CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, February 26, 1999

• 1104

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I would like to extend a very warm welcome on behalf of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of the House of Commons. I would also like to offer a special thanks to you for accepting our invitation to appear before the committee in the context of our ongoing study of the role of the federal government in support of Canadian culture and the arts.

We started this work some two years ago, quite awhile before the last federal election. When the new committee was installed after the election, all the members agreed, on a unanimous basis, to carry the study forward and keep it up. We've been going at it for quite awhile. We've heard from many groups in Ottawa, and we've received a good number of briefs. We also felt we should travel to get the feel of the place on the ground, so to speak, but things are tough these days. All the parties are constricted in their travelling because of the voting patterns in the House, so it's much more difficult for us to leave Ottawa. We therefore had to use the time of this one-week break to travel. We have two groups, with one travelling west from Thunder Bay on to Vancouver, and this group visiting St. John's, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal yesterday, and Toronto today. We'll also have people from Windsor joining us this afternoon as well.

• 1105

It has been a tremendous experience in many ways. We were overwhelmed by the number of people who accepted to appear. In fact, the clerk tells me that of all the committees that sent out invitations, this one was the one that received the greatest number of responses, which is very heartening for what we are doing.

I think some of you have already spoken to us at round tables in Ottawa. For those who don't know what we are about, though, we started to try to work on finding out what the role of the federal government should be in the coming decades, facing the latest challenges that are before us. I know there are many more than three, but obviously we had to focus our work. We therefore decided after discussion that we would concentrate on three particular areas.

The first area was the advent of communications and multimedia technologies, which are of course having a huge impact on what you do and on what the federal government does in regard to policies in the area of culture and the arts and heritage. Secondly, there was the whole question of the demographic change in Canada, an aging population in all our cities, towns, and areas, and also the changing texture of the country due to sustained immigration over the years. And thirdly, there is the globalization of the economy and trade. We don't have to go over examples because they are clear. Bill C-55 is before us today. We have NAFTA. We've had the multilateral agreement on investment, along with all the discussion and debate that it caused. And soon we'll have the WTO negotiations, which will be starting in the fall. All of these events obviously have an impact on what you do and on what we do.

What we are trying to do based on this is to ask you if you are satisfied with the present programs and policies of the federal government in support of what you do. In viewing the challenges, how do you see the federal role evolving and changing from your perspective?

We decided to have a round table format instead of the standard type of hearing because we felt it would provide for far more of an interchange of ideas on these questions. We ask you to be very informal and to speak out. We hope it will be more of a discussion than just a formal presentation of briefs and set ideas. We hope it will be far more of an ongoing debate.

To kick things off, I thought it would be nice for us to introduce ourselves so that we all know who is who. I know many of you know one another. All the same, for the members of the committee, I think it would be nice.

We'll start with you, Ms. McDonald.

Ms. Elizabeth McDonald (President, Canadian Film and Television Production Association): My name is Elizabeth McDonald, and I'm president of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association. We represent the interests of over 300 producers working in many genres, including television and feature film, and working in every region of the country. We have brought with us copies of our 1999 profile. We were asked by the committee to make those available last week. It is now an annual profile.

• 1110

The CFTPA is involved in government relations and regulatory affairs dealing in issues related to the financing and mechanisms that underpin both television and feature films. In addition, we're responsible for the industrial relations activity on behalf of producers.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. McDonald. Please just leave any documentation you may have brought with the clerk and he will make sure it's distributed to the members. If you want to send any further documentation or briefs to the committee, again just send them to the clerk, the House of Commons, Ottawa.

Ms. Elizabeth McDonald: You asked us for quite a number, so we sent them to you in Ottawa so you wouldn't have to bring them on the plane.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Robin Cass (Member of the Board, Canadian Film and Television Production Association): My name is Robin Cass. I'm a Toronto-based television and feature film producer. I have a company called Triptych Media. Our most recent credits are a feature film called the Hanging Garden, which some of you may have seen, and a television show called The Tale of Teeka, which won best children's program at the Banff Television Festival last year. I'm also on the board of the CFTPA.

Mr. Mark Jamison (Executive Director, Cultural Careers Council of Ontario): My name is Mark Jamison. I'm executive director of the Cultural Careers Council of Ontario. The council is an alliance of arts service organizations, individuals, and major performing arts organizations, as well as CHUM Television broadcasting, writing, and publishing. It is focused mainly on the career needs of the 265,000 people who work in culture in Ontario—training and development opportunities. Yes, there are 265,000 cultural workers in Ontario, generating somewhere in the neighbourhood of $12 billion in economic activity. The council and its advisers and board of directors are focused on bringing that message to the industry itself, as well as government.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you for repeating that, Mark, because I heard it and thought “Did he really say that?” Then you said it again—265,00 cultural workers.

I'm Wendy Lill. I'm the member of Parliament for Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and the New Democratic Party's critic for culture and heritage. I'm very happy to be here today.

Mr. Jay Kerr-Wilson (Director, Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Specialty and Premium Television Association): Good morning. My name is Jay Kerr-Wilson and I'm the director of policy and counsel for the Specialty and Premium Television Association. Our association represents English and French language specialty pay-per-view services, as well as third language services in Canada.

Mr. Christopher Moore (Member, Writers' Union of Canada): Good morning. My name is Christopher Moore. I'm a writer and I'm here today on behalf of the Writers' Union of Canada. I'm accompanied by Penny Dickens, our executive director.

The Writers' Union of Canada has 1,200 members across the country—English language professional book writers. We'll be addressing the issues of creators. I actually thought Wendy Lill was one of our members. She tells me she's a member of the Playwrights' Union, not the Writers' Union, but it's one of our affiliated organizations. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jack Stoddart (President, Association of Canadian Publishers): I'm Jack Stoddart, president of the Association of Canadian Publishers and a publisher in my spare time, I think.

This is our third presentation to this committee on various things this year, and we welcome the opportunity. What this committee does is very important, because it seems to me, as you look at Canada more and more, the only thing that really defines this country is the culture of the country. So often we get put in a little corner and it's called culture or communications.

When I look through the country, it looks awfully similar to another one just south of us. The way our workers work, the way our business is run, and the way we buy materials are often so similar. But culture is the one thing that really defines us as a nation, so we should take this seriously. We appreciate the opportunity to present today.

