a greater tolerance for individual differences. Probably because of their exposure to two cultures, they seem better able to come up with more creative solutions to problems. They also manifest a higher level of self-confidence and competence.

I'd like to say that in Rocky Mountain House French immersion hasn't always been, and still isn't, greeted as a great triumph by the vast majority of people who aren't in the program. We've struggled to keep the program. At one point we had a doctor's wife announce that she was the head of Canadian Parents for English. We struggle within the community, and yet we have people who work in the schools tell us that it's producing something better than two languages.

So she asked if any of the teachers in the school, who haven't always been supportive either, had anything else to add. She jotted down a few more comments. One individual said that French immersion students seem to be more open-minded to differences and more accepting of other cultures. Another person said that exposure to a second culture helps one to better understand one's own culture. A third person said that facility in a second language often stimulates the desire to learn others. The fourth person said that children benefit from the affirmation received when they manifest the ability to converse in two languages.

When a teacher started a French club for English students, the response was overwhelming. Prior to that, any time you ever mentioned French, French club, or core French, the response was, we don't want Quebec in Canada.

So we're talking language, we're talking brain development, we're talking developing human resources, and we're talking a lot about Canadian unity as well.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I would like to mention that we also welcome written submissions. This goes for everyone present, and perhaps you could pass it on to organizations you're associated with. We would like to receive those written submissions by March 30.

Ms. Rose Marie Sackela: Perhaps I could just add one more point. The last of your questions is, should the government's role still be that of regulator? I would say that in the case of grants for French immersion programs, I think it's important there be some auditing done and some maintenance of the same level of funding across the country. We have Alberta, which won't contribute, and in central Alberta the feeling is very strong, often opposed to French immersion, learning French, tied to Quebec, etc. It's misplaced, but it still very much drives the politics of the area.

• 1140

We need not only to have the government to stabilize our programs, but we also need some auditing, even at the school board level. I have heard from a number of teachers and people in the system who say it's really important that the government should track the money they give us; we've got to have some auditing and tracking so that we get to use what you give us for what it was meant for. And we need an increase.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Madame Villeneuve.

[Translation]

Ms. Louisette Villeneuve: As you may have guessed, our situation is also quite unique. We are experiencing the same problems facing our fellow artists, however, in addition, we are a minority. So we have those problems that are specific to the field of arts and culture as well as the difficulties associated with being a minority.

We therefore have problems putting on shows and exhibits for our visual artists. This is a very serious problem given how far removed we are from the main provinces of Eastern Canada, namely, Ontario and Quebec. We find it hard to attract artists to come here or to send our artists there, so that our professional artists often leave because they cannot make a living from their art. They leave us to go to Quebec. When this happens, we lose those people who can train our younger artists that are just developing. Consequently, we have a very special problem.

We must also remember that Alberta is a province where there is no longer a Department of Culture. We have the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, but that shows that, as far as the Government of Alberta is concerned, arts and culture are not a priority. This is also a problem that is specific to Alberta. It is a very serious problem and we experience it first hand. Sometimes, when we apply for assistance under certain federal programs, there has to be provincial participation. If our province is not supporting us because it does not invest a great deal in the field, we lose out on federal grants.

There's also the Cultural Initiatives Program, known as the CIP. The financing available from this program has been frozen for many years. It's always the same very well-established festivals that get the financing. We had the Jazz Festival and the Folk Music Festival in Edmonton. They were subsidized. We have a big provincial francophone festival once a year. We are celebrating our 10th anniversary. We have been eligible for funding from this program for ten years, but since all of the money was given to festivals that were already well-established, we couldn't get access to any money. This year, fortunately or unfortunately, a jazz festival has disappeared in Alberta, and we're going to be able to get money from the program because another festival has died. All the same, it's quite an unfortunate situation. If you want to encourage the development of new festivals and give our artists a chance to be seen, you're going to have to increase this budget so that new festivals can tap into the funding.

As for the use of technology, we have implemented an electronic network, the FrancAlta, which is on the Internet. We now have 300 sites in French and we're trying to use it to showcase our artists so that they can be seen and heard. Because of the distance problem here in the Canadian West, we use high technology a great deal. This is a very important factor. Our population is sparse and we have to cover great distances.

These are my comments. Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Yes, Ms. Redfern.

Ms. Heather Redfern: I just wanted to say that was wonderful. Thank you.

• 1145

As to what she was saying about festivals, it's a huge problem. We have a tremendous amount of talent in all disciplines. We have young up-and-coming artists who really are making a name for themselves and have very little opportunity to perform in festivals in this country because of exactly what you're talking about. These established festivals that have been there for however many years and receive the funding are not necessarily the festivals that are going to be programming the younger, more experimental kinds of work.

This is going to become a crisis in two years, when du Maurier's funding disappears, because a lot of those established festivals will have then lost a major corporate partner and will be needing federal funding on an even greater level, I should imagine, than they do now. It's a big void.

I was in Australia in the fall, and every major city in Australia has a major cross-disciplinary festival that features a lot of international work but also a lot of young Australian work. It is certainly a model that I think the department and minister could have a look at.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Just on a point of clarification, does your festival funding come through the Canada Council, or directly from the department?

Ms. Heather Redfern: My company specifically does not receive festival funding. We were invited to two festivals back east this spring, and because their funding that comes from Heritage Canada was cut, they were unable to bring us to their festivals. I believe it comes directly... John?

Mr. John Mahon: Heritage Canada funds four festivals in Edmonton. The Edmonton Arts Council funds 17 festivals, plus a number of smaller festivals.

I don't want to interrupt your presentation, Heather, but I had some more things to say on that.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'd like to ask a question about that particular notion of festivals.

If there were to be changes in the formula, would you want a fixed sum for established and another one for new—whatever split, 80-20, 60-40—or would you prefer a mechanism that phases out so that you can only get funding for a number of years and after that you're locked out, or something else? What suggestions would you have to make on that?

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Janes.

Mr. Todd Janes: I have two quick things on that. Latitude 53 doesn't currently produce a festival, but that is certainly one of the things we are looking at.

First, I would really like to put forward that instead of using a funding formula for festivals, it would actually become a peer-juried system. I think peer juries work better than a formula-funded system.

