CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 25, 1999

• 1909

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): We will start this meeting by apologizing for being late, because we had just under an hour to go and get something to eat between the two meetings.

I would like to welcome you all to this meeting organized by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the objective of which has been, during this tour and over the past two years, to conduct a study on the role of the federal government in Canadian culture given the sizeable challenges that we will have to face in the future.

• 1910

In a study of this nature, all of the potential challenges have not been targeted, but we did try to focus on the three large challenges that will arise in the years to come: first of all, the extremely rapid development of communications technology, multimedia, Internet, etc.; secondly, globalization and trade liberalization that have a major impact on culture, as we have seen with Bill C-55, with what happened as regards the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, etc.; and thirdly, the changing demographics in Canada, i.e. the aging population, the youth movement, as youth have their own views, and changes to the Canadian population as a result of sustained immigration over the years.

[English]

The idea was to try to see if we could give ideas, through a report to the House of Commons, as to what direction the Department of Canadian Heritage should take with regard to its role in support of Canadian culture, especially viewing the challenges it faces over the next decades.

[Translation]

We thought about holding round tables, which we did this morning and this afternoon, to encourage dialogue instead of listening to monologues and speeches by members or witnesses. We preferred a very informal exchange of opinions. The idea is to be able to hold a dialogue, exchange points of view, and have a real discussion that can shed light on the situation for us. We are here to listen to you; so don't hesitate to share your opinions. If they're different from opinions held by others,

[English]

all the better. We'll have a good discussion.

[Translation]

I would ask you to introduce yourselves, starting with Ms. Fuerstenberg.

[English]

Maybe you can give us just a brief introduction to tell us what you do, what you're here for, whether you represent any particular group or just yourself, and what sector of culture you come from.

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg (Individual Presentation): I am Anna Fuerstenberg, and I am basically a theatre person—playwright, director, performer, and teacher. I'm one of the founding members of the Playwrights' Union of Canada, and am currently on the board of the Playwrights' Workshop of Montreal, the longest-running workshop for theatre in the world, I'm proud to say.

I came here as an individual because I'm terribly concerned about the problems of the individual artist in today's economy, in this culture, and about the individual artist's voice in terms of contributing to cultural policy, particularly Canadian cultural policy.

The Chairman: Mr. Goddard.

[Translation]

Mr. Patrick Goddard (Director General, Montreal Fringe Festival): My name is Patrick Goddard and I am the Director General of the Montreal Fringe Festival. I am an administrator, playwright, occasional comedian and, like Anna Fuerstenberg, I sit on the board of directors of

[English]

Playwrights' Workshop in Montreal, and I'm here tonight on behalf of the Fringe Festival in Montreal.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Alain Fournier (President, Conseil québécois du théâtre:) Good evening. My name is Alain Fournier and I am the President of the Conseil québécois du théâtre, an organization that represents theatre in Quebec, both francophone and anglophone. If any of you want to know more about the organization, I will give you some information. Our main concerns deal with cultural issues.

• 1915

[English]

The Chairman: Inky Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): I'm Inky Mark, member of Parliament for a place called Dauphin—Swan River, which is located in Manitoba. I'm the chief opposition critic for Canadian Heritage.

The Chairman: Mr. Devlin.

[Translation]

Mr. Eric Devlin (Vice-President, Association des galeries d'art contemporain du Québec): My name is Eric Devlin. I am Vice-President of the Association des galeries d'art contemporain du Québec. I am in charge of a gallery that is named after me, the Galerie Eric Devlin, which is located in downtown Montreal. I have managed this gallery for 10 years.

The Chairman: Ms. Côté.

Ms. Élise Côté (Development and Financial Director, Montreal Opera): My name is Élise Côté and I am the Development and Financial Director at the Montreal Opera. I have been there since 1984. One of the issues that is most important to me is probably cultural policy as it regards young people, namely young artists.

I am speaking here not only on behalf of the Montreal Opera, but also on behalf of all of the Canadian opera companies. Together, we prepared a joint brief. I will therefore be presenting the recommendations from all companies from Victoria to Newfoundland.

The Chairman: Mr. Cleary.

Mr. Jacques Cleary (Director General, Conseil des arts de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal): I am the director general of the Conseil des arts de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal. I represent this council, which is one of the oldest in Canada; it was founded in 1956 by the City of Montreal. Since 1980, it has been integrated into the Montreal Urban Community, and it is one of the major players in the arts community in Montreal, and in the metropolitan region.

In a moment I will deal with the regional dimension, particularly as it relates to demographic changes, special problems, issues, and challenges that we will have to face over the upcoming decades, and also with respect to the needs of artists in large urban settings.

The Chairman: Ms. April.

Ms. Danielle April (President, Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec): Good evening. My name is Danielle April. I work in multidisciplinary visual arts. I am President of the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec, an association which is accredited by the Commission de reconnaissance des associations d'artistes and by the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, to represent visual artists in Quebec.

We seek to improve the practical working conditions of the artists, and we are also involved in the ethical and freedom aspects of the profession. We represent at this time 1,200 members who are professional artists in Quebec. Of course, we wish to put forward the often repeated demand that this country should have a cultural policy that would, at the outset, take into account the creative minds, which are the starting point for any culture.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonneau.

Mr. Richard Bonneau (Director, Métropole et Culture, Conseil régional de développement de l'île de Montréal): Good evening. My name is Richard Bonneau and I am the Director of Métropole et Culture at the Conseil régional de développement de l'île de Montréal.

This regional council is mainly involved in bringing together all of the stakeholders on the island of Montreal, as well as in the social, cultural and economic development of the island.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lawton.

[English]

Professor Richard Lawton (Dean, Faculty of Music, McGill University): I'm Richard Lawton, dean of music at McGill University.

You may wonder why I'm here. As you know, the Canadian government doesn't have a direct role in education. However, a large number of our graduates have placed directly in the music profession, and we're concerned about the opportunities they have once they graduate from our university.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): My name is Suzanne Tremblay. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois and I represent Rimouski—Mitis. I'm also the Bloc Québécois critic for Canadian Heritage.

This is our fourth and final day of hearings; after having travelled to Newfoundland, Halifax and Moncton, we are spending the day here. We have been made aware of the numerous problems that you face. Even though we are all ears, and ready to deal with the problems that you experience, we would like you to emphasize the solutions that you might consider or concrete recommendations that you would like to make.

We are very much aware and very well informed of the lack of money in each of your sectors. You might repeat this from time to time but we would also like you to deal more specifically with solutions that you would like to put forward. Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Wilson.

Ms. Sandra Wilson (President and Founder, DÉBUT Inc. Series for Young Artists): Hello. My name is Sandra Wilson. I am the President and founder of DÉBUT Inc. Series for Young Artists.

[English]

DÉBUT is a series I founded 20 years ago for the promotion of young professional musicians. We are in our 20th year, our budget is fairly small, and we do not have one penny of federal money.

• 1920

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We don't have any, anyway.

[Translation]

The Chairman: As I have already explained, the discussion is very open and informal.

Oh, I'm sorry! I always forget to introduce the most important fellow. Go ahead.

Mr. Gaston Blais (Committee Researcher): Good evening. My name is Gaston Blais and I am the research assistant for this committee.

The Chairman: He is the one who will be compiling all the information we have received. He has quite a job ahead of him.

My name is Clifford Lincoln, I am the Member for the Riding of Lac-Saint-Louis and I am Chairman of the Committee on Canadian Heritage.

The Committee Clerk: Good evening. My name is Norm Radford and I am the committee clerk.

The Chairman: If you need to get in touch with the committee, for whatever reason, or if you want to send us information or documentation, you must get in touch with the clerk, who will ensure that these are passed on to all committee members. He will give you his address at the House of Commons in Ottawa.

As I was saying, this discussion will be very informal.

[English]

If you let me know you want to speak, I'll make a list. You're completely free to speak in either English or French,

[Translation]

in both official languages. Choose the one that you prefer. We have simultaneous interpretation. The discussion has begun. Who wants to start? Ms. April.

Ms. Danielle April: Mr. Chairman, before answering the three questions on telecommunications, globalization, and demography, I would plead, in general, for a greater generosity from governments toward those who create art, the artists.

Statistics Canada stated, about three months ago, that cultural expenditures at all levels of government had been lower for the seventh consecutive year. This is not a rosy picture. The economic situation of artists working in the field of visual arts is truly sad; and we have figures to prove it. Artists live below the poverty level; any income they make from their work barely allows them to live under the poverty line.

Economic analyses are not quite adapted to the field of visual arts. The artists aim to produce innovative works. They want the value of these works to be recognized, not necessarily their commercial value, but the value in terms of what they contribute to our culture, what they contribute to society in general.

They work to branch out into the international scene, and to defend new ideas, new concepts. They undertake research. This contribution must be recognized for itself through tangible programs and policies.

We have three types of solutions to propose, Ms. Tremblay; the first one, which has already been sought in the past, is an amendment to the Copyright Act, especially with respect to the residual rights. I will elaborate further in a few minutes, if I may.