Ms. Ineke de Klerk-Limbertie (Director, Community Folk Art Council of Metropolitan Toronto): My name is Ineke Limbertie. I'm director of the Community Folk Art Council of Toronto. I certainly echo Mr. Stoddart's words. He is one of my heroes in Canadian publishing.

I'm the director of an umbrella, community-based organization in this city that represents some 200 different community-based performing, visual, and media arts groups. Our mandate is to promote the preservation, development, and advancement of the cultural and artistic heritage of the people of Toronto.

We are here to persuade you that heritage is not just buildings; it's people too.

• 1115

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): My name is Suzanne Tremblay and I am the Bloc Québécois Member for Rimouski—Mitis and the party's critic on Canadian Heritage.

[English]

Mr. H.E. Blackadar (General Manager, CFNY-FM New Rock 102): I'm Hal Blackadar, general manager of the Toronto radio station The Edge, which basically caters to young adults and teens. We are clearly on the forefront of concern about changes that are happening technologically and culturally. I commend you and your committee, the government, for taking a look at this overall policy issue. We have a great deal of interest in this area of not only policy but technology, and we look forward to the discussion.

Ms. Beverley Oda (Senior Vice-President, Industry Affairs, CTV): My name is Beverley Oda. I'm the senior vice-president of industry affairs for CTV. I bring the apologies of Ivan Fecan, who is not able to be with you this morning.

CTV, as you know, is the national private network. The corporation also has CTV affiliates in every province in the country, with the exception of Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland—we do have affiliates there. CTV also holds licences for various specialty and pay services, totalling eight as of today, I think. We are also a private company with the largest number of CBC affiliates in the country.

I'm the vice-chair of the television board of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and vice-chair of an organization called the North American National Broadcasters Association. I'm pleased to be here to contribute. Thank you.

Mr. Peter Miller (Vice-President, Business and Regulatory Affairs, CHUM Television): My name is Peter Miller. I'm vice-president of business and regulatory affairs at CHUM television. CHUM, as many of you will know, is a diversified broadcasting company. We have interests in radio and television specialty stations, including City-TV, Bravo, and MuchMusic.

As a company, we pride ourselves on having been on the leading edge in broadcasting over the last decades, particularly in taking leadership positions in specialty services. Now, in the exports of the programming we produce, we're the largest broadcaster-producer in Canada—and other activities on-line and in new media.

I am a lawyer and an engineer and have a background in public policy and other areas. Most recently, I was an executive vice-president with the CAB.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): My name is Inky Mark. I'm a member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River in Manitoba. I'm the chief opposition critic for Canadian heritage.

Ms. Bette E. Stock (President, Charmyon & Co., Cultural Community Project Management): Hello. My name is Bette Stock. I'm here for my business, Charmyon & Co., which is my second enterprise. It is involved in sponsorship development activities for cultural and community projects.

I came from the periodical trade, and for over 10 years I was a service exporter, so I'm very interested in the issues of how Canada can engage internationally issues of small enterprise and issues relating to industry. I bring an interest that is international as well as local.

Thank you.

Ms. Kealy Wilkinson (National Director, Alliance for Children and Television): My name is Kealy Wilkinson. I'm the national director of the Alliance for Children and Television, which is a 25-year-old non-profit national organization that has been working in the interest of creating a positive media environment for Canadian children.

I'm also here as one of the founding members of a new organization, the Canadian Children's Cultural Council, which is just in the process of being established to represent all sectors of Canadian children's cultural industries. I'm very pleased to be here to remind you all that Canadian culture starts with our kids.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gaston Blais (Committee Researcher): Bonjour. My name is Gaston Blais. I'm the researcher for the committee.

The Chairman: My name is Clifford Lincoln. I'm the member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis in Quebec and I'm chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: My name is Norman Radford and I am the clerk of the committee.

• 1120

[English]

The Chairman: I think we're ready to launch the proceedings. Who wants to be first?

Gee, I never thought broadcasters and publishers were shy people. Ms. Limbertie.

Ms. Ineke de Klerk-Limbertie: I will because I'm different.

I have a brief, which if you don't mind I'll just read.

For some 30 years the Community Folk Art Council, a not-for-profit charitable organization, has been representing the heritage of some 91 nationalities that enrich Toronto. Our mandate is to promote the preservation, development, and advancement of the cultural and artistic character of the people of Toronto. We fulfil our role in various ways. We organize events, such as Christmas and Easter around the world, that showcase the holiday traditions of Toronto's many ethnic communities, as well as giving our some 200 member groups the opportunity to present their heritage through music, dance, song, and food.

In cooperation with Folklore Canada International, our member groups have also represented Canada abroad at international festivals of folklore organized by CIOFF, which is a UNESCO member organization active all over the world. Toronto Folk Art Council members have performed in festivals as far away as Taiwan, Ukraine, and Latvia, and as close as the international Festival of World Folklore at Drummondville.

The Folk Art Council welcomes the opportunity to speak to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during its present consultation tour. We believe the establishment of a federal cultural policy is vital to the well-being of our country.

How very appropriate that the Toronto hearings for the federal cultural policy review are being held today in the Royal Ontario Museum. The ROM is internationally renowned as one of the greatest repositories of Chinese art outside China. A tourist to Toronto visiting this museum might be somewhat confused by the stunning display of Chinese artifacts in the heart of North America's sixth largest city. However, the heritage of China, ladies and gentlemen, is also the heritage of Canada. The Chinese form the second largest language group in Toronto, and here we can even withdraw money from our automated teller machines in Cantonese.

In the introduction to its recent white paper on national cultural policy, the Government of the Netherlands states that culture is what we have in common. Culture is defined here in the more general sense of known usages and value, but when more people participate in a culture it becomes so much richer. The more a culture has to offer the more a people will participate in that culture. That is why it is so important to remain alert to the possibilities of shaping and transmitting cultural policy. The openness of people to one another is dependent upon how confident they are in their own well-being. Uncertainty is fertile ground for narrow mindedness.

We must work towards a cultural climate that gives people certainty and helps stimulate them to determine what is of value, what they wish to share, and what they wish to discover about one another. These words could well have been written about our own situation here in Canada. Members of the standing committee will be pleased that this white paper is available in English on the Internet for your consideration.