The second thing I would like to suggest is that as opposed to looking at some type of restrictive formula—of course we'd all like more money—if you are adding new festivals to the pot, I think it would be incumbent on the funder to actually add new dollars when you add new festivals to that pot.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Mahon.

Mr. John Mahon: Thank you.

We use a peer-juried system at the Edmonton Arts Council for festival funding. The City of Edmonton puts quite a lot of money into festivals in comparison with other municipalities. They put about as much into festivals as they do into other arts groups.

On average, I think festivals do need ongoing public funding. Our figures show that about 20% of a successful festival's funding comes from the public purse at one level of government or another. Cities in particular put a fair amount of money into festivals because of their obvious economic impact on the city.

We have a festival seed fund as well, which is a fairly modest amount of money. It's to help emerging festivals get established. Our experience is that it's pretty hard to get a festival going. There's a real question about what is a festival in terms of size, impact, and outreach. To get a festival going you need a certain incubation period, but once it's up and running, it should be as close as you get to a quasi-commercial machine in the non-profit arts context.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Mahon, if I could just ask you a point of clarification, I still don't understand. The city funds so many festivals, but the federal funding comes from whom? Does it come from—

Mr. John Mahon: Heritage Canada.

• 1150

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): From the department, not from the Canada Council.

Mr. John Mahon: Not the Canada Council.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Okay, thank you.

Ms. Heather Redfern: I'd like to continue with what I was saying.

Another possibility is to give the money to the Canada Council and create a festivals program and do it that way. There are other options. There are other ways of looking at it. It is a big problem. I just wanted to let you know.

The other thing in terms of cultural policy that I would like to see Heritage Canada do is intervene or advocate on behalf of artists in terms of our income tax status. This is another huge problem for us, and also for our companies, in terms of our employment or self-employment status and in terms of what we are and are not allowed to deduct. It seems that Revenue Canada policy is being applied across the country in a very patchy way; there's no consistency whatsoever from one constituency to another. We really don't know whether we're coming or going. We don't know if we're doing what we're supposed to do or if we're not. So this is something that should be entrenched in a cultural policy. Then Revenue Canada carries out whatever they have to do.

The other thing I want to flag is I get very nervous when I hear about dollars going to the new technology bandwagon. Yes, it is out there, and we all have to deal with it—and believe me, we do. Our children deal with it every day at school, and we deal with it as cultural workers. I would hate to see any funding lost from live performance to any kind of new technology, because I think that is an experience, an expensive experience, that we cannot replace with film, with videotape, with... Listening to the symphony on the Internet just isn't the same thing as sitting in the Winspear. I would like to make that point as well.

The other thing I'd like to say, and I'll make this very brief, is I would like somewhere in a cultural policy a recognition that one of the largest subsidizers of the arts in this country are artists and arts workers, because of the low wages they receive for the work they do and because of the huge amount of volunteer work they have to do just to keep their companies afloat. I think sometimes artists are thought of as being people who are always looking for grants and handouts and sort of sucking the government tit, if you like. We have to remember that the ticket is subsidized to that member sitting in the audience by the artists who are creating the work.

Thanks.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much. You can rest assured that the status of the artists and the whole self-employment area of the new demographics and concerns with Revenue Canada have all been brought to our attention.

This was brought to our attention in Thunder Bay with the Revenue Canada ruling. I have a speaker who maybe can comment on that as well. I understand there's a lot of concern in the community about that.

One of the things that was raised in Winnipeg was that perhaps one of the reasons we've been so long in getting a cultural policy is the complexity in the interdepartmentalization of culture. Culture affects every single department. Maybe what we should be looking at is a policy that requires every department to look at how it will affect cultural policy. I just say that for food for thought.

Madame Villeneuve.

[Translation]

Ms. Louisette Villeneuve: I'd like to comment on a situation that very few people experience here, in Alberta. When our projects are turned down by the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, it's often for reasons that are totally ridiculous and we realize that the peer jury, comprised exclusively of anglophones, didn't understand anything whatsoever about the project. We are therefore doubly penalized compared with our anglophone artists, who present their project in English.

This is extremely difficult when we submit a play or something similar. We're not about to translate the play into English in order to have it assessed. This is a very difficult situation that is specific to our group.

• 1155

To answer Mr. Bélanger's question, in the case of a festival, for instance, the federal government withdraws its funding. Let say that the federal government agrees to provide you with financing for the next five years and then nothing after that. There is a risk that you may lose the equivalent funding provided by the province. The province provided money because the federal government was doing so. You get caught. If it's the Canada Council that's providing you with the money, you then have to hire only professionals. You lose your budding artists, your future artists because they are not yet in the professional category and cannot be financed by the Canada Council. That's all I have to say for now. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Janes?

Mr. Todd Janes: I would actually like to follow up on a few points made by my colleague Ms. Redfern. I think there are a couple of things that are very important, and there are a number of things the federal government has been looking at for a long time and a number of bills that have just fallen by the wayside when Parliament has closed for a session. I would very much like to see a re-examination of the status of the artist legislation. I would also like to see some new work on the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. I think these are two areas for which there needs to be a fair bit of exploration and revision to look at both of these, and maybe one day we would actually see a status of the artist legislation bill passed.

The other thing is to follow up on income tax. As I'm sure the committee is quite aware, a large percentage of the ability to woo and bring business or corporations into joint partnerships with the cultural industry is the fact that many of the arts organizations have official charitable status.

I'm wondering if there's any will on the part of this committee to actually push for some type of equalization. As we are quite aware, tax credits given to political parties carry much more weight in an income tax system than those to cultural artistic organizations. And I think it would be wonderful—because we're dreaming today—to actually have a level playing field so the amount you actually contribute to an arts organization or a cultural industry is equal to what you contribute to a political party. I'm wondering, because the committee's filled with a number of people who perhaps sit around the table or a room with the finance minister, Mr. Martin, from time to time, if that is something the committee's willing to put forward as an initiative.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Janes.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Following along the same lines as Mr. Janes was going, I think we all recognize that there needs to be a basic level of funding to ensure that culture and the arts stay in place, but I would like to investigate a bit further what other avenues and what other things there are. What other tax incentives are there? Dollars themselves don't just make this happen; there must be other things. I would like to get the discussion going in that direction a little bit.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I would like to go around, so could you think about these things as I come to you.

