CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 25, 1999

• 1605

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the standing committee is conducting a series of round tables on the government's evolving role in the support of Canadian culture in the context of a rapidly changing national and international environment.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome our guests and offer our sincere thanks to them. It's an honour for us to be among you today.

[English]

Our usual practice at the committee is to listen to presentations of our witnesses, but this time we decided to have a round table with members of Parliament and invited speakers sitting together in order to encourage a more fruitful exchange and a dialogue.

Our committee is undertaking a study of the challenges facing culture on the eve of the next century with regard to globalization, the economy, and emerging technologies and the Internet and their impact on our culture and our cultural instruments, along with the demographic changes that will transform present-day Canada into a completely different country in the 21st century. Our predecessor committee began the study before the last election and this committee decided that the work must and should continue.

First of all, we wish to examine the types of support already put in place by the federal government and how this support—such as the rules governing foreign ownership, cultural content, federal grants to federal institutions and tax incentives—will enable us to face the challenges in the next millennium. These are the issues we're dealing with.

[Translation]

As I said, the three main challenges facing us, at least for the purposes of our study, are the advent of new technologies, the development of the global economy and global trade, and the changing demographics in our country.

At the outset, as committee members, we wanted to become well informed. One year ago, we held a parliamentary forum on cultural policy, international trade, and technology in the new millennium. At this forum, we organized round tables on various sectors: the arts, heritage, the publishing industry, film and video, broadcasting and sound recording. This forum was very successful in identifying key themes which, I hope, we will have a chance to discuss with you today.

[English]

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

In this last phase, through these round tables, we want to cover certain specific sectors and get input from you, the people on the front lines of culture, on how you manage to survive in the cultural milieu and on what you need to face the challenges of the next century.

In a format such as this, in this short time, it is impossible for all of us to cover a lot of ground, but we want to cover as much ground as possible. A program has been distributed to you in which you have been given five questions that we would like to have addressed. You may wish to address one of them or all of them or none of them, but we are interested in your views.

Hopefully by the end of this week, we'll have answers to the questions, such as this one: What is the role the federal government should perform in the future to support the arts and cultural sector industries? For example, shouldn't the federal government exercise a role as legislator, as regulator, as owner and operator of national institutions? Should it be a funding partner, a patron of the arts, a business developer, a promoter?

[Translation]

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

• 1610

[English]

To start, I would like to ask the participants to introduce yourselves very briefly—not a full biography—with your name, who you're representing, and your involvement in the arts and cultural industries. Once we have done that, I'll then ask you to identify yourself when you speak. I will keep a speakers list, but what we really encourage—we've found that it works extremely well—is short interventions of two to three minutes. That way, we can return to you on a number of occasions as different issues arise.

I would like to start with Mr. Armour.

Mr. Norman Armour (Individual Presentation): My name is Norman Armour. I'm an artistic producer with Rumble Productions, which is an interdisciplinary feeder company. I am an artist. I also serve within the community on a number of boards, including the Vancouver Professional Theatre Alliance, the programming committee of the Roundhouse Community Centre, and an administrative organization entitled Theatre MOM. I've been in Vancouver for about twenty years. I trained at Simon Fraser University, graduating in 1986.

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

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): I'm Eric Lowther, member of Parliament for Calgary Centre and deputy critic for heritage. I'm glad to be here. I have been learning immense amounts in the last few days, and plan to continue to do so today.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Egan.

Mr. Rob Egan (President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Film Commission): My name is Rob Egan. I'm the president and chief executive officer of the British Columbia Film Commission. Prior to taking up this post, I was the assistant deputy minister for culture in the provincial ministry of small business, tourism and culture. At various times I have delved into a variety of activities, including a number of years in campus community radio as an on-air broadcaster and station manager—in my younger days.

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

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Merill Gordon (British Columbia Arts Council): My name is Merill Gordon. I'm a businessman. I also serve as the finance chair for the B.C. Arts Council. I've been involved with the arts community since my childhood. Unfortunately, I'm not an artist. I always wanted to act, but I had a bad fault—I couldn't remember lines.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome, Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Denis Nokony (Assistant Director, Cultural Services, City of Burnaby): I'm Denis Nokony. I'm the assistant director of cultural services for the City of Burnaby. My responsibilities include the Visual Arts Burnaby program, which is the civic art gallery in our town; the Burnaby Village Museum, the third-largest institution in the province; the Shadbolt Centre for the Arts, with the two theatres. Our community of 180,000 spends $5 million annually on cultural affairs and we have a full-time equivalent staff of 70.

When I first came to the community, part of my duties in Burnaby included working with the parks and recreation commission and with the community in the establishment of the Burnaby arts policy. I'll leave a copy of it with you today.

I'm a former national board member of the group Arts in the Cities, which no longer exists, and I have spent ten years working in the provincial government, in the Saskatchewan Department of Culture and Recreation, where I left the position of director of arts and multiculturalism some time ago. While I was there I assisted the minister responsible in the development of provincial cultural policy in a process called “The Culture Talks” in 1981. I'm also a former member of the Interprovincial Council of Cultural Directors from many years ago.

With my colleagues in 23 municipal areas in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, I'm currently working on a cultural plan, which you will be hearing more about.

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

Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Burke Taylor (Director, Office of Cultural Affairs, City of Vancouver): Hello. My name is Burke Taylor. I am the director of the Office of Cultural Affairs for the City of Vancouver. As such, I'd like to welcome you to Vancouver. I hope this is the first of many annual or bi-annual visits from the standing committee.

As Denis has mentioned, I also am participating as the chair of the regional cultural plan steering committee and we have brought copies of our phase one report, in which the federal government is highlighted. I have also brought copies of the arts report for the City of Vancouver just to give you further background about the programs, expenditures, and the kinds of and extent of activity that goes on in Vancouver.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): My name is Benoît Sauvageau. I am a Bloc Québécois MP and I represent the riding of Repentigny, located northeast of the Island of Montreal. I am my party's critic for international trade, so I have a special interest in the issue of culture in international agreements, such as the MAI, or the new FTAA.

• 1615

We have come to hear your comments and your suggestions on how to improve cultural policy and we will be listening to you carefully. Thank you.

[English]

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

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Good afternoon. My name is Mark Muise. I'm the Progressive Conservative representative on the heritage committee. I'm from Nova Scotia, and I'm very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts as to what should or should not be in a cultural policy for Canada. I'm glad to be here and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): My name is Ted McWhinney. I'm the member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra. I'll take this opportunity to say I will have to leave about halfway through. It's not through lack of interest; I have to go somewhere and defend policies on the Nisga'a treaty, Bill C-49, and Musqueam leaseholds, which are also an aspect of local culture.

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

Mr. Jon Festinger (Executive Vice-President, CTV Inc.): My name is Jon Festinger. I'm senior vice-president, British Columbia, for the CTV television network. I am also general manager of a new station that was launched in Vancouver by CTV called Vancouver Television, VTV, which oddly enough is not a CTV affiliate but is an independent station.

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

Mr. Jon Festinger: Thank you. Previous to that, until April 1997 I was general counsel and secretary of a company called WIC, Western International Communications Ltd.

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

Mr. Frank Kamiya (Japanese Canadian National Museum & Archives Society): My name is Frank Kamiya. I'm an architect by profession. I'm representing the Japanese Canadian National Museum & Archives Society. We were incorporated in 1995 and will be moving into new premises, probably in 2000. We will be building a new culture centre that will have a museum and archives in it in Burnaby. We're going to start construction hopefully early next month.

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

Mr. Frank Kamiya: Thank you.

Ms. Karen Planden (Executive Director, Vancouver Fringe Festival): My name is Karen Planden. I am the executive director of the Vancouver Fringe Festival. I have been a cultural manager for the last five years. I was an artist before that, living across the country and performing in various capacities across the country, mostly in theatre. I'm glad to be here today to have this opportunity. Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you. We're delighted to have you here.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I'm Mauril Bélanger, the member of Parliament for Ottawa—Vanier,

[Translation]

a riding located in the National Capital Region. I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I've also been a member, since the very beginning, of the committee that began this exercise, which will perhaps come to a successful conclusion one day; at least, we hope it will.

[English]

It's been a while.

This has also been a rather fascinating week. We're a little punch-drunk, because we've been jumping, sometimes twice a day, between various cities and so forth. But I must admit there are some very common threads that have jumped at us throughout this western tour. I'm anxious to get back home to Ottawa and to hear what our colleagues from the eastern half of our exercise have picked up. If those common threads are the same, perhaps we'll have the makings of a report that will go somewhere.

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

My name is Sarmite Bulte, but everybody calls me Sam. I'm the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park in Toronto. I am also a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and I have been given the honour of chairing this western tour. In addition, I am the chair of the subcommittee on international trade, trade disputes and investments. In my former life I was the chairman of the Canadian Stage Company in Toronto.

We're all delighted to be here. We're delighted that you've taken the time from your very busy schedules to be with us. Just before we start, I want to point out there is a microphone at the back. This round table also includes audience participation. I will coming to the audience to seek your short interventions as well. If there are points you want to raise or points that have been missed that you think should have our attention, please intervene. I would encourage as much dialogue among us as possible.

Mr. Taylor and then Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Burke Taylor: Thank you very much. I get to go first because it's part of the welcome.

I sat through the first round table and was really quite taken with what a dynamic session it was. But as usual, when you go second, you find that someone else has said pretty well everything you wanted to say.

• 1620

I would not want the standing committee to leave without knowing we would like to reinforce many of the things that were said in the first round. I would like to wrap up some of those things and speak to just how important the CBC, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, the National Gallery, and the Canadian Museum of Civilization are. Some of us haven't entirely given up on the National Arts Centre, although God knows, they're giving us a run for our money.

