CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 24, 1999

• 1316

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.)): I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I'm very pleased to welcome all of you to this session in Moncton.

The last couple of days have been most rewarding, as we've met with numerous stakeholders.

This is an interesting set-up because it's certainly smaller and it gives us a better atmosphere for discussion. I think that's really the intent of these round table discussions, and I hope that's what they become. Over time we've tried to generate real dialogue and discussion versus presentations. I know it's tempting for most people who come before federal travelling committees to make presentations.

We welcome your presentations in written form. If you have written submissions, we certainly invite you to submit them to the clerk. If the urge is that you need to go over your presentation, we would ask that you summarize it and make the key points within about a four- or five-minute time period so that we don't use much more than half of our first two hours presenting, and perhaps get some real discussion in the latter part, hopefully 60% of the two hours, then.

We will also open the discussion and invite guest participation from our audience. We've done that over the last two days, and that has worked out very well.

Perhaps we can begin with introductions. Tell us who you are and who you represent, and then we can get rolling.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: My name is Norm Radford and I'm the clerk of the committee.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): My name is Joe Jordan. I'm the federal member of Parliament for Leeds-Grenville, which is in eastern Ontario, and I'm a member of the standing committee.

Mr. Christopher Severance (Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Museum and Heritage Foundation): Good afternoon. I'm Chris Severance, the executive director of the P.E.I. Museum and Heritage Foundation.

Mr. Barry King (Executive Director, Community Museums Association of Prince Edward Island): I'm Barry King, and I'm executive director of the Community Museums Association of Prince Edward Island.

[Translation]

Ms. Jeanne Mance Cormier (President, Association Museums New Brunswick): My name is Jeanne Mance Cormier and I'm the President of Association Museums New Brunswick.

[English]

Mr. J. Pat Donelan (General Manager, CJMO-FM Atlantic Stereo Ltd.): I'm Pat Donelan, general manager at C103 radio here in Moncton.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Boulay-LeBlanc (Executive Director, Conseil provincial des sociétés culturelles): I'm Raymonde Boulay-LeBlanc, Executive Director of New Brunswick's Conseil provincial des sociétés culturelles.

Ms. Jeanne Farrah (Director General, Association acadienne des artistes professionnels du Nouveau-Brunswick): Jeanne Farrah, Director General, Association acadienne des artistes professionnels du Nouveau-Brunswick.

[English]

Mr. Curtis Barlow (Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Confederation Centre of the Arts): I'm Curtis Barlow, executive director of the Confederation Centre of the Arts in Charlottetown, P.E.I., Canada's national memorial to the Fathers of Confederation.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Philippe Tabet (Executive Director, Cultural Human Resources Council): My name is Jean-Philippe Tabet and I'm the Executive Director of the Cultural Human Resources Council.

[English]

Mr. Peter Thomas (Cultural Human Resources Council, and New Brunswick Labour Force Development Board): I'm Peter Thomas. I work on the board of the Cultural Human Resources Council and also on the New Brunswick Labour Force Development Board.

Mr. Richard Hornsby (Member, New Brunswick Arts Board): I'm Richard Hornsby. I'm an educator and musician, and a music representative on the New Brunswick Arts Board and also on the board of the Cultural Human Resources Council.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): My name is Suzanne Tremblay and I'm the BQ Member of Parliament for the riding of Rimouski—Mitis. I'm also of the BQ critic for Canadian heritage.

• 1320

[English]

Mr. Darrel N. Butler (Chief Curator, Kings Landing Historical Settlement): I'm Darrel Butler. I'm chief curator of Kings Landing, where we tell the story of Confederation, and I'm also vice-president of the Atlantic Association of Historians.

[Translation]

Mr. René Légère (General Secretary, Société nationale de l'Acadie; President, Association des radios communautaires du Nouveau-Brunswick): Good afternoon. My name is René Légère and I'm the General Secretary of the Société nationale de l'Acadie. I'm also the President of the Association des radios communautaires acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick. I'm pleased to welcome you to Acadia. As you know, we will be playing host this year to the Francophone Summit. We are pleased to be a part of this round table.

Mr. Gaston Blais (Committee Research Officer): I'm Gaston Blais, a research officer with the committee.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): My name is Inky Mark. I'm a Reform member of Parliament for Manitoba, and I'm the chief opposition critic for Canadian heritage.

You have all received a discussion paper on the meetings that this committee is holding. Basically there are five questions, which we can reduce to three.

The first question deals with the range of federal cultural support measures currently in place, and hopefully in your remarks you can address that, plus or negative, whatever you think.

The next three deal with major impacts of technology, trade, and changing demographics upon your industry, the sector that you represent.

The key question is, what role should the federal government perform in the future to support the cultural sector or this industry? Be it legislator, regulator, owner and operator of national institutions, funding partner, patron of the arts, business developer, promoter or others, what do you see as the role for the federal government? I think we need to seek your advice, and you're the principal stakeholders to this whole business of culture.

Perhaps we could begin with Christopher.

Mr. Christopher Severance: Thank you very much.

It seems to me that in the years I've worked in the cultural industry, particularly in the heritage side, the museum, the federal government has been for many of us, with respect to support for the cultural industry, a principal funder for capital improvements. Certainly in the early years—and I'm talking about the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s—the federal government, through its various programs, was a principal support agency for operations. Often that was special project operations.

That has changed significantly in the last ten years, so that we have across this country, and certainly on P.E.I., an infrastructure both of staff and buildings, collections, of expectations, if there's such a thing as an infrastructure of expectations, which is no longer being supported in an adequate way either by the federal component or—and I think it's probably true across the country—by the various provincial authorities.

Having created what we are, in large measure, the fashion has changed, and I would hope that in the review of policy, consideration is given to the responsibility of the founders, the previous governments, both provincial and federal, to giving some real assistance—and in particular, with regard to the museum community, to the museum assistance program, which is critical to our ongoing operation.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): I have to say, Christopher, you've been the shortest. That's okay, you'll get lots of chances. I applaud you for that.

• 1325

Mr. Barry King: I'd like to reiterate some of Chris's words. There is a real need out there that isn't being addressed right now. I'm fortunate enough to have worked in museums for over 25 years and have been in many different positions in that time. One of the things that have always been there, I guess, is support of places like our associations and those types of agencies. Right now the associations are in a regrouping mode, trying to figure out where we stand.

The role we play is a really important role in that we support museums throughout our provinces. We also play a role in connecting our provinces to other museums in other provinces. So we have an advocacy role as well as a role in bringing the country to the province and bringing the province to the country. To me that is a really important role in terms of nation-building and also in terms of unity, because we can speak to who we are as a province but we can also speak to the province in terms of who we are as a nation. Heritage is a fundamental thing in terms of who we are.

The other thing that I think is very important to note is the roles these associations play. The MAP program, the museum assistance program, is a significant funder for museums in the country. It's been going through many changes and we still really don't know where it is or where it's going. We do know there have been some fundamental changes in direction.

One of those changes is training. Training now isn't a concern for the federal component of MAP, but it also is not accessible to us on a provincial level. So the associations that came into existence largely as training agencies find themselves scrambling trying to figure out how we can keep the people in museums trained and use those volunteer hours productively.

In our small province we have about 30 museums and about 18 of those are community museums. There are well over 20,000 volunteer hours that go into running those museums every year. Training is one of the ways we can make sure those are focused hours, that it's productive time. So it's a major issue that needs to be addressed, whether it's on a provincial level or on a national level. I think the responsibilities are on both ends for the training of people working in the cultural sector and providing opportunities for that to be maintained.

The other thing I think is the basic understanding that the public, Canadians, have placed heritage with the government as a public trust. There is an aspect of that which is significant. That's why the national museums exist, that's why we're having this meeting. It is a basic trust, a public trust that we have as museum workers but also as decision-makers in terms of maintaining our heritage—maintaining it not only in terms of selling it for today and sharing it for today, which is important, but also to make sure it's here in 100 years. If we're not careful, we're going to consume it. So it's very important that this aspect of public trust be maintained and understood.

I think that's probably all I'll say for now. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much, Barry. We'll move on to Jeanne Mance.

[Translation]

Ms. Jeanne Mance Cormier: I want to talk about a strategic study that New Brunswick's heritage sector conducted in 1996. It identified the challenges confronting our museum and heritage community. Obviously, these include financial challenges, given the cuts to government subsidies, the government's emphasis on cost- cutting and the shortage of revenues. Moreover, many municipal governments are not necessarily aware of the existence of regional and other museums.

• 1330

The museum community is also facing a number of challenges in terms of dealing with copyright, firearms and cultural property laws, the status of the artist and government standards and policies respecting museums.

We face technological challenges associated primarily with costs and with a rapidly changing environment.

Programming and language also present challenges. Association Museums New Brunswick is a bilingual organization that offers professional training and development in both languages.

Culture and demographics, which are rapidly evolving, are additional challenges we face. Within the next ten years, the face of New Brunswick's museum community will change, and one of the reasons for this will be that most people who are currently involved in this sector will no longer be around. Therefore, we need to prepare for the future.

As far as public attitudes are concerned, I think we're seeing some very interesting changes. New tourism opportunities are emerging. People are interested in expanding their horizons. We have to identify our target public and know what they want.

With respect to human resources, we rely primarily on volunteers and we expect their ranks to increase considerably. People will have substantially more opportunities than in past years and our museums must be ready to meet this challenge.

New Brunswickers tend to stay put in the cities. Why, they ask themselves, should they bother to visit the small regional museums?