These consequential rights would simply ensure that, when a work is sold by the author and then resold many years later, once the artist has become well known, that the said artist would be entitled to a percentage of the added value. Today, an artist who has built a career cannot ask for a percentage of this added value.

We are one of the rare countries that does not grant this consequential right in the Copyright Act. About 40 countries do grant it, including Germany. In Germany, this is done, and a percentage of the residual right is used by a professional association similar to the RAAV to support social programs.

Our second suggestion would be to stop the tax harassment of artists. Creative activity cannot be accounted for through simple commercial aspect. A symphony orchestra will never make a profit, but that is not a reason for society to deprive itself of one.

• 1925

A third suggestion would be to improve the social protection of artists, which at this time is inadequate.

The Chairman: Ms. April, so that we understand exactly what you mean by "tax harassment", can you tell us if you are referring to the meagre financial contributions given to artists or to...

Ms. Danielle April: No. It's that the Department of Revenue really harasses artists by asking them to become profitable, economically speaking. They are told that they should have a reasonable expectation of income, as if they were making shoes. They are given a deadline; they are told that if in five years they have not become profitable, their professional expenses will not be deductible. Now, professional expenses for an artist working in the field of visual arts are quite high. They need materials, a workshop, support for displaying their works, technicians, etc. This involves a lot of people, and the artist must support all of that on his own.

After a certain number of years, the Department of Revenue states that these expenses will no longer be allowed because the artist is not profitable. He doesn't have a reasonable expectation of profit. When you create, the value is not commercial but cultural. The contribution of these creators to society cannot always be counted in cash or measured by the gold standard.

The Chairman: Ms. Fuerstenberg.

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: I would like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with all of these points, especially with respect to the copyright legislation as I am a writer. Copyright in Canada is not really strong enough and does not afford enough protection to the artists. This is also the opinion of my colleagues who are members of the Playwrights' Union of Canada.

The other point I wish to raise has to do with something I experienced personally during the few years that I spent in Ontario.

[English]

Why are we supporting dead British authors? I think it's absolutely fabulous that we have Stratford and the Shaw Festival. Meanwhile, Canadian playwrights are living below the poverty level. Our plays, even if they do get mounted, don't get translated often enough, certainly not into French, or Yiddish for that matter. We are pouring millions and millions of dollars into what is fundamentally a brilliant, beautiful, theatrical tourist attraction.

It's always been my point of view that we should have a dead authors tax. Every time a theatre company or a film company decides to do a project that has been written by a dead author, particularly a dead author from another country, another culture, another language, another society, and certainly another history, that project should be taxed in such a way that the young playwrights and the living playwrights of this country, or these countries that we call ourselves, should have some sort of sustenance.

I believe also that Canadian culture up until this point, to a great extent, as my colleague Danielle April said, has been supported, invented, and created by the individual artists, most of whom are living way below the poverty level, many of whom have no hope of ever gaining any kind of pension, a great many of whom, particularly the women amongst us, something like 52% of the population, have decided to lay aside their own dreams of domestic happiness to pursue this and make incredible sacrifices to contribute to this culture we call Canada.

My final point would be that with the cutbacks in culture and education at the CBC, with the disappearance of the National Film Board, we're also disappearing the audience for the performing arts and the intermediate training ground for individual artists. Up until now the so-called seed companies and training grounds for directors, playwrights, performers, and technicians have been the CBC, the National Film Board, and the smaller theatres. These are fast disappearing. Small theatres are being replaced by festivals, once-a-year events across the country. I love the advent of these international festivals. I do like them, but I don't think they are doing the job. I think ultimately we're corroding our own idea of a culture.

I also agree that the minute we started talking about cultural industries, we were talking about widgets, not culture, not as it defines a country, a people, a place, a history, its languages, its concerns, or its heart.

• 1930

I didn't write all of this down. I can't give it to you. But as somebody who has talked theatre and film for over 20 years, I'm telling you not only that the young people have nowhere to go, nowhere to practice, nowhere to develop, and nowhere to look to the future, but they're going to leave this country by the thousands. We know exactly where they're going to go.

Canadian film distribution—is there such a thing? Canadian accords to protect Canadian playwrights, distribute Canadian plays, and to tour Canadian artists across borders—are they strong enough? I don't think so.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question to make sure that I understood Ms. Fuerstenberg correctly. With regard to the second point you raised, are you saying there would be a kind of penalty imposed on theatre troops that performed the plays of dead authors?

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: A tax.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: A tax?

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: It wouldn't be a penalty. I'm so pleased that we are able to see the works of Molière, Racine, Shakespeare or Shaw, but we have two huge festivals that cost millions and millions of dollars. I'm extremely happy that we have them. However, I tell myself that there are also many living artists who need money and support.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly.

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: I believe that, in England, the basic tax is 5%.

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Alain Fournier: This tax is a proposal which has been under study for a long time as a means of assisting living authors.

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for letting us participate in this round table with representatives of the arts sector, as we look at the role of the federal government in supporting Canadian culture.

However, we narrowly missed never hearing about these public hearings. It is thanks to an article published in Le Devoir that we contacted a representative of your committee to find out how we could participate and the subject of the discussions.

My remarks will therefore deal with, first of all, the consultations themselves and I will come back later to the questions to be answered. In fact, this will be a kind of overall picture that will provide a context for my remarks during the rest of the evening.

As we understand it, these consultations will enable the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to recommend that the federal government develop and adopt a cultural policy. These consultations consequently do not focus on Canada's cultural policy, but should be considered as one stage of a process that could lead to the development of such a policy.

We must therefore deplore the fact that we missed, as it were, the initial stage. Even if the committee decided to continue the process using the same procedures, we would not be able to contribute to its consultations. This is because it is essential for us to have sufficient advance notice of the themes and the various mechanisms used for consultations so that we can participate effectively and ensure that the voice of Quebec theatre is heard.

The Conseil québécois du théâtre is an organization with a unique structure that reflects the situation and the importance of theatre in Quebec, in terms of artistic diversity, range of artists and professional organizations, geographical coverage and practical publication of the legislation governing the status of professional artists.

We are therefore an organization that represents our members and we have an obligation to consult them. Theatre is the performing arts discipline that has by far the greatest number of self-employed workers, production companies—most of them non-profit organizations—specialized performance facilities, and labour union associations.

On average, over one million people attend the theatre every year in Quebec, not counting performances given in schools or in private theatres, or those given by Quebec companies outside the country. The CQT is also the Quebec centre of the International Theatre Institute, an agency affiliated with UNESCO.

As for the first question that you have asked, that is, regarding federal support measures, for the reasons we told you earlier, I am unable to present to you here a detailed analysis of the federal government initiatives that support the processes of theatrical creation, production and distribution.

The Canada Council is really the front-line agency in terms of federal government support for our sector. In the last 10 years, we have seen a decline in its funding for this purpose. There was some catching-up last year, which brought funding up to previous levels. Is the situation going to stabilize? It remains to be seen.

Although I cannot go into the situation regarding the programs offered by the Department of Canadian Heritage, I can say that its Cultural Initiatives Program is one of the rare programs for which non-profit organizations are eligible, apart from those offered by the Canada Council. Funding for this program has declined considerably. The reality is that the money currently available is used only to pay the costs associated with previous commitments, and practically no new money is allocated to the various program components.

• 1935

Existing federal measures favour cultural industries over non-profit organizations, which make up the large majority of theatre companies. However, increased promotion and distribution abroad would certainly be a major issue for the theatre sector. The federal government could do much more than what it is currently doing to facilitate, support and develop access to foreign markets.

With regard to the second and fourth questions, we cannot outline any official position to you today. We can talk about the impact of new technologies, but I have no authority to set out my organization's position.

As for the globalization and liberalization of trade, we are very concerned about the possible repercussions on support measures for theatre and on public access to works created by our artists. The CQT has acted in this area by joining with 12 other associations to form the Coalition pour la diversité culturelle. We'll provide you with a copy of a resolution signed by the coalition this evening.

The text of the declaration contains the following affirmations:

We affirm that cultural diversity is a fundamental human right that must be safeguarded and promoted by States.

We propose:

- that States be entirely free to adopt the policy required to support cultural manifestations in all their diversity and the viability of undertakings that produce and disseminate them;

- that international trade agreements comply with these policies fully;

- that no retaliatory measures be taken as a result of the application of these policies.

This declaration was presented at the June meeting of the Canadian Conference of the Arts and forwarded to Sheila Copps at the time of the meeting of culture ministers. The members of this coalition include the ADISQ, the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, the Association des réalisateurs, the ARRQ, the CQT, the RAAV, the SARDEC, the UNEQ and the Union des artistes. In short, the fact that the non-profit organizations and the cultural industries managed to agree leads me to believe that it's possible.

The Chairman: Excuse me, are you going to read a brief?

Mr. Alain Fournier: No.

The Chairman: You know that we don't have much time.