There is the importance of investment in infrastructure, the importance of the enabling role the federal government plays, the importance of leadership, and the importance of leverage on the provinces. I think you heard that although the province of British Columbia is declared a have province, unfortunately cultural investment doesn't seem to be a priority, other than perhaps in film.

There is the crucial role the federal government has in securing cultural interests whenever trade is discussed—whenever, wherever—whether it's protecting culture or protecting our ability to invest in it and give it a leg up. Anything the federal government can do in that area is crucial.

There is the need to reinvest in national historic sites that have been abandoned during cutbacks. I have to raise that because our poor St. Roch was left high and dry, literally. I think in national historic sites, the federal government certainly has a role.

Not least of all is the need to pay attention to diversity and begin to really appreciate what that has to offer. That shouldn't be addressed as an obligation; it should be addressed as an opportunity.

I would like to just generally declare how important culture is to identity, sovereignty, social well-being and the economy. If we weren't all so Canadian we would probably be less defensive about our subsidies and our investments in culture. We would probably be able to be a lot prouder.

Having said that and covered all that ground so quickly, there are three more important things I'd like to address. When addressing change and how these things might be improved, everyone raises the spectre of increased spending and how difficult it has been with the cutbacks. I'd like to impress on the standing committee that most of British Columbia's problems would be addressed if there were simply a fair and equitable distribution of the investments already being made.

The federal government—for all of our criticisms of the provincial government, so you know we're not taking favourites here—spends in British Columbia at a rate, on a per capita basis, that is ninth out of ten. I've just brought in two graphs to give you some idea. One shows the actual expenditures on culture, and the flip side shows the per capita expenditures on culture. Do you have that already?

We're not necessarily looking for increased expenditures, although when the time is right those two would be a bonus. But we would like to see the investments that are already being made, both as internal expenditures within the department of communications and CBC and those kinds of things, and transfers and grants, made on a more equitable and fair basis.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What do you mean by internal versus external?

Mr. Burke Taylor: External has to do with transfer payments such as external grants, contributions and transfers. Internal expenditures relate to the government's own spending in departments.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you mean the Canadian government's own expenditures?

Mr. Burke Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are you talking about one department or all of the government?

Mr. Burke Taylor: My belief is it's all departments.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not convinced those figures are a total reflection—certainly not historical. Judging it from one year is very difficult. If you take ten years you would have a good idea.

Mr. Burke Taylor: I assure you this is not for one year. It's reflective of the last decade and more.

I think you can appreciate the difficulty it raises. There's also the irony that in those areas, such as the Canada Council, where the funds are allocated on a competitive basis, based on peer review and some kind of qualitative judgment, the province of British Columbia does well enough, but where the expenditures are not made according to objective, independent criteria and evaluations, such as with Telefilm, British Columbia suffers badly.

• 1625

That's equally true of External Affairs expenditures and those kinds of things, where other kinds of interests come into account. I think the graphs show that graphically.

The second quick point I'd like to make is that the national cultural policy you're in the midst of developing is critical. Probably at some point in the day we'd like to understand how this is going to feed into that process, and where all of this is going to go, but I would like to encourage you to see it through to very practical, strategic objectives and some type of very pragmatic implementation plan so that it isn't just another policy.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Do you have a breakdown of...[Inaudible—Editor]?

Mr. Burke Taylor: This is the definition of culture used by StatsCan. Those figures come from StatsCan.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I see. Would it be possible to get a breakdown to see if there's any variation between them?

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Perhaps you can get that and file it with the committee.

Mr. Burke Taylor: Absolutely. I'd be pleased to do that.

Finally, very generally, we'd like to encourage the federal government to continue to play all of the roles it currently plays and to use all of the tools in its tool kit, but we would like you to develop policies that encourage the departments to do it in a more cooperative, coordinated, and collegial fashion. The partnerships that people have been talking about are critical to all of us in terms of our effectiveness. The responsibility for culture is shared by the federal, provincial, and local levels of government, and we don't have enough resources among us to be wasting any of them or to be spending them in ways that are either doubling up or in any way in conflict. We look forward to as much cooperation and coordination as possible.

On that basis, I'll pass on to the next speaker. Thanks very much.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

You mentioned the role of the federal government in international trade. One of the things I mentioned during the last round table discussion and would like to bring to your attention is that on February 17, the cultural industries sectoral advisory group on international trade—or cultural industries SAGIT, as it's known—released its report, New Strategies for Culture and Trade: Canadian Culture in a Global World, part of a two-year study that looks at what Canada should do, in light of our international agreements, in trade disputes. I encourage you to get it, read it, and also comment on it, because I know some committee will be studying this.

Mr. Gordon, you're next.

Mr. Merill Gordon: I also want to welcome the committee. I'm delighted to see that they made it across the Rockies. Many standing committees never do that.

As well, I also would like to express my western feelings of alienation as far as arts and culture are concerned in British Columbia.

I'd like to piggyback a little bit on what Mr. Taylor said. On provincial funding to the arts, he said we're ninth, but I believe we're tenth. It used to be that Newfoundland was behind British Columbia in funding the arts. When it comes to the federal government, I know we're tenth and last in per capita funding. This has been going on for many years.

I wondered why, when the Conservatives were in power, and the Socreds were in power out here, they didn't talk to each other. We now find the Liberals in power, and nobody from British Columbia has been able to get a dialogue going regarding the need for partnerships between our provincial government and the federal government. They're just non-existent; they haven't been for many years.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Is that the reason for this shortfall?

Mr. Merill Gordon: The other thing I have, Mr. McWhinney, to go along with this is that when it comes to funding the arts at the municipal or civic level, British Columbia is number one—almost double every other province in Canada. Because of the lack of funding from the federal and provincial governments, it seems the local communities have taken over.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Does that mean the federal government retreats, then, seeing the local communities so active? Is it counterproductive in a straight sense?

Mr. Merill Gordon: Say again, sir?

• 1630

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Does it mean the federal government, seeing a vibrant local community supporting, pulls back its support?

Mr. Merill Gordon: I have no idea. I would just underline the part about fairness, to prevent these feelings of alienation I have.

I'd also like to say how pleased the arts community was with the additional funding to the Canada Council. The $125 million is already being felt in our community.

As a senior citizen, I will perhaps say some other things a little bit later on another subject.

I thank you for this, and again, thanks for coming.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Nokony.

Mr. Denis Nokony: Thank you, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen.

At occasions like this I'm always reminded of the image of Canadians walking down the road. When they come to a fork in the road, there are two signs, one that says “Heaven” and one that says “Conferences on Heaven”. Guess what? We're at the conference.

But I want to welcome you here, because I have a passionate belief in the role of policy and assisting in not only the establishment and practice of a solid cultural infrastructure in our country but also in sending a direction to the potential and real partners—individuals, corporations, and other investment opportunities—across the nation.

Rational legislation, which is something we all lust for, even though it might sound like an oxymoron, I think can do a lot in using existing resources more efficiently and in sending positive development signals out to the community, which I would regard as being one that is filled with abundance and not scarcity.

I wanted to start off the top by saying briefly that at the end of the day, these discussions are often about money, but I would be one who would hold that a healthy economy derives itself from a healthy culture—that's a phrase you may have heard in your travels—and not the opposite. I don't believe cultural investments, investments in our artistic and creative selves, is a frill or an option. I think it's fundamental. I think legislation, policy, and practice should all reflect those attitudes and values.

In that regard, too, I think we really are dealing with an economy of abundance, not an economy of scarcity. Government policy, as it relates to international trade, investment and taxation policy, really will help reflect that.

I think the ever-increasing numbers and volumes of Canadians who consume culture, most of which happens to be imported because of the ability to access imported culture—and that's a fundamental part of what we're talking about—testify to that as well. We like culture. We like arts expression. We want to have more of it.

At any rate, the role of culture is important for a whole bunch of good reasons that start at home. I tend to also subscribe to the notion that arts and culture are things that happen in your community, not your country; that it goes from the bottom up; and that policies and practices and ways in which revenues and resources are shared should respect that fundamental relationship in a democracy. This is also, I think, an inherent reflection of how all of us who care about culture and who live supporting it in fact rely significantly, if not ultimately, on the individual creative acts of creative individuals.

The artists are paramount. The artists, the creative individuals, the people who apply creativity in all aspects of this cultural cycle, are paramount, and they are enduring, whether or not we're here to help, whether or not we're in their way.

In that regard, one of the most important things I've found in my practice in some 20 years in arts and cultural administration is that people are very concerned and interested in their cultural identity, their sense of place, and their pride of place. How they at a local level establish those values and measure those values and practice those values is of great consequence.

But policy cannot involve itself only in affirming those values; it can also assert that arts and cultural affairs are fundamental to our social and economic policy. It can assert that the partnership relationships that we request and establish and practice are fundamental to that policy. It can assert that excellence is not an option in any part of practice, whether it's production or relationships, and define the role for government.

I'm going to speak to some of these things a little later in the conversation this afternoon, but I suggest that, as it has been raised in earlier sessions and known to governments universally, government can play a variety of roles, and it can perform those roles simultaneously and sometimes intermittently, with variable emphasis.

• 1635

I guess my point is that at the end of the day, I would like to see some evidence of a redistribution of federal resources—fiscal, human, legal, and physical—that acknowledges what I said earlier about the practice and fact of culture occurring at a community level, perhaps through transfer payment relationships with provinces, or incentive and cost-shared agreements for development at the local level through intergovernmental agreements.