In closing, I'd just like to mention the Museums Assistance Program which is invaluable to a bilingual provincial association. It enables us to continue training our members. Surprisingly, over the years, the demand for training has not fallen off. On the contrary, demand is up. In growing numbers, people are taking courses to improve their job prospects in our community.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Merci.

We'll move on to Pat.

Mr. Pat Donelan: I'll see if I can be briefer than Chris. We in the Canadian private broadcast industry these days have some significant problems, Mr. Chairman, most of them brought on by the new technologies available to us. The end result of that is a much greater fragmentation of our audience. Albeit there have been some decisions made in the past few years on the basis that we in the private broadcast industry are in the music industry, I guess as a local broadcaster and a part of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, it's our feeling that we have to get the message across that we are in the listener business. We use music to a great degree to reach those listeners, and it's those listeners who make us financially viable as we offer our wares to the advertiser.

We have no great complaint about the commission's directive that we supply 35% Canadian content as of January. At the same time, while we enjoy doing that, we honestly believe we need some support in helping bring these artists forth and get them to a calibre and a quality that will allow us to continue to attract listeners, so as to allow us the opportunity to sell the product and see some kind of profit, to maintain a staff level that will allow us to get involved with the basic fibre of the community and become involved on a community basis and continue to be involved on a community basis to everyone's benefit culturally. I think basically that is the absolute crux of our problems as we approach the new millennium.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you.

Raymonde.

• 1335

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Boulay-LeBlanc: We have heard from museum and radio industry representatives. To give you an idea of where we fit in, the Conseil provincial des sociétés culturelles represents associations from different regions of New Brunswick. It has a mission to promote francophone cultural development, particularly in regions where francophones are in a minority situation.

I'd like to come back to something one of the presenters said earlier. He noted that during the 1970s and 1980s, infrastructures were put in place. Today, they continue to function, but less efficiently given the shortage of financial and human resources. Volunteers are critical to the survival of these organizations.

I won't repeat everything that the other presenters have said, because we face similar problems. I would, however, like to mention two things, one of which is support for the dissemination of our cultural products.

Our region is home to many creative artists and the infrastructure is not in place to allow them to disseminate their products outside the province. I don't believe we're the only region to face this problem. Our artists should be able to export their products across Canada.

The second point is the technology these organizations need to operate. We talk about the information highway and francophone products on the Internet, but the vast majority of these organizations don't even have access to current technology. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

Jeanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Jeanne Farrah: Let me start by introducing our organization. We are a non-profit association and we represent approximately 200 professional artists from different fields. Mainly, we represent artists and assist them with their development.

Last year, it was announced that $25 million would be forthcoming from the Canada Council. This announcement was welcomed by artists. However, some concern was expressed as to how these funds with the allocated to the regions. If we look at how Canada Council funds have been allocated to the regions in the past several years, we note that there is cause for some concern. Therefore, in terms of providing creative support to our artists, steps should be taken to ensure that the regions receive their fair share of Canada Council funds.

For the past three years now, Heritage Canada's Cultural Initiatives Program has operated with virtually only one component, namely festivals and special arts events. That's unfortunate. When our association was created, we received, as a number of other cultural associations did, support to acquire communication tools, office and logistical equipment and so forth. For the past three or four years, we haven't received any assistance in these areas. It is very difficult to obtain funding from the province for the arts and cultural activities in New Brunswick. Therefore, federal support is critical.

The government must continue supporting the arts and artistic organizations, whether it be the theatre, the publishing industry or other groups, because a substantial amount of money was invested in setting up these agencies. Suddenly, programs have been cut and funding has been slashed, leaving these groups scrambling to survive on their own. Most organizations of this nature across Canada are struggling to survive. Yet, they play a very important role in terms of regional and community development through their promotion of the arts and culture. The government needs to reassess its programs which fund these organizations. That's all I wanted to say on the subject.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Merci.

Curtis.

Mr. Curtis Barlow: I'm trying to put this all together.

I didn't prepare a specific intervention because we were told it wasn't going to be necessary, and I thought it would be interesting to see what the tenor of the remarks around here and the structure of this afternoon would be.

• 1340

I would like to pick up on a couple of points made by my colleagues from Prince Edward Island, because we all share a very specific set of circumstances. I'll use my own association as an example of the points I'd like to make, which are in direct response to the question you asked.

The institution I run was founded 35 years ago with a very specific national mandate. It has an 1,100-seat theatre. It also is the largest art gallery and museum complex in Canada, east of Montreal. It is an institution whose annual budget is $6 million and it is located in a city whose population is 35,000 people, in a province whose total population is 137,000 people.

So the specific answer to your question as to what role should the federal government be playing—and I was accused a few minutes ago of being old-fashioned in my feelings on this—is that, albeit it's old-fashioned, it all boils down to money.

It seems to me that for the last 20 or 25 years that I've been in this business, governments have been coming up with a number of very clever schemes and programs and ideas for supporting the arts, but what we really need, particularly in Atlantic Canada, is the kind of money that will enable us to continue, not only surviving but fulfilling, enhancing, promoting, and pursuing the legislative, in my particular case, mandates that we have been given.

In the case of the Confederation Centre of the Arts, this is not an institution that I dreamed up last week. This is something that the various levels of government founded 35 years ago because they felt that a symbol of national unity and Canadian vitality was important, and I argue with you now that if it was considered to be important 35 years ago it's even more important now.

The mantra of the day appears to be partnerships. We hear a lot about that on P.E.I., both provincially and then federally, and in many of the provinces across the country there's been a real move to try to encourage the arts to look more assiduously in the corporate and private sector for their operating budgets.

I think that's fair enough as far as it goes, but one thing that all of us around this table share is the fact that we are in Atlantic Canada. In Atlantic Canada, with very small local populations, the limitations on the ability of the corporate and private sector to fund us are profound. It's not only a question of competing with health care and other forms of traditional charitable activity, in which government has been more actively involved than in previous years, but it's also the fact that we have been—and forgive me for saying this, and if anyone's offended I apologize in advance—traditionally the have-not provinces of Canada.

I think it's fair to say that all of us in the cultural sector, and in the business sector, have been working very hard to overcome that in the last few years, and I think the professionalism with which we operate our institutions compares with the very best that's happening anywhere in the rest of Canada.

The fact is we are not located in Toronto, we are not in Vancouver, we are not in Calgary, we're not even in Halifax. There aren't too many head offices located in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and I don't know too much about Moncton, New Brunswick, but I suspect the situation is the same. At the end of the day, if the policy and the priority of the federal government is still that the delivery of artistic and cultural product and services to Canadians is important, then you simply have to put your money where your priorities lie.

I would also stick my neck out here and argue that we in Atlantic Canada deserve perhaps a larger percentile, or proportionately larger share of the pie, because of the very grim realities of the region in which we operate. It goes down to a very small local market base; it goes down to the limitations of our ability to raise money from the corporate and private sector.

There is also, for those of us who are operating performing arts venues, a real culture of not paying top dollar for theatre tickets, in my particular case. Again, I've always said the objective of public subsidy to the arts is not only a subsidy to the artist, or the arts institution that receives it, it's also a subsidy to the ticket-buying member of the public, because it keeps ticket prices down and it enables all sectors of society, of whatever income level, to have access to the arts at the professional level. Surely that has to be part of the thinking.

So the Canada Council nabbed direct appropriations of funds from the Department of Canadian Heritage. Other departments were trying to be very clever in the way we combined these things, but it all comes down to the dollar. That is the message, and I can't speak on behalf of my colleagues, but it's certainly the message that we, at the Confederation Centre, would like you to take back.

• 1345

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

Jean-Philippe.

Mr. Jean-Philippe Tabet: I'm not from Prince Edward Island, but I think Canada itself is cradled by culture. I'm not from Moncton, but I'm pretty sure that what the Moncton or the New Brunswick experience is, is very much what is felt by many cultural organizations, cultural workers and artists, across Canada.

[Translation]

Canada's 650,000 cultural workers account for nearly five per cent of the country's labour force. The direct and indirect impact of the cultural industry on the country's GNP was estimated in 1995 to be $30 billion.

The Cirque du Soleil is a $200 million industry. It is not a Montreal or a Quebec industry, any more than it is a Canadian industry. It is an international industry which showcases on the world stage Canada and Canadian talent in the field of the arts, management of cultural affairs or community relations.

Our objective in coming here today was not merely to ask you to pay closer attention to the way in which federal funds are allocated—naturally, that's an important consideration—but primarily to ask you to look at what we have accomplished in our cultural sector, to look at how we have handled our affairs in an extremely complicated environment and to seek your support so that we can continue working as we have done until now. Let me give you a few examples.

According to our estimates, half of the country's 650,000 cultural workers are partially or fully self-employed. They do not have access to the regular benefits available through the safety net created in the 1950s. These workers are extremely entrepreneurial nature. They have established their own infrastructures and found their own resources to get by.

We are appealing not only to your experience in cultural matters, but in particular to your knowledge of other sectors. We want you to look at the funds that have been invested in other sectors and to compare them with the money spent on the cultural industry. We welcome a comparison of successes and achievements, considering that working conditions in this sector are not those experienced by most other Canadian workers. However, increasingly, the situation is changing.

As you know, more and more restrictions are being placed on access to employment insurance. Many Canadian workers have invested in the EI system, but are not eligible to draw benefits. That goes as well for workers in the cultural sector. That's why the federal government brought in initiatives to assist in resource training and development in the cultural sector. That's particularly important in terms of ensuring a workforce of the future.