Mr. Alain Fournier: Mr. Chairman, it's not a brief, only two and a half pages. We didn't have time to write a brief; we found out about this meeting only three weeks ago.

Among the issues that affect theatrical artists, producers and creators and that must be considered from the point of view of trade globalization and liberalization, we could mention copyright, public lending rights, support for cultural organizations, the exporting and promotion of theatre, protection of culture in trade agreements, etc..

On the subject of a possible Canadian cultural policy, we think it important to point out that Quebec is the only province that has adopted a government cultural policy. It was developed through intense discussions and exchanges with the artistic and cultural communities as part of a rigorous and democratic process.

A cultural policy provides a framework, for both the cultural community and the government. It allows us to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of decisions and actions. A government policy goes beyond a set of actions such as programs, measures and statements for various sectors, to offer a vision of the future that describes the place that arts and culture should occupy. It sets out the path to be followed, identifies objectives and speaks volumes of a society's priorities. It presupposes a definition of what culture is.

A cultural policy is central to our activities, as an organization representing the professional theatre community. All the required care and attention must be given to developing such a plan.

"Encore une fois, si vous me le permettez", to paraphrase the title of Michel Tremblay's most recent play, let me repeat that we hope the committee will adopt a process which, by means of the participants invited, the content and the timetables, will better reflect the key role of the arts and the professional arts communities in the development of a blue-print for a possible policy for Canada.

Based on that, I could give you my opinions, of a personal nature because I have no authority, on the issues before us.

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier, just to throw some light on the subject, this process which we have undertaken has been going on for two years now.

Mr. Alain Fournier: Yes.

The Chairman: We have received briefs. The process was advertised, when we started out, in all the weeklies and in every kind of newspaper. A number came from Quebec. Most of the organizations that you referred to asked to appear before us and sent us briefs. I'm very sorry if some of them were not reached.

• 1940

When the decision was made to travel, about one or one and a half month ago, we had to get money to do this. In fact, we had two teams, one travelling in the West and the other in the East. At that time, we sent out word to all kinds of radio stations and to the press council to publicize our hearings. We sent messages on the Internet to all the people we were able to reach.

This work is not starting today, it has been spread out over almost two years. It began before the last federal elections. I know that we are getting to the stage where we will have to wind up. If your organization has specific recommendations to put forward, there's still time to do so. All you have to do is contact our clerk. I can assure you that he will be happy to communicate them to the committee members.

All these briefs are now being studied. We have a very competent research team, a team of experts from the National Library. Mr. Blais, who is here tonight, is one of them. All sorts of procedures have been used. We've taken all kinds of notes on the briefs that have been submitted, including one from the ADISQ, to cite an example from Quebec, which appeared before us. Its representatives were here with us again today.

I can assure you that we want, at all costs, to listen to most of the people who want to be heard. If you have a brief to present to us, I can assure you that we will be very pleased to receive it and will give it our close attention.

Mr. Alain Fournier: Let me tell you that I have absolutely no doubts about the committee's open-mindedness regarding the positions that might be put forward to it.

However, you give the example of the ADISQ, which is naturally interested in your consultations. This brings out what we mentioned in our presentation, that is, that the cultural industries are more involved and informed, and there is no policy that clearly identifies the relationship between the arts, culture and cultural industries. We go forward case by case with special measures for various sectors that are often appropriate but which do not fit into an overall picture and do not allow us to reach a consensus.

It is very difficult to harmonize cultural development that is based on a certain level achieved by the cultural industries and that of individual artists who represent at the outset—and I agree with that—laboratories, and places where research and creation take place. We're dealing with the commercial product that may come out at the end of the day. The research laboratories that artists represent are not part of these concerns.

Therefore, your questions do not cover the Canada Council, apart from the question on technology. Technology and its influence is simple: it comes down to cost. If it becomes accessible to everyone, to individual artists, among others, and is not solely part of programs destined for industries, we could go back to talking about it. That is what we feel needs to be clarified first. We can still talk about what will happen after, but it is my duty to point out to you that that is a sector-based approach that will not help us have an overall view of Canada's cultural policy.

The Chairman: But, Mr. Fournier, that is why we came to listen to you. You're not speaking on behalf of an industry, but on your own behalf. Ms. Fuerstenberg is speaking as a creator. Ms. April has spoken. That is why we came to listen to you.

Mr. Alain Fournier: There you are.

The Chairman: If we had come here with a firm intention to want to correct sector-based programs... We are here to listen to you; otherwise, we would not have come.

Mr. Devlin.

Mr. Eric Devlin: For the visual arts sector, Ms. April raised the issue of the unstable conditions in which various creations are born. I fully support what she said. Basically, with respect to a cultural policy, two aspects must be considered: creation and distribution. You addressed the latter point through your question on globalization, which is becoming a bit of an issue for Canada at the international level.

• 1945

Canada is perhaps a major player geopolitically speaking, but culturally speaking, there is still a lot of ground to cover because policies for distributing culture created in the country simply do not exist.

In our sector, in visual arts, for example, the federal government does not recognize the role played by galleries in any way. If we turn to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we have to be non-profit organizations. If we go to the Canada Council, we also have to be a non-profit organization, whereas in publishing, the majority of publishers are private. In our sector, in visual arts, this abnormal situation of not being able to distribute the works of our artists means that they cannot make a living from their art.

In response to Ms. Tremblay, I will not read my brief, but I would like to make some very timely recommendations to restore some things that existed several years ago and that were cut literally by the federal government. It makes no sense to have abolished or eliminated all aid for distribution or any structured action on the market to enable our artists to make a living.

A so-called country that claims to have... The word "heritage" puts a little too much emphasis on the past. It is a bit nonsensical that this country does not have a department of culture. I apologize, but we are living beings around this table. Creators in theatre, visual arts and in all other areas are living beings who have not yet been mummified.

This evening, there is an auction for the Château Ramsay; that is the past, heritage, whereas we are alive. We are culture's main players. One of these days, Ottawa should try to understand that culture is a vibrant element.

In the United States alone, which is a particular place now, what they call entertainment—because culture and entertainment are part of another debate—is one of the country's main exports. Our problem is that we are a small country in comparison to that giant.

As for circulation, the problem is the same, whatever the areas. I can't speak for the other sectors but, for the visual arts, if there's no circulation of what's been created, our artists will never be able to earn a living with their art. As Ms. April was pointing out, you can ask for a legal framework for the residual rights, but if you don't sell any of your works, you won't be collecting any residual rights. So we have to get there, but Ottawa, unfortunately, has never understood that.

The Chairman: Mr. Cleary.

Mr. Jacques Cleary: I'd like to look at a few things from a different point of view. We accept different approaches to come to the assistance of the arts. Only if we want to have one sector for the cultural industry, for the arts as such, and if we want to develop a cultural industry, at the outset we must support the artists in their creative process.

We want to draw your attention to the importance of supporting, with the decisions you'll be making in the future, the arts council formula. This formula has proven itself; it guarantees excellence, provides support at the creative level and can even come into play at the circulation stage and ensure broader propagation of the creation.

As for our metropolitan area, we have the advantage of having an arts council at the metropolitan region level as well as the federal and provincial governments levels. These are the three structures that allow the arts community to develop and this approach should be kept in your policies.

The metropolitan dimension has its importance because, as an arts council at the community level, we're closer to the arts community. That was the second point I wanted to look at quickly, but I can come back to it in more detail after.

The emphasis really has to be put on partnership and decentralization formulas. In your cultural development concepts, you must trust the organizations that are already there and close to the communities. They can develop original formulas while being close to the population, feeling the evolution of the community, and they can really be partners.

• 1950

There are regular meetings, called "summits" of the exchange variety, in other words without any adversarial matters being brought up involving the Canada Council, the Conseil des arts et lettres du Québec and our arts council, which allows for exchanges of different points of view.

The Canada Council represents Canada as a whole and has its own problems. The Conseil des arts et lettres du Québec represents Quebec as a whole while we represent the metropolis. So movement must be established in favour of the artists and that's a point we want to draw to your attention.

There are three metropolitan areas in Canada and they all have similar problems. We've established a lot of links with our colleagues from Toronto and Vancouver.

Generally speaking, with federal or even provincial policies, there's always a tendency to forget interventions at the metropolitan level. That must be kept in mind and, in that sense, we're ready to play a greater role. We'd even be ready to manage, through agreements, additional funds for ad hoc projects. We could share in a metropolitan arts stabilization fund which has been a matter under study for some time now.

The Conseil des arts et lettres has a formula, but there is room there for complementary action, in favour of the metropolis, where there's a heavy concentration of population, artists and organisations. So these are indications for the future.

In looking for solutions, we should keep what works and add tools to go further along.

The third point is accessibility. Circulation has been mentioned. That is the number one stake. To develop the arts, you have to emphasize circulation or accessibility through recognition of the diversity of youth. We have to train youth, prepare tomorrow's audiences, as we are wont to say. We have a specific program on that; it was set up in co-operation with the Quebec Department of Culture and Communications.