I would say this is based on the notion, which I heard said once, that a philanthropist is one who watches with concern the floundering swimmer only to encumber him with help when he arrives at the shore. When we talk about meaningful cultural policy and effective cultural investment partnership relationships we are talking just about that, about investments and not about charity.

We're talking about effecting a sustainable infrastructure for artists and creative individuals and all of the institutions that represent them, so they can stay alive, thrive, and cultivate the diversity we've come to know as Canada.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Mr. Nokony.

A couple of the things you have raised, the importance of the artist and the importance of infrastructure, were certainly brought up in the Canadian Conference of the Arts' working group paper on cultural policy where the Canadian Conference of the Arts actually stated that Canada's present policy, and that of previous and successive governments, has been based on two things: the artist and the creative process, first and foremost; and secondly, on ensuring the infrastructure is there to showcase that creative process in the artist.

I throw that out for possible discussion. Is this policy a sane policy? Is it good enough? Does it need to change? Does it reflect the nature of where we're going into the next millennium? Mr. Egan.

Mr. Robert Egan: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the committee today.

If I may, I'd like to begin with a personal anecdote I always find helpful for myself. I was raised outside of town here in Haney, which is about an hour's drive outside of Vancouver. It's called Maple Ridge these days. It will forever be Haney to me, regardless of postal codes and so on and so forth.

I was a student at Garibaldi Senior Secondary, which is a high school out in the country on the east side of town, and as a high school student there I had the good fortune to have a high school art teacher by the name of Julius Borsos. He was a rather robust man of European descent who had a wonderful appreciation for the arts and did his level best to badger us into seeing if we had any talent or at least had any appreciation of the importance of arts and culture.

He had a couple of sons, actually, one of whom, Phillip Borsos, went on to become a very well known Canadian filmmaker and director. He made a couple of very well known award-winning short documentaries, and then as a feature film director he is well known for having made The Grey Fox, The Mean Season, and Bethune, to name just a few of Phillip's works.

Unfortunately, he died much too young for a man of his talent and contribution. Nonetheless, it always serves to me as a reminder—and I suppose it comes right back to the point about art and culture beginning in the community—that the artists of tomorrow are living out there in those small communities scattered across the country today. And when you're beginning to consider a vision you wish to articulate for arts and culture in the new millennium, I think it is fundamentally important to grapple with some paradigm shifts that we must undertake if we are going to be successful.

I echo the comments made earlier that one of the key paradigm shifts we must make is to stop seeing arts and culture as a frill, as an afterthought, as an add-on. As long as that mentality exists around arts and culture, the funding decisions and the policy decisions, both with respect to national institutions and community-based arts and cultural programming, will reflect that attitude. It's simply a paradigm shift that I would argue must be made for the future.

• 1640

British Columbia Film is a non-profit society. It was established in 1987. It is funded through a grant that is provided on an annual basis by the Province of British Columbia. Our mandate is to support the growth and diversification of domestic film and television film production in British Columbia.

The film and television production industry in B.C. is growing at a very rapid rate. In 1998 we reached a record high: $808 million was spent on film and television production in British Columbia. This was a 28% increase over 1997. It is an industry that currently employs approximately 25,000 people. Last year there were 171 productions shot: 117 of them were Canadian productions, worth $343 million in spending, and there were 54 foreign productions shot in British Columbia, worth approximately $445 million in spending.

Although this is still a small industry when compared to the traditional resource industries that drive our economy in British Columbia, it nonetheless is a growing and dynamic sector of our economy and it is one that is on the cutting edge as an industry that is employing new technologies and innovative approaches to economic development. In particular, one is always impressed by the number of young people who are finding opportunities in this industry. I always feel remarkably old whenever I'm down at the Vancouver Film School or Emily Carr, or any of these other institutions where I find young people doing wonderful things with film and digital media that I simply don't understand.

British Columbia Film itself supported 104 film and television projects last year. Some of the projects we have provided assistance to include DaVinci's Inquest, the CBC production, Cold Squad, and numerous other feature films, short documentaries, and a variety of other supports we provide to the industry here in British Columbia.

We have noted, and are paying very close attention to, the report of the feature film advisory committee, which was presented to Minister Copps recently. The provincial minister of culture, Ian Waddell, has established a task force to offer him advice on the feature film report. There are a number of recommendations in there that we need to assess from a British Columbia perspective. Fundamentally, we believe that report needs to be focused around the need for producing good Canadian films.

I would argue again that the paradigm shift needs to be made, that if we are going to build a feature film industry in Canada the solution is to be making good Canadian films that Canadians will demand to watch. I do not believe that the solution in and of itself is to simply be producing more. We have to be producing better. In terms of funding, we would certainly like more of it. Everybody would in every sector, whether it be health care, education, human resource development; and we would certainly like more in the field of arts and culture. But it is equally important to look at strategic spending and how we allocate existing dollars to achieve specific priorities and specific objectives. It is very important that governments at all levels focus their energies around doing that in the most effective way.

British Columbia has had a longstanding issue with respect to the role of certain of our national institutions and their performance in British Columbia, particularly in this industry. Telefilm, the newly named Canadian television fund.... There have certainly been issues in the past around British Columbia receiving its fair and equitable share from these institutions. Again, it's not a question of more; it's a question of how those funds are allocated and distributed nationally. Similarly, British Columbia has articulated concerns around the representation from British Columbia, and from western Canada for that matter, on some of these national bodies that are making decisions affecting arts and cultural industries in British Columbia.

This of course is a discussion we'll be having for months and years to come. Those are just a few observations I would like to leave you with.

• 1645

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Egan.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Chairman, could I ask a quick question?

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Yes, certainly, Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Egan, we had an intervention from the floor, from a Mr. Fitch Cady, on the tax issue in relation to the B.C. film industry. Some of our members of Parliament have made representations to the Minister of Revenue and the culture minister on this issue. I wondered if you had any quick comments that might help us.

Mr. Rob Egan: I think Mr. Cady was referring to two things, although I wasn't here for that part of the session. First, he was referring probably to the changes that were being contemplated by the Department of National Revenue at the beginning of the year. To British Columbia's delight, the Minister of National Revenue has established a process to try to find a more workable solution than that which was being proposed by the department at that time. Secondly, Mr. Cady is referring to one of the recommendations included in the advisory committee on feature film, which is to eliminate the federal production services tax credit and roll it up into a new tax credit for feature film.

I think Mr. Cady is expressing the concern of the industry here as a whole—and our industry is composed of two dynamic sectors in British Columbia, a large service sector production community and a smaller but equally dynamic domestic industry. There would be an impact on British Columbia if that specific recommendation around the production services tax credit were implemented. I think the issue there is that in terms of the overall growth of the film and television industry in British Columbia, we don't want to cannibalize one sector of that industry without knowing what the benefits might be to the other.

A very effective lobby went to Ottawa on this issue in January. As I say, I think we can all expect that we're going to be diligent around assessing what the impacts of these proposals might be for British Columbia. We will also be putting forward alternatives that we think will be more effective in terms of serving the growth not only of the industry here, but the development of a national cinema and the impact of those proposals elsewhere as well. That concern has been expressed not only by British Columbia around the PSTC, the production services tax credit; I know Manitoba, Ontario, and other provincial jurisdictions have also expressed some concern about that.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: In the specific context of British Columbia, would you accept the view that has been presented to us—Mr. Cady didn't put it in these terms, but others have—that positive rulings on these two points by the revenue minister, by the federal government, would be vital to the survival of the B.C. film industry?

Mr. Rob Egan: I don't know if I would go quite that far, but I certainly would see this as being an important building block supporting the growth of this industry. I would not support its removal at this time.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Thank you.

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

Mr. Egan, just to follow up on the question from Mr. McWhinney, my understanding is that the production services tax credit is not just available to foreign producers, but that it is in fact available to our independent producers who do not qualify for the fully Canadian tax credit within 10 points. Am I correct on that?

Mr. Rob Egan: You're absolutely correct. The production services tax credit is available to both non-Canadian and Canadian producers. This means that for a Canadian producer who has a production or a project that perhaps has marquee stars attached to it—something that might make it ineligible for either a CAVCO federal tax credit or, in British Columbia's case, a film incentive B.C. tax credit—there is another avenue to go down. I think there has been a misunderstanding around the PSTC frequently that it is a tax credit that is only targeted to non-Canadians. You're quite right, Madam Chair, because that is not the case.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Egan.

Ms. Planden.

Ms. Karen Planden: It's interesting that I am speaking next, because one of the reasons I wanted to get involved was that I turned my television on one morning and heard about the foreign artists' tax credit. As a small-theatre producer, I didn't find that it was made specific in the newscast as to whether or not that law was just specifically for film artists.

• 1650

As a fringe festival producer, I invite and receive applications from all over the world to come to Vancouver—as do 26 other fringe festivals across North America—and they also have to fill in T-4NRs for their tax credits. That would absolutely wipe me out, because one of the largest components of the fringe festival is the international part of it. For those foreign artists, I'm required by law to hold back 15%—and I believe it's the same for the film industry as well at the moment.

I would urge Revenue Canada to look at the ramifications down the line, and not just throw out a fishnet looking at people who do make thousands and millions of dollars perhaps. And in that tax law, the people who are making $200 a week or $20 a week that don't have to give back 50% of that.... Be very, very careful when we're talking about....

The Acting Chairman (Sarmite Bulte): Do you have a written submission as well? Yes? Again, then, I would encourage you to submit it—and that goes for any other member or members of the audience, on any topic whatsoever. Get those submissions in to the clerk by the end of March.

Please continue. I didn't mean to interrupt.

Ms. Karen Planden: Thank you. I'll go on to some of the other concerns I have.