The Dutch have developed an alternative to multiculturalism that I like very much. They call it interculturalism. They point out that in a multicultural society there is a danger that different cultures will come to exist in isolation next to one another so that mutual suspicion and intolerance may result. The Dutch government wishes to create an environment in which diversity reinforces unity and where the meeting and confrontation of cultures can lead to the sharing of new experience and inspiration. However, the Dutch do not live next door to the United States, and neither do they share a common language with their neighbours. After reading the Dutch policy paper, I feel that we in Canada have a very difficult task indeed in dealing with the issue of cultural globalization.

In Canada we have always prided ourselves on our diversity. In Toronto we have even taken it as part of our new city's motto. I believe that—

The Chairman: Is this going to be a long brief?

Ms. Ineke de Klerk-Limbertie: No, it's one more paragraph.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Ineke de Klerk-Limbertie: I believe multiculturalism is what has saved us so far from becoming a carbon copy of our neighbour to the south. We are a mosiac and not a melting pot. However, and this is where your work on the standing committee comes in, our mosiac now needs a frame so that we can hang it on the walls here at the ROM and show it to the tourist groups, reminding ourselves of what we are about. We need a cultural policy for Canada. We need a society in which we are united by our common culture. This policy must be developed with a great deal of careful thought and consideration, which is why I'm so glad you're here today.

• 1125

This policy must include safeguards for the unique cultural repository that is Canada's expressive heritage. From all over the world, researchers now come to this country to rediscover what they have lost in their own. Untold treasures have been destroyed in the Russification of Ukraine, Latvia, and Lithuania, the decimation of Armenia, the Chinese cultural revolution, and the black diaspora.

Ladies and gentlemen, those treasures are here in the dance studios of Toronto, the churches of Newmarket, the cultural centres in Sudbury, and here in the ROM. Those treasures are part of a cultural heritage of our country, and I urge you to take very special care not to forget them when you draw up your national policy of culture for Canada. We cannot create a new building if we have no cultural foundation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Miller

Mr. Peter Miller: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps I could discuss one of the questions the committee is addressing and a question that's dear to my heart, and that is the issue of technology.

I've spent the better part of my career either working in technology or dealing with the business and public policy implications of technology. If you've heard from a lot of people in this area, you may have heard a saying I've always liked that is simple but profound: we always tend to overestimate the short-term impacts of technology and underestimate the long-term. So some of the changes that are happening now technologically haven't yet had the impact they're going to have, but those impacts will be profound.

I would submit, from my experience, that there are three key ramifications of technological change in the cultural sector. They are the end of scarcity, the end of barriers, and the end of traditional business divisions. I'd like to speak a little about each of them because I think, if we around this table or the committee can get some common understanding of these things, a lot will flow from that.

The end of scarcity is something we understand, at least superficially. We understand we will have more channels, more means of distribution through the Internet or elsewhere, and more people with PCs that can hold more information. It's all more and more, but what does that mean? Obviously it means much greater competition. It also means our traditional policy tools, particularly our traditional regulatory tools of one size fits all, no longer apply.

If I can bring that to the broadcasting world, when there were only three or four channels, it made sense. They all did certain things. When there are 50, 100, or 200 channels, they don't all have to do the same thing, as long as the system in its entirety provides the things we want in public policy terms.

So it's very important, when we're talking about things like television drama or feature films, that we recognize that the answer to those quandaries is not to force everyone to do them, but to allow those who do feature films or drama, or are in ethnic broadcasting or the arts, to specialize in the areas they like. So a company like CHUM, which prides itself on contributing feature films, will do feature films. A company like CTV may do a bit of feature films and also series drama. A company like CanWest Global, which isn't around the table, may not do any feature films, because they're not in that business, but may do a lot of series drama.

The second issue is the end of barriers. That means, of course, we can no longer stop stuff from coming into our country over time. But it also means we have this tremendous potential to export. From a cultural policy and regulatory perspective, that means we can no longer impose obligations without having some appreciation for what they do to the competitive ability of a company, like a broadcaster, a radio station, or anybody like that. We have to balance, if you will, the obligations we impose and the benefits we provide, because if we merely say all broadcasters should do this, without looking at the implications for competitiveness, particularly in the North American climate, we will kill the industries that have been very successful.

• 1130

The final area is the issue of old divisions no longer applying. It's always easier in public policy terms to think a book publisher is a book publisher, a film producer is a film producer, a broadcaster is a broadcaster, and put them in these nice boxes. Well, that doesn't work any more because we're all getting into everybody else's business.

My company is a producer, an over-the-air broadcaster, a specialty broadcaster. Other companies are cable companies and specialty companies. There are producers that are producers, distributors, and broadcasters. We have to recognize that that means our traditional sectoral approach doesn't work any more, and we should in cultural policy support the product, the film, the book, the feature film, and not support the sector. We should encourage any company, any Canadian company that wants to produce Canadian books, or Canadian films, or Canadian television, to do so. We need some rules so that it's fair. But the notion that we divide people into boxes is going to have to change.

The Chairman: I think Mr. Miller has challenged us.

Mrs. McDonald.

Ms. Elizabeth McDonald: Peter and I are used to having long debates—almost infamous for it.

I'll address some of Peter's issues that he raised beforehand. First of all, I think if the Canadian government is re-examining, or reviewing, what is Canadian cultural policy, we have to at least, first and foremost, have a commitment to coherency, and it would be worthwhile to go back and look at some of the mechanisms that are there and try to decide whether they're coherent or not.

There are a number of mechanisms that support the creation of Canadian television and some few that support Canadian feature films. In addition to that there is another panoply of programs that are supposedly infrastructure- or job-creating. Often these are incoherent and so actually undermine each other.

I particularly point to the tax credit for certified Canadian film and television versus the production services tax credit. I won't get into the debate that people might think I would want to get into about the production services tax credit, but rather ask why we have two programs, one of which is administratively simple for foreign producers and another one that is not only administratively more difficult but in the end renders Canadian productions like The Hanging Garden with less than 2% tax credit.

I hope as we move forward we also look at some of those existing mechanisms and ask whether they make sense and where they fall. I find myself going to one department, like Canadian Heritage, and we talk about what we're doing for Canadian products, and going to the Department of Finance and finding something such as the services tax credit that's infrastructure-building, and at the end, although these are all for filmmakers, one is preferential in terms of the application process. I'm not saying the production services tax credit should be eliminated; it shouldn't be. It has quite an important role. It is just unfortunate that some Canadian producers working on what is called “certified” or those products that are more identifiably Canadian are now going the same route as the foreign producers because the program is so difficult.