Mr. Savaryn.

Mr. Peter Savaryn: Madam Chair, I don't know how I fit in. I am of Ukrainian origin. I believe in multiculturalism and I wonder sometimes what is the Canadian identity.

Let me start with a few general propositions. Number one, I would add to the roster of Canadian freedoms, freedom of culture, just as there is freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and so on. That is basic. Then we would not have to fight about identity; each ethnic group in Canada would know that they have the right to their own culture.

• 1200

My second proposition would be that the state, the government, be it federal or provincial, should have a definite cultural policy for the preservation and enhancement of cultures, and that would include operas, archives, museums, language schools, and so on and so on.

Why? I believe that a nation without culture is like a tree without roots. I remember when I was studying at the university, our professor used to say no country can be great without a culture, and sooner or later it will lose its independence. I have a lot of respect for our neighbours to the south, but our culture should not be for sale and we shouldn't say, but we'll lose jobs. I say, to heck with jobs if it comes to the soul of the nation, which is our own identity, which is our own culture.

What is Canadian identity? Do you remember in 1964 Prime Minister Mike Pearson's B and B, or biculturalism and bilingualism, commission? And we agreed. We came to a consensus that bilingualism is fine, but not biculturalism, not a principle of two founding races or nations.

So if my French fellow Canadians are complaining about lack of support for French culture here in the west, what can we say of other origins? Madam Chair, what can we of Ukrainian origin, or German origin, or Jewish origin, and so on say? We don't even have that support they enjoy.

Homo sapiens, yes. Can you imagine we have technology and no jobs, more and more and more? I have a little booklet with me here, Small is Beautiful by Schumacher. He believes that small is beautiful, that culture is a necessity. There are about 5,000 languages in the world. Our own Bible is translated into close to 1,500 languages now, yet there are only about 200 independent states. Twenty per cent of those independent states consume 85% of all the capital of the world, the twenty lowest ones have only 2%. When is enough enough?

These are my basic questions. I simply say, until we introduce the concept of freedom of culture, until a state and each government introduces legislation to support the cultures, multiculturalism in short in Canada will have no peace and we'll have all these problems. We simply don't respect our own talent, we look to the south always. And I don't believe that they are any better than we are. In Maclean's magazine I read a few months ago a big article: “Auf Wiedersein English”. I suggest that one, two, three or five more languages means five more outlooks at views on life, five more windows into the world, which are basic to our existence.

Materialism is getting us nowhere. Culture is the solution, and tolerance. Thank you.

• 1205

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much. Your comments are duly noted.

Mr. Mahon.

Mr. John Mahon: Thank you.

When I got the list of questions, I of course found them all very interesting, but it seemed to me that question five was the one I wanted to address primarily. I'm wondering now if the question is in itself rhetorical, if there really is any issue of whether the federal government should be involved in the support of arts and culture in this country. If there is any question, then I would say yes to all the roles.

The unique position of the federal government, their legislative power, their budget and their perspective, I think gives it a role and a duty indeed to partake in the preservation, development and maintenance of Canadian culture; but it is a partner in it. Speaking from the municipal level, we also have a role as a city.

As a bit of information, and these are all numbers, we have applications from about 105 organizations this year for funding, all non-profit organizations, including 17 festivals and the rest being arts groups. We will allocate $1.8 million from city money. Of those groups, 41 of them received federal funding last year in some form or another, primarily from the Canada Council but also Canadian Heritage, totalling $2.6 million.

An interesting thing about those 41 groups is that they tend to be the organizations that are taking artistic chances, that are taking artistic risks. The federal government, through the Canada Council, is able to support groups, through their peer jury system, that are doing good art. Although they have other considerations, they don't have the same levels of considerations that we at a municipal level do, where we fund a lot more groups because we're concerned not only about whether they're doing good art but also their community impact.

The provincial government has another set of priorities. So we are all partners in this. The city's commitment to the arts in Edmonton is growing. Municipal politicians are often quite aware of the dollar implications. We've verified in this town that the non-profit arts and culture make a positive contribution to the economy. The economic impact annually of our groups is $75 million compared to—and this makes quite a lot of news in Edmonton—the economic impact of a Grey Cup, which is $37 million. Every year, we're able to do the equivalent of two Grey Cups in terms of economic impact.

However, I believe the city is not only quickly moving from the positive financial side of it, but they're also fostering a widespread recognition that the primary purpose of arts and culture is the quality of life. And I believe we're moving to the next step, which is where I see some civic leaders who believe that the primary purpose is not the quality of life but the reason for life. Having said that, we're here as partners.

I would also like to clarify one thing, that is the Edmonton Jazz Festival is indeed healthy, strong and thriving, and the Calgary Jazz Festival will also take place; however, it's being run from Edmonton this year.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Mahon. Would you like to tell us why it's being run from Edmonton? Can you share that information?

Mr. John Mahon: Certainly the arts is a risky and precarious business. Only fools get into it. You have to have a lot of nerve, and the Calgary Jazz Festival had problems with fundraising and ticket sales. In fact, to be blunt, the management of the Calgary Jazz Festival fell short. Jazz works on a circuit. Jazz artists are expensive; the audience is comparatively small. The only way you can get an efficiency on artists' fees is to have them play several festivals, so it made a lot of sense for the Edmonton Jazz Festival to keep the Calgary Jazz Festival going because it's another gig. That's why.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Next on my list I have Ms. Davies, followed by Mr. Lowther.

Ms. Adriana Davies: I would like to address the issue of new technology, and of course I share my colleagues' concerns that you cannot just throw money at new technology and neglect all of these other areas. I would like to address the opportunities of the new technology, and I'll focus on the museum situation, but I know it's transferable to other arts and cultural organizations.

In museums the technology is used in a twofold manner. First of all, electronic technology allows us to do every area of the museums' functions better, whether it's administration, collections management, exhibitions, public programs, research—all of that. But then externally, it is a way in which museums communicate the knowledge contained in collections and the documentary evidence about collections and people's lives. It makes this available locally, nationally, and internationally.