Often we talk about funding. I believe we need to use our funding a little bit better. I know that as a small-theatre producer—and I think this goes for even large-theatre producers—while I would hate to see it cut any more and would like to see it established or re-established at a healthy level, there are some things we run into that don't require money. They require a bit of common sense and a little bit of juggling of bylaws, building codes, and certain things that prevent us from being self-sufficient, that prevent us from being able to bring new work to the community.

I presently have a thirty-participant waiting list, and it's going to grow by the time I do the fringe festival. I could invite everybody. I could have over a hundred groups participating in the fringe festival, but I can't because I don't have the building space. I don't have the building space because there is no incentive for the people who have these spaces sitting empty—business owners, land owners, real estate people. There's no incentive for them to encourage their real estate agents to allow us to use these spaces for two weeks at a time. They simply hang up the phone. There is no encouragement at a business level, no incentive to work as a partnership so that we can use these spaces, turn them into theatres, get the artists working, and get the new works out there. I would like to see some effort in that area, because that doesn't require a whole lot of extra funding.

Another area in which I would really like to see some encouragement is the CRTC. When I turn on the CBC—I'm a big supporter—it always leads with an American story. Nine times out of ten, six days out of the week, that leading story is American. I think we're past the point at which we have to sell our television shows, our newspapers, on leading stories that are American. If we want Canadian culture, I would really encourage the CRTC and the communications industry to be encouraged to sell their newspapers on Canadian stories. I'm sorry, but I read the newspaper, as does everybody else. Anybody who reads the newspaper is not going to not pick it up because it doesn't have an American story or because Sylvester Stallone is not in the entertainment section. I want the Canadians.

There are enough Canadians out there who are now being supported. Yes, maybe it's because they went to the States and made it big and all of that kind of stuff, which is wonderful. But we can now ride on our own, we can now create our own wave, and I would like to see that encouraged. Again, it doesn't require more money, it requires a focus, or maybe a new focus, on where we're heading.

Some of the other things that I find stopping us from creating new Canadian culture, encouraging Canadian culture, are some of the bylaws and some of the laws governing the not-for-profit society act. They don't really reflect an arts organization. They were founded for hospitals, they were founded perhaps for community organizations. It would be nice to take a look at those. It's very difficult to get a society number in B.C., for instance. If you don't have a society number, it's difficult to get funding. When organizations come to me wanting to get funding for their theatre shows, they can't because they can't give an incentive. It's difficult for new groups to give incentives when they don't have a not-for-profit number. They can't give a tax credit. Tax credits would be nice in order to be able to encourage business to support.

• 1655

If we had a roof over our heads, I could turn a black box into a theatre and I could show you the most exciting theatre you've ever seen. But if the building codes prevent me from doing that because as an adult I take the risk of walking into a building that doesn't look like the Stanley Theatre, that doesn't look like the new Ford Centre, I can't do that. I think those are some of the areas we really need to focus on.

One example is the school boards in every single city. There are some municipalities where the school boards are really encouraged. In Edmonton, for instance, they turned all the schools that weren't being used—not all of them, but a lot of them—into arts facilities.

I'm having a difficult time renting two facilities in this city. They're going to sit empty. The school board is not going to get that money. I'm going to have to give it to somebody else. Why? Because I can't pay that top dollar. Therefore, if I can't pay the dollar, I don't get the space. We're working against each other, it seems. Again, we have to learn how to communicate within organizations, within the different departments of government, to make that work.

Those are my main issues. I would like to say that not all of the organizations are supported by the Canada Council, which I'm sure lots of people know. We talk about the Canada Council...and while I'm a huge supporter of the Canada Council and some of the main institutions in our country—I think they have to be supported and protected—I do think the ones that are starting now have a different future ahead of them. We have to look at that.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Armour.

Mr. Norman Armour: I want to go back to this question of the dialogue or lack of dialogue between the civic, federal, and provincial agencies. I think the question about whether the federal agencies are playing the kind of role they should be, and if they're not, is simply because they think the civic counterparts are more than pulling their weight. I think it has to do with one of the parties not being at the table. It's easy to not turn up if you think somebody else is not going to be turning up.

However, while I think it's because of a lot of things, it's also symptomatic of something bigger. In trying to assess this question of a cultural policy, perhaps at this point we need to look at some of the fundamental questions of what is a vital culture, what makes a vital culture, and what is necessary for a vital culture to happen.

You've raised the issue of infrastructure. People have spoken to the question of the individual artists. I think the issue of regional differences is extremely important. This is a community, as I mentioned in my bio, that I've spent 20 years in. I also grew up in Toronto. I've worked in the United States—Boston, Atlanta, New York. I've toured to other cities in Canada. What's interesting about B.C. is that because we have survived, but survived under extreme financial constraints—we have kind of a flat-line culture in this city, or tended to have, and we have kind of held the line. That's basically what we've done for years, held the line. No big up and downs. No radical shifts in economies.

For many years, from the perspective of a theatre producer, the idea of a new company was never mentioned, up until five years ago. Nobody said the words “new company” because they just assumed they would never happen. It was going to be the same state of affairs for ever and ever and ever.

One of the other conditions of Vancouver, which is again where my perspective comes from, is that for many years we kind of had what I described as the underbelly of provincialism. We kind of thought of the east as the ones who got all the money and undeservedly got more money than we did. But if you scratched deep enough, you actually found that a lot of artists, perhaps at the heart, didn't believe their work was as strong as the work in other regions. That has changed. It's changed within the dance community. It's changed within the theatre community. I believe it's changed within the film community. And it's certainly changed within the visual arts community.

• 1700

We are on a very interesting wave at this point in this city. Vancouver is the eternal city of possibilities. It going to turn around, the audiences are going to be there, etc. Even Garth Drabinsky and Livent thought that. However, we really truly are at a point where there is an incredible pride and sense of energy in this city. It's almost caught up with the fact that it's a large city, in the way it is with Toronto. It's almost caught up in the sense of “we're good”, in the way Calgary, for instance, has about its arts. It's almost gotten to the point where it's starting to applaud—I want to say risk, but it has to do with people deciding that they have a way of doing things. They have a work they want to create. They have a means to produce it. They have a way to disseminate it that they know is right. Their instincts tell them it is right. It doesn't have to do with a particular program. It doesn't have to do with a particular critic in the press. It has to do with their instincts on the ground of how they are going about their business.

I think this question of realities is really crucial in assessing how to develop a cultural policy. We use words like innovation, strategy, infrastructure. The more we use them the more we avoid the details of what it means to actually have a culture, what it means to actually produce art, what it means to actually get an audience into the room—in my case as a theatre artist—what it means to actually promote it and to expand upon your audience.

These days the realities in this city have a lot to do with trying to remember the things we have unfortunately let go of at the front of our minds. One of them is human time.

As I was walking back in this afternoon, I was walking down the hall and I heard somebody say “three, two, one”, and then they started talking in this booming radio voice. I wondered what was going on. It was somebody reporting on the events in the earlier part of the afternoon to a radio station. Of course, that's been going on for a while, ever since the introduction of the medium of radio. But there is a lack of valuing of the notion of time, the time it takes to develop culture, the time it takes to take risks, to fail, to try again, the time it takes for institutions to evolve, the time it takes for artists in the arc of a career to develop a sense of what they're about and what they want to speak to.

One of the other kinds of realities is people, personnel. If there's one way Canadian Heritage can play a role in sustaining and fostering the growth of this particular region, it's personnel. We have a huge problem with arts administrators. We are losing them very fast and they are not coming up.

Another reality is the notion of emerging artists versus established artists, or small organizations versus large organizations. In Vancouver we still suffer from an isolation. We suffer from an isolation of “emerging” to “established”. We suffer from an isolation between disciplines. We suffer from an isolation between large organizations and small organizations, in a community that shouldn't actually have this syndrome. Any way Canadian Heritage can support the idea of linking communities, linking institutions.... I think we can all as individuals remember some point in time where we were mentored by somebody, where we were brought into the party, the inner sanctum, that we never thought we were going to be invited to. The exchange that happens between those types of distinct communities is extraordinary and feeds both ways. The whole question of artists in high schools in this community is of extreme importance at this point in time.

The question of performing artists in other media—and this is a panel that's dealing with some kind of focus on the idea of cultural industries—is of extreme importance these days. If you look at the development of various media, they go through a kind of history. They go through an initial exploration that is as much driven by inventors as anything else. They go through a period when they borrow from the forms of existing mediums, films from books, radio from poetry and other such literary forms. Then they go through a period when they actually become extremely rarefied in their form. They get driven by industry demands and needs.

• 1705

I think we're at the point in time when, for instance, performing artists present a real fresh perspective on what we would generally term cultural industries—publishing, film, music recording. I think any way Heritage Canada can support making links between those....

To get an idea of the success of a program and how you set up a program and its criteria and what kind of impact it can have, I suggest you look at the history of the explorations program of the Canada Council. It no longer exists. However, for many, many years it played a crucial role in this community. One, it was regional. Two, it was essentially a good-idea program. Three, it stressed the idea of cross-disciplinarity. It has influenced this community to a degree that you could not begin to comprehend. Film artists, visual artists, theatre artists, dance artists—if you look around you would be astounded to find the number of artists who have actually been supported by that program. It was a very large-based program without a huge degree of limitations to it. But very importantly, it was regionally based, which for B.C. is a huge thing.

I'll stop there.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Okay, Mr. Armour, thank you.

Maybe at this point we can go to our audience for participation. Is there anyone that would like to address an issue or ask a question or express a concern?

I'll come back to you again if you want to think about it, but please feel free to join in the discussion.