It is very important that funding for the arts, survival and development be somewhat consistent. There needs to be some harmonization at the community level. It is important to be close to the community—and we can assume that role—and to also have harmonization at the national level.

For example, for the past ten years we have been organizing very high quality travelling exhibits with the Musée des Beaux-Arts, the McCord Museum and the Musée de l'Île Sainte-Hélène, with all of the museums of contemporary arts. These exhibits are designed to be presented in small municipalities. They could easily be sent throughout Canada, but there is no structure in place to hold them. Museums often try to exchange major exhibits, but they have trouble, because there is very little mobility. It is always possible, but we have developed a concept that suits small municipalities; we could even go to the High Arctic.

We have presented Inuit and Aboriginal collections and dealt with all facets of art. That enables us to take the collections, the contemporary works of art or our museums collections out to the people. These initiatives can be developed at the local level, but could be also be developed to a larger extent at the national level.

At the international level, we have established links with municipalities. We have a counterpart in the greater Île-de-France region. We often work with the Canadian Cultural Centre in Paris. I got the impression from your documents that some thought had been given to that type of organization.

It is very important for organizations to be devoted to culture at the international level. It could be in conjunction with the Canada Council, but the "cultural centre" or "arts centre" concept is an essential tool for achieving good distribution. There always has to be someone on-site to open the doors and work on development. We are open to the idea of working together, like we already have, but harmonization will require a lot of work. If you want to promote our artists in Europe, for example, you will have to develop friendships, and links with people, but also networks among the main cities, including Barcelona, Paris and London, and organize these things. A structure must be put in place, and that takes a long time to establish and maintain.

• 1955

In that regard, with respect to accessibility, last fall we supported the creation of an arts network at the Société Radio-Canada. Later on, other formulas could be explored. Given the high stakes with respect to new technology and the multiplication of channels, it is essential that the content correspond to the works produced here. If we do not do so, we will be dependent on foreign content for mass distribution.

Networks, like the one planned by CBC, must be in place. Each year, our artistic community puts together extraordinary productions, and we never use captation. They won't be back on the stage again. They're masterpieces that are gone forever. So we need captations, shorts and content development.

That is another accessibility-related issue that is of concern to the federal government. It is a project that we supported. I know there are differing points of view on the project, but we felt it was very important.

So there are some other avenues.

The Chairman: We will be able to go back to that later.

Mr. Jacques Cleary: Absolutely, because I do not want to take up too much time.

The Chairman: I will come back to you later. Ms. Côté.

Ms. Élise Côté: Mr. Cleary, you have opened up several avenues for me.

Mr. Jacques Cleary: Go ahead.

Ms. Élise Côté: First of all, you wrapped up your comments talking about CBC. At the Montreal Opera, we just experienced a serious problem. CBC was supposed to record Manon, which will be performed as of March 13. The Corporation did not have the money to do it. At long last, just today a miracle occurred, where as we had been announcing for several weeks already in the papers and throughout the media that CBC would be doing captation. It was settled today. I do not know what happened; they must have come up with some discretionary funding.

In the past, the Montreal Opera was picked up by CBC radio. All productions that were playing were recorded and rebroadcast. Two years ago, we had to pay for a radio recording of the opera entitled Les Pêcheurs de perles, which had a strictly Canadian distribution. That is my first point. It is not rosy.

You also mentioned the Canadian Cultural Centre in Paris. By chance, I spent a weekend in Paris; that was about three weeks ago. I went to the Canadian Cultural Centre. I remembered the Centre because in 1986 we were invited along with the young singers from the workshop. We did in fact have a training program at the Montreal Opera, where we took in university graduates. Much to my surprise, when I arrived at the Canadian Cultural Centre in Paris I saw that the small concert hall that used to be there had disappeared, that they could no longer accommodate Canadian singers but that they had, however, reserved a very large area on the ground floor for arts and technology, ie for Bombardier.

I seem very aggressive, but I am not. This is very important to me.

So Bombardier can display its new technology there. Why? Because there are ongoing trade missions. You send trade missions everywhere. Why not force the companies that benefit from them, like Bombardier...

Incidentally, I was there with a person from Bombardier who was organizing the Bourget air show next June. Why not force these trade missions to do their duty and spread the images of art that we produce here in Canada? I am speaking on behalf of singers, but there are also directors, lighting technicians and set designers.

That is one thing that really struck me and I wanted to share it with you.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is a good thing you came back; you are able to tell us about it.

Ms. Élise Côté: It really shook me up.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I understand.

Ms. Élise Côté: With respect to distribution, the Montreal Opera sincerely thanks... I do not want to talk about distribution right away, but instead say a few words about the Canada Council.

• 2000

We are very grateful, like all Canadian companies are, that the Canada Council received an additional 25 million dollars last year; that amount will be renewed for the next four years, since one year has already gone by. However, what happens at the end of the five-year period? What will happen to the stability of the companies?

At the Montreal Opera, and Mr. Cleary can attest to this, we're often criticized because we present very few creations. Last year, we presented a Canadian work and everyone has criticized us for that: all levels of government as well as the funding partners. For us it's a question of financial stability. On occasion, we produce a contemporary work. Last year, out of the seven productions on the program there were two. Of course we had to present La Traviata and Carmen to compensate for Susannah and Le Consul.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: —

Ms. Élise Côté: No. We always pay our residual rights.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: —

Ms. Élise Côté: We are required to pay residuals when we...

The Chairman: If it continues like this, the interpreters will not be able to follow.

Ms. Élise Côté: When we rent material, we automatically pay...

The Chairman: We will let Ms. Côté speak and then...

Ms. Élise Côté: No, it is understood. When we present the Dialogue des carmélites, Poulenc is still in the public domain, so we pay. When we present Strauss, we pay. We pay because it is rented and because we are required to do so.

As for the Canada Council, we are definitely very concerned as are, moreover, all Canadian companies. We are wondering what will happen after five years. Indeed, the Canada Council plays a very important role, not only for opera but also for musicals in Canada.

As far as audience reach is concerned, the Montreal Opera is one of the 10 largest companies in North America. The Montreal Opera builds a tremendous number of sets and, therefore, turns to the people here, employs people here. These sets are often co-produced with American, Canadian or European companies and travel throughout the world.

In addition, we have a training program and we have already benefited, as I pointed out to the chairman, from an Employment and Immigration Canada grant of nearly $1.4 million for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988. At that time it was recognized that there was a scarcity of opera singers, directors and stage managers in the field of opera. We used to import all kinds of talent that we didn't have here.

Today, the situation has changed somewhat. Following the Employment and Immigration Canada grant, we received some really limited assistance from the Cultural Human Resources Council. We received assistance, but very minimal assistance, which amounted to next to nothing, but which did enable us to continue training young singers, stage managers, directors and coaches at the Opera.

We can provide a stepping stone to these singers who are between university studies and career, and, in addition, we can also bring opera to the people. We tour not only in Quebec where we, of course, go to all regions, including the Magdalen Islands, but we also travel to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Ontario.

In Ontario, there is a company similar to ours, although a little bit older, known as the Canadian Opera Company. This company is also experiencing budget problems and had to stop touring. Accordingly, the companies in Ontario... This year, we will even be going to Toronto with the Atelier lyrique to present L'Elisir d'Amore, because even Toronto no longer had the money to fulfil the aspects of its mandate concerning democratization and dissemination.

These are important issues. We are talking about the future of young people. I have another story to tell.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: —

Ms. Élise Côté: The globalization of markets poses a very serious problem, particularly for young singers. You know that now, in the United States, opera companies are no longer entitled to hire foreign singers, including Canadian singers, unless it can be officially proven that no one in the United States is able to sing a particular role. This poses tremendous problems to us.

• 2005

We presented Andrea Chénier in Monte Carlo after presenting it in Montreal. Right now, this opera is being presented in Newark, New Jersey, with the opera company from there. Our singers, including the young people, were not able to go there because they didn't have work permits.

The problem is twofold. On the one hand, the young singer does not have an opportunity to be heard by another conductor or by agents that may be sitting in the room. Moreover, we know that Newark is closer to New York than Montreal. Furthermore, with this type of co-production, the director had to hire new singers and repeat the staging for roles that are, all in all, very minor.

These minor roles are, however, important for young singers. These roles are stepping stones and enable the young singer to become familiar with the stage, an opportunity that may occur only rarely. We always put on excellent opera productions at McGill, but only at the rate of one per year, which is rather limited.

Our productions are truly professional, and this embargo on singers, including Canadian singers, is causing us problems. When I look at our promising young singers, I say to myself that it is fortunate that some of them were able to be heard before this measure applied. However, it applies now and I think it is important to look into the issue.

The Chairman: We will give Ms. Wilson a chance to speak and then I will turn the floor over to Ms. Fuerstenberg and Mr. Devlin, who asked to speak.

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: Mr. Goddard is before me.