So I commend to you to look at some of the issues related to coherency. As we move forward and look at addressing products or companies—in this case the product, the program, the feature film—we need programs that are coherent so that while we attract the investment in Canada and bring people forward, we don't do it to the disadvantage of our own citizens.

In terms of some of the issues Peter raised, I think we come to an interesting point now. We're talking about lack of scarcity, the end of barriers, and the end of traditional businesses. I guess we have to decide, going back to my theme of coherency, what we want to do, and therefore, as we decide what we want to do, how we want to support them.

• 1135

In some cases we need the product. We need the Canadian feature films. We have the industry to do it, but we are at a huge disadvantage. Regardless of what anyone thinks, there's only one country in the world that does not supply support to their feature films, and that's the United States. That's because when they're not at war, the entertainment industry is their biggest industry.

So it's not just David and Goliath we're dealing with here but Goliath on steroids. I think that's very important. We tend to always look only at the United States and not the rest of the world, thereby making some observations that may not be correct in the global context.

Yes, there is greater competition, but there's also greater opportunity. As we talk about getting rid of some of the regulatory issues that are impediments as we move forward, we then we have to seriously look at what that means. There are times when broadcasters, and all of us involved, are very happy to have regulation if it happens to suit us, but we have a broadcasting act that is there to ensure that Canadian values and Canadian stories are available to Canadians within a panoply of what is the most open market in the world. We have ceded pretty well 97% of our screens to U.S. interests, and 65% of television available and watched in Canada is not Canadian, by either program or signal.

If you look at where the industry is going, what do we want to make sure? That there are opportunities for Canadians. So we want to make sure that the maximum number of specialty services, that are Canadian, that do the kind of thing CHUM does and CTV is doing with their specialty services...as opposed to, I would say, not because the U.S. ones shouldn't come in but because we should have a chance to tell our stories. We have to encourage the licensing of Canadian products in that way.

The other thing we have to do, if we're going to support businesses, is have a look at those medium and small businesses that are there, not just the large ones that want to move forward. Many of them have the infrastructure to do it and are operating quite happily. Companies like Triptych Media—and I'd like Robin to address this—are very successful, but they live project to project and have difficulty finding the capital.

So while I think it's interesting to hear larger companies talk about it, and I think it's important that they take some leadership role in moving forward, I also think we have to look at building other Canadian companies as well, at giving them an opportunity, and at programs that would look at that.

Finally, I do hear the traditional businesses. Just to be clear about it, when I say I represent over 300 members, at most 20 to 25 are vertically integrated. Once you get above four or five, some of them have small-distribution interests, and a few post-production. There are many small and medium-sized creative producers that are not that way, and there has been a great effort to paint the production industry as this great monolith. That great monolith of seven or eight companies is on the other side of the border. In fact, at best, the largest Canadian company would be a small number 12 in the United States.

Finally, to talk to Kealy's issue on children, we're deeply concerned about children and have been pursuing an agenda with regard to Canadian children's programming. While I understand the concern that broadcasters not be forced into one size fits all, I do think we have to have a commitment to Canadian children and a strategy, particularly with television and the Internet, for content that reflects Canada.

Children are our only hope. If they lose that attraction to our stories as the plethora of signals comes in, then they will grow up to be citizens of the world but will not understand their own passport, which I think is quite serious.

• 1140

So it's important that agencies like the CRTC continue to push as many licencees as possible to have children's programming, particularly in a most economic fashion—in other words, not disenfranchise those people who don't have cable or satellite.

I think it's important that the CBC be encouraged—and funded—to do children's programming as well, and to get back to the position it had with regard to children's programming. That of course takes money. Its children's programming has suffered because of its cuts.

That was just to respond to what Kealy said and to underline the importance of children.

I know I've taken up a little bit of time, but Robin may want to just—

The Chairman: To diversify a bit, I would like to ask somebody like Mr. Moore, who comes at it from a different perspective, to speak on behalf of the writers. It's just so that we have a mix.

Mr. Christopher Moore: I'd be glad to.

The Chairman: I'll get back to you afterwards, Mr. Cass.

Mr. Christopher Moore: Listening to the previous speakers, I think I heard Mr. Miller say that the emphasis was going to be on producers rather than particular industries. I think that's probably an emphasis we are able to find quite satisfying.

However, in the world of falling borders that he describes, what we look for from this globalization, we believe, is not a homogenization around the world but an exchange of diversities. We were impressed last year, watching the worldwide discussion of the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI, that the collapse of those negotiations was very much related to concerns right around the world about protection of cultural issues. The expression there was that we need to be able to produce culture from each country—or each region, in fact, in the Canadian context—in order to make it worth distributing around the world. If we all become pale imitators of each other, there isn't an attractive product for us to distribute to each other.

So we are very hopeful that this committee will continue to work toward a definition of Canadian cultural sovereignty that will work within the context of changing technology and the falling of borders, as was mentioned.

At the other end of the scale, if I could just add one more point with regard to the question asked about the role of the federal government, we're very interested in some small-scale things, such as copyright legislation. Well, maybe it's not such a small-scale thing.

Producers like us, if we're going to make a living in the Canadian or international marketplace, have to be able to get paid for the work we do. Therefore, even the small clauses and subclauses of the copyright legislation and related types of legislation, including public lending right legislation, are deeply important to us.

If copyright legislation is written in such a way that we're not able to get ourselves paid, it's not really worth producing, but if the protection is there, then no matter what the technology is, we're going to be able to assert our economic interest in seeing that the producers continue to draw an income from the work they actually produce, no matter where they sell it, how they sell it, or what medium of technology.

So we're interested in the broad scale, and I think we do need the Canadian government to continue to be interested in the large definition of cultural sovereignty in a changing world. At the same time, we're very interested in getting good legislation on copyright protection, on public lending rights, on the arm's-length position of the Canada Council, and so on. I think it's at the large end and the small end that we find our concerns that are most salient to this committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Cass.

Mr. Robin Cass: I would like to very strongly support those comments.