Mr. Festinger.

Mr. Jon Festinger: Thank you.

I'll mention a couple of things about why I'm here. The first is CTV is committed to this process and will be following the committee around if we haven't already been through your process.

Secondly, there is some hope, and hopefully this is not a vain hope, that our experience in building a new television station in the late nineties and what we've learned might somehow help your deliberations. Some of what we've learned is contra-intuitive. We built the first all-digital television station non-specialties channel in Canada. We've certainly had some interesting experiences around that.

The two questions I would try to address a little bit, and maybe a little inventively, are questions two and four, and maybe put the two together. Our television station, VTV, is a new technology, and our intention is to impact changing demographics. That's why we built the station. So maybe some of what we've done may somehow be helpful.

What we tried to do is build a new station whose core value is creativity. We tried to build a local station that did more than just local news. The original plan submitted to the CRTC that got us the licence when we were building the station would have employed 95 people. We changed our plan. The station now houses about 165 people. The impact of that is that the original commitment to the CRTC, which after all in a competitive process got daytime CTV the licence, was the commitment to do 21 hours of original local programming a week. That is quite a lot for a local television station.

Last year, in our first year, we did about 30 hours. Today I was told we're averaging so far this year 35 hours a week, so we're getting close to doubling the commitment to original local programming. That certainly is contra-intuitive to what many people believe broadcasters do. So we are doing something different.

• 1710

Something else that's a little contra-intuitive is how we've dealt with the local national paradox. We have five shows that we have designed as national shows but are truly local. A play in Vancouver is a local show; the play nationally on the CTV network is a national show. That has been a strategic thrust. Those shows are The Vicki Gabereau Show, which is a daily show across the country, and Mason Lee: On the Edge, which is a talk show from a western perspective. What's interesting about Mason Lee is we have one promo for the rest of Canada and we have another promo for Vancouver. The Vancouver promo is a bit Toronto-bashing, but it shows the different perspective. It's one show that really plays well locally, yet it's also designed for national audiences. There is Double Exposure, which is satiric comedy, again using Vancouver talent.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is it bashing?

Mr. Jon Festinger: That's the idea, as long as it's funny.

There's a show called First Story, which is a news magazine about Canada's native people. Again, it's produced out of Vancouver but it plays nationally. Lastly, as Mr. Egan knows, there's Cold Squad, again with a strong Vancouver venue. So I'll just give you that little paradox.

A third contra-intuitive bit is that Canadian television is not known to necessarily promote Canadian music. That's the job of Canada's radio broadcasters, in the traditional public policy view of the world. Yet we have put a very heavy emphasis on it, and we're not a music station. We're not MuchMusic; we don't play rock videos. But on Vancouver television during the week, you will see two Canadian bands per day, one on Vancouver Breakfast and one on The Vicki Gabereau Show. We are promoting Canadian talent. It is not a condition of our licence and is nowhere in our licence; it is just what we do.

We also do a number of specials for national-level talent, like 54-40, etc. Again, it's a bit contra-intuitive. On the results of this, we've been very fortunate. We didn't have great ratings when we started, but from last spring to this fall our share of market grew upwards of 50%. We've had some remarkable success.

The committee would probably be interested to know that last year at this time KVOS-TV, which is an American border station but appears in our EMA and is rated along with the five other Canadian stations in this market, was third in prime time. This year it's sixth out of six. We're third in prime time, third overall. We're first in the morning, and often recently we've been second in prime time.

In terms of the constant cultural battle, I don't think VTV takes the credit for all of what happened to KVOS, but the market does. We provided an alternative and the market turned to us. As a result, a station that was siphoning $20 million to $30 million out of this market and preying on the market is being driven out of the market by pure competitive forces. There's nothing unfair about that, and we are proud of that.

I just want to address three quick points that were made earlier.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Maybe we can come back after some of the other speakers. I will put you in again.

Mr. Jon Festinger: That's all I'll say for now. Thank you.

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

Mr. Sauvageau.

• 1715

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Once again, good afternoon and thank you to all of you. I would like to thank my neighbour on my right, Mr. Taylor, for the document on culture that he distributed to us. I glanced through it very quickly and it seems very interesting. Our committee will surely have the time to look at it more closely and to find much helpful information in it.

I'm inclined to believe that your chart is accurate, but like Mr. Bélanger, I don't want to play politics. However, it should be pointed out that the figures would have to be broken down. There is a war of numbers being waged between Quebec City and Ottawa. You can make figures say almost anything, depending on how you look at them. Since Radio-Canada, Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board are federal agencies headquartered in Quebec, the figures associated with these agencies should perhaps be subtracted to produce a breakdown. If we excluded the budgets of these agencies, this curve might come down to an average that makes sense. The same holds true for Ontario, whose figures must take in many corporate headquarters, including the CBC. I therefore believe that your chart is accurate, but that if we were to break it down differently, we might get a pattern that would mean something different. That's what I think, but I may be mistaken.

While I was listening to the gentleman in the white shirt sitting at the end of the table, I told myself that the main words to remember, and I whispered them to my neighbour, were the words "regional" and "provincial". I will speak of both these levels because I don't want us to quarrel. I think that these regional and provincial levels are the ones that should be receiving the money. I'd be interested in knowing whether you agree that the money should be handed over to these levels so that you can take care of it. Two or three times during your remarks, you referred to the regional aspect, although we could also talk about the provincial level. I believe there's an advantage in bringing funds down to the levels where they are spent.

Before it's too late, I'd like to ask you the following question. We agree that we have to promote Canadian culture, but what is it? In England, as part of a study that was conducted recently, people outside England were asked to summarize in three words their impression of England. The words that came out of the study were: rigidness, conservatism and monarchy. I wouldn't necessarily say that this image is true to reality, but that's the way people from the outside perceived England. The new Prime Minister is now attempting to change this image, and in my view he's doing rather well.

We may be poor judges of our own culture and perhaps we too should ask people on the outside to tell us what Canadian culture is. I think that, once again, they would tell us that Aboriginal people, snow and the wilderness come to mind. Is that what it is? I don't think so, but you must admit that, in order to promote our culture, we have to know what we want to promote. We have to know what image we project outside, because culture is perhaps the reflection of our personality. On the other hand, there's the way that others perceive our personality. In my view, we have to work on this perception.

Yesterday, after our meeting, we had a round table follow-up, if I can call it that, where we spoke informally. I said that, in Quebec, we have a public broadcaster called Télé-Québec. We have English and French CBC, but we also have Télé-Québec, a broadcaster with the special mandate of promoting Quebec culture, culture that comes from Quebec. This television station, which pays less attention to the BBM and audience ratings, produces very interesting programs. We wondered whether it would be a good idea to apply this model regionally. For example, there could be a Tele- British Columbia or Tele-West. I wouldn't want to quibble over the division or boundaries of regional television. There are the CBC and Radio-Canada which have a mandate, but would it not be appropriate to give certain stations a more regional mandate to promote your culture? We were discussing that yesterday after the round table.

I'll continue to listen to you and I thank you.

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

[English]

Mr. Nokony.

Mr. Denis Nokony: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Some things come to mind here, in listening to the conversation. I have one memory of working on a provincial cultural policy panel where an elderly first nations woman came forward during an open-microphone session and reported that her primary cultural concern was an annual festival they held, where folks would go into the woods, shoot a moose, bring it back and serve it, as part of the cultural festival in the community, and a provincial health inspector came in and prohibited the practice because the stuff that was being served to the public wasn't shot under supervised conditions. It was an example of a very specific local cultural concern of some consequence. Dealing with health regulations in this regard falls under provincial jurisdiction, so that information was given to the relevant department.

• 1720

Cultural expression takes many intricate forms, and what is interesting and significant to people at a local level may have less interest or significance for those in higher levels of government. So I do appreciate the notion of deferral or that through relationships with various levels of government in Canada, the provinces and regional or civic levels, we will be able to envelop and support some of these principles.

I'm going to list again what I think a comprehensive policy should have within it at a provincial, federal, or even a local level. There should be a respect for the local or regional cultural uniqueness, and I mean that not only in terms of geography, the physical parts of Canada, but also within and amongst the disciplines that are being addressed. There should be a sense of fairness in the distribution of resources. It should be seen to be so in fact because it is so. There should be a real fiscal commitment to the value of cultural expression, rather than a token commitment to it.

There should be consistency in order to allow the base to grow. In that regard we talk about a sustainable cultural infrastructure. If you have fiscal policies that change radically or if you one day—as was reported here earlier—become ineligible for one class of support or it's into one pocket and out of the other due to changing regulations that aren't coordinated responsibly between departments and ministries, then that should be redressed. Consistency is significant and important to the base.

Partnership is critical, but only if there is a respect for the autonomy of the members of that partnership. They should have the ability to diverge and to not cooperate on some issues but also to partner because it is a welcome thing when it suits the mutual interests of the parties.

That brings me back to some of the points mentioned earlier about how federal policy can be very helpful in producing rational legislation, particularly in the areas of tax incentives and tax privileges, and ways in which government can encourage partnering in strategic areas without having to fork out money. One could say that if you're offering a tax incentive, in effect you are losing tax revenue for the federal government. Another area is supporting international trade and reducing trade barriers and conversational barriers between and amongst provinces.

Another area of consequence—and I'll give a local anecdote about this—is developmental incentives, particularly in the area of capital grants or capital programs and touring programs. When reviewing a file the other day, I saw a letter dated five years ago from a representative of then Department of Communications, which said: “As you may be aware, Mr. Nokony, the recent budgets of the cultural initiatives program have not been of sufficient size to provide contributions for the construction or renovation of cultural facilities.” That is one of the great understatements.