The Chairman: Oh, Mr. Goddard! We will hear from the following people in this order: Ms. Wilson, Mr. Goddard, Ms. Fuerstenberg and Mr. Devlin.

[English]

Ms. Sandra Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to zero right in to the heart of the whole problem: culture is not a priority with the government. How can we ensure the future of all artists and musicians if those we elect are not sensitive to this? It's that simple.

Dead silence.

A voice: We're all agreeing.

Ms. Sandra Wilson: I don't have the answer. I was hoping somebody else did.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Goddard.

Mr. Patrick Goddard: We first covered the training of young people, dissemination and all of that. I'm going to talk to you about our festival which is a little bit, and perhaps even very, weird, and which does not really fall into the category of cultural programs. First and foremost, this is a festival where the democracy of theatre prevails . The festival operates in the basis of first come, first served, and there is absolutely no jury.

We operate on the premise that everyone is capable of doing theatre, that everyone wants to do theatre and participate in theatre productions. One of our problems with the federal government is that the Canada Council does not recognize non-juried festivals. The so-called fringe festivals—experimental or avant-garde festivals—are amongst the biggest in Canada, particularly in the West, in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Victoria and Vancouver and in Toronto as well. There are lots of them.

These experimental festivals are not recognized as being part of professional theatre, which poses a problem. I deplore the situation and I don't know how to resolve it other than by asking you for money.

Nevertheless, this is a festival that gives young artists their first chance to perform their work or to have their work performed. There are many young people who have finished school, who have never presented their own work in their own words or who have never gone on stage, and who are doing so for the first time. Without this festival, these people would not have such an opportunity. The festival, therefore, constitutes a very important step with respect to training, or at least in the career of a young individual artist.

• 2010

As the English say, fringe festivals exist a bit below the radar. They are marginalized, to use this beautiful political word. We're really working in the street.

The Chairman: They were marginalized in Vancouver.

Mr. Patrick Goddard: It all depends on the location. The fringe festival in Edmonton has been around for more than 15 years. This festival is the largest summer festival in Edmonton. The Winnipeg fringe festival is produced by one of the theatres in Winnipeg. The Saskatoon festival was produced by a theatre in Saskatoon. In our case, we produce it ourselves. One of our biggest problems lies in the fact that there isn't really any support for infrastructure. Our administration is composed of two people. They can only pay us six months out of the year. It is very difficult to produce a festival and look after all of the activities pertaining to promotion, dissemination, marketing, etc. in six months. We therefore have to concentrate on the production. We have to focus very clearly on what we are doing without receiving very much government money. We work very hard to find sponsors, etc.

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: In Toronto, the Playrights' Union of Canada decided to publish the works produced in the fringe festivals, particularly in Montreal. There are not many theatres that work in English here, in Montreal. This is a recent decision.

[English]

That's number one. Number two, the Canada Council, the reason I live in Canada, the reason I love the idea of Canada, has made it necessary to start to think about cultural industry as an industry. One of the things they've done that I'm conscious of is a three-year plan. Almost every institution... Is it a three-year plan, a five-year plan? It sounds like Stalin to me.

The bottom line is that in any kind of situation, Patrick's as well, where you have spontaneous creation, this happens. This happens in culture. People decide to put on an opera, to create music. I'm very sorry there are not more dance people here, because Montreal is, as you know, one of the great North American centres for dance, particularly modern dance. I'm sad to see those colleagues are not at the table, because they would have similar stories.

This three-year plan is wonderful for institutions because it gives them a certain amount of stability. It's dreadful for individuals and for works of art, because you can't tell a painting to get painted in three years if it wants to take four. It has a mind of its own. The same thing is true for a short film, which of course now is not being supported by the National Film Board, which no longer exists. The same is true for a play. Or God forbid you should want to write a poem—I don't know what would happen.

I have to say I'm in tremendous support of the split-run law for magazines. I hope we do have Canadian magazines. I hope they survive this particular issue with the United States. I'm going to raise the dirty word. I'll give you a metaphor a colleague of mine uses a lot. He says Canada is culturally like a little mouse singing and tapdancing its heart out, living right next to an elephant, hoping desperately that some night in its sleep the elephant will not roll over and crush the poor little mouse. It's a metaphor we've heard a lot. The metaphor was used in 1955 and even earlier, I think, to define the need for a Canadian cultural policy.

• 2015

I talked about being an artist in this country. What I haven't talked about is the artist and technology. If there is technology that is going to serve art, whether it's going to serve culture in music, which it has, whether it's going to serve culture in visual arts, in dance, classic arts, or theatre, that technology will be inspired ultimately by individual artists. Ultimately this government, any government, particularly any Canadian government, will serve its identity and its purpose as a government best by supporting artists—individual artists.

One more thing. We're talking about the international market. It's kind of a joke to somebody like me who writes film. Let's talk about film distribution on an international level. In Canada, 95% of the film distribution is done by the elephant. Do we really have a way of protecting, producing, creating, and supporting the artists who will make Canadian films? Certainly Canadians are not seeing them.

I find it very odd to be speaking about this in Montreal. At different times I have written films that were produced by individual producers outside of Quebec in the English language and in Spanish. It's virtually impossible for those producers to be able to afford the subtitles it would take to be allowed to distribute their tiny films in Quebec, because there is a law here protecting Quebec culture, which is that if you distribute a film in English, it must simultaneously be admitted in French. I think this is a great idea. I also think that somewhere along the line the federal government should help do this.

I have more colleagues here in Montreal who have seen American films in the last year than have seen any one or two of the great, really interesting, different films being produced outside of the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada. That's tragic. That's silly. I like the idea of this law in Quebec, but I really think there should be some way of getting those subtitles on those films, and it's a metaphor for so much else.

The Playwrights' Workshop of Montreal is participating with SAD, our sister organization in French, to run a translation festival, and I think this is our third one. The last translation festival was done with the Government of Mexico, and it was done in Spanish, French, and English. The next one is going to be done with Belgium in Flemish French and English. I think that's a terrific idea.

I think in terms of the world—I'm not even going to talk about markets because I don't believe I'm a member of an industry; I believe I'm a member of an underclass called “artists”.

I think the word “marginality” is something you should also think about. I'm marginalized. Our institutions, goodness knows, are forced to be marginalized. The three-year plan for stability to me is a way of marginalizing them, making them think of themselves as businesses with three-year growth plans and stockholders, and I think that's criminal. It's basically making it impossible for them to take risks and allow individual artists within those institutions to create spontaneously.

Does this make sense to you? I see my colleagues understand me. Does anybody else understand me?

Ms. Sandra Wilson: I don't. I don't understand why you're so afraid of the word “industry”.

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: I'm not afraid of it. I use it all the time.

Ms. Sandra Wilson: Okay, because it is. It's a multibillion dollar industry. It's a wonderful industry.

As for the three-year plan, the five-year plan, whatever, every organization should have one.

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: I don't agree.

Ms. Sandra Wilson: Fine. I think they should, and I'll tell you why I think they should.

The Chairman: Just hold it a minute. Ms. Fuerstenberg, it's 8.20. I don't want to play the school teacher here, but at the same time I think some people want to have a break. Then we'll come back to you.

Mr. Devlin asked to speak. Mr. Bonneau wants to speak. Madame April wants to speak. But we'll give you a chance after, okay?

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: Promises. We're used to living on promises.

[Translation]

Mr. Eric Devlin: Earlier, Mr. Cleary pointed out the importance of exchanges with foreign countries. He referred to what the CACUM did together with the Conseil régional d'Île-de-France. Do you know that in the field of visual arts, the federal government imposes a 70% tax on any exchange of less than $250,000 with a foreign country? When a company, an institution, a private art gallery or a cultural centre imports an exhibit from abroad and sends the works of Canadian artists abroad in exchange, the federal government forces that Canadian enterprise to pay 7% of the value of the works when those works are worth less than $250,000. If that's not a sting, what is it?

• 2020

Of course, the federal government in its great splendour will say: We will give you the money back when the cultural assets leave the country; we want to make sure that there's no black market here. Big deal! Let's say that the value of the works is $100,000. Who can afford to write out a $7,000 cheque to the federal government and wait a year to be reimbursed? No cultural enterprise in this country can afford to do that. So we all commit fraud or contraband. This absurd situation was created by the federal Parliament when it passed the GST legislation. To simplify the law, they decided to impose a 7% tax on all goods entering the country.

The Canadian museum lobby woke up and said: Just a minute, if we want to import a Monet exhibit, for example, and we have to pay 7% of several million dollars, we'll be ruined; we'll never be able to bring in a single exhibition from abroad. Members of Parliament in Ottawa panicked and said: An exhibit in a museum is generally worth more than a quarter of million dollars; we'll pass a stupid amendment, that no Canadian customs broker can understand, stating that goods worth more than $250,000 are tax exempt whereas those worth under $250,000 will be taxed. That really promotes exchanges with other countries, doesn't it? There's an irritant for you! You want solutions? That's a solution!