I would like to speak briefly as somebody who is a content creator, because it's my view that content is king. It drives everything. Whether we're talking about work for kids or a Chinese collection here in Toronto, outside China, or we're talking about books, we tend to judge in many ways the success of our storytellers by how many countries and other languages they get published in. Content is king, and it's the strength and integrity of the voice that the world responds to and that we all measure success by.

With all due respect to my colleagues who are broadcasters and who create technologies and all the rest of it—you know, we are partners, and we need each other—at the end of the day, what we ultimately are talking about is how we value and how we nurture what goes on the airwaves and up on the screens.

I have spent the last seven years of my life building a small company that is non-integrated. It's not a distributor, and we don't run post services. We spend 100% of our time working with Canadian writers to create really good scripts that are worthy of investment and creation as movies and television programs.

• 1145

The thing that really struck me is that our greatest success has been through a movie called The Hanging Garden, which is completely culturally specific. It's a small-budget movie by world standards. It probably cost $1.5 million to make. That would probably buy lunch for a Hollywood crew on Waterworld or King Kong. But never mind—

The Chairman: Lunch?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Robin Cass: Probably not a bad lunch.

It's a movie that we spent four years working on, for very little money. We invested our fees in the movie in order to get it made, to get it on the screen. I can tell you that there was nothing more exciting than when we premiered that film at the Toronto Film Festival two years ago and got a standing ovation after the first screening. Miramax and MGM and Hollywood and all of those people were all over us trying to buy the movie.

It was not a product. It was not a formula piece of work. There weren't any stars driving the thing. People were responding to the integrity of the voice and the elegance with which the filmmaker rendered the movie.

One thing that Canada did in terms of its policy in the past was to inadvertently create a really strong industry. By encouraging the foreign producers to come here with the regularity that they do, we actually have built an incredibly sophisticated and strong talent pool of craftspeople who can compete with the best in the world.

Our country creates the technology that is used to create the special effects for Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. Alliance, Discreet Logic, Softimage and IMAX are all Canadian companies and are world leaders in sophisticated high technology. That makes us all look good, but I think we need to develop a cohesive cultural policy that makes it reasonable and indeed profitable for the producers of the work, the people who take the risks, who are not afraid to spend three or four years of their lives writing something and tearing it apart and putting it back together over and over to get it to the point where it actually becomes a meaningful proposition for the larger infrastructure and the equity investors we all need to get the things made so we can eventually take it to market.

Maybe I'll stop there for now.

The Chairman: You've done very well so far in convincing us.

Mr. Jamison followed by Mrs. Oda.

Mr. Mark Jamison: I just want to touch on three points that I heard from Ms. McDonald, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Cass. It strikes me that when we talk about the box, we're really talking about the silos that the various parts of our sector—the producer and products—tend to refer themselves to, their reference points. That's fine. We need to have the reference points.

From the perspective of simply looking at careers, we are all, with notable exceptions, cultural workers, if you will, in our own way. However, the content is cross-sectoral. Whether one is a writer or a musician or a visual artist, the cross-sectoral opportunity is there and we've all been in it. Certainly in the days when I was a performer, I worked in commercial enterprises as well as in not-for-profits. It's just the way our business works.

The point for culture, though, is to look at changing public perception of the entire sector among ourselves; it is not just simply about culture or about Canadian content or about anything else. As I mentioned, in the province we have 265,000 people who derive their living from being in cultural industries, and they are mainly self-employed. Over 50% of that group is self-employed. They represent individuals with small businesses and medium-sized businesses.

When you have that kind of impact, it's time for the sector itself to say, we need to get to the table the way the construction industry gets to the table, the way the automotive industry gets to the table. We need to say to government, excuse us, we are worth billions of dollars. Or maybe we actually need to tell the public we are worth billions of dollars.

• 1150

Would we have an aviation industry without government support? Would we have a transportation industry without government support? Would we have a construction industry without government support? This is no longer just simply about the passion that people have to deliver cultural products, whether they're passionate about the films or the broadcasting systems or the operas they produce. It has to be about the fact that it's a huge economic sector and it is on a par with other major sectors.

From the training standpoint, government, by virtue of public perception, has policies that will invest more money in bumper-makers than it will in building the skills of a cultural worker, primarily based on the fact that the average cultural worker does not contribute to EI, and therefore our impact as a sector on employment insurance premiums is very minimal. As a result, we don't look very important at this stage in our evolution.

But when we're talking about billions of dollars in film exports, because we have some of the best people in the world in film, when we have opera singers who base themselves in Canada and travel internationally and bring home six- and seven-figure incomes—which they spend very nicely at home—we have to begin to get over the idea that we are a whole bunch of different sectors.

We really need the government's help to convince the Canadian people, our fellow citizens, that we are not a begging sector but a selling sector. It doesn't matter what part of the sector we're in; we have common themes. Our main common theme is the fact that we have a huge economic impact and we have hundreds of thousands of people working.

I was really trying to tie together the three points about what we do and why we're here. That's all I have.

The Chairman: Before I pass the mike over to Mrs. Oda, Mrs. Brand, would you like to introduce yourself briefly?

Ms. Pamela Brand (National Executive Director, Directors Guild of Canada): I apologize for being late. There were some urgent matters that had to be attended to.

I'm Pamela Brand, national executive director of the Directors Guild of Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Yesterday in Montreal there was a bit of a dichotomy between different interveners. Some almost felt that we have put too much of an accent on culture in the sense of industry, of cultural industries. The point of view that you represent very strongly was aired in the meeting. Some felt that our committee should start by finding out what culture means to us as a committee.

One of the very articulate people there suggested that culture should be tied up first to the human being, the individual, and that we should define it as a sense of place and being, of what you are yourself. In other words, culture is what you are, what you define yourself as; it is your identity, your sense of place and being.

Obviously we cannot put aside the fact that you bring in...it's a huge industry that provides a lot of work for people. But maybe you could give us some guidance too as to where we start from. These people said unless we establish a value system up top as to what the binding threads are, as to what these linkages are in the way of values, it will be very hard for us to define what we are trying to say to Canadians.

I just mention this to you because I thought it was a really interesting discussion in that way. You leave that discussion wondering if the idea of a sense of place and identity and being is not a very powerful notion that binds all these things together. I'm just throwing it out for discussion purposes.

Mrs. Oda.

Ms. Beverley Oda: Thank you very much.