• 1210

I sit on the Canadian Heritage Information Network advisory committee and we're going to be meeting in a couple of weeks in Ottawa. The problem we have brought to them from the beginning is, yes, you can have an electronic directory listing all of the institutions in the country. But in terms of getting to the heavy-duty serious challenge of making the knowledge that is in our institutions available to the public, to school children who are doing projects on Canadian history, for example—and there are myriad examples from both the natural and the cultural heritage—we need to have ways of making that knowledge accessible.

Then there is the other area of opportunity. Madam Chair, you mentioned that all government departments should have a cultural portfolio. I'm thinking the industry department, for example, could be involved in creative collaborations and partnerships that could involve government. It could involve cultural players, it could involve the corporate sector, and I think we need to do this.

Why would Bill Gates be buying up library collections, archival collections, etc.? The state has a vested interest. They have funded the development over the years of collections, and so let's not give industry sole opportunity to reap whatever benefits there are, because I think some of that should accrue to the collecting institutions. Also, then I don't want to neglect the public service role, public education.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Ms. Davies. Your comments about the state having a vested interest in that they have funded that which came before is certainly the argument we've heard with respect to the former cultural initiatives program and to maintaining that infrastructure and going further, as Mr. Janes said, and maintaining those art institutions.

Next on my list I have Mr. Lowther and then Ms. Redfern, and then I have others. I want to go to the audience after that, just so we have a little bit of audience participation.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

Well, I feel a bit obligated as a representative from Calgary to say that although we didn't do the jazz festival, we did win the Grey Cup. So I guess that's a bit of a trade-off.

I guess in this audience too, if a guy wanted to score points, we could all be singing the song that, yes, we need to give more funding to the arts. But in the interest of a more lively debate and maybe to generate some emotion here, I just want to take issue with one of the statements one of the people made here. I'm not exactly sure who it was. “It's the government's job to shape culture.” It was said here earlier today. I have a bit of a problem with that, I'm not sure I am fully comfortable with that, because that process can be misused. It may be that the culture government expresses isn't the culture that's actually there.

I'm more along the lines of culture being an expression of the people, where the people are at. I'd like to speak more strongly in favour of the charitable approach or the tax exemption approach, where people are free to express themselves—and that's the culture, not so much government deciding what is or is not the Canadian culture. I know that doesn't tell the whole story. Maybe there is a place for a government to do the archiving and the celebrating of some of the successes, but I have a problem with their dictating culture.

I would ask Mr. McPhee if he would be willing to comment along these lines a little bit sometime. I don't know, Madam Chair, how you want to schedule that in.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I'll put him on the list.

Mr. Eric Lowther: But he has too much experience to be sitting there that quiet for this long, so I want to hear what he has to say.

• 1215

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I've put him on the list, Mr. Lowther, whether he wants to be or not. How's that?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Good.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you.

Ms. Heather Redfern: I was going to address some of those things.

First, I think you're mixing two things. One is culture and the other is the stuff that comes over the border, you know, on 30 channels or 80 channels—whatever it is now—and runs all day and all night. I think you have to make a difference between those two things. As far as I am concerned, that's not culture. It certainly isn't Canadian culture.

Canadian culture has a right to be what it is and have its own sovereignty. Culture is made by artists; it's not made by government. Culture is defined, if you like, created by artists, not government. It's very important to understand that culture doesn't work like a business. It isn't like going out and buying a pair of shoes: if you like them, you'll pay money for them. It doesn't work like that.

First, in terms of any kind of corporate funding for the more experimental and risky kinds of work, forget it. It's not even in the realm. Okay, you want to do Hamlet again; you can probably get Syncrude on board. But if you're doing something away more experimental than that, forget it. It's not realistic. And to go back to what Peter was saying, treating smaller companies as though they were creating a product that is another thing you buy, that is out there to consume, is just nonsense.

The culture in our society needs to be nurtured and allowed to grow in a healthy environment. You wouldn't throw your children out in the street and say, well, if you can make it, great, and if you can't, well too bad—we didn't need you anyway. Culture really does need to be looked at from that point of view.

To go back to what you were saying, partnerships within the cultural industries are a really excellent way, I think, of us not spending more money, but using our money better. We're a big country and we're really spread out. That's one of the reasons I talk about festivals, because we can all get together and talk. It's what John was saying about a circuit. There we go. We create a circuit. We share the costs of whatever the artists need to perform in all the centres. That's a really simple example of that kind of thing.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Can you tell us a little bit more about your partnerships with cultural industries. You talked about a circuit, but can you be more specific?

Ms. Heather Redfern: Well, for example, I was talking about festivals. If there were a festival in Toronto, one in Edmonton or Calgary, or both, and one in Vancouver and Montreal, we would pay our artists collectively as a group. So we are creating a partnership. We're creating a circuit. We're creating a line across the country that makes it possible for us to perform in each other's centres and to bring work to our country internationally.

The international thing has to work both ways. Right now there's a big push to take our work as cultural artists to other countries, and actually our company has been fairly successful doing that. But there has to be the other side. That is, we need to be able to invite them to our country too, and have a venue for them to perform at. It's really great that there are five festivals in Australia, but there is only one in Canada.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): All right, thank you.

Before I go back to my speakers list—it started with Mr. Varga—I'd like to go to the audience and ask if there is anyone who would like to make a brief intervention to raise some issues and concerns about some gaps to us. We want to try to have a true dialogue here.

I'll come back to you after this next round of speakers, then. You can think about it. I'll put you on the list, Mr. Mahon.

Okay, Mr. Varga.

Mr. Vincent Varga: Thank you. I have one brief comment to address Mr. Lowther's challenge.

From a personal perspective, I'm an immigrant to this country, and culture is absolutely everything to me and my family. If it hadn't been for the upbringing I received from my parents in terms of my relationship to Hungary and the arts and culture of that country, and also how to define myself as a Canadian... Identity politics is central to who we are as Canadians.

• 1220

As a corollary to that, and by extension, I think I would invite the federal government to reassess its role relative to investing in Canadian artists in an international context. I use the example of Germany, which as a country has very effectively managed to bring together primarily industry partners to support cultural initiatives. I speak directly about Daimler-Benz funding the Goethe Institute. They've used culture as a way to deal with economic development. I think there's a very interesting and appropriate kind of fit there, and clearly they're using it as an engine of economic development.