Mention was made of investing in infrastructures, but the Cultural Human Resources Council is of the opinion that investing in cultural human resources development should be considered a top priority at this time. Demographics show that a significant portion of our working population will be retiring in the near future. We need to train the workforce of the future. The brief submitted on behalf of the council contains some suggestions which I hope will foster a discussion. I would like us to focus on development, and on promoting and training not only young people entering this field, but also career artists and other cultural industry workers. There are people who work in the broadcasting and radio industry in attendance here.

• 1350

Much is at stake and we need to mobilize our efforts. The cultural sector has devised some strategies and we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you further. Thank you.

[English]

I'd like Peter to intervene.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I'm here, of course, largely in support of Jean-Philippe's brief, but I would like to make a couple of observations.

Culture, for most of us who work in this sector, is easily accepted as the key to the nature and identity of any given people. In a broader way, it gives an understanding, if one studies the culture of the people, to the social and practical policies they enact for the government of their country. For this reason, it is important that culture is supported at all levels of government. However, I think it is equally important to note that political policies and the politicians who devise them are most prone to lay claim to cultural identity at a time when they most need to draw on a people's sense of self and nationhood.

In Canada, the politics of culture is centred largely on minority groups, and for the most part, with few exceptions, these have had little money when they've had the need to create this identification.

I was born in Canada and I returned here in the early 1970s, but somewhere from the end of the 1960s until the mid-1980s we were very fortunate inasmuch as we worked within a federal system that found it important to support the identification of minorities in order to create a sense of nation. We cannot be anything other than grateful for that. But in general, this meant the funding was primarily federal.

In the last several years, as we're all very well aware, the politics of our nationhood has been largely seen in terms of the increase in power of the provinces, and of course devolution has taken place in many aspects, not just in terms of training. This has meant the funding has descended to the provinces. They, for the most part, have been rather satisfied with the identity they have gained through the moving of powers to them, which have little to do with culture. They have therefore seen very little need to support culture.

This is not true for every single province, obviously, but I would suggest that in those provinces and areas where culture is being supported on a provincial basis, it has been because of a need for creating a strong sense of identification.

What has happened is that the arts have fallen largely in a hole. They are getting diminishing support at the provincial level, while they are getting almost no support at all at the federal level. I would be a little careful, as there are areas in which there still remains or in which we have been able to finance this support, and for this again we should be grateful.

But we continually come up against two problems. The first and overwhelming one is that most programs are inflexible unless one is willing to involve oneself in some very convoluted language. The second problem is more generic and it certainly applies at provincial as well as federal levels. Programs, no matter how well-intentioned they have been, are almost without exception delivered from a political and bureaucratic talk, down to a community whose reality is vastly different from the paradigm in which the politicians and bureaucrats live. There is very little consulting at the bottom before such policies are developed. This lies at the root of most of the comments you will hear at this meeting today.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you, Peter.

Richard.

• 1355

Mr. Richard Hornsby: Thank you.

One of the problems with speaking two-thirds of the way through a group like this is that everybody has said everything you want to say. In a way, that comment is particularly apropos here, because even though we are members of an incredibly diverse community, with everyone from people such as Peter, who tries to spend as much of his time as possible in front of a potter's wheel, to people who are really part of very large organizations with very large budgets, when we start talking about arts and culture, we talk about the almost unanimously similar problems within our sphere. Maybe I'll just illuminate a couple of them, which I think have been sort of touched upon already.

One is on the general topic of mobility, and I think it has huge ramifications. It sounds like a little thing in itself, in a way, but when we really start looking and talking about our national culture as such and what makes up that whole national culture, it becomes a very difficult thing to attempt to define it in any way, in our country anyway, but it's even more difficult when we have a very hard time talking to each other about the variety of cultures we have.

Some of it has to do with access to training programs, which has already been mentioned. Organizations such as Jean-Philippe Tabet's are doing a lot of work. In a climate of devolution of training funds from federal to provincial situations, there are certain areas in the arts that can never be covered in small population areas, such as what Curtis was talking about. We will never have a theatre school in New Brunswick or P.E.I. There is just not a population base to support it. So national institutions such as the National Theatre School are very important to us, so that opportunities exist for young people who have an interest in theatre, and almost any of the other arts, to reach their highest levels.

We had a meeting in Fredericton of the Cultural Human Resources Council just a few days ago. A woman who presented to us talked about the fact that her high school student wished to go on in theatre and the school system, and in her mind and many people's minds, New Brunswick is not able to afford the training necessary to get her to the level from which she would be able to enter a national theatre school. She wanted to get this person into a school system that would foster that theatrical interest. She wanted to send them to Ontario, and found out it would cost her $7,000 a year to put that young person into the public school system.

This is not accessibility or mobility. This is really hampering our ability to speak to ourselves and is especially hampering the opportunities for people in regions such as ours that cannot provide all of those opportunities on-site to be able to access that type of training.

I'll speak to one other side of it: mobility. I know the museum people are interested in this, but again it goes almost all the way across the board, to me, that the ability to take our cultural products to the rest of the country is really being hampered right now. In my particular line of music, for instance, access right now—because I'm a classical musician—to the CBC is my lifeline to the rest of the country, in terms of their knowing that anything is actually going on out here in classical music.

It's in a regional office in Halifax right now, so when I want them to drive up to Fredericton for a six-hour drive in their truck to pick up a show that hopefully will go nationally, I have to do a lot of convincing. But if that office were taken away, I would have no access to the rest of the country. Obviously there are a lot of other musicians around in a similar situation.

Being able to take visual arts exhibitions from New Brunswick to other provinces needs assistance. To be able to take all kinds of other cultural products to the rest of the country, so the rest of the country knows what's going on out here—just as I would like to know what's happening in the Yukon and B.C. and Alberta and the rest of the places—is really important.

• 1400

I was enthused last night to hear at another meeting that the National Arts Centre Orchestra is actually considering touring out east this fall, for the first time, I believe, in 12 to 14 years. I can't exactly remember the date. This is encouraging, at least. Now there's a feeling that maybe it's a fiscal climate, and maybe it's also a political climate that is changing. I hope we will be able to build on that little kernel of change that I suspect is there now. We need to be able to talk to each other and send our products across the country, and we need help to do that.

The last thing I would like to speak briefly about is support—again, Curtis and others have already talked about it—for organizations in terms of raw cash. One of the problems we all have, those of us who work in cultural organizations here, is that while we have wonderful people, great volunteers who are willing to give their time to the cause, and we have great ideas in terms of programs to help some of these ideas along that we do see as both problems in our field and also things that are valuable, whether it's direct support to artists or touring New Brunswick products even around New Brunswick for that matter, we need some organizational support to be able to do that. If we can't afford to have the office or to hire those one or two people to make these things happen, they're not going to happen.

I think what we are also finding in a lot of organizations is that more burden then goes on to people like these wonderful volunteers we have, and we end up in the volunteer burnout phase. We're expecting too much of these people, who are really willing to help, but it's not appropriate for them to get involved in certain aspects of the business, so to speak. We really need help at the grassroots organizational support level. It's really basic infrastructure, so that we could do a lot more, so we could really do the things we're complaining about, saying, well, the province should be doing it, or the federal government should be doing it. Wherever the funding happens to come from, it will allow us to grow and promote our own activities, to the greater good, obviously, of our region and our country, if we're able to do that. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you, Richard. W

We'll move on to Darrel.

Mr. Darrel Butler: Culture is an expression of our collective experience and values as a society. It tells us who we are as a people. Our history is an integral part of our culture and our identity as Canadians. While there are many individuals, businesses, networks, etc. exploring our history, there are really only two institutions within our society that are actively fostering its professional study and interpretation: museums and universities. Since the realization that material history is an important resource for studying segments of our past that have not left a detailed paper or document legacy—I'm talking here about the poor and about women, artisans, and craftsmen—museums and universities are often working together. And I can cite many examples of that through my own institution and through other institutions throughout Atlantic Canada.

The federal government, as keeper of our nation and our national identity, has a vital role to play in the encouragement of this study and its expression to the nation as a whole. On this basis, Kings Landing supports the recommendations presented by the Canadian Museums Association in their brief to this committee in April 1997. Certainly we support all of them, but there are two I would like to highlight.

One is that the museum community strongly implores the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to recommend the restoration of funding to the museum assistance program as per the 1990 federal museum policy. That is extremely vital. Another recommendation, out of at least 11 that the CMA presented, was that donations of all appreciated property to museums and other bona fide charities be fully exempted from capital gains considerations.

• 1405

If a donor donates an artifact to Kings Landing, we can apply to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, and the artifact can be designated Canadian cultural property and be exempt from that capital gains tax. That's an important incentive to donors to contribute to our Canadian identity by saving our material culture.

I perhaps should hesitate to point out that in our taxation system now, if you donate to a political party, to get a virtual 100% write-off on your income tax. But if you choose to donate to your country through one of its cultural organizations, you don't get that benefit. Gentlemen and ladies, I do not in any way decry those people who support our political parties. Being a politician is, I believe, an honourable profession, even with the cynicisms of the 1990s. But I do feel that if I choose to donate to a cultural institution, I should receive the same benefit.

I would also point out to this committee that we have a lot to be proud of here in Canada. The federal government has done a tremendous job as caretaker of our culture. From the museum perspective, in many ways we are the envy of the world. We have created institutions like the Canadian Conservation Institute, which is absolutely regarded as probably one of the top institutions in the world for the conservation and restoration of artifacts. We have the Canadian Heritage Information Network, which museums in the United States come to Canada to study because it is envied by the Americans and many other institutions around the world. We have the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, which monitors cultural property leaving Canada. It's hard to get it out sometimes if it's valuable enough, and that's important. Those are very good agencies. You have good people in them who are working very hard. Support them. We have a lot to be proud of here.