If I may, I would like to get to your point a little further on in what I have to say. It's a very important point, and I think if we could come to terms with it we would all benefit from your wisdom.

• 1155

In discussing a policy, I think in some cases what we flounder with is we're looking for direction from a federal approach on a cultural policy. I think particularly at this time in our evolution we have to recognize that cultural policy has to be integrated and coherent with our country's industry, economic, and trade policies. We are now competing on a global basis, and we have to be able to undertake all of our activities regarding all of those aspects of our business.

Referring to what Mr. Miller mentioned on the new technologies, we would also look to the government to outline for our citizenry here its policy or approach as to those new technologies. We had some guidelines in the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act that outlined very clearly what the government expected for the people.

When it comes to using new technologies, there are questions that I think the government should address: does the government have a policy of universal access to new technologies, does it have a policy of affordability, or are we going to create, as some people have forecasted, a society of information haves and have-nots? Will the utilization of the technology further our cultural objectives by ensuring that we maintain a Canadian system through ownership or other means? Are we going to try to maintain, as outlined in the Broadcasting Act, an obligation for quality and high standards? Because technology changes, do those principles transfer to the technology? I would suggest that the technology we're looking at, for the very reasons Mr. Miller pointed out, would have to be redressed within the new framework.

I have two other points. We are now having to compete on a global and national basis, but we have to serve as a local broadcaster and we have to re-emphasize that we don't lose that local obligation of service. We have to create an ability for us to talk to people in other countries around the world, and we have to maintain the ability for parts of our country to talk to each other and to see each other, but we also have to ensure that communities themselves have a way of talking to each other and exchanging ideas.

At CTV we find that we have an immense pressure to maintain local services in the various communities we serve while maintaining national obligations. We don't suggest that one should be abandoned in lieu of the other. We are very supportive of large national obligations. We look forward to the opportunity to play a part in national conversations that happen, but at the same time the economics are putting pressure on maintaining local news services. We have tried to find as many efficiencies as we can. Just in the province of Ontario, we currently provide seven daily newscasts multiple times throughout the day. When we're competing with other services that may not have that same infrastructure, etc., we have to make choices, which sometimes are very hard to make, while maintaining a commitment to high-quality Canadian service as well.

This brings me to our recognition that as signals and choices of receiving products are going to be international and even more competitive, we believe we have to maintain a means of supporting indigenous stories. If we do not have a means of supporting indigenous stories, then we are going to lose our ability to tell our stories.

• 1200

In response to your challenge as to how we articulate a sense of place and being, I believe it is in telling our stories, in giving people the opportunity and support to be able to tell their stories. Whether you're an oriental Canadian who was born here or one who just arrived a year ago, that is still being Canadian. There should be more opportunities for Canadians to tell stories that reflect the values that are Canadian. In order to do that, these have to be supported through funding sources. The Canadian Television Fund is critical and crucial to our ability to continue telling those stories in the video medium, television.

As you point out, many of us have had this debate before. As far as Canadian broadcasting is concerned, I think we try to do our part. If you compare what Canadian broadcasters put forward in licence fees toward Canadian production, not in comparison with the percentage of budget of the production but in terms relative to population base, you'll find that Canadian broadcasting puts forward a higher level toward Canadian indigenous production on a per population base than any other country. It is critical to understand that if we all can find a way of putting forward and supporting the cultural product—and these are not just products, these are services as well—we would be able to maintain a strong voice for Canadian stories. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Oda.

I would just remind all the participants that it's already 12 noon. Time flies. We have 60 minutes left. I have four requests before me and there will be others, so perhaps we could be concise so that everybody gets a chance. I'll turn to Ms. Stock.

Ms. Bette Stock: I have some comments on what Ms. de Klerk-Limbertie said about the multicultural challenge. I did create a brief, and although it does emphasize the issues for small enterprises, I also put in there that this has to do with culture as well. I don't know how it would be done. I know that immigration, for example, is a national issue. I think 50% of new Canadians now come to Toronto. I'm a fourth generation Torontonian. Many of them don't have English or French as their first language. They have a lot to offer, and we can learn from them. I know that's a federal issue.

Regionally, we deliver education. The impact is quite local in a city like Toronto, Canada's largest city. However, I would like to see—this is just a wish list; I'm not asking governments to spend money, create bureaucracy, any of that—some national leadership toward the provision of arts education, English and French language training as a second language for new immigrants, and also Canadian studies. The country has been around for several hundred years, and I think today even people who were born in this country know very little about it. I'm sure most people know very little about the history of Toronto since 1950, whereas if you go to a small American town, you'll find that people are sufficiently jingoistic and they all have their little stories that have been passed down. They're very proud of it. I've had international experience. I'm very concerned about our loss of cultural memory here. I would like to see some national leadership.

My friends for whom English is a second language are underemployed in this city, but the need has never been greater. How can we share humour, which is language based? Are we going to end up with theme park entertainment on television or in the theatre or on the street? I've heard famous Canadian actors comment on that. What will we end up with if we're making hand signals everywhere? I think language is a very important issue. It's not to be slumped aside in the visual age. I think we should integrate our multicultural experience and learn from that and learn from what the first nations have to say. It is, as someone said, a childhood issue. We have to teach people from the ground up, wherever they come from.

• 1205

I'll just finish this comment by saying that I read that we might possibly have a national commission or such looking into education standards across the country. One doesn't want to see homogenization either. There is regional diversity, which we have to welcome. I would like to see people enabled to share through stories, through the broadcasting, through the radio, whatever it takes, through travel for young people. We have to get to know our own country before we know what we're losing. And I think there just isn't enough emphasis on that. So national leadership toward that, whatever form it would take, I think could be very constructive and helpful.

The only other brief comment I wanted to make was in reference to what Mark was saying about the sector of small cultural enterprises and the self-employed. My problem is, again, especially having been involved with Americans for 10 years, that for me there's a whole vocabulary problem. We're not defining ourselves, in my view, towards empowering ourselves. Instead of seeing ourselves as resourceful people, we're people lacking in resources. I think this is a serious mentality in Canada.

In my brief I touched on describing us as independent professionals or cultural SMEs. I'm not a worker myself; I see myself as a professional. In the United States that's how people in my niche see themselves, as professional. I think that little empowerment attitude works up.

I also proposed in the brief, which I will leave for the committee, that we broker a new dialogue, interdepartmental and interactive, between Heritage, Foreign Affairs, Industry Canada, the investors, and the lenders.