So I think we have to remember that part of our challenge primarily with the United States...we've heard that mentioned over the last hour or so. The reality is that Canadians do not—and I've had the experience of working in the United States—project themselves very strongly on the cultural front throughout the world. When we do, they stand up and listen. That's the first thing people want to find out. Where are you from? Who are you? What are you doing? It's not to talk about business; that's a secondary issue.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Mr. Varga.

Ms. Rose Marie Sackela: I'd like to speak to a couple of comments that were made from a different part of my life. I've taught school on a northern fly-in native reserve. I've always taught in very rural areas, much more rural than Rocky Mountain House. I don't really live in Rocky Mountain House; I travel in from a different district. I just wanted to add a couple of points to those of the speaker who mentioned travelling collections, because travelling collections, travelling plays, travelling performances are so significant when you're in rural and remote areas.

I remember when I was teaching in northern Saskatchewan, about 60 kilometres from the Territories border. A play that we managed to bring in, a travelling performance, was the first play anybody in that community had ever seen. People had only had television for two years. It was 1978. Their first language was Chipewyan.

The same would be true for the library collections. We could bring in, through the interlibrary loans, collections of books that could never be purchased there.

Even in the community I actually live in, Alder Flats, which has 105 official residents, we have brought museum collections into the classrooms. We used to have access to trailer travelling museum collections, and they would be the only museums that people would go to. They are two hours from Edmonton, but people in rural areas, and I think especially in central Alberta or the north, just don't see that as a priority. If somebody doesn't come to them, those children and those individuals in the community will never see that as their primary, most important experience. When they come to the city they'll shop or do business, but they won't make a trip for culture. It has to come to them.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Madame Villeneuve.

[Translation]

Ms. Louisette Villeneuve: I would like to make the same kind of comment as Heather did. When you rely on private funding, you may be forced to shape the art to suit the sponsor. It's very risky. We can experience the same thing. I'm very familiar with the Catalyst. Indeed, you are involved in theatre that is more or less experimental. When you are a francophone and your public is as small as ours is, you don't go very far with private funding either. That's the first comment I wanted to make.

Secondly, we must not be afraid to invest in the arts because each dollar invested generates $5 of income. I had noted down a figure. In 1996-97, all government administrations, namely municipalities, provinces and the federal government, had invested $5.8 billion. The annual spin-offs from these investments attained $29.2 billion. I hate talking about money, but culture contributes to Canada's economy. You mustn't think because a theatre company or another group receives a grant that they are getting charity. These groups create jobs, which means taxes for the government. I was very involved in theatre. The theatre creates many jobs. It is very important that the government bear in mind that funding artistic groups does not constitute charity. Rather, the government is investing in the economy, in Canadian culture. Thank you.

• 1225

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Janes.

Mr. Todd Janes: Thank you. I'm not sure where to start right now. I guess maybe I will respond to Mr. Lowther's comments a little bit, because he wanted a thoughtful, passionate debate and I wasn't sure that's something that always happened with the Reform Party. They were into, you know, strict numbers and things. I guess part of it is that one of the magical things about culture and artistic practices is they allow the dialogue to occur.

Secondly, culture allows for expression and it allows for expression of truth. We are in a very dynamic and diverse culture and we should always remember there is never just one truth, there are many different voices that need to be heard at many different times. I think our cultural organizations do that—for example, an archive that records voices from people other than the Conrad Black-dominated empire of the media. It provides opportunities for us to look at our past, to look at our future, and to examine and explore those things.

I don't think when we talk about support from governments we talk about them necessarily shaping culture. I've been in the field for a number of years and I don't think that would ever happen. I think what we are looking for, though, is support and core funding to nurture those expressions and to provide for those truths to occur and those voices to be heard.

I think the return that individuals and organizations and government receive by investing in arts and cultural organizations is immense. We've heard some numbers today and those are just the initial numbers. I think often we forget the secondary and tertiary spinoffs from cultural initiatives that happen. They are quite vast; they are quite large.

I also would like to draw attention to the fact that because we've had to be very innovative as cultural managers over a number years, we've learned to do incredible things—like Catalyst, with a roll of paper and some tinfoil, they create magic. It's more than that, though. We've had a strong history. There has been the support there and that's allowed that artistic and cultural expression to grow.

I'm concerned because certainly in Alberta we face a barrage of cuts. Madame Villeneuve talked earlier about the fact that the funding for the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, which is supposed to be the supporter of arts on a provincial level, has not seen an increase in almost 15 years. We are constantly barraged in Alberta with having to do the same or more with less and less. We are incredible cultural managers and great fiscal managers as well. I would challenge any business to actually step in and try to do what arts organizations and cultural producers do, because if you even look at the risk management involved you'd be insane. No banker would fund you.

I think what is important in helping to shape culture in Canada on both a national and an international level, what is paramount, is the support to do that, and more specifically the support to do innovative, strong experimental work. If we do not fund and support and nurture artists and cultural producers who are doing innovative risqué work, then there is not an advancement. There is not a growth.

• 1230

If we look at arts and cultural industries as the research and development portion of a larger corporation, if we look at Canada as a large corporation and we look at the arts and cultural sector as the research and development component of that corporation, it's perhaps a slippery but useful model to explore. This is because any corporation that wants to grow, that wants to be strong, and that wants to survive in an international marketplace researches and develops and grows.

This is what we're talking about. We're talking about the ability to take innovative artists and put them anywhere in the world and let them stand head to head with any type of other cultural producer and artist and to say they are strong, they are vibrant, they are brilliant, they are innovative, and it is because the federal government and other partners—yet to be explored, maybe, and identified—have supported this growth, development, and nurturing.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

Mr. McPhee.

Mr. Bob McPhee: To answer your first quick question away back when, it's not government's responsibility to mould culture. It's their responsibility, it's their mandate—it's their number one mandate, in my belief—to give culture the resources so they can mould it. That could be beyond financial resources. It could be infrastructure, it could be many things. But I think it's government's responsibility to allow culture to mould itself, not government to dictate it to them.

I have just a few comments on a couple of other things. I have heard the word “critic” many times around this table. In our business “critic” is not always a good word. I don't know about yours. I don't think it is if you're the party in power.

I would hope that in the case of culture you become advocates rather than critics, and I hope you go back to advocate that culture and cultural policy should be the number one priority for this government.