I have two final points. There is a concern, both at Kings Landing and in the Association of Atlantic Historians, over the decline of the teaching of Canadian history and the decline of a strong national identity. In our drive to encourage the study of science and technologies in our schools, our children are not learning about Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the courage of Canadian soldiers on the battlefields of World War I, and vital artists such as Thomas Nisbit, the Group of Seven and Karen Kain. If we lose our awareness of our national history, we will lose our sense of national identity. While the federal government is not actively involved in our school system, it has a vital role to play in the cultivation of the study of our history and our national identity and its expression through the arts.

On a personal note, I would remind the federal government that you are custodian of one of the most important expressions of our national identity, the CBC. I fully support private broadcasters, etc., but I do feel our CBC has a national role to play. It is very important, and I think it is very key to the type of mobility that has been expressed already today. It is a very vital institution that expresses our culture, our values and our ideas across this country. Nurture this valuable link from sea to sea.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you, Darrel.

We'll now hear from René.

[Translation]

Mr. René Légère: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting the Association des radios communautaires acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick to share with it its views on such an important subject.

• 1410

For the past ten years, I have been travelling between Ottawa and the Maritimes promoting the cause of the Acadian minority and its existence within Confederation. Generally, we have the feeling that we are all alone in voicing our concerns about this issue.

I'm pleased to be sitting here today with my colleagues from the anglophone community of the Atlantic provinces and to realize that we are not alone in saying that the time has come for action on a number of fronts, including culture, and for the federal government to assume responsibility for heritage and cultural issues. Therefore, I don't feel quite as alone today because of this.

I would like to begin by focusing on community radio and relating to you the Acadian experience in New Brunswick.

Community radio has been around in the province for approximately ten years. It owes its existence to the involvement of the federal government which provided assistance for the purchase of equipment and the infrastructure. Once these initial stages were completed, the federal government withdrew from this sector and community radio stations became responsible for their own operations.

Their success over the years has been remarkable and I would like to underscore the federal government's outstanding commitment to these cultural development and promotion mechanisms.

As I recall, in 1989 or 1990, when the first community radio station opened in Canada, it received only six albums by Acadian artists, likely by artists who were the most popular at the time, including Edith Butler, Angèle Arsenault and the group 1755. This year, Radio Beauséjour received 62 CDs from Acadian artists, a clear sign that things have changed. These artists now have an opportunity to be heard and this contributes to their success. Until the 1990s, there were very few French stations, aside from Radio Canada which had its own programming targeted to the Quebec culture within national institutions. There was very little room for Acadian productions. The same arguments were always raised, namely that this programming lacked quality and didn't compare with what was being done in Quebec. I'm not here to bash Quebec, but that's what happened. For the most part, the decision-makers were Quebeckers and they were promoting their culture. I can understand that. It was up to us to organize ourselves and that is what we did. Our first major achievement was the founding recently of community radio stations.

What worries us at this time is that the federal government seems to be gradually withdrawing its support for community radio and in particular for artists. Too often, artists find themselves struggling to survive once they have produced their work. Over the years, many have turned to other professions because they have been unable to survive in the business.

• 1415

Community radio stations have also brought to communities a sense of belonging. It's interesting to note that there are currently seven community radio stations in New Brunswick and one in the development stages. These station employ 80 people on a full-time basis. In addition, 500 volunteers from the community donate their time and expertise each week to the communications sector.

Radio stations are vitally important to strengthening ties between Acadian communities across the Maritime provinces. I would like the federal government to support these institutions further by providing them with the necessary tools for their development. Indirectly, it would be supporting the artistic community and artists who are key components of this industry. Without them, community radio stations would not be able to operate.

A survey conducted last year revealed that Radio Beauséjour, a community radio station serving approximately 100,000 Acadians in southeastern New Brunswick, enjoys an audience share of 62 per cent. Furthermore, 95 per cent of listeners had not been in the habit of listening to French language radio. They preferred English language stations and as a result, were exposed only to English cultural products.

The arrival on the scene of community radio stations was an epiphany of sorts. We need additional assistance and support to pursue this initiative which enhances our sense of Canadian identity. Acadia is an important component of our Canadian culture and it deserves our continued support.

I will conclude on that note.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from our members of Parliament, beginning with Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm very happy to be meeting with you here this afternoon. But before I go any further, I'd like to clarify two things.

To my colleagues seated next to me, I would suggest that they use another example instead of the deductions awarded for contributions to political parties. You won't go very far with that. The maximum amount you can receive for making a donation to a political party is $450 per year. That's the most. Even if you contribute $20,000 to a political party, the maximum allowable deduction is $1,100. The rest amounts to an outright gift. Therefore, I suggest you use another example because with that one, you won't get many donations.

I'd also like to correct something that Jean-Philippe said. The Cirque du Soleil is a Quebec institution which started up in Baie-Saint-Paul. Its head offices are still in Quebec although it puts on amazing shows around the world. We can all take great pride in these performances.

Let me relate an amusing story to you. Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida wanted to feature the Cirque du Soleil and the company was willing to come to an agreement, provided its terms were met. It wanted nothing to do with Mickey Mouse. I think we can be proud of its stance. Cirque officials held their ground so that they could project the kind of cultural image they wanted to, one that had nothing to do with Mickey Mouse or American culture. Disney was told to take it or leave it. They would go to Orlando without Mickey Mouse, or not at all. If all of us could be as firm as this, we wouldn't run the risk of being swallowed up by the Americans and their culture, as we see happening around us today.

• 1420

Having said this, I still have mixed feelings. This committee has already travelled to Newfoundland and to Nova Scotia. We're here in New Brunswick today and tomorrow, we'll be in Montreal before heading off to Toronto. In the meantime, the other committee will be heading to Whitehorse.

I do appreciate the importance of national institutions and I understand the example that you gave concerning the theatre school and the fact that we can't have institutions like this in every province. Accessibility is, however, an important consideration. Everywhere we go, people tell us that the Canada Council serves a very useful purpose. You have given us some ideas and options to think about. We should be stopping to consider how helpful the Canada Council is to the regions. I won't deny that I am a little concerned about how our national institutions are evolving.

A recent report recommended that the National Film Board be dismantled even further. Yet, the National Film Board is one cultural institution of which we can justifiably be proud. It has won 10 Oscars, and that's no small feat. Again this year, one of its films has been nominated for an award. And yet, there are calls to slash its budget even further and to have it produce even more films. This is one institution that we must defend.

I'm a little concerned about how things are going at the CBC. It seems they're trying to turn this public corporation into a government-run corporation. The newspapers are full of reports on the government's plans for the CBC. We'll have to monitor the situation closely to ensure that this crown corporation remains wholly independent from the political parties in office. Governments come and go in Ottawa and the political scenery changes from blue to red, and from red to blue. If ever the Reform Party formed the government, as it hopes to do, perhaps the political landscape would turn green. It's a little ridiculous to think that a corporation's aspirations should be tied to the party in power.

All of the government documents that have been issued since 1993, at least all of those that I have seen, emphasize that there is only one people in Canada, namely Canadians, and only one culture, Canadian culture. Aren't we running the risk of putting all of our eggs in the same basket when it comes to culture, which is a provincial, not a federal responsibility? The federal government is being asked to take over responsibility for Canadian culture. What if Canada were to become a melting pot, much like the United States, and what if it was no longer possible to distinguish Americans from Canadians? Today, Canadians define themselves has been Canadians by virtue of the fact that they are not Americans. A study has already been submitted to our committee. I'd like our witnesses, anglophones as well as francophones, whether they come from Prince Edward Island, Moncton or elsewhere in New Brunswick, to tell us how they feel about entrusting our cultural future to people who might use it for propaganda purposes, rather than to forge an identity.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Who wants to just jump in and go to it?

Mr. Christopher Severance: I'd like to take the opportunity to comment on that.

I think your observation has some merit with respect to the current federal programs, Madame Tremblay. At the same time, I think it's true with respect to what I've seen of the current MAP program. There is an emphasis on promoting Canadianism as if Canadians were all the same. I think it's obvious to the maritimers in this room that we are not all the same. One of the things I learned in studying Canadian and Nova Scotian history was that, in many ways, Nova Scotians, the people of P.E.I., and certainly the people of Newfoundland, have characteristics of nations, just as the people of Quebec have the characteristics of a nation. However, I think there is a lot to be said for the Canadian mosaic pattern, which had some popularity a number of years ago. The strength of the Canadian nation is in that mosaic pattern and mutual respect and working together.

• 1425

The federal government certainly has a role not only in promoting Canadianism but also sustaining those elements, the provincial character—if you like, the national character—of P.E.I. and the national character, if I may refer to my own roots, of Cape Breton. Those are very important things to be preserved.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Inky Mark): Go ahead, Peter.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I would just like to make a small comment in response to Madame Tremblay. Obviously I feel very strongly about what Canada is in terms of its multiculturalism. I was born in Montreal back in the 1940s. I was part of a family who was involved with what was then the CCF. I'm not going to hold up a political flag here, other than to say I profoundly believe that much of the thinking that went on in the late 1930s and early 1940s in Saskatchewan and Montreal and at the Coady International Institute has been a profound mandator of social policy that exists today. I think this is one of the reasons we should support our culture.

I would also like to say one small thing to do with Madame Tremblay's intervention. We have in the arts a problem that exists between what is seen as funding that comes through grants in the form of, shall we say, Canada Council grants, but also in this province through our arts board, and those funds that are available for training. There's a profound difference here. Grants are usually awarded on a hierarchical basis. When they come through Canada Council, you apply for a grant. There are only one or two people who are going to get any grant in any given year.