I was then referred to the B.C.-Canada infrastructure program agreement. Mr. Gordon was a leader in the process and one among several who were instrumental in influencing the establishment of that agreement such that at least 15% of that agreement could go to community projects for which some cultural capital projects could be relevant.

The irony—and it's a point in passing—is that because it took so long for that to come into effect, even though we had applied for federal capital assistance to form a partnership relationship with the local government, citizens, corporations, and the provincial government in financing a $9.5 million local cultural centre, we missed the deadline. We had already voted the money and called the tender, and therefore we were rendered ineligible for the federal infrastructure grant program, on which some had worked very hard to establish the criteria for cultural eligibility.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Nokony, I don't want to stop you, but I would like a clarification. You mentioned the cultural initiatives program and a separate federal-provincial infrastructure grant program. Was the cultural initiatives program dependent on joint partnerships, or are we talking about the provincial-federal infrastructure program?

Mr. Denis Nokony: I was talking about the Canada-British Columbia infrastructure grant program.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Okay. You were not referring to the cultural initiatives program.

Mr. Denis Nokony: No.

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

• 1725

Mr. Denis Nokony: Back to an earlier point—Mr. McWhinney is no longer here—the plaque in front of this new Shadbolt Centre for the Arts in our community does not include any acknowledgement of contributions from the Government of Canada, because there were none. We feel bad that this is the case. There was not a way in which we were able to access funds under those circumstances. I think we would like to see partnerships among many levels of government that acknowledge that these types of major capital initiatives, which serve the entire infrastructure, are valuable places for federal money to go and are places where the federal government should be seeking to put its money in reasonable and fair balance.

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

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Rob Egan: Madam Chair, Mr. Kamiya has not spoken. I was wondering if he wishes to.

Mr. Frank Kamiya: I don't wish to speak at this moment. I've been just listening, and maybe I'll have something to say later on.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Egan. I was aware of that. Let me just go through my list again.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Madam Chair.

During these sessions and those we held in Ottawa, we've heard conflicting statements. From time to time you hear a group say we should make sure we protect culture against other influences, that type of thing. You also hear “Give us the help we need to produce quality work, and you won't need to protect it”. I can understand both statements, but I wonder which is the right one. I'd like to hear your opinions on that.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Burke Taylor: My short answer to that is both, and a fuller discussion would be welcomed.

Mr. Mark Muise: It would help.

Mr. Burke Taylor: I would just like to go back to this, because there's no question that the identification of headquarters and national schools and things like being based in Ontario and Quebec is absolutely accurate, and it does distort the figures to some degree. It doesn't explain away the imbalance. I can assure you that if we were to pull those numbers out, there would still be an inequity, which we will be happy to demonstrate.

But the point here is really that B.C. has no objection to being the home to a number of headquarters. We would be happy to have national institutions based in Vancouver, and given the kinds of communications technology we have right now, there is becoming less and less reason why it couldn't be so.

That leads to a notion of centres of excellence. If the headquarters and the schools are there, then perhaps something else would be warranted in terms of investment in British Columbia to deliver some other form of extraordinary presence here. It doesn't have to be the same things we get the same money for. It just needs to be an equitable investment. Both Mr. Egan and I made the point earlier on that what we'd be looking for in any kind of new policy is the development of a strategic plan with the identification of strategic objectives. That could orient the policy toward centres of excellence, and we'd move up from that.

One reservation I would like to point out, though, is that the identification of strategic objectives is a bit of a risky business. In British Columbia the province has essentially identified film by itself as the cultural priority and has cut practically everything else in order to support film. We think that's fine for film, but the fact is, as you were saying in the earlier round, that everything is interconnected, and there is a cultural ecosystem that involves the non-profit, commercial, and cultural industries in something that as a whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I think it needs to be understood that one of those things does not exist without the other. It was possible to develop the film and television production industries here because there had been a couple of decades of development of a talent pool of actors, dancers, musicians, and technicians, and those skills were available to draw from.

Just as a word of caution, when it comes time to identify those targets and those strategic objects, we should be careful not to invest all of our eggs in one basket and thereby essentially lose the whole thing.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

One of the things that has certainly come up before in our hearings is that it's generally the arts, as opposed to the cultural industries, that have fallen to the bottom of the pile. The other cultural industries have taken precedence. Bearing on what you say, I think we cannot forget that the arts are the ones that actually provide the critical mass for all those cultural industries.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Egan.

• 1730

Mr. Rob Egan: Thank you. It's a fascinating conversation. I assume we're into the conversation part of this now.

I have a few random thoughts in response to some of the things that have been said here.

It's great to see Mr. Festinger here this afternoon representing CTV. I think his presence here speaks to the important role that broadcasters, public and private, play in this province and in this community. He has spoken eloquently about how a private broadcaster like his can serve the needs of the broader arts and cultural community through the various kinds of programming they undertake. I think they should be applauded for that.

Similarly, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and CBC regional here plays a vital role in this community in terms of providing opportunities for artists from across many disciplines to develop and exercise their craft.

British Columbia, as you know, has been a strong and loud advocate on behalf of the CBC. That was most recently evidenced with the opening of the CBC radio station in Victoria and the thousands of people who attended that opening. It was quite a remarkable event. I think it speaks to the importance and the attachment people in British Columbia and on the coast have to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think it's very important to keep in mind the role of the public broadcaster and the funding that is required to ensure it performs its role most effectively.

What is Canadian culture? Mr. Sauvageau asked that question. This has been a vexing question and a debate that has been going on for many years. I wish I had the answer. The only answer I could think of today is Céline Dion, Alanis Morissette, Shania Twain, and Sarah McLachlan, whom I saw on television at the Grammys last night. I really think you'd be hard pressed to find four more effective ambassadors of a changing image of Canadian culture.

Mr. Benoit Sauvageau: We are very impressed, as we said yesterday.

Mr. Rob Egan: But this question is one that I'm sure will vex us for many years to come, and I'm sure we all have our own view of what Canadian culture is. As I say, that's the answer I have for you on February 25.

To respond in some way to Mr. Muise's question in terms of the conflict between protecting our culture and providing the assistance to give us a hand up, again I point to that. I think in some ways the best way you protect your culture is by creating an environment that allows artistic success on the regional, the national, and the international stage. And I think it's important to see those not so much as conflicting objectives or conflicting situations, but ones that can work together to create a national culture Canadians can be proud of and demand more of.

Madam Chair, one of the favourite blood sports here on the coast is Toronto-bashing. Of course I'm sure you're well aware of that, being a member from Toronto. But again I'd like to reinforce the comments around the artistic vitality and the maturation of the cultural and artistic community in British Columbia, particularly in Vancouver.

Of course you don't have the time to absorb many of the Vancouver's offerings. I have come back to Vancouver after living in the idyllic confines of Victoria for many years, and I've really been struck in recent months by the sophistication and maturity of the artistic community here and the voice of British Columbia artists, whether they be performing artists, visual artists, filmmakers, and so on. I think it's quite a remarkable turn of events. We certainly relish the competition that is offered by the Toronto artistic community in that regard.

• 1735

With respect to the issue of who's doing a better job in terms of cultural spending, federally, provincially, and at a civic level, this is always a tough debate. Frequently you're comparing oranges and apples, and it's hard to make those comparisons. I would just put forward the view that there are no saints here. I think every level of government can and must do better in the coming years with respect to supporting the cultural community throughout the country.

I think I will wrap up my comments at this point.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Egan.

I still have a number of people on the speakers' list, but I'd like to try to go back to our audience to see if we can't get some audience participation, please. Please give us your name and the organization you represent, if any.

Ms. Margaret Reynolds (Individual Presentation): Hello. My name is Margaret Reynolds. I'm the executive director of the Association of Book Publishers of B.C. I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to speak here, so I've made a few quick notes in response to some of the questions you've outlined and some of the discussion we've been having here.

First of all, let me describe our industry here. I always hate following Rob Egan and all the film people, because they have these large numbers and ours look so small in comparison. Actually we're a very stable industry and a growing industry. Our sales are around $60 million currently. That's about an 85% increase over the last two years. Our export sales have increased over the last four years by 270%, which is an extraordinary growth and I think reflects the maturation of the industry here, but it also reflects the desire of the industry to go beyond just a regional publishing scene and a national publishing scene and to really have a strong presence in foreign markets.

One of the programs that's been very successful—and I want to make sure this committee hears the success stories as well as the complaints—is the Association for the Export of Canadian Books. That has been an extraordinarily successful program that has encouraged our books, our stories, and our culture to be delivered around the world. Our books, especially our children's books—we have quite a few very excellent children's publishers in British Columbia—are now sold on every continent and are recognized for their excellence around the world. That program has been very useful. It's managed by the industry. It operates at arm's length. But I don't think we would have the kind of growth we're seeing in export sales if that weren't the case, if that program did not exist.

The other program that's been very useful to us is the book publishing industry development program. In 1995, when the cuts were made, that program was slashed by 55%, which sent our industry into a huge tailspin. The federal government has seen fit to restore that funding, I think through very enlightened management, and the funding is now back up to its 1995 levels. That program is an industrial program. It is absolutely crucial to the industry, an industry that has margins of about 3%. If that program did not exist, I don't believe we would exist as an industry.

I haven't had a chance to look at this, but I understand that the recent evaluation of that program that's just come out—it has just arrived on my desk—emphasizes the importance of that program to the publishers and also that it is delivered in a very efficient manner. So it has also been a very successful program for us. One of the reasons it's successful is that it operates at arm's length politically and it responds to the industry, or has responded, at least in the past, to the industry, in all parts of the country. It's dismaying to see the kind of graph Burke puts forth, but I would say in the book publishing industry we're probably relatively well represented in terms of support in British Columbia, at least through our programs. We're on a publisher-by-publisher basis. We have a very strong industry here. That is definitely the case.