All of these things about funding and Canada Council, CBC, technology, new work, infrastructure, tax reform, festivals—they'd all be solved if the focus was the priority that culture is a critical mandate to all people in this country. I don't know if the statistics are still the same, but at one point Quebec, per capita, was the largest funder of cultural institutions and organizations and individuals. I don't know if it's still the case.

There's a reason they funded it far more than any other province across this country. Just to talk about debt load, yes, the cultural industry has created debt. There are a lot of accumulated deficits in our company. I would ask you to remember that many of the political parties in this country have large debt loads, as well as the federal government, as well as the provincial governments, as well as civic governments. So to point and say we're irresponsible means there are a lot of people in this country that are irresponsible.

In terms of funding—and I hate begging and feeling like I'm begging all the time—my understanding is that some farmers are subsidized up to 75% of their income. There's no arts company, there's no artist that receives that level of subsidization. Why is it okay for the farmer and not for the artist?

In closing, prior to going to Calgary—I lived in Calgary for four years prior to the arts centre opening—I was with the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and I moved from there to Calgary. At the time I went to Calgary, all my colleagues across the country said, why are you going there? It's red-neck, it's cowboys, there's no culture in that city, there are no arts in that city.

I'd hazard to say that has changed greatly over many years. The art centre, the orchestra, is very fine. It was an awful orchestra prior to Maestro Bernardi taking it over in the new hall. The ballet company has improved. It's really come a long way.

I've spent nine years in Edmonton. They're very different cities. There's an energy, there's a life in Calgary that is infectious. There's a soul in this city because of the arts that hasn't reached Calgary yet. It will eventually. But I would rather have soul for Canadians, and that's what culture will bring to them.

• 1235

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Mr McPhee.

Before I go to my speakers—Mr. Mahon, Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Muise, Mr. Savaryn, Mr. Sauvageau and Ms. Sackela—I'd like to go back to the audience to give you another opportunity to make a brief intervention. Please tell us your name and who you represent.

Ms. Jo Braywater (Individual Presentation): My name is... Jo Braywater. I work for the Edmonton Symphonic Orchestra. I'd like to give a personal testimony on what the arts and culture can be. I would bet that anybody in this room who works in the cultural sector could do the same.

If I were to paraphrase what I believe I heard from the member of Parliament for Calgary, it's basically that those people who want culture should pay for it. If that had been the case I wouldn't be in the arts today, because my family didn't have arts in their background and they weren't very supportive of the arts. It was more through chance and government support of a program called the Camrose Music Workshop that I was exposed to what culture can be, what music can be.

Since that workshop, at the age of 18, music has really become my life. I worked for many years in Germany in an orchestra. Even before the Berlin Wall came down, there were 100 orchestras in West Germany that were pretty well 100% funded by the government. All of us who worked in those orchestras were civil servants with all of the benefits, and some of the negative connotations, of being civil servants.

I think it's very important for the government to support the arts for people who believe in it and for people who haven't been exposed to it yet, because there are people like me who, once they're exposed, have a whole new world opened up to them.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much for your comments.

Do I have another question or intervention?

Mr. Michael Broodhagen (Individual Presentation): Good morning. My name is Michael Broodhagen and I'm at the National Black Coalition of Canada in Edmonton. Of course black people in Edmonton do not work in the arts. There are no black people employed full-time or given money by any area of government in Edmonton. I would say that goes, for the most part, across this country.

As I listen to all the individuals speak here, I think there's obviously something wrong with black people in Edmonton, because they're not represented. We are totally unknown and most likely we're like tainted meat, because most people do not want to have anything to do with what we do and who we are.

For example, there are a number of groups in Edmonton that are directly in the arts or in a cultural area that have great difficulty accessing money or funding of any sort from most levels of government. When I hear about all of the arts groups, whether they are museums or whatever, getting money or having access to money, it is very nice. But on the other hand, there are other people who need to survive as well and have something shown of them in this country and in this city.

Some years ago we wanted to have space to mount an art exhibition in Edmonton. We could not even get that space from major art organizations in Edmonton. We had to go out and try to get space in shopping centres. We have been unable to mount an annual exhibition, although we would love to mount an annual exhibition in Edmonton, and therefore it is on an occasional basis. These are fundamental concerns and problems we have.

When we go to your department we are unknown; we don't exist; no one knows about us. I just happened to hear about this committee on the radio and I asked a number of people at the National Black Coalition if they had heard anything about it. They said they had not heard anything about it. No one wrote us or communicated with us. That in itself will tell you what happens to us here in Edmonton, and in most places across this country.

• 1240

In February we recognize Black History Month here in Edmonton. Some time ago we tried to get co-sponsorship from one of the major newspapers here and were told what we do is not newsworthy. No one necessarily wants to hear about black people and history, etc. So we could not even get co-sponsorship. However, they were prepared to give us ad space at cost.

We don't have anyone working full-time in our office. We don't even have an up-to-date computer in our office. So that goes to show you what is happening to us. I do not know what happens to committees like these that come across this country.

Some years ago I was in contact with the Canada Council and said to them, “You do not reflect in your mandate anything to do with black people.” For example, occasionally we do ballet, but usually we do an Afro-Caribbean dance. That is not reflected in the mandate, so there is no category we can apply under. Those are the basic things we have. Those are the things that need to be changed. I do not know what can be done in this country to at least give us some basic support, and I have been knocking on the door for many years.

I am here because I'm a little more fortunate than some people in my community and am self-employed. It was difficult to get people here. Other people are here because they are employed by the government and other areas, so we could not have a number of people here with me to support my position.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Sir, one of the things I stated at the beginning was that we are still in the process of doing our consultation. We are asking for written submissions. If you could see the clerk, she'll get the name of your association. I will take the comments you have noted back to the organizing committee. But please, by all means, let members of your coalition and other coalitions submit their concerns in writing to us. We'd appreciate it, because we're running out of time now, sir.

Mr. Michael Broodhagen: Yes, we will take the opportunity to do that. However, we are asking that we do not go unnoticed, as has happened in the past. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much. Your comments are duly noted.

Mr. Mahon.

Mr. John Mahon: Thanks. I was going to respond to Mr. Lowther's question. I also want to congratulate Calgary on winning the Grey Cup. That's four times in my lifetime. I'm from Calgary so I've taken a lot of heat over the years for that team.