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

Mr. Peter Thomas: How are we doing now? I've totally forgotten what I was trying to say.

There is really a problem, and I think this is a public problem too. If I apply for a Canada Council grant it is an elitist—in the best sense of the word—grant, it is a project-related grant, and very few of us will get it.

If I apply for training funds, which I am mostly ineligible for because I am largely self-employed, and in my teaching I'm a term employee—and I'm old, as Richard said—this is a very different state of affairs. If I am EI eligible, provided I can come up with a valid demand for training, provided the training is relative to my community, and provided the trainers are accepted, I have a more than adequate chance of getting training.

As a member of the arts community, 50% of us or over are ineligible for such training, but also we get into another problem, which is that even where we are eligible for training, the training in most cases—and this applies to almost all the small provinces in Canada—exists without the provincial mandate. Simply, if we wish to upgrade ourselves, if we wish to advance our interest—and Jean-Philippe has referred to this, and so has Richard—we simply have no means through the provincial system of obtaining training outside the province unless we raise our own funds. This is very difficult in an industry whose median income is somewhere in the area of $15,000 a year, and yet we can receive no help federally because of devolution. Even if we do raise the funds ourselves, we then run into interprovincial barriers.

I had one other little issue I wanted to throw in here, because none of the museums people have brought it up, and that is the issue of cultural exports. I think this is an issue that again cannot be dealt with at the provincial level. It is a federal-level issue. It is also very important, because we are losing a lot of our cultural heritage.

• 1430

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Suzanne, and then René.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If our colleague Wendy were here, she'd ask where the money has been spent. I think Jean-Philippe is someone who can tell the committee about the situation before and after employment insurance reform as far as training is concerned. I know that you could tell us a lot about this. However, I would appreciate your keeping your comments brief because we have many questions for you. It's important that you share this information with us. Moreover, I believe you intended to submit a document on this matter to the committee.

Mr. Jean-Philippe Tabet: The Cirque du Soleil is unquestionably a Quebec business. The most difficult part of all of this is that you have asked us to answer questions relating to heritage, which comes within the purview of your committee. We wanted to show that artists should not only the associated with heritage, the arts and entertainment, but that they should also be viewed as regular people like us. They are workers and taxpayers who want to know, and with good reason, what kind of investments the various levels of government are willing to make to help them out as ordinary taxpayers. I've tried to illustrate how the cultural sector contributes substantially to Canada's GDP. In fact, it's one of the four leading contributors to the GDP.

I believe I've said enough about the subject, but if there's one recurring theme, then it has to be funding. The Cultural Human Resources Council has focused on this very timely issue and tried to demonstrate that while artists and cultural workers and cultural enterprises like yours make a fairly important contribution, available programs and services are not targeted to the specific needs of this workforce.,

I realize your committee doesn't have a mandate to examine employment insurance reform and tax incentives. Nevertheless, we can't avoid mentioning the subject because this is a fundamental part of the lives of Canada's artists and cultural workers. The link must be noted.

Mr. Butler, you talked about arts education and about the problems schools face today in trying to teach culture and heritage. When we conducted our regional consultations, like you, we were struck by the overwhelming need to teach young people about jobs in the cultural field. No one seems to be talking about this.

Curtis spoke briefly about the workforce of the future. It is important that the federal youth program now under development focus on the needs of the cultural sector. It's not up to us to say whether this is good or bad. Consider, for instance, programs such as Mentoring Cultural Youth. It is vitally important to help Canadian youth integrate the workforce. That's the second component of the Council's strategy, namely to help young people understand what the cultural field has to offer in terms of jobs, help them find a career in this sector and help cultural training institutions, which may not always be on solid financial ground. Of course, this isn't solely the responsibility of the federal government, but the latter has played a major role in this area over the years.

• 1435

The conservation institute is only one of the many organizations that make up the network of national training institutes in Canada. You also mentioned the National Theatre School, the École nationale de cirque, the National Ballet School, the Canadian Film Centre and the National Training Institute. These internationally renown institutions have made Canada a leader in the art of training.

When it comes to transferring or off-loading certain responsibilities, it's important in our view to look at how our national institutions are funded in the long term. Why? It's not that we think the federal government should be doing everything. It can't. However, we believe the federal government should focus its efforts on ensuring accessibility or mobility. Although there aren't any aboriginal representatives here, we would certainly have liked to hear from representatives of aboriginal communities in our part of the country. Certainly these issues are something that the federal government should consider.

Getting back to Ms. Tremblay's question, which concerns not only this committee, if indeed there are more and more self- employed workers in Canada's, not only in the cultural sector, but in many other sectors as well, isn't it time to devise new strategies or policies to assist this new class of workers?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

We'll have René, followed by Richard, and then come back to Joe.

[Translation]

Mr. René Légère: Thank you. I'd like to say something in response to Ms. Tremblay's question because I believe it goes to the crux of this matter. I too am concerned about current funding levels and the survival of our national institutions. While I mentioned the CBC, that's only one of many institutions that are presently threatened.

Here in Acadia, we don't question our identity. In 1881, we founded the Société nationale de l'Acadie. In 1984, we acquired our own flag. Now that preparations are under way to host the Francophone Summit, some are wondering if the Acadian flag should be flown next to the flags of the other countries that make up the international francophone community. This has become a major news story in our region and has elicited a strong reaction from Acadians. As far as I know, Acadians are staunch federalists, but that doesn't mean that they are willing to trade in their identity for a homogenous Canadian identity.

We have a great deal of difficulty accepting the fact that the federal government now seems to be in a position where it must always strive to please the public or one of the partners in Confederation, namely Quebec and Quebeckers. Acadian communities and francophone communities across the country are left to struggle with this challenge confronting the federal government. Who loses ultimately? Acadian and francophone communities, clearly.

As General Secretary of the Société nationale de l'Acadie, I find myself constantly having to defend our Acadian identity, to champion the needs of this community and to ensure that it takes its rightful place among national institutions. This is no easy task.

The emergence of community radio stations is due in part to the failure of the CBC to take advantage of what this community has to offer. Although I don't have the results of the latest survey with me—perhaps Mr. Donelan does—I seem to recall that the CBC has only a 5 per cent audience share among Francophones in southeastern New Brunswick. How is that after 25 or 30 years of association with this community, this institution hasn't managed to reach a reasonable number of people, while in a mere four years, the new community radio station has managed to capture a 62 per cent share of francophone listeners? This shows that people did not identify at all with the product offered by the CBC. There is a problem at this level that needs to be addressed and in order to do that, the federal government must provide additional assistance to regional institutions to give them a louder voice within our national institution. On this score, the federal government has failed miserably.

• 1440

Consider the current trend in France. Acadian groups are more popular than ever. The Acadian group Barachois from Prince Edward Island - Mr. Barlow is surely familiar with the group since he has supported them a lot—is very much in demand and is currently touring Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, Scotland and England. The Société nationale de l'Acadie fields requests for appearances by top-notch groups such as Barachois, the Méchants Maquereaux, Blou and Amérythmes. It's somewhat ludicrous that the money to send groups like Grand Dérangement and Blou from Nova Scotia to perform next summer at a festival in France has to come from the Office franco-québécois pour la jeunesse. We have arranged with the Office franco-québécois pour la jeunesse to send our performers abroad to attend the festival. Unless your name is Céline Dion or Roch Voisine or you happen to be a star in Quebec, it's impossible to get a dime from federal programs. I think this is a big problem.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

Do you want to respond?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough earlier. One always has to be careful and put on kid gloves, but I will try and be a little more direct.

Unlike you, we have the impression in Quebec that the Canadian government is doing its utmost to be a thorn in our side. It recognizes the existence of only one people, the Canadian people. It is not willing to recognize the existence of Quebec as a nation. It recognizes only Canadian culture, not Quebec culture. I don't think it's doing everything it can to please us. My feeling is that the Canadian government is doing its damnedest to make us all Canadians and to sweep francophones outside Quebec up into this movement.

Newfoundlanders whom we have met identify themselves as Newfoundlanders before Canadians. They don't want to lose their culture and they have told us as much. They don't object to the fact that a Canadian culture exists and that they benefit from this, but they don't want to lose their unique Newfoundland culture either. That's easier for them to do because they speak English. However, francophones across Canada are more vulnerable because there is only one Canadian culture. I asked you how you felt as a francophone community? The Acadian nation is as much a reality as the Quebec nation. I hope that you will never lose your identity. In fact, I'm not worried that you will. I hope your flag will be hoisted along with Quebec's flag at the Francophone Summit. However, I still want to know how you feel about all of this, without resorting to, as you call it, Quebec bashing? We face the same problems. What is said about Quebec in the rest of Canada isn't quite the same as what Quebec is saying or experiencing. We need to be careful about that.

Mr. René Légère: Getting back to the concept of people and nation, I think it's clear from the documents we've received from the federal government and Francophone Summit organizers that no one is denying the existence of the Acadian people and the Quebec people. I've seen this written clearly in Francophone Summit documents.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That's because the federal government feels obligated to do so, given the agreement it signed. However, this is the only document to acknowledge this fact.

• 1445

Mr. René Légère: In any event, I've never had a problem with this. In all of our correspondence and contacts with the federal government, we've also used the expression "Acadian people" and no one has ever called this into question.