But it is crucial that that program remain at arm's length, that it not be politicized. There are signals that there are some changes going on within the program, and I would really like to see the program managers talk to those people in the regions.

• 1740

One of the things that's come up here several times is the idea of regional diversity, and I think that is definitely the strength of all the culture industries. We operate here on the ground in our regions. We go from our regions to our nation, and then we go beyond our nation to the larger world. I think we need to recognize that and to celebrate that in some way, to ensure that the programs we have at the central level continue to support the diversity in a very real way.

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

We probably have time for one more short intervention from the audience, if there is one.

Okay, I will go back to my speakers' list. I have Mr. Gordon, Mr. Festinger, Mr. Armour, Mr. Bélanger, Ms. Planden, and Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Merill Gordon: I will keep it relatively short. I would like to say, though, that as a businessman with plants across Canada, I have always enjoyed, outside of British Columbia, Quebec. It's a marvellous change in culture.

To answer your question about the definition of culture is difficult. It's a multifaceted animal. The culture here is different. I always ask, what is the culture of the United States? We ask what we have for culture for Canadians. Well, listen, culture is different all over.

I want to answer very quickly the question, what are the major impacts of changing demographics of your culture sector or industry. In British Columbia we have a province that is different from any other, with all of the immigration we've had recently. So when you make a policy at the federal level, not only do you have to make it regionally, but you have to make it as far as ethnic communities are concerned. They have to be able to access the programs you develop. I can give you a little insight into that.

We have an aboriginal component to our funding of the arts in British Columbia. We could not get them to access $100,000 that we had available for what they wanted in arts and culture in B.C. We went to a local group of first nations people and asked them if they would tell their people. We now can't fill their needs with $200,000. So each area is different.

Another aspect of demographics is age. We talk about the baby bombers. They're coming up. One of the biggest social problems we're going to have in Canada over the next 20 years is Alzheimer's. How is this affected by culture? Well, patients who are suffering from Alzheimer's and are actually in a catatonic state....David Brubecker plays records to them and they become animated. The physical and mental well-being of our citizens is going to be saved by what we can bring to them, with culture, with the music, the dancing—and the wellness they can receive I think is important.

There is one other aspect that's involved and that's retirees like myself. Many of them go into the community and try to give something back. Arts institutions depend on volunteers, from community arts councils to gallery docents. As the pool of active volunteers in the community increases, the impact on the arts can only be positive.

I'm reiterating what other people have said before. We need to get this funding and help back to the grassroots. It starts with the individual artists in the individual communities.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Festinger, you had three recommendations.

• 1745

Mr. Jon Festinger: I have two short snappers in response to what's been discussed, and then a third point where I actually have an answer to the cultural question.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): All right.

Mr. Jon Festinger: The short snappers are first.

Mr. Egan was talking about the film industry in B.C., and one thing in our experience and my experience is we are a younger demographically skewed station and we've been quite successful in the 18-to-35 and 18-to-49 groups. What that means is we've gotten a lot of money from advertisers promoting American films.

Every week I do a breakout of all of the advertisers on the station, who's spending money and how much money they're spending. And as we've grown, and we've grown 50%, the money is literally flooding in promoting American films. So one of the things you may want to consider, because it would be a restriction of freedom of expression and a restriction on our business if you took that money away from us, is to really think hard about how we can either create some tax breaks or create some sort of balance. Because the way it is now, given the sheer volume, watch VTV for an hour and watch how many American film ads there. It's a tough thing to compete with.

Mr. Egan and I have not talked about any of this. This is what I heard.

My second short snapper is in response to Mr. Sauvageau, who talked about whether we want a Tele-B.C. Part of the problem we have is we already have an absolute critical crunch at the funding level, both federally and provincially. Someone mentioned the cultural ecosystem. There really is one. Simply creating more fragmentation isn't the answer. I'd modestly like to suggest that if we could get more stations doing what VTV does.... We are stepping into that local promotion, that local production place, and we don't need a Tele-B.C., at least until the infrastructure can support it.

On the cultural issue, for five years I taught a course on media and entertainment law at University of British Columbia law school, and for the last two years of that I also taught a course, rather suicidally, on the international law of media communications and entertainment. Every course needs a theme, and the theme I had for both courses was exploring the definitional paradox and the contradiction in the words “cultural industry”, which always get grouped together.

The great thing about teaching is you never have to worry about what the answer is. You can just criticize. So that's what we did, and that's all we did. But somewhere here, and I don't remember who actually, I think a couple of people took it a little step closer to what an answer is. Mr. Egan did too. And it's consistent with my experience at VTV—a short experience of a year and a half. It's about the creative, and the creative is about the people. It's about the writers and the producers.

There are all sorts of problems with the words “cultural industry”, not the least of which is from an international law perspective. We have some real problems. I'm not in favour of banning words, but if we can start transitioning from “cultural industry” to “creative industry”, or “creative industries”, we might start solving our conundrum, because the conundrum is more definitional than real. If we can focus on the creative and focus on realizing that the creative, as Ms. Planden said, are the people who create, we may be able to get there.

One last thing—I know this point's been made a hundred times before, but it is frustrating—we seem to not know what our culture is, but others, looking from the outside, tend to. I didn't know why I brought this e-mail, but I knew there was a reason why it needed to be here, so I brought it. It's an e-mail dated February 17 to VTV from a business traveller from Washington, D.C. That's how he introduces himself. His name is Geoff Howe. He says:

For someone who is used to over-polished, overbearing, and manipulative news shows back home, your relaxed jovial broadcast is a revelation. I feel like I'm getting an inside look into the heartbeat of Vancouver through your morning and evening newscast. You have captured something here that is truly unique in my experience.

It's not about VTV, but we never recognize ourselves. We never recognize what it is we are. We struggle with it and it's much easier for others to recongnize it. So that's it.

• 1750

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

Mr. Armour.

Mr. Norman Armour: There are a couple of things I think would help continue this what I describe as a positive wave within Vancouver. Certainly one, to echo Karen, is the question of venues. We struggle with a lack of venues in this town, and any support in terms of infrastructure programs would go a long way.

To give you a little example of how the realities of a particular economy can be affected by one piece of the puzzle missing, One Yellow Rabbit, a performance group in Calgary that is one of the most successful internationally as well as within our own country as a touring company, has a budget of $750,000. Up until two years ago, they had a venue of 80 seats in Calgary. So basically they built up a support locally and a sense of their artistry with a venue of only 80 seats. We have no small venues in this city at this point. We have no mid-sized theatres. We have no back space with the Tarragon. We have no small space at Passe Muraille. We have no way in which emerging artists can develop their careers and develop a profile and develop their art form in such a way that in other communities, again in the case of Toronto, artists like Daniel McIvor, Daniel Brooks, and the list goes on, have developed their careers.

The other question in diversity is that while we understand the notion of an ecosystem, at times funders are faced with a situation of having to say let's just choose one. So we'll have one modern dance company. We'll have one independent film collective. We'll have one. The problem with one is that it's not a very stable community and it's not a very stable ecosystem, and we cannot fool ourselves to think that if we have one of each we're doing our job as funders. It's extremely unstable to have that occur.

The other thing is festivals. We've lost two festivals in the last year. We've lost the Women in View Festival in Vancouver, and we've also lost, as a producing festival, the Playwrights' Theatre Festival. We still do not yet have an international theatre festival. I know the Festival des Amériques very well. I know the World Stage Festival in Toronto very well. It's something Canada deserves to be very proud of. Festivals have died out in the United States. The notion of an international theatre festival should be supported at all possibilities in this city. The notion of bringing Canadian talent side by side with international talent, not only in terms of audiences but the artists themselves, is a critical aspect of developing a Canadian sense of culture and also a Canadian sense of craft.

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

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you. Please allow me to wander for a couple of minutes here in reaction to things.

Mr. Gordon or Mr. Nokony, I'd be curious to know, in the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program, where you say you secured 15% for things at the municipal level that could eventually go to artistic or cultural use, you missed the deadline, but did that get used in something else?

Mr. Merill Gordon: It did indeed.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

One thing I picked up here that we might as a committee want to consider is that if indeed there is such a disparity on a per capita basis, and once we've done the homework it's still there, I suspect a reason that could partially explain it is what I've heard about the provincial contribution, which is the least, if you wish, of all the provinces. And I suspect that many programs are tied to a provincial contribution, so that if there isn't any, then the Canadian government one does not follow. If that is the case, then perhaps we ought to review that notion and untie wherever we can. That may lead to some discussion with some other provincial authorities who believe this shouldn't be done. Nonetheless, we as a committee ought to perhaps look at that.

• 1755

To Monsieur Sauvageau's question on what is Canadian culture, or the question we've had asked or we've asked ourselves, perhaps we ought to take a step back from that and divvy it in two. Maybe we ought to think about that as well and first ask the question, what is culture? If we could come to some sense of what culture is—is it shared or common experiences—then you superimpose Canadian on top of that and maybe we can get somewhere. That's just a thought. I'm not proposing any solutions here.

On the notion of Télé-Québec and other provinces, I would support that, contrary to our friends here from CTV. I know that in Ontario we have two such—TVO and TFO. You may expect what's coming. Where I would get off that wagon is that I would not be supportive if we were to discourage broadcasting of various regional and provincial networks into other territories of the country.