I think the preamble to the document that defines the mandate of the Australia council is very enlightening in defining the role of government in the arts. They state, and I believe, that one of the primary purposes of government funding is to widen the scope. That means they widen it so it isn't just a narrow speck. There isn't just one colour in the light that comes through but a range of colours.

They do that by supporting experimental research and development—the type of art that is not going to attract a lot of commercial interest at first, and some of our heritage that is also clearly non-commercial. It also keeps the ticket prices low and widens the scope of people who participate directly in live cultural events.

The annual budget of the City of Edmonton is $1 billion. The City of Edmonton has as its discretionary fund—a coat hanger fund, if you want—$1 million. The amount they're putting into arts and culture is $2.5 million. So really, the dollar figure as a percentage of government budgets is not significant—which is not to discount $1 million. But I think that perspective has to be maintained.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

Monsieur Bélanger.

• 1245

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Mahon. You mentioned that Edmonton has two envelopes, one for arts and one for festivals.

Mr. John Mahon: That's correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could you give us an idea, on a per capita basis or an absolute amount, of what Edmonton contributes to both of those envelopes?

Mr. John Mahon: I can give you the number. It's $3.60 per capita right now.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In total?

Mr. John Mahon: Total. This year, festival allocation is $867,000 and arts is $744,000. In addition, there's a $10,000 pot to assist our artists in travelling.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Question number five, as you can see now, was not rhetorical. The beauty of Canada is that we are a very civil society. We hammer out our differences most of the time with the spoken word. It's legitimate, and I'm not criticizing; I just happen to hold a different view. We have in the government parties representing a third of the representation there who may hold different views, either on a matter of provincial or federal jurisdiction and whether one should be exclusive or not, or whether it should be left to the consumer.

The reason that question was there was to try to get a sense of how people would react to it. It wasn't rhetorical.

[Translation]

Mr. Savaryn, I'm going to speak in French because I'm more comfortable in this language when dealing with emotional issues.

You made a comment earlier. I hope that I understood it properly. If not, please correct me. I thought I understood that your community did not accept the notion of two founding peoples. Did I understand correctly?

[English]

Mr. Peter Savaryn: Exactly.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you. I'm going to tell you that, as a French Canadian, this concept is extremely important to me. It is even fundamental to my existence, and I think that this is shared by many French Canadians in the country, from coast to coast. We feel that this concept is contained in the Confederation agreement. It is evident in most or in many of our government and legal institutions.

Accepting this concept of two founding peoples does not in any way prevent us from accommodating other cultures, a characteristic that is intrinsic to Canadian multiculturalism. Our country is attempting to do what very few other countries in the world have done. We endeavour to accommodate many cultures in a climate of mutual respect. We agree that this is no easy task. No doubt it would be easier to do as other countries have done, namely, to create a melting pot. We are, however, very enriched by multiculturalism. You said yourself in your comments that having three, four or five windows on the world enriched us. Perhaps we should, as a nation, try to be a little bit more accommodating.

I had the good fortune to marry a Hungarian, who is now a Canadian, and this opened my eyes to another culture, to a way of looking at life from the European perspective, if I may say so, and this helped me to have a better understanding of what we have here, in Canada. Accordingly, I think we can all benefit from this openness to multiculturalism and that we would have much to lose if we could not agree to the concept of two founding peoples.

[English]

As for other comments on the role of government, I'm absolutely convinced that throughout our history as human beings, when societies developed there have been various methods of supporting the arts, be they the kings in feudal systems or countries that have a highly developed capitalist system such as in the States, where you have huge endowments, which we do not yet have in Canada.

• 1250

There has been, and I think there is a necessity for, support in a country such as ours. The lead candidate for that—and it could perhaps change over the next 50 years, depending on how we develop economically, I suppose, and what fiscal incentives we put in place to create endowments and so forth... And if the people disagree with that, I'd like to know. There is a necessity for the state to support and promote our cultural and artistic expression of ourselves, because if we don't we will fall to the rouleau compresseur of the south.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Muise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Muise: I would like to respond to Mr. McPhee's comment about the word "critic". I agree with him. There are other words used in government that I don't like, but I really like the word "spokesperson", which more or less defines the role that we are supposed to play.

[English]

Mr. Varga, earlier you made a comment, and I've felt this for a long time, but I'd like maybe some reason why and how we could change it. You said earlier that Canadians don't promote themselves well from a cultural point of view internationally. You know, when you're in the United States and the national anthem comes on, everyone stands to attention and the hats come off. But in Canada there seems to be a difference there, and I think internationally as well. Why is that, and what can we do to change that?

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Vincent Varga: —

Mr. Mark Muise: My question was on culture, not the anthem.

Mr. Vincent Varga: I'll try to respond quickly. I think it's a question of how one can immediately convey pride. My experience has been working in the international community. I've lived in Europe and in the United States, where culture and the arts are synonymous. When they present themselves within an international context, it's very clear who is actually a proud country. Pride actually means strength. When you're trying to cut a business deal, that actually helps a heck of a lot.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): A few months ago I heard Robert Lantos state that we must never forget that our economic sovereignty is inextricably intertwined with our cultural sovereignty.

Mr. Vincent Varga: Another good Hungarian.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Yes, I know.

Mr. Savaryn.

Mr. Peter Savaryn: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to explain my disagreement with two founding races or nations. I believe it is an old principle that does not apply to our modern democratic times. Who we are, when we came, how we came, race, religion, it does not matter at all. We are all equal. Under two founding races, they meant special status. I remember in 1992 we discussed that in a referendum, and the referendum said no to such concepts. Canadians simply refused to believe in special privileges for founding, non-founding, and so on.

I could discuss that matter privately with the gentleman.

Let me now add a few more points to what I said before.

I would like to suggest that perhaps at the end of our meetings we should come to some resolution, and perhaps that resolution should be that it is the duty of our government to protect and support the culture. By culture, I mean our multicultural heritage of Canada. That is what makes us different.

Perhaps we should turn also to big banks and corporations and the Bill Gates of the world to be patrons of culture and art. In the old days, you remember all the churches, all the buildings, all the arts were supported by them. Were they smarter than we are now? If you go though England or Italy and so on, you see so-and-so founded this and supported it. Now, somehow they only go for technology and business, no culture. They should support talent.