Moreover, we refer to francophones outside Acadia because we don't view ourselves as Acadians in relation to Quebec, but rather as Acadians in relation to the rest of the people of Canada. Because of sheer numbers, Quebeckers are undeniably a force to be reckoned with within federal institutions. I don't know whether this strategy is deliberate or not, but Quebeckers manage to arouse some fear among Canadians and hence we see this concern for treating Quebec well. What does it matter if Acadians are ill- served. There are only 300,000 of them.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

Barry, would you like to respond?

Mr. Barry King: One of the concerns I have or one thing I would mention is, if we're talking about heritage and culture here, then in P.E.I. we're a conglomerate of a number of cultures—the Lebanese culture, for example—each of which has maintained a very strong identity. It took us a little longer to get into Confederation than the rest of you. We took our time and thought about it: do we want to be Canadian?

What happened is that we did become Canadian. In Prince Edward Island there's a very strong island culture and we see ourselves very much as Prince Edward Islanders, but also, at the same time, we see ourselves very much as Canadians, participating in a wonderfully diverse community, and in fact our diversity can make us strong.

That's not to say that the Quebec culture isn't important and doesn't have great merit, and certainly the fact that I have these earphones on and wish I could speak French or have the opportunity to speak French speaks to that. There's a great richness in the Quebec culture. We gain from that as a country, but there's also a great richness beyond that, very much not a melting pot at all.

Just as there are many different types of birds, all of which we call birds, there are also many different kinds of people, all of which we call people. We're Canadians, but we have different colours and different approaches.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you, Barry.

Do you want to respond to this question?

Mr. Christopher Severance: I'll go back to the Canadian Museums Association brief of two years ago, which called upon the federal government to develop a holistic federal cultural policy.

One of the elements I'd like to see discussed is culture as a business. Those of us who work in Atlantic Canada are very much aware of the various economic activities that go on in this area. Culture is extremely successful and a major contributor to at least the economy of Prince Edward Island.

For your information, Statistics Canada reports that the impact of P.E.I.'s cultural sector is 3,300 jobs, both direct and indirect. That's a big number of jobs in a population of 135,000 or 137,000—whatever we're counting this year, Curtis.

One of the things we've been trying to argue in the cultural community on P.E.I. and with our tourist colleagues, because they're perfectly prepared to market us but they're not prepared to see product development.... Quite frankly, when I look at some of the things I'm responsible for, whether it be Orwell Corner or the National Exhibition Centre in Summerside, I think of the audience that's coming in and the cultural tourist.

• 1450

The cultural tourists are sophisticated individuals. They've been across the country. They've been to museums in London, Rome, Toronto, and Ottawa. When they walk into the Confederation Centre or the P.E.I. National Exhibition Centre in Summerside and pay their $20, $5, or $10, they expect to see a cultural product as good as what they see in Ontario or London.

One of the things this committee can do is encourage their colleagues in Tourism Canada to make funds available for product development. Maybe I'm going back to the infrastructure point I made earlier, but we're starting to look a little shabby on the ground, and I know we're not alone in Atlantic Canada.

Thanks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Richard, I haven't forgotten about you. We'll get to you.

Next is Darrel, followed by Jean-Philippe.

Mr. Darrel Butler: Thank you.

I really wanted to pick up on what Chris said. In a way he has already brought it to the floor, and I really appreciate that. We are in a province that is the official bilingual province. We have very many founding cultures here in New Brunswick, including two native cultures, and one of the strongest is the Acadian. I think New Brunswick is very fortunate to have a series of museums that support that, explore it in its diversity, and present it on the world stage. I think that's very important.

I don't want to divert the current train of thought, but Peter mentioned cultural exports, and I really wasn't quite sure what he meant by that. He expressed concern about losing them, and in some respects I may want to echo that. The CMA was also suggesting that it's part of the federal government's role to foster cultural exports but perhaps not cultural property. I would echo what you said. I know that is a major concern throughout the country.

But having gone to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board to try to repatriate Canadian cultural property, I will say that they are extremely supportive within the mandate and rules they function by. They have been very supportive in the saving of Canadian cultural property. Again, I would say to this committee, please strengthen that board, please help that board; it has a very important role to play in this country.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Jean-Philippe, do you want to respond to Madame Tremblay's question?

Mr. Jean-Philippe Tabet: First of all, I want to be more precise about what Madame Tremblay has asked me to provide you with, because it is an important question, I think.

Devolution agreement is basically the management of the Employment Insurance Act fund. All the provinces in Canada, except Ontario, have signed a transfer of responsibility agreement. This will not be very significant for the cultural sector because, as I said to you already, 50% of our workforce is self-employed and therefore will not really be able to benefit from the program attached to the transfer of responsibility. However, still 50% of our workforce are contributing to the EI account, and therefore we wanted to know if in the transfer of responsibility measures had been taken to make sure programs were going to be responsive to the nature of cultural employment.

So far we have been in a really difficult situation to understand how that has happened, and we commissioned a research paper, which I would like to share with the members of this group, called “The Cultural Human Resource Development Post-Devolution”, which I would like to share with the members of this group.

• 1455

You asked us what the federal government should do and what role it should play. Certainly, the federal government is now more and more aware that investment of public dollars must really focus on what the industry or the sector is really prepared to go towards. What I mean by that is that there must be a change in perspective here. The sector has been trying to organize itself despite dire circumstances. Basically, self-employed people have done that for quite a number of years.

What we are asking not only the federal government, who we are talking to here, but also the provincial governments is to try to understand what is in place within the cultural sector that has worked and to make sure the infrastructure that is in place is supported, encouraged, and nurtured.

I'd like to give you an example of one of these programs. It's called MAP, but it's not the museum assistance program, it's the mobility assistance program. When it was created, this program was in response to a situation where the number of professional musicians working in Canadian orchestras in Canada was very minimal, maybe 10% or 20%. Why? It's because of the very nature of this country, where it's so geographically diverse. If the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra called for a musician to play in that orchestra, Canadian musicians from Halifax, Moncton, Saint John, Montreal, or Toronto would not have the means to go to Vancouver to audition, but musicians from Seattle would have the means to go there. Since this program has been in place, there has been a significant number of Canadian musicians playing in Canadian orchestras across this country.

That is a small program that does not involve a major investment, but it has made a big difference for our workforce. This is the type of situation where the federal government could take some kind of action that would not be detrimental to any provincial government, and it would really focus on the role of the federal government to help in an elementary function of this country.

[Translation]

I'm sorry, but my English is perhaps not very good. As we say in Acadia, French comes easier to me. It's important to emphasize that the federal government should focus on initiatives that will greatly help, not adversely affect, today's cultural workers. That's only one example. I could give you many more.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

It's 3 o'clock, and we could elect to go to 3.30 if that's the wish of the people here. What we'll do is go back to Richard and Joe, who I haven't forgotten, and hopefully within 10 or 15 minutes we'll go to the audience as well.

Curtis, do you want to respond to this?

Mr. Curtis Barlow: First, with regard to Jean-Philippe and his two board members here, I had the pleasure of talking with him last evening about the work they do, and I would like to say on behalf of the centre how much we support the area of training and, in particular, the youth initiatives in which they're engaged. I wanted to let you know that the Confederation Centre is hoping to collaborate a little more extensively with the council on a number of very important training projects.

• 1500

But I want to go back to this cultural discussion we were having. Jean-Philippe said a few minutes ago that the federal government can't be expected to do everything. That's very true. I've already talked to the money side of it. But one thing the federal government should not be doing is determining what forms of cultural expression will receive federal money, nor should they be promoting a political agenda through the arts.

The forms of cultural expression that will receive funding should be coming from the grassroots up. The artists from Quebec, from Newfoundland, from Prince Edward Island, francophone, Acadian, English-Canadian, aboriginal should be allowed to speak with their own voices, and the decisions on funding should be made based on artistic excellence and not on any form of political agenda. That is why the single most effective manner of federal funding of the arts has been through the autonomous arm's-length agency—in the federal case, the Canada Council.

There are other forms of funding; I'm not denying that. But if politicians want to stay away from influencing the direction of culture, as they should, it should be through the autonomous arm's-length agency, because the arm's-length agency exists not only to protect the artists but also to protect the politicians. While a politician may be very proud of having funded something like the Cirque du Soleil and take credit for that, the first time someone from the Cirque du Soleil appears on stage nude or throws water in someone's face that politician is going to be hiding behind the Quebec arts council or the Canada Council.

So I think that's important, but I would say this: Notwithstanding all of this, the federal government has been very respectful, if you will, of a variety of forms of cultural expression, not only the forms of cultural expression from our two founding peoples—not only linguistic but our two founding cultures, if you will—but all the other forms of cultures that now represent what it means to be Canadian.

As an example, I would refer you to the list of projects, the first round of successful projects considered by the millennium bureau. Eleven of those sixteen very directly relate to what I would consider to be multicultural projects.

In saying all of that, there is one exception to the rule. Whether it should be or not, I don't know, but in practice, the exception to the rule that the federal government should not be pursuing a political agenda through the arts pertains to something that's on this agenda, question three, which we haven't quite reached yet, but let's reach it now. That is the international cultural relations program and international trade as it pertains to the arts and cultural industries.

I ran the international cultural relations program for Canada for ten years in London and in Washington. It is a fact that the ICR, the international cultural relations program, exists and the primary objective is to promote Canada's foreign policy objectives through the arts. The fact that Canadian artists and Canadian arts companies will benefit from that is very important and central, but it is a side effect. The objective is to promote Canada's foreign policy interests through the arts.

I'm not prepared to say whether I think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm leading to another recommendation here, and that pertains to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

A number of years ago they adopted arts and cultural industries as the so-called third pillar of Canadian foreign policy, the first being political, and the second being trade. But they failed to follow through with any meaningful appropriation of public funding. As a result, cultural attachés and cultural counsellors abroad are fighting to fulfil their mandates because they simply do not have the financial resources to do so.