And I think the opposite should be true. If we had, as we do in Quebec and in Ontario, a provincial television network, then we should, by all means, encourage broadcasting into each other's territories so as to perhaps create a better understanding of each other.

Yes, Mark, protect and promote. They go hand in hand, as ying and yang. I can't see how we could perhaps abandon one for the other.

To Mr. Egan, two thoughts. One is that I've heard from Mr. Armour and from the chap who was sitting in the same seat this afternoon, so maybe it has something to do with the chair you're in, that there is merit in failure, to paraphrase, and that we have shied away from risk-taking—that one of the consequences of reduced funding, or whatever, is a shying away from risk-taking. Yet I hear from that corner that we can't put all our eggs in the same basket. Perhaps B.C., by putting more eggs in the one basket of film, is doing the right thing. Perhaps we ought to look at it that way.

To Mr. Egan, however, if government, be they the provincial or Canadian government, put incentives to develop a sector, as has happened with the film credits, either one, when is it sufficiently developed to either remove or gradually reduce the credit?

I'm not suggesting now is the time. I haven't gone through the whole report yet, but I intend to. I was very pleased that you were not prepared to go to the extent someone was trying to push you to go to, and that there may be some merit in some of the recommendations. Depending on what the money generated or the space generated would be used for, until you see that, you aren't prepared to say no, absolutely not. I really appreciated that.

The question is, if not now—and maybe it is now—at what point do governments start pulling back from these incentives? Do we keep them on forever? It's a philosophical question more than anything else. In creating incentives to develop certain sectors, should we not include from the start a target point, such that after it has reached such a magnitude, it should be, in theory at least, able to live on its own? And when would that be? That's what I was wondering about.

My final comment is one I want to pick up because this is the last session we're having. It's come up time and again, but not here as much. I think the chaps in Saskatoon were saying they've gone through four feet of studies, or five feet in some cases, of setting a Canadian cultural policy. They've been at it for ten, twenty years. I would think they should be patient, because I suspect that the elements we need to do that as a country are now much more in place than ever in the last 28 years.

First, we have put the cuts, for the most part, behind us, in terms of finances. We've eliminated the deficit—not just the Canadian government, the provincial governments and so forth. That whole reluctance to add to your expenses when you're running a deficit in the first place is behind us. I suspect that now we're looking at where we go from here.

• 1800

The second one, and Mr. Gordon touched on it, is the demographics. As the boomers age, their interests are shifting, as they become empty nesters and so forth, as they retire. That political pressure will build over the next decade. If those who believe in the virtue and the value and the necessity of encouraging arts and culture apply themselves collectively, by the end of that time we may have a policy we'll all be proud of, and we'll be pumping a lot of resources, not just money, into that. I would hope that no one gets discouraged. Now is not the time.

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

We're already out of time, but I'm going to ask other members, as well as the audience, if there are issues Mr. Bélanger has raised—and I'd like to hear the answer to that question as well—please provide a written submission, which needn't be lengthy, to address the questions we have asked and you may have not had the opportunity to answer.

I have three other speakers. I want to hear from Mr. Kamiya, but I still have Ms. Planden and Mr. Taylor, so if you could just....

Ms. Karen Planden: I just wanted to throw out something to Mr. Muise.

I find that we have a tendency to say “Okay, there's infrastructure—how are we going to do that?” So they think that giving money to one big organization or to a municipal organization to build this big mega-theatre or community hall with all of the fancy facilities and the best lighting and the best stages and the best art studios, etc., serves the community. I would like to see us get away from that, because I can tell you that $100,000 to three organizations is going to go a lot further than $300,000 to trying to build one building as opposed to a whole bunch of small ones.

I think a perfect example of that is the Performing Arts Centre in Calgary. While I think that maybe after a very long time it's finally going somewhere, it's a very cold building. Sorry, I'm from Calgary. It doesn't have a lot of feel to it. It's a mega cultural place that has not a lot of heart. It does maybe on the stages and maybe on the small surfaces. I would like to see us get away from those things. We can give funding and resources to smaller organizations.

I think you have to do both. You can go a lot further giving a small organization capital money to do something small with—to buy lighting equipment, to buy curtains. I'm speaking of course from my own career.

The other thing is that I have to concur with Mr. Armour about arts administration and the absolutely desperate need for education. There are two institutions in this country, both in colleges, that actually thoroughly train arts administrators. I think that is essential, that qualified people are given funding to do that.

On creative industries, I would have to support that one. In grant forms and applications, there's not a whole lot of time spent on promotion of what we do and therefore the money we need. If I had an advertizing budget that an American film would have, and were allowed to spend that money on advertizing, I wouldn't need your funding, because I would be able to get the people into the seats, which is what I want. I want the bums in the seats. So I need money to promote my own stuff.

I think those are the other initiatives that need to be looked at. It's how we promote ourselves, and what are we, as Canadians. I had the opportunity to go to school in the States. Of course I looked the same and spoke the same language, but it didn't take me very long to realize that we are not the same people. I think we have to start seeing ourselves reflected more in our television and again in our papers. I think that's coming because of initiatives like the CTV's.

Those are my comments.

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

Mr. Taylor?

Mr. Burke Taylor: Madam Chair, I'd like to put some names to local culture, if I could, in addition to those four who got recognized last night on television—organizations like Ballet B.C. and Rumble Theatre and Holy Body Tattoo and Katari Taiko. Katari Taiko is a group that is made up of taiko drummers, a cellist, dancers, and a saxophone player. It could only happen in Vancouver—literally, it could only happen in Vancouver. And it is a hit everywhere it goes.

• 1805

So if you want to have a definition of Canadian culture and Vancouver culture, I invite you attend the theatre tonight, the concert halls, go to galleries before you go away, and come back any time you possibly can.

I would just like to make one clarification. Monsieur Sauvageau pointed out that you have some statistics that suggest that B.C.'s spending on culture is actually quite high. If you would do us the favour of subtracting a fantastic library system from those numbers, you'll find that the numbers are what I've been describing up until now.

Beyond that, I would like to sincerely once again thank you all for coming and holding these discussions. I encourage you to come back regularly and frequently and maintain the dialogue while you develop the policy and take it all the way through to an implementation plan. We would certainly like to participate.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

I'm not going to finish without hearing from Mr. Kamiya. He's come and he's sat here for two hours patiently. So I'm not going to be strict with you on the time.

Mr. Frank Kamiya: Thank you very much.

I see that not many people from the smaller communities have come to this forum.

We're a non-profit group, and I'm sure there are a lot of groups like ourselves that are basically run by volunteers. We would like to see some support for people like ourselves—money given to help us operate, help us hire some people. We've had to lay off a few people. We had an archivist, but we couldn't afford to keep him going. We're running on part-time workers. It would be nice to have somebody full-time, an executive director type of person, so we can access the funds Mr. Gordon was talking about—moneys that are out there. If it is out there, how do we tap into that? You can't do that with volunteers. It's very difficult. If we can get somebody who's working maybe even part-time, three days a week or whatever, we can maybe do something with that.

We do access some of the funds that come out for various projects, but beyond that we don't know what other funds are available. If you could help us out so we could access some of these things, that would really help. And it's not only our Japanese-Canadian community, but it's all the smaller groups like ourselves.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Call your member of Parliament.

Mr. Frank Kamiya: Okay, I'll do that.

I guess other than that, I'd like to thank everybody for inviting me to this. I didn't know what to expect when I got the request from your people to attend. I'm glad I did come.

I think we should all work together on a lot of these things. We are working on projects with the various other museums. We're doing a project right now, if you have time to go see it, called “Unearthed from the Silence”. It's at the Richmond Museum, which we're working with—the Richmond Museum and the Britannia Shipyard.

We're also doing a fundraising project with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the “Tides of Life” project. We hope to get that going. So we're participating in that as well, nationally.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much for coming, and I wish you great success with your projects.

We've come to the end and we've run over time. I apologize. I try to pride myself on running a meeting on time.

I want to take this opportunity on behalf of all the members of the committee to thank you all for coming here this afternoon and taking time from your very busy schedules to share issues and concerns that are important to you as we forge ahead on this evolving role of the government in our cultural policy.

One of the things I have been saying is it's been an incredible experience. I think I can speak on behalf of all of my colleagues that we've had an incredible opportunity to listen and to learn and to hear from you, the experts, not just the people in the front lines, as to what issues are important. It's not something we could have received from reading an article in the paper. We've had the opportunity to actually speak to one another. It's opened my eyes.

I would urge each and every one of you in your organizations to take that role and continue to try to inform and educate the policy-makers at all levels. Don't assume that we know everything. We can't know everything and we can't know every issue. If it's important, take the time to speak to the policy-makers to inform and educate them. And if you can entertain them as well, you've gone even further. Show them how the cultural industries are a creator.... I don't like the word “industries”, Mr. Festinger. As a lawyer, I have the same problem with the “industries” part.

• 1810

What I have said all across Canada as we've been travelling is that this is not the end of the consultation, this is the beginning of a new consultation. It's the beginning of a future beginning of a partnership. We hope you will draw upon us and that we can draw upon you to discuss the issues. Together, hopefully we can resolve the issues that are important to all Canadians no matter where they live. So thank you again.

I'm not going to adjourn the meeting, I'm—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair?

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Yes?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Today some of us are breaking away from this group. Some of us are going on to Whitehorse tomorrow, but not everybody is. On your behalf and on behalf of all of my colleagues, I want to thank the people who have helped us through these last four days, and those who will help us again tomorrow,

[Translation]

the translators, the technicians, the research staff, the clerk and the support staff. Thank you very much. These four days have gone very, very smoothly.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I concur.

The meeting is not adjourned, it's terminated. Thank you very much.