• 1255

Perhaps appeal should be made to our schools. Instead of teaching such things as sex, perhaps they should teach culture. I don't know; perhaps they should speak about it.

This gentleman spoke about Edmonton setting aside a couple of million for supporting the festivals and so on. I agree with him. That was long overdue. It was my friend, Laurie Decore, the mayor of our city at that time, in the seventies, who introduced that concept. Until that time, only the symphony, the opera, and the art gallery were getting support. Then we said how about Shumka? How about Cheremosh? How about heritage days, which bring out 300,000 to 400,000 for three days and put up 300,000 pounds of food for the food banks? So he started to contribute. But with all due respect, what the city does, as you stated yourself, is not enough. It is not enough. They should support better than that. I agree with the gentleman here that it is the soul of our nation, and we should protect it.

Again, I turn to our neighbour to the south. They should respect our identity. Business is business, fine. But give us some room for our Canadian multicultural identity. Don't flood us with all your literature, with all your channels. I don't need a hundred channels. Two, three, five channels is enough. But they do flood us with that and make us all lose our identity. Can you imagine if all the flowers were roses? No. Variety makes the life.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I really appreciated the calm way in which you expressed your passions. I wonder how you can control yourself sometimes. You appear to be very passionate, but you deliver your message in such a calm way. I really appreciate this. Congratulations. I'm looking for my words.

Mr. Savaryn, I partially agree with you, which may surprise many people. The concept of two founding peoples does indeed pose a problem. We are forgetting the Aboriginal people. There are three founding peoples: the Aboriginals, the francophones and the anglophones.

As for promoting and showcasing culture outside of Canada, there is high culture and there is popular culture. I would like to point out that the four biggest record sellers in the world today are four Canadians. Our culture is therefore getting out there. Perhaps some Canadians are not as easy to identify. Everyone knows that Céline Dion is a Canadian. Do people know that Shania Twain is a Canadian or a North American? I don't know, but at any rate, the four biggest record sellers in the world today are Canadian women. It is useful to remember this.

• 1300

I'd like to make a small aside with respect to art, history and culture. It is useful to know the origin of our national anthem and its verses. This anthem was composed last century to promote and protect French Canadians.

I would now like to respond to Mr. Lowther. Should the government promote culture? We have resolved this issue in Quebec. At one point we had a premier who said that the government should not promote culture. His name was Duplessis. The artists responded, and since 1960, we're no longer asking ourselves this question in Quebec. Moreover, I don't think that this issue ever crops up.

I've heard some very interesting, concrete things. You spoke about the funds available in the various programs. I think that should be in our report. Someone spoke a little about the Red Book. Perhaps our report should recommend the abolition of the GST on books. There was mention of a longer grant, one lasting two or three years.

Yesterday or the day before we were talking about eternity. Obviously, the idea would be to tell every organization, museum and festival that they would be getting $20,000 a year every year for ever. However, we could think about guaranteed grants for two or three years, because a one-year grant does not allow you to really get going. I think that would be quite logical.

We have talked about tax incentives, and I would like you to give us your concrete suggestions in this regard.

There is something else that causes me a problem. Maybe I was born with this problem, but I do not see how we can ask the federal government to manage Canadian culture. I think the culture of Alberta is different from the culture of Newfoundland or British Columbia. If the Government of Canada trusts people, could it not find some way of redistributing the money to the provinces? Rather than establishing a Canada-wide plan, it could give the money either to the provincial government or to local organizations. There is a real problem with this. The fact is that the culture of Alberta is probably different from the culture of Newfoundland and that if we establish a Canada-wide cultural policy, we may have some problems. As I say, I may have been born with this problem. Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

I think you've been given an opportunity here to make sure that you do submit a further written brief as well, based on the comments.

Ms. Sackela.

Ms. Rose Marie Sackela: I thought of an analogy when we were talking about the role of the nation-state in culture. It seems to me what we're talking about here is the role of a parent when there's homework to be done, and I mean a parent in the best sense, not in a paternalistic sense. Whether it's literature, or it's French, or it's another language, or dance, or music, or theatre, a good parent provides the time, the materials, the space, and some assistance, and says, what do you need?

The great parent is the one, like the great country, that has the intelligence and the self-discipline to not do the job for the child, and to know the difference between doing it for them and providing what they need. I think people have said what needs to be done.

Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much for that analogy.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When children do their homework well, after the parents have helped them, can they not stand on their own two feet and do their homework alone?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: They can still remain within the family.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Unfortunately, we have run out of time. Before I say my thank yous, the red book has come up a number of times and I usually let Mr. Bélanger deal with it.

However, there is just one thing that I'm very proud of that the red book did, and I haven't heard reference to that today. One of the things we have been hearing as we've travelled across Canada is praise for the Canada Council.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): That was certainly a promise that was kept, and also the $10 million for the millennium creative works, which is separate and apart, plus the cable and television network. It's only been a year and a half, and there's still a lot to do and still a lot to define, but I think there are a few things that have been accomplished.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, I didn't think we were here for self-promotion, or promotion of the government, and that's why I've refrained, as much as I can, from—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I was wondering why.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But the list is extensive, very extensive, starting with the museum program and the number of bills that are in front of us, and so forth. But we weren't here for that.

• 1305

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): No, I didn't mean to do that, it was just with respect to the Canada Council because that had come up in our consultations, and people had seen changes, and the artists and the organizations liked that.

Again, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all very much for coming, for taking the time from your busy schedules. Thank you for your input.

Let us not forget, this is not the end of the consultation. This is the beginning of the consultation. These consultations, we hope, will continue one on one with members of the committee. As other issues come up over the year, please free to call on us, and to bring things like the Thunder Bay Orchestra to our attention so we can advocate, in our critic capacity or otherwise.

I think it's very important. I think we've learned a lot since we started in Thunder Bay. I know we'll continue to learn a lot, but we're also hearing a lot of the same concerns and issues that you have raised and have echoed here.

I keep putting stars beside things, so I'm really looking forward to having you see some of your recommendations in our report. Thank you again for coming.

I would like to take this opportunity to cheerfully adjourn this meeting. Thank you.