As the director of a private gallery, I collect taxes for the government. It's already a pain in the ass to have to do the government's job. I'm not paid to collect government taxes. I have to give that money to the government. That's not what bothers me, but what does bother me is to pay a tax in advance on goods that I won't be selling. Let's say that I bring over an exhibit of works by a foreign artist that are worth $100,000. I may sell $10,000 worth. That's probable. On $10,000 in sales, I will have to give the artist $5,000, but I also have to remit $7,000 in security to the federal government. Do you think that encourages me to have exchanges with other countries? How can I disseminate the works of foreign artists and of my Canadian artists abroad if I can't do these exchanges? The federal government does everything in its power to prevent me from having exchanges with other countries. It does everything to prevent Canadian culture from being disseminated abroad. That's a problem.

The Chairman: That's for sure.

Mr. Bonneau.

Mr. Richard Bonneau: First of all, I would like to comment on what Mr. Goddard said earlier. I find it interesting that he talks about marginalization of art or theatre since that is the very essence of the fringe festival. Doesn't "fringe" mean marginal in French? Approximately, yes. That's the beauty of that festival, incidentally. I've been following it for many years, and it's indeed its marginal character that makes it interesting.

Moreover, I would also like to thank and congratulate the Government of Canada for its initiative in holding these hearings. I think it's a very good thing that the government is listening to the expectations and suggestions of the artistic community as part of the reform of cultural policy. I was supposed to be outside the country at the same time as Mr. Fournier, when it appeared in the papers, because I wasn't aware of this either. I learned it through Le Devoir and usually I'm quite well informed.

I have before me the Preliminary Findings of the Working Group on Cultural Policy for the 21st Century of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, which contains eight recommendations, the last of which is that the Government of Canada strike a committee to examine the issue.

Since this report was published in January 1998 and recommends the creation of a committee, the Canadian Conference of the Arts was probably not aware of these hearings or else the government was very, very quick in responding, but anyway...

I would also have found it very interesting that the government survey the community about its expectations and aspirations, but at the same time have certain positions in mind, preliminary though they might have been. What is the federal government's position right now? I know it's in the final phase of formulating a new policy or doing an overhaul, but it would have been a good idea for us to be able to react to whatever orientation you're considering for this policy.

Heritage Canada's Cultural Initiatives Program was mentioned earlier. This program was in three parts at the outset, namely management assistance, capital investment assistance and festival assistance. The first two parts, management assistance and capital investment assistance, have disappeared.

• 2025

That's extremely unfortunate because, among other things, the management assistance program helped many small organizations, especially those at the start-up or consolidation phase. I found it very unfortunate that this program disappeared. With regard to the program that still does exist, assistance for festivals, its budgets are shrinking away year after year.

Are we to conclude that the government is disengaging itself from all this or that it has adopted new orientations? Questions have been asked about the new economy, technology, globalization and so forth. Yes, we must look to the future, but we also have to see exactly what is the current situation of the cultural community. If, in order to promote new orientations, it is necessary to cut back established programs, we have a problem, in my opinion. Yes, let us look to the future, but let us also consolidate what we already have. Canada is internationally recognized for its achievements in areas such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, transportation and new technologies. Considerable amounts of money are invested in these sectors because they are leading-edge industries, promising industries.

Culture is one of the sectors for which Canada does have an international reputation. However, the artists cannot afford their aspirations. Thus, the essential problem, at least from the standpoint of performing arts or visual arts—I'm not necessarily referring to cultural industry or television—is a matter of financing. Once we fully understand the social and economic role of culture, I think we will give it the means to achieve its aspirations.

As I explained earlier, the primary role of the Conseil régional de développement de l'île de Montréal is to foster cooperative endeavours. Since we were given little time to react, perhaps we could play a mobilizing role in the coming weeks to help various artistic sectors concert their efforts in order to issue a policy.

What would be your deadline for accepting briefs? We know that you want to issue new proposals in the early summer. Is there a deadline for tabling of briefs?

The Chairman: Mr. Bonneau, there's been a misunderstanding here. We are not the Government of Canada and that must be made very clear. You talk about the Government of Canada when referring to members of the Conference on the Arts. We are a House of Commons committee whose members represent all parties in the House of Commons. Ms. Tremblay is from the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Mark is from the Reform Party, there are others from the Conservative Party who are not here today; tomorrow, the NDP will join us. Therefore, we are a committee of the House of Commons that has some independence. We are the ones who decided to conduct this study. The Government of Canada did not impose it on us. Two years ago, we made a decision as a committee that something was missing.

We hope to influence the decisions of the current government by tabling a report in the House of Commons. This report will not be presented to the Government of Canada, but to the House of Commons. We will ask the Government of Canada to respond to this report, which will contain all kinds of recommendations that people will have suggested to us since we began our work approximately two years ago.

We will ask the government to respond, and it will have 150 days to do so. We hope that this will exert pressure that will eventually lead to a review of current policies and programs, and perhaps to a new cultural policy. That is what we hope.

To carry out the mandate set out for our committee, we have a very restricted budget. We work with the budget that the House of Commons gives us. That's why we have not always been able to travel. We contacted most of the stakeholders in various communities in the past two years. It's difficult, because we have to bring people to Ottawa and that costs us money. The committee pays and its budget is limited. This time, we managed to obtain an additional budget by hook or by crook. We have to go before a committee and ask for money. That's what allowed us to travel this time.

• 2030

We could not announce this tour before having obtained the funds necessary to carry it out. When we got the money, we disseminated this announcement as much as possible. The clerk can tell you that all organizations received it. Perhaps Le Devoir picked it up, but certain organizations did not publish it. We tried to disseminate it as widely as possible. The clerk can tell you about all his trials and tribulations in disseminating the news that we were going to travel across Canada.

We are not a government committee. We are a committee of the House of Commons. Through our pressures on the House of Commons, we will try to influence government positions.

What is the deadline? We began our study two years ago. A lot of people ask us how our work is progressing. We've listened to all kinds of groups who came to Ottawa from across Canada. We received piles of briefs that are being studied by our researchers. There's a whole team of researchers working on that. There's Mr. Blais and two or three other contractors that we have employed. We hope to finish around April, but we had a discussion after hearing witnesses in Montreal, Moncton, etc. Perhaps we have to open the door a little because all kinds of people told us things we hadn't heard before.

When will we finish? I don't know. It will certainly be before the end of the House of Commons session in June. We must influence the government. If we wait for a change of minister, we may have to start from scratch. We must send our report to the House of Commons before it adjourns in June. That's where you can exert pressure. The government will be compelled to respond within 150 days and it will wait to the last minute. At that point, it's put off indefinitely.

We'd hoped to finish in April, but it might be a bit later. In any event, if you have a brief, send it as soon as possible. I can assure you that it will receive all our attention. It will be distributed to all members of the committee, from all parties represented here. They all take these matters very seriously and I can assure you that they will read it.

The Canada Council, one of the most important agencies to appear before us, gave us all sorts of areas to explore and talked about its report. Mr. Kelly appeared before us once, I believe.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He was one of the first to come before the committee. We asked the Canada Council to put something in writing concerning a possible Canadian cultural policy. So, they were very well informed. We started this work even before the 1997 election, during the previous Legislature, and resumed it after the 1997 election. They have known since the outset that we were conducting this study.

The Chairman: The Canada Council was one of the agencies that agreed to publicize the committee's work. They asked us to make this known across Canada, and they have spread the news. Lots of journalists attended our hearings in Ottawa. One reporter from the CBC, Ms. King, often broadcast small reports on our work. There may be some journalists who do not cover our work in the newspapers, but we have tried to make our work as widely known as possible. This is not easy for a House committee. I can tell you that our work does not make the headlines. We used every possible means to publicize our work: the Canada Council, Internet, etc.

One moment, Mr. Cleary. I believe that Ms. Lawton, Mr. Fournier and Ms. April wanted to speak.

[English]

Prof. Richard Lawton: My concern is as a Canadian rather than as an artist, because in my current job I'm not really dependent on the arts for my employment or for the success of my institution. But as a Canadian one of my main concerns has been the funding cuts to the CBC, which have made it very difficult for the CBC to continue to promote and fund the broadcast of Canadian arts nationally. I think the attempts to make the CBC into another commercial broadcaster have not helped the arts in Canada. We have to remember that one of the CBC's major roles was to define Canadian culture, and for many years it did just that. It presented Canadian artists to Canadian audiences. In Quebec, Radio-Canada did the same thing with Quebec audiences.

• 2035

Not only did it present the audience with various facets of Canadian culture, but it also challenged Canadian audiences to think about their culture. This is something that has been lost, I think. Now the CBC's programming seems to me more and more moving in the direction of getting Canadian audiences to think about American culture. I don't think this is a good thing.