Also—I want to say one thing and I'll finish this—for six years I was involved with some small business bank activism. I met some of our top senior executive bankers in this country, and they told me all they know about culture is that we want donations or we get grants. If you're in the enterprise model, most of us do not even qualify for grants and aren't even going to ask for them. If you're a small enterprise, you may wish to engage in an activity that's not going to attract funding. I've never applied for a grant in my life and neither have a lot of other people I know. We also know that grants are declining.

So I say we need a whole new dialogue to empower those of us who have to go out into the “real world” and deal with those daily challenges. I'm not one of the big people here, and I'm saying that we need some help too. But I think we have to start by better describing ourselves and defining our issues, and then moving forward. Some national guidance and leadership could be helpful in that regard as well.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

The Chairman: Ms. Wilkinson followed by Mr. Stoddart and then Ms. Lill.

Ms. Kealy Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Jumping off from Bev's point that we're now competing in a global marketplace, which we often know, and the importance of having something distinctive to bring to that marketplace, it goes back to your own question, Mr. Chairman, about how we define culture. Whether it's the sum of our beliefs, our ethics, our stories, our music, that sense of place and sense of values, it's really our take on things. That's what we bring to the international marketplace. That's what we share with the world. And we do it well—at least in some fields we do it remarkably well and we have a record of astonishing success.

A couple of years ago, Canada's producers of children's television sold a series into 150 countries around the world. Our figures, which aren't complete quite yet, indicate that this past year it's close to 180 countries. That's big sales, it's big success, and I think in many ways it's extremely important for this country.

Our television programs for young audiences are part of the experience of childhood in all those countries. For hundreds of millions of viewers around the world, in fact, they provide a first and highly positive acquaintance with this country, its values, and its people.

For those reasons, I think it's extremely important that we continue to provide the support mechanisms that the federal government, the broadcasters, and all the partners of the children's production industry have nurtured, have put in place and encouraged. I speak specifically of Telefilm, the federal government and the cable and television industries' joint initiative on the Canadian Television Fund, and of the CRTC, which has historically functioned to at least encourage broadcasters to address the issue of service to young people.

• 1210

I think it's also important to note that our success, remarkable as it is, is a very fragile thing in this particular sector, and it's built on commitments to young viewers, first from public broadcasters, from the CBC, Radio-Canada, from TV Ontario, Télé-Québec, the Knowledge Network, and SCN, which have bellied up to the bar historically in terms of ensuring there was something there.

We all know the effect of the budget cuts on the CBC, but it's encouraging to note that the latest figures I picked up this morning—and I will validate them and provide them to the committee—indicate that the CBC's programming, CBC English, for children in that critical two to five range is leading the marketplace in a very large way. Something like 42% of the children who are available to view at that time are tuning in to the CBC's morning programs. That's pretty remarkable stuff, and it certainly tells you that there's a worthwhile investment being made there. I don't think it's enough, but we will certainly encourage the CBC to do more and better. But it is remarkable that it's being done at all in the current circumstance.

I also think it's important that we acknowledge the particular role of the specialty services, which have been working very hard to supplement what the over-the-air broadcasters have been able to give to our children. We have Canal Famille, we have the Family Channel, and we have YTV most particularly, which have been doing a yeoman's service in developing special programs for children. They've become a very important market for the producers who are looking for that very important broadcast letter that gets them into the system.

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned here today, and if I might quickly address it, is the importance of Radio-Canada particularly, and TFO, in respect to the provision of any kind of quality programming for francophone children right across the country. I'm unfortunately a poster child for the failures of the lack of a national policy before the time it was introduced. Moving to British Columbia when I was four, I lost my first languages, which are French and Spanish; I don't speak a word of either of them today. That wouldn't happen now because Radio-Canada is there. It's there with some spectacular programming for young viewers. I think the singular role that children's television plays in the maintenance of language for our francophone children is something that has to be acknowledged and must continue to be supported in a very real and meaningful way.

The fact is that even with the introduction of TVA, the private network that is going to be soon on cable companies all across the country, at least in the medium and large-sized ones, it's important to recognize that in the province of Quebec there is no advertising permitted in children's programs and therefore the commercial undertakings in that province aren't able to fund the acquisition of French language programming for children. Therefore, while TVA will in fact do a great deal for older audiences, for youth and for adults, in providing a diversity of programming choice, it is going to have very little impact, at least in the current circumstances, for provision of programs for children.

I think that's where I'll stop, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Wilkinson.

I'll recognize Mr. Stoddart followed by Ms. Lill, Ms. Dickens, Ms. Limbertie, and Mr. Blackadar.

Mr. Jack Stoddart.

Mr. Jack Stoddart: Thank you. If we could get back to the question you were raising, Mr. Lincoln, I think it's very important to address one part of that question, which is should we be having a forum on what's culture, what are the arts, and what's all this to us? I think there's nothing wrong with that in another forum perhaps, or maybe this is the right one. But in case people miss the point, this country is at war with another on cultural policy, and if we don't do things now to ensure that the industrial base is there so that our artists, our creators, our performers have access to this market in some form whereby they can continue to develop and have a place in this country, it isn't going to matter what that debate is all about. We will become a regional market for the United States—as we are, to a certain extent—far more than we are today.

• 1215

When you look at what's happening with C-55, the magazine bill, it is really interesting. One of the points was made earlier by Peter Miller, I guess it was, about barriers and scarcity. One of the things about scarcity is scarcity of newspapers. We have lots of newspapers in the country, but one owner has 50% to 55% of all those newspapers.

That same owner, or that same group of newspapers, or that newspaper in particular, I think it's correct to say—the detail may be slightly off, but it's not far off—every single day, for three to four months, has had C-55 in a negative light. They have just constantly pounded. I don't care who you are, if you keeping reading, reading, reading the same thing over and over again...and when you look at those articles you will see they are in fact derivatives of things that are from other newspapers, and then they change the light on the subject.

This is called a war, some parts of our media groups attacking other parts. If we, in this milieu of communication and culture, whether it be on the creative side or the industrial side, don't understand that there's a huge battle going on out there, and if we don't pull together and make sure our government departments have the ability, strength, and personnel to carry this out—and I think in some cases the will—then we're going to miss the whole point.