So I would recommend that this committee take a very careful look at culture as the third pillar of Canada's foreign policy and recommend that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade appropriate the requisite sums of money to make it a meaningful policy decision.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you, Curtis.

We'll go to Richard, to Joe, and then to our new guest, Madame Foulem.

Mr. Richard Hornsby: Thank you.

Some of my comments are for Madame Tremblay, but they're also for you and those of us around the table.

When we start to get into that sort of cultural discussion, I get really nervous, because I suspect when you go to Vancouver you're going to be hearing the same thing from the Asian community there. I think we have to watch that in supporting one aspect of our culture, we don't ignore all the others that are out there. And it's going to keep changing as the next century goes on. What we have now is not any status quo and we don't know where it's going to go. It could change. In 10 years the mosaic could be completely different.

• 1505

What brings us together and why we've achieved something together is much greater than that. It's something that's down deep and really reflects what we believe as artists and what the art should be about. It's something greater than what language you speak. It's something greater than whether you are in an economically depressed area or you happen to live in downtown Toronto, in Thornhill or someplace.

I would hope all the comments that we make and that you hear, and the way they're interpreted, are still within that general umbrella, that from a general point of view we want to live together and that we shouldn't be looking.... I'll give a specific example here that Madame Tremblay spoke to a bit when she mentioned the NFB situation.

It was interesting, because when I heard the NFB was not being supported by aspects of our—meaning the New Brunswick—film community, I was curious. I was thinking, these are the film people, why aren't they supporting the NFB? And I think to a large extent it becomes this problem of not enough food in the cage. They're saying, well, gee, all this money is going to NFB. That should be coming to me as a private producer or small producer in my region. So I'm not going to support them because I know they're taking money away from me.

That's a really unfortunate way of seeing it. I think we could all acknowledge the work that's been done at NFB. I don't think anybody can say that it wasn't good work and it wasn't money well spent.

I would venture that we shouldn't be looking at one versus the other, and that includes the CBC versus the private radio stations. There are roles for both of them, and we can't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

I think when we're looking at support in general, and what can come down from the federal government, that perspective is kept with national organizations that do represent greater interests. So again, hopefully I know what's going on in the Asian community in Vancouver somewhat, through that connection. But I'm also part of a smaller community that is New Brunswick and has its own diversity. So we keep that duality and those different tiers in mind as we're looking at our own cultural development.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Joe, on again to you.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I agree with you, Richard. I think the level of funding is such that we have pitted group against group. And I think in reality it goes back to something Curtis said, that it's a symptom of the problem, and the problem is dollars. The problem is cash.

I'll point out—and I'll tell the story very quickly, because I think it brings something to where I'm going with this—I came to this cultural appreciation late in life. I was a college teacher and I started working internationally. I spent three years in Hungary, and I refer to it as a kind of cultural immersion experience. I haven't bothered trying to define it past that. But I had a real sense that there was something missing in our society, that there was an undervaluing of everything that represents.

I want to go at this in a more pragmatic way. I think that's probably a symptom of the fact that I'm representing the government and I'm in the room. But I'm also of the faith. But I have this ideological groin pull that I have to deal with myself, because I am a politician too. I'm a new politician and I'm new to culture, so I'm equally bad at both.

I won't go through the spin of the fiscal battles, but essentially what happened is that the federal government went back down to the first level of Maslow's hierarchy, and we're working our way back up. There are just as passionate discussions going on at the defence committee. So we have to understand that. And I think when solid, logical arguments fall on deaf ears, you have to look at why there is a disconnect. I think there needs to be some strategy, and there were some references to that.

I've picked up some very interesting points that I can use to make the argument that I very passionately believe in. But I also know if I stand up in a caucus room and wax eloquent about my cultural immersion in Hungary, they're just going say, put him on the party list but don't let him back up to the microphone. This is just one person's opinion in terms of how you get a provocative discussion moving to some sort of action.

• 1510

One of the definitions that sticks in my mind was provided by someone from St. John's. That person defined “culture” as the self-esteem of a society. Just as healthy individuals know themselves and understand themselves and that makes them much more productive people on a number of levels, a society also needs a sense of self-esteem. It's the heritage and the culture that provides that.

I think you can make the argument for why we do this, for why this is important. Certainly it's also much more than that, but I'm just trying to simplify it because I know they need it in a simplified form when I go into the political world. But that's still not enough.

There was a statement made about public trust. That's good. That's a public policy reason for doing it. That's a way to try to explain the perceived indifference on the part of most Canadians. They think we're doing it, perhaps. I don't know, but that's another thing we have to talk about.

The economic argument is good, but it has to be all of those things. It can't be one against the other.

Christopher talked about the tourism sector, and I see it in the environment as well. Ecotourism is seen as a way to put money into...well, that's okay, but tourism has objectives. Marketing is all about giving people what they want. I don't think that's what culture is about. I don't think that's what artistic expression is about. I think marketing can be part of it, but you have to resist the notion that we can solve the funding problems by turning them into businesses. And believe me, that pressure is there. Last night, I made the mistake of bringing it up as if it were my view, and I almost got eaten alive as a result, so I didn't do that today.

What's needed, then? We agree on why, but we also need to agree that not everybody accepts our version of why. We're in the minority, so we have to sell that why. I think we need a very clear cultural policy in this country. We didn't really talk about this, but we need to repatriate the cultural industries in this nation, because they're not owned by Canadians any more. This is happening by stealth to a large degree, and it has something to do with trade agreements. But for whatever reason—and it's a downward spiral—I don't think we support them, they don't have a presence; and we don't miss what we don't have, so it's hard to make the argument to support them. So I think there is a need for aggressive intervention by the government, but it's going to take courage and it's going to take leadership, which brings me to my third point.

In a very cynical way—but there's a lot of truth to what I'm about to say—politicians understand jobs, money and votes, so you have to frame your message in jobs, money and votes. Otherwise, you're expecting some kind of mass conversion that I don't think is going to happen without a little bit of strategy to it. It's an extremely important area, because what we're essentially saying....

We're hearing all kinds of good things, and I don't want to minimize that. We have infrastructures in place that work well but are underfunded, and we have infrastructures in place that aren't working well. In Newfoundland we heard the example that there was federal money to build a replica of an outport village but there wasn't money to repair an existing outport village. There's a disconnect there. We had the example of the national museum charging to see artifacts having to do with the Vikings' presence in Newfoundland, whereas Finland was giving admission for free.

There are cases of where we could spend our money better, and that's good to know. Something like that requires ongoing consultation, although that needs to just happen as a general course of action. But I think there's also a need for a line in the sand, a statement by this government that protecting Canadian culture is important and that we're going to do it.

There's a very important piece of legislation out there right now in the split-run magazine bill, and I'll tell you that it is going to be a litmus test for whether or not we have a spine as a country. I'll tell you something else, though. I haven't gotten one phone call from somebody saying it's a good idea. I have gotten a few from business people saying they think we should be careful, that they don't think it's a good idea.

So I guess it's a combination of a lot of that. How can we—and I come from a business background and we talk about push versus pull strategy—create the audience?

• 1515

The other point Curtis made that was very good is that when you subsidize an artistic event or industry by subsidizing ticket prices, you are drawing larger audiences, and if you think the whole experience has value, that's a good thing. But unfortunately the money doesn't talk, it swears, and you have to be able to argue those kinds of economic things.

Again, we have to deal in facts. I don't want to pick on Darrel, but he referred to the tax deduction, and that's an issue we dealt with and talked about. If I had the time, I could argue in very good conscience why it exists the way it does. But in a quick pitch, to throw that in, the baby will go out with the bath water, to quote someone else. They'll marginalize your whole argument because your facts were wrong on that, or you put it in a way that sort of draws attention to the issue but doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

A better example would be professional athletes. Why are we allowing professional athletes to average their income over three years and we're not allowing artists to do that? That's a better one. I'm not saying the argument about the structure of the tax isn't a debate, but it's not as simple as you've raised it, and you'd get politicians a little on the defensive if that happened.

I guess it's all about how you get from A to B. We have some real challenges and we're at a critical point, but to go back and make the argument for increased funding, that's a very competitive argument around the cabinet table. We have to have a strategy that the industry supports and agrees on in general terms. It's a fight that has to be fought and won if we're going to continue to exist as a country. I feel that strongly about it.

But we are in the minority, and without jobs, money and votes arguments it's hard to get politicians' attention on the issue. So we need to look at some of those kinds of activities and how to get people to recognize....

As I said, I didn't have anyone call to say the split-run magazine bill is good. I have never had anyone call me and say we need more money for the arts. So it's not on the radar screens of most MPs. How do we get it there and how do we make sure we make an argument they will listen to, that will get their attention? It's a very important undertaking, but it's also an undertaking that can fail if we don't go at it in a coordinated, logical way that recognizes the realities of how these decisions get made.

I have just one last point, because I don't want to sound pessimistic. I made this reference last night. If you look at Ontario, the Premier of Ontario fought against gun registration, and is still fighting against it because he intervened in the Alberta appeal. Now rightly or wrongly, good bill or bad bill—it has nothing to do with the story—he presented himself as a defender of the people's right to bear arms, in some kind of misguided interpretation of the U.S. constitution. But he just banned the spring bear hunt in Ontario. So when you get somebody doing a complete 180-degree turn like that, your eyes should light up. How did that happen? It happened because they dumped some videos in some key ridings that left some images, and people called their local members of Parliament in record numbers. In about two days that decision was made, and he didn't even consult the minister.