The CBC for many years employed musicians, des metteurs en scène, writers, actors, designers, and so forth. This has all been cut back, and I think this has been a drastic change for the country and for the CBC. But the real losers, as we've heard tonight, have been the artists, of course, but beyond that the real losers have been the Canadian public. We do not have a country in which we have, with very few exceptions, concentrations of population such as you have in Europe, which led to the development of western European art, or the concentrations of population that you have in the United States, which make it possible for arts companies to be full-time arts companies and have the commercial success that the American arts companies have—the Metropolitan Opera, the Chicago Symphony, and so forth.

The CBC has brought what Canadian art and culture there is in the centres of Canada, where it has been created and where it has existed, to all Canadians.

The saddest thing that I see happening recently are the cuts to the CBC that have made them cut back on this type of programming.

I think if there's a message I would like to give you tonight, it's that this type of defining work in culture that the CBC did for many years has to be restored, because I think we're seeing too much non-cultural programming.

In addition to that, on the subject of Canadian artists and the question of festivals, certainly there are more music festivals now. The problem with festivals, I think certainly with the large ones and possibly also with the small ones, is that they do not provide ongoing work for musicians, artists, actors, and so forth. You cannot survive as an artist, as a performer, on festival work, because festivals are regional and local by nature, and the artists don't travel around the country performing in a series of festivals.

The work the CBC provided was very important in this regard. The work individual arts companies provide—I'm thinking now of the performing artists, which is my field—the work the arts companies, symphony orchestras, opera companies, theatre companies, and so forth, provide, of all sizes, whether small and struggling or large and struggling, it doesn't matter, keeps the core of Canadian artists together, which would otherwise dissipate and vanish. Enough of our artists already go to the United States, some very good ones, to work and make a great deal of money in the United States, and that is enough of a tragedy, I think, but not so much of a tragedy in a way, because they are working and they are producing. They are perhaps not as free to produce—I can see Anna looking at me askance—much that contributes to Canadian culture per se, that's true, but they are working. They are a tribute to the country and to the training and expertise they gathered in this country.

I'm less familiar with the situation of writers and painters and the individual artists who work on their own. I'm more familiar with the situation of the artists who work in groups in order to produce their works. We can come back to money, of course. As you mentioned to me earlier, Mr. Lincoln, it all comes back to money sooner or later.

If I can make one plea, it's for the restoration of funding to the CBC for the purpose of promoting Canadian culture.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. April.

Ms. Danielle April: I would like to make two small points.

I don't know whether I mentioned in relation to the residual rights, that some 40 countries have legislation in this regard, particularly France, for over 75 years now. I would like to add that according to UN statistics, a number of these 40 countries are very far behind Canada in the list of countries where life is good.

• 2040

Secondly, I would like to return to the notion of social protection designed for artists. Artists are self-employed. The social security system is based on the assumption that all work is always supposed to be profitable. It is clear that the work of visual artists is not. Artists are truly alone, and they cannot possibly afford to make contributions for social programs. They are systematically underprotected.

In Europe, there are very different models that recognize society's responsibility for the welfare of its artists. These programs include a guaranteed minimum income, accident protection, retirement plans, etc. We implore the government to work on implementing such types of social measures.

In conclusion, as other stakeholders have said, the Canada Council is absolutely essential for creators and we think that the Council should never again be subject to major budget cuts as occurred in recent years. The funding level is now close to what it was before these cuts, and this should never happen again.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Alain Fournier: There are important points that indicate the magnitude of the problem faced by all stakeholders. I think Mr. Cleary put his finger on something fundamental. The agencies responsible for public development and access to art are the closest and best placed to carry out this work. This dynamic should be preserved because it goes to the root of artistic work.

Artists live in a geosocial-historical context that nurtures them and they interact with their environment. It is very important that this be preserved. This has consequences, because we know that different regions have different levels of development. It is understandable that there have to be different criteria for cultural activities at certain times and at certain levels.

This brings us back to the basic question: what is culture? In the north of Quebec and in remote areas, it's more difficult. We cannot hope to see a symphony orchestra develop there, but if we set the criteria of professional quality—and we're not talking about fringe—at the level of international quality... It's a double-edged sword. We cannot lower the criteria of professionalism when we are supporting international activities or even excellence, but, nevertheless, we must support vitality in the regions so that there will be an active core there to work in continuity with the environment and with the existing business and educational resources present. This is very important. It creates problems in jurisdiction, there is no doubt; but by ignoring this, we would be imposing a vision of culture that does not correspond to the reality.

A notion of the ecology of the theatre environment was developed. There is, in fact, an ecosystem involving the participants of cultural life. Artists are, by definition, individual researchers. That may result in a mass product at the end. There is a loop. What is the link between the two? Should the State support the researchers? Should there not be some return when it becomes a cultural industry?

There are many measures that can be explored, depending on the approach. If we are talking strictly in economic terms, I apologize. Quebec theatre is a great exporter and we have proven this: we want to be a part of economic missions.

• 2045

Artists should participate in economic missions, because they sell art. We are aware that we are a very small player, certainly historically speaking, and that we have a history of debts. When we try to negotiate with our neighbours, the situation is neither neutral nor equal, but, rather, we are historically disadvantaged. We can't start with the status quo and try to negotiate that.

The same thing holds true in the field of books. French publishers present a problem for Quebec writers. The situation is the same for American films. It is obvious that this is very important at the level of international agreements, but even before that we have to ask ourselves what is the basis of a policy, whether art and culture are a public good. We have to make that decision. A positive answer would justify intervention. Do art and culture express a community? If not, we don't intervene, and we allow the community to express itself without supposing the same vision, for example, of multiculturalism, is shared throughout the mosaic viewed by the satellite. There would be no requirement for each region to have the same experience. There are regions that are perfectly homogeneous, and the people living there are not obliged to experience anything other than their own reality. On the other hand, in other regions, there are other realities.

You have mentioned demography. Obviously, demography is the integration of new arrivals, of people, often, who have chosen to come here rather than elsewhere because there is freedom, also because there is an image or perception that attracts them. If I decided to go to Israel, I would be willing to learn Hebrew. When immigrants come here, they are willing to learn English or French so as to be able to integrate with the experience that they have chosen.

These are not abstractions. We experienced a similar situation during a recent tour. Because there were more applications from Quebec and because this province exports more theatre and dance, it was suddenly decided to divide up the subsidies according to the number of citizens, despite the criteria of excellence that previously determined the support for tours. If we want to change the rules, we should be informed about it in advance and not after having signed the tour agreements. This is why the question of time mentioned by Mr. Bonneau and by myself, is an important one. There are theatre troupes in the Conseil québécois du théâtre who, like the Opera, are more interested in doing a repertoire. The issue of Canadian content, which is one of the criteria followed by the Canada Council, was debated by us for many hours. We emphasized the way we got around it: we said that this was a purely Canadian production of Manon. This is one way of dealing with Canadian content, but of course the content issue is still a priority.

How shall we deal with this issue of content? How can we settle these basic issues which have many ramifications and which are difficult to treat in a simple way? Once we have clearly made up our minds and agreed that we really need content, we can deal with the technical problems of this requirement and agree to do whatever can be done to implement it. But that's another matter. We still have to agree about some basic issues, and then it will be easier to see how we can make it work.

The Chairman: I will give the floor to Mr. Cleary and Ms. Tremblay and then we will come back to Ms. Fuerstenberg, who had not finished her intervention.

Mr. Jacques Cleary: We have just emphasized once again the importance of strengthening local initiatives and initiatives at the level of a city or a community. When you give your recommendations to the government or when you will be influencing future policies, you will still have to come to the crucial point of defining the role of the federal government in relation to the provinces and to our level, which is the municipal level.

Without getting into a dispute, because this is a complicated issue, I invite you to consider the British model. A few years ago, the British council of the arts decentralized its responsibilities by setting up 10 regional arts boards including the London Arts Board which is our equivalent and has many affinities with us, and its 32 sectors covering the Greater London area. Fifty per cent of the British arts board budget was distributed to different regions, including London.

• 2050

Our mandate is the same as the mandate of the London arts board. The only difference between us, is that 97% of its budget comes from the British arts board, whereas our funds essentially come from property taxes levied by the City of Montreal and 20 other municipalities of the urban community. You know as well as I do that there is a maximum to this. We cannot progress any further. Our budgets have been frozen for the past five or six years and we cannot increase property taxes. So there is a problem.

On the other hand, we could play a greater role and a more efficient one by being closer to our community. Mr. Bonneau deplores the fact that we're dropping some programs. Sometimes this is not really a matter of losing programs as such, but rather of handing them over to us because we are much better placed here to manage them. We deplore the fact that we are losing the money associated with these programs.

We should really be imaginative in our way of managing cultural programs and we should decentralize a part of the funds contributed by all citizens in general, towards metropolitan centres like Montreal. This model could very well apply to Toronto or to other large communities all over Canada wherever a dynamic process can be established. It is very important to keep the three levels. Just now it was mentioned that the role played by the Canada Council had been essential for the development of the arts in Canada. But I think we should have the courage to strike a certain balance. On the municipal or community level, we have the advantage of avoiding federal-provincial disputes and we can act more quickly.

We were speaking about the stabilization fund. Many ideas could be raised, such as distribution and accessibility. Many things could be done in a more integrated way and more in accordance with the cultural dynamics of the regions. As you know, the Montreal region has a great international reputation, it has great diversity and an exceptional level of excellence. Similar situations can be seen in other communities across Canada, but more specifically in Montreal. We need modern tools if we want to face new technologies and all the challenges raised by your questions. We need a certain amount of courage to face these questions. No one wants to study this aspect because everyone is defending their territory. For the last 15 years we've been trying to do something new and we've always come up against this limit. We will have to find a solution, otherwise municipalities will completely opt out. We've already seen some signs of this. For the arts community, we must protect the Canada Council formula and perhaps make it a little more autonomous, and we should also consider a certain amount of decentralization. This is the point that I wanted to stress.

The Chairman: Let me remind you that it is past 8:50 p.m. and our technicians must go home. I will give the floor to Ms. Tremblay, and then to Ms. Fuerstenberg and to Ms. Côté.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My intervention will be brief.

First I would like to thank all the participants for contributing to our reflection, which is far from being over because the more we do, the more we uncover new things and the more we realize that there are many new things to uncover. Perhaps we'll have to make a few digressions or modify our original program.

I want to say one thing. I have been in Ottawa since 1993. Since 1994, the budget for culture has been, proportionately, among those that were the most severely cut. Although I'm talking about the budget for culture, I also mean the cuts that were made in the budget envelope of Heritage Canada. We all know the vast range of activities covered by Heritage Canada: there are parks, the Governor General, lieutenant-governors, royal visits, and the list goes on, there are official languages programs, publications and all that. There are all kinds of things, including Option Canada. That was my political message.

The CBC also had its budget cut. We had asked for some cuts and I was among those who thought that some cuts would be good for the CBC because there was some fat to trim. It would be a good thing to trim some of the fat from the CBC.

• 2055

For instance, there was a head office in Ottawa and it was impossible to tell how many employees there were in that office. We were able to find out how many secretaries were employed by the CBC, but that included all secretaries from coast to coast. There was no way of finding out where these secretaries were sitting. For a television broadcast produced in Halifax, the cheque had to come from Ottawa, etc. So there was a luxury form of management that made no sense at all.

When I arrived in Ottawa, the team of francophone journalists and the team of anglophone journalists lived in two separate worlds. With the anglophones, we'd have to put on makeup; and with the francophones, we didn't have to put on makeup. The makeup artist is no longer there on either side now. On the anglophone side, there would be one guy holding the wire, another one holding the plug, another one holding the steps, and another one yet holding the stepladder while someone else climbed it. It was terrible! There would be five or six of them. I think that there was exaggeration.

Let's not imagine that the CBC is living under the poverty threshold. They're getting by on $800 million of taxpayers' money and they have been given permission to do advertising, that's something new. So far, we've been spared that on the radio side, thank heavens, and I think it will continue.

There are policy choices made by the CBC administration. When it decides it will no longer air certain shows, it isn't because of lack of money. It has over a billion dollars at its disposal, and we must realize that certain policy choices are being made by the CBC. That is what we have to focus on. Let's not imagine they don't have any money.

They have enough money to ask the government to embark on all sorts of specialty services, a 24-hour news channel, etc. So it's not a question of the CBC having no money, it's about what kind of decisions are being made. They are the ones who decided to buy rights to the Olympics for I don't know how many years for a sum of several million dollars. So the CBC has made a number of choices that I personally am not always in agreement with but they are policy choices. When they decide to air extremely expensive movies because they want to outshine TVA or CTV, then once again it's a question of choice.

We have to take a look at what the CBC is doing with the money it receives and if we are not happy, we can make our opinion known because we are the owners of the CBC. We can tell them that it's time to start making changes, that we don't like what they're doing. In other words, we'll have to get on the phone. Let's not be taken in by the CBC's claim that it doesn't have any money. If it didn't have any money, it would have to shut down. With a billion dollars and more, the CBC is able to broadcast the same programs it used to. That is not where all the money is going.

The Chairman: Ms. Côté.

Ms. Élise Côté: I have something important to say about funding, not just the funding that comes from the Canada Council and other levels of government. This is money that we receive from companies and individuals. This source of funding is becoming increasingly important in view of the steady decline in grants. It is important to reform the tax system as it applies to individuals. The new legislation on capital gains exemptions is good enough but at the present time, there is only one opera company in Canada that benefited from a donation under this Act. It applies to a very small group of citizens. Since I'm the one who opens the mail in my department that looks after funding, I know that most donations are in the neighbourhood or $100, $150, $200 or $300. These are the amounts we receive, day in, day out. I think it's important to encourage these people to give more. They make an important contribution to developing our companies in Canada. You know that a charity receipt cannot be given to a company engaged in sponsorship. If a company makes a $45,000 donation to have its name on the poster, I cannot issue a charity receipt because the donor is getting advertising. That is also something important. It's increasingly difficult to recruit businesses and I think they should be given encouragement to do this kind of thing.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They can't claim a charity deduction but they can deduct those amounts from their expenses. That is far more profitable for them.

Ms. Élise Côté: Do you know what they do to get around that difficulty?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I know that they manage quite well because they don't pay any tax on it. That helps them.

Ms. Élise Côté: Do you know what they do? Most of them set up foundations and make payments through their foundations. This means we can issue a receipt for a donation to charity.

• 2100

The Chairman: Ms. Côté, you are not the first to talk about tax incentives. This was discussed at other round tables. We've taken good note of your suggestion. I don't know how we're going to deal with it. We're going to have to see what people have to say.

Ms. Fuerstenberg.

[English]

Ms. Anna Fuerstenberg: I'm going to very quickly address some of the issues that were brought up.

First of all, I always thought cultural industry was an oxymoron in any language. For Canada to remain Canada, for Quebec to remain Quebec, culture and industry are not necessarily one thing.

Second, I think Professor Lawton brought up a very important point when he said he was glad that his students were emigrating to the United States because at least they were eating. I think that's a tragedy we're going to face on a grand scale in the next few years if our cultural institutions and our individual artists are not given much more thought, much more support, and certainly in a much more humane way.

I want to point out also that it irks me year after year to have to file income tax as a small business. I don't feel like a small business. I'm sure I don't even look like a small business.

Also the idea that an individual artist should be getting more consideration and money and institutions less is a stupid reductivist argument, just as it's reductivist to say that CBC should get more money and somebody else should get less money. In terms of culture, we are either going to support the culture of this country or the country will quickly disappear, and all its governments with it.

I think that is about it.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Let me add just one comment, if I may. We were told, and I'm thinking particularly of you, sir, when I say this, that the banks are the ones that guarantee student loans. since there are many students who are not able to pay back the banks because they cannot find work, we were told that some banks may refuse to lend to students in fields where there's no work.

Mr. Alain Fournier: I can tell you that banks refuse to make loans to artists who do not have any collateral. At the age of 28, even with a $5,000 contract from the CBC for a drama project, I still had to have my father sign. They told me there was always the risk of sickness. They weren't even willing to lend me $1,000 out of the $5,000. In spite of my age, I had to find a cosignatory, someone to endorse the loan. It was insulting and humiliating. They're still doing that kind of thing. But that's just a detail.

There is something important. There are individual artists, not-for-profit organizations along with for-profit companies and this is all a matter of choice, they all belong to this cultural activity and have repercussions on each other. In some cases, people lead a narrow artistic life but there are others who work occasionally for television, for the theatre, for museums, or who do writing. Sometimes they are involved with profit-making organizations as well as non-profit ones and a solution must be found for an exchange or alternation. For example, the tourist sector is an industry. If you want to talk to these people, you have to be an industry. There are perceptions to be changed because the cultural life of a city attracts tourists. So we can work with people who are in business. We know how to add two and two. We are able to manage and we don't run a deficit. We are able to achieve lots of things with small balanced budgets. The fact we are managing a non-profit organization does not mean we cannot have a turnover of millions of dollars. They are able to keep their books and they don't run a deficit.

• 2105

So what we need are solutions allowing all these people to work together rather than exacerbating the tensions between the different partners. For historical reasons, we cannot go against this evolution.

As for the recording industry in relation to the U.S., there are industries that get together. But the artist who writes is not an industry but an artist. You're going to have to be very careful about the ramifications of all these things.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a brief comment before we conclude?

[English]

Ms. Sandra Wilson: I would like to propose that the Government of Canada have a separate ministry for culture and not lump it in with heritage.

The Chairman: I think that has come up before too.

Ms. Sandra Wilson: I'm sure it has. Why hasn't something been done about it then?

The Chairman: No, no, we heard it, but not today.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for taking the time to come to speak to the committee this evening and make your concerns known. We are most appreciative.

[English]

Thank you very much for being here.

[Translation]

We've listened to you with a good deal of attention and I can assure that there will be some follow-up in our report. I hope you will be able to recognize your contribution.

The meeting is adjourned.