The problems are also opportunities. In the challenges you face in getting the discussion to action and the fact that it isn't a logical, clear flow, there are opportunities as well. But you have to look at those kinds of things.

I'm on four committees, and this is one of the most non-partisan ones. We have Wendy Lill, the playwright—playwrights in Parliament. We have a Reformer in the chair. There are certain committees where that wouldn't even be considered. There's Madame Tremblay. I just told her, “I think sometimes we in English Canada criticize Quebec for doing exactly what we should be doing as Canadians. I don't have any problem with Quebec separating from Canada, just take the rest of us with you.”

So we're prepared to fight the fight, but we have to do it in a coordinated way. We have to get down to the dirty business of trying to develop a strategy for addressing this with the people who are actually going to make the decisions. That's the cold reality of the caucus table. As I say, you get what you pay for. It's a year and a half into the job, but I think there are some things that could be done to advance on this front, because I really do believe it's important. I'll just leave it at that.

• 1520

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much, Joe. We waited a long time, but it was worth waiting for.

What I'll do is recognize Madame Foulem, then we'll go to the floor, as I indicated a long time ago.

[Translation]

Ms. Ghislaine Foulem (President, Association des acadiens): Just a moment. I'm listening to the interpreters because I like to understand what we're discussing.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): I would now like to take some interventions or comments from the floor. If there's anyone from the audience who would like to speak, please come to the mike and we'll hear your questions or comments on this discussion we've had today.

Please identify yourself.

Ms. Charlotte Glencross (Individual Presentation): I'm Charlotte Glencross. I'm with the New Brunswick Arts Board. My comment is in reaction to the kind of political work that's needed. There's a certain minimum level of funding needed to allow the organizations to do that work. And that minimum level is the problem; it's not being met.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

If there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make some comments, come on up, you're more than welcome.

Ms. Kathleen MacLellan (Individual Presentation): Good morning, afternoon and good evening. Bonsoir; that's B.C. French. I'm a farmer's wife and a farmer's mother from Prince Edward Island. I've been interested in culture and heritage activities for a very long time, since I learned to recite: “Upon the open moorlands the rain was falling fast, and through the open something or other a goblin hurried past”. That's from Vancouver. Then I also took junior courses at the Banff School of Fine Arts.

I haven't said who I was, have I? I'm sorry. I'm Kathleen MacLellan, née Glennon, and you'll see that name on the boards at the St. Louis arena, where we had to watch the hockey game the other night because they couldn't get it from Montreal or Toronto. The name Glennon is from before I was married and came to live on the Island.

How long do I have?

First of all, the flysheet here, or whatever you want to call it, on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage mentions something about federal cultural support measures. I go down from there...and I have spoken to Mr. Barlow before now and I know the P.E.I. Museum and Heritage Foundation because I've been a member of that at times too. Anyhow, it mentions something about national institutions funding partners, that's under number five, patron of the arts.

The part I'm questioning is the business developer and promoter. Who is promoting heritage and culture, and why is it being left—I find this very much so on the Island—in the tourism department?

It irks me considerably when I find that if we have a concert coming up, which in our particular case is at the Church of St. Mary's in Indian River, and they have received funds from Tourism, Human Resources and ACOA, what they do with our church and with our chapel is desecrate it and make two bathrooms out of it so they can sponsor some musical groups. I heard Barachois mentioned before, but Barachois wasn't one of them; it was another outfit, and other singers and people from UPEI. In any case, what bothers me is that they got money to do that. They desecrated the chapel before the stations of the cross or the tabernacle were even removed. And I have pictures to show that. So if that's the kind of culture we're looking at, it certainly isn't our heritage; we're tearing our heritage out.

The other points I have about heritage.... By the way, do you know how much it cost us to get over here from Prince Edward Island on that billion-dollar pile of cement? It cost $35.50. I don't know if these other gentlemen came individually or travelled in one car. So that's nearly $100 we had to pay to get here.

• 1525

Anyhow, the other thing that's bothering me too now, the new abbreviations we see for our provinces. Prince Edward Island is PE. Alberta is AB. I don't know, to heck with the computers and the problem with Y2K.

My husband had to leave. He had to go and get something to eat. This hotel didn't provide crackers.

On export of cultural items—do you know where our Abegweit is, our dear old ferry the “Abby”? It's sitting at a dock in Chicago. Now, whether the club that took it paid $1 or not I don't know. People are looking at me, wondering what's this got to do with our heritage or culture. To me it has, because they did take it away.

Where and when are the national policies vis-à-vis transportation, railways, post offices, airports and even some fishing ports, which now are more or less privatized...? They were part of our history. They're still part of our heritage. On Friday in Charlottetown they're going to have a ceremony handing over the airport facilities to an airport authority.

I guess I did mention I'm a CFA, but anyhow, I'd also like to see a little more emphasis put on the fact that we as the Dominion of Canada are still a member of the Commonwealth. In the British Commonwealth we have all kinds of languages and cultures and they still, after all, have their little ins and outs and quarrels, just like a family.

Somebody mentioned 3,300 jobs on the Island from Statistics Canada, pertaining to that ubiquitous tourist business. But we are farmers. Agriculture is our industry, even if we are cutting down land like nothing to make golf courses.

But perhaps I've said enough. I hope I have addressed some things that concern us.

Oh yes, you should have Mr. Joe Q. Public or Mrs. Joe Q. Public at this table, as taxpayers. They're all cultural activities or heritage, and that's the reason.... I only heard this morning about this hearing in Moncton. I heard it on the radio and I had to go through various phone calls trying to find out where it was, if it was coming to P.E.I. They probably couldn't afford that $35.50. That was it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

Ms. Kathleen MacLellan: And I don't know what the airport costs. But anyhow, thank you very much, Mr. Mark.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much for your comments.

It's about 3.30 p.m., and before we close the meeting I'm going to give the last word to Joe, because Joe's going to leave our committee today from Moncton to go home.

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank the contributors to this discussion. It's been very educational and we will certainly take it back with us to Ottawa.

Jeanne, go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Jeanne Farrah: I don't have the impression that we have touched on every single issue this afternoon. Mr. Jordan mentioned something that I believe is critically important, namely putting figures and economic arguments on the table. For years now, people have been asking us to advance some economic arguments and to engage in strategic planning. That's what we always do and we always have the figures to support our position. In fact, Jean- Philippe presented you with some figures and I'm sure he has more. The main issue here is the federal government's willingness to invest in the arts and culture. Imagine just one day without the arts. That should put an end to all of the questions. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much. Your enthusiasm has certainly made my job a lot easier.

Joe, the last word.

• 1530

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have a couple of points. I think the question is always, where is this going from here? As a committee member, I can't fathom in my own mind talking about these issues without this kind of cross.... You can always argue there should have been other people at the table, but over the course of seven or eight days, with three or four sessions a day with twelve or thirteen groups, there are common threads. Those common threads are emerging.

It certainly puts us in a certain position. I will never evaluate cultural policy or regulation the same. This experience has been of such value. You know a lot about a little, but you know what isn't going to be a problem, what kinds of models work, what's required, and some of the basic things.

I really want to thank the participants for being here today. It's something that has a lot of value. It may be hard to put it in a box, but then that's what you're struggling with in your industry as well. So I just want to congratulate you for being here and thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Before I adjourn, we'll have another speaker from the audience.

[Translation]

Ms. Paulette Thériault (individual presentation): My name is Paulette Thériault and I'm the Director of the Aberdeen Cultural Centre here in Moncton.

Earlier, Mr. Jordan and Ms. Farrah talked about a strategy. Perhaps we should give some thought to formulating a national cultural policy. As you undoubtedly know, Quebec has an excellent cultural policy. However, few of the other provinces have similar policies in place. This initiative might help us to better coordinate our efforts.

You mentioned jobs, money and votes. What Jean-Philippe is doing with his project is very much in keeping with this strategy. The resources are there. All we need to do is coordinate our actions. A sound national cultural policy just might be the ticket. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much.

Peter, do you want to make a comment?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Jean-Philippe asked what would happen if we had a day without art. I would like to suggest to everybody here that unless we went stark naked and bald, it would be impossible to have a day without art.

To answer Joe's comment that people in the arts hate being put on an economic principle, quite honestly, the economy of our country runs on, amongst many other things, the design of the fabrics, the clothes, the eyeglasses, the hair, the shoes and everything else. It is very important we see that art is a crucial part of our economy, and heritage is part of that whole concept.

There's one other thing I should have added a little while ago. Suzanne referred in part to what happened before devolution. We had a program called the training initiatives program, and Jean-Philippe can later define that for you. But at the very beginning of this I referred to the fact that so many programs, however well intentioned, from both federal and provincial levels, descend down from the top to the bottom and become inefficient when they reach there.

The training initiatives program was one of the classic programs handed over to the sector to administer on behalf of the government. The government saved an enormous amount of money on the administration of that program. It was extremely efficient for the moneys it used, and could be used to create programs in every area from conservation to, as many European countries have done, placing the arts, in terms of performance or exhibition, at every international gathering we foster for industry. This has been done in Europe, and such programs in the training initiatives format could be used to create, judge, and fund these things.

Finally, Jean-Philippe mentioned the issue of MAP. The figure, I believe, was that 15% of the money being put into the wages of the orchestral members remained in Canada in 1985, and by 1991, 80% of those wages were remaining in Canada. If we have to use monetary things, there are many arguments to do so.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you all again for your contribution. Have a safe trip home.

The meeting is now adjourned.