I'm not a magazine publisher, but we keep reading in the newspaper that Bill C-55 has come about because the Canadian government put a law in that was thrown out at the WTO. You always see WTO, WTO. What everybody is forgetting is that Time Warner made a decision about three years before the WTO decision to circumvent, through technology, the Canadian law—the intent of it and the action of it—by, instead of bringing material across a border, which was the law, and it was set up as a result of the Davey commission and the magazine policy...

I was talking to Ron Atkey, who's the lawyer for Time Warner, one day, actually in an American consulate meeting, and I said, you know, you guys really found the way around the law. He said no, they didn't find it, they had that for years. They chose when to create this. And nobody's talking about why we've got a battle going on magazines, when we do.

In fact, this started about seven or eight years ago. It was a choice by a corporation, Time Warner, working in conjunction with the USTR, to make an issue with Canada. If they're willing to do it on that, they're willing to do it on books, they're willing to do it on radio and television, they're willing to do it on anything. We're the model. They're going to either dominate the world in communications and culture or they're not.

I guess my message would be that we make sure that out of this forum, and others in the future, we get this addressed at a government level. There are some parties in Parliament that don't think anything but market force is the right way to go. I would argue with them—and there may be a different forum for it—but if we don't ensure that there is some other vehicle than straight market forces for getting our message of culture to ourselves, then we will never have it.

The division that was created during the Conservative era of separating the culture portfolio from the communications I think was a fundamental problem, the fact that some parts of culture are reviewed at Investment Canada instead of the CRTC. I'm not arguing for or against the CRTC. I've fortunately never had to deal with the body personally. Those who do always roll their eyes and say, oh, my God. But the very simple matter is that's a strong body for Canada. Whether we agree with their decisions or not, its intent is essentially to be for Canada.

Investment Canada told me the other day, after approving the Bertelsmann acquisition of Random House and Doubleday, that their job is to attract investment into Canada and they're reviewing Canadian cultural industries. The lack of a straight line in this government—and it predates, of course, the Liberal government—the way the structure is, is wrong for this country today. If we're at war, we have to have some troops who really believe. I believe the heritage ministry is essentially onside, but I think Investment Canada and the trade ministers have a totally different attitude.

• 1220

If we're going to do anything, this government has to address who is going to speak for these industries and for this matter. Right now, the house—not meaning the House of Commons—is as divided as the Americans would want it to be. I would therefore really urge that we not have that long debate on what culture is to us, what it should be nationally and what it should be regionally. Address the question of what's in front of us, because it isn't going to matter if we don't do it.

The Chairman: Well, Mr. Stoddart, I think you've helped the debate along. I'm sure you're going to get reactions, and you might be interested to know that this issue of the split jurisdiction of the ministries came up several times yesterday in Montreal. It was mentioned by people who feel it's a conflictual situation that is going to endure as long as we keep the jurisdictions separate, because the two ministries are obviously pursuing different objectives.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

I appreciate your comments, Jack, because I was thinking of some of those things myself. Something that was said in Halifax that I appreciated is that it is the macro level. I think you have to have that out there. Otherwise, we just muddle along. The macro level is that this is an occupied country culturally. We have given away an enormous percentage of all of our assets. Our publishing industry, as you know, is on its last legs. We all have seen the statistics about the amount of American product in film, in TV, in magazines, and in book publishing.

At the last session, somebody said to me that they feel they want the federal government to wrest back control of our culture and of our cultural industries. That's the job of the federal government: to set targets for what we want it to be like ten years down the line. Maybe we want to be able to see that 50% of the books are Canadian on our bookshelves. Maybe we want to see 50% of our magazines. What's wrong with setting targets? Targets are set all the time. Certainly we know that the finance minister set a target several years ago to eliminate the deficit and did so. Many hundreds of thousands of casualties later, he did manage to do that. So I think it's still possible to set targets. I hope so.

In terms of issues like media concentration and cross-ownership, we need to strengthen the Competition Act. Those are the big picture issues that we have to agree on, to which we have to say, yes, these things are worth doing. I would like to ask some people here, though, some specific things aside from the very huge things that are threatening you all. I'd like to know what some of the more specific things are that are threatening you.

Christopher, I'd like to ask you that question as a creator, because my orientation is always from the creator's point of view. All of the industry that you talk about is not going to be there unless the creators have the environment to allow them to grow, to make a living, to pay the bills, to have an environment in which they can exist.

And I also ask that of you, Robin, because I know Thom Fitzgerald, and I know how he cobbles together a living. You've obviously committed to working with writers over a long period of time, and to nurturing products so that they actually get out there. What is it that's threatening you at this point, and what can the federal government do to help you on these things?

Mr. Robin Cass: The biggest threat to my ability to do this is my inability to survive. I am perhaps foolish enough to have made a commitment to building the strength of the Canadian voice through working and partnering with Canadian writers to write and create the stories. I don't spend my time accepting the service jobs from New York and Los Angeles that we are now routinely turning down. People want us to do those jobs, but we think the biggest mistake we can make is to say yes. Even though that will look after the rent for a couple of years and will get us the staff we need, the real and most valuable work we do is just going to fall by the wayside.

• 1225

Until you've actually worked on a script with a writer for three years for no money, until you get to the point where you think “I'm sorry my aunt died, but it's a good thing she did and left me that money, because that's the only way I've been able to finance the continuance of that activity”, until you actually stare that down—as you must have done, Wendy, in your career as a playwright—and get out of bed and really face that day after day, it's a very difficult thing for most people to appreciate.

Ultimately, if we don't have the wherewithal to value and reward those kinds of activities, everything else is going to be a house of cards. It's a shell game. The really great irony is that, because of a couple of successes we've had at our company, we're now at a point at which our beliefs are being borne out, happily. A year or two down the road when we take our next crop of shows to the market, hopefully things will change.

Let me give you a brief anecdote. I'm in a situation now that I think explains the incredible irony that the creators are faced with. I have the rights to a book by Barbara Gowdy, called Falling Angels. We're hoping to shoot it this summer. However, I'm in a really ironic situation in that I very shortly may have to make a choice between making this movie in Canada for $2 million or $3 million or raising my budget out of Los Angeles or London, England, going for maybe $6 million or $7 million or $10 million. That choice has a huge impact on my company's ability to survive, and the most cruel irony is that it also has a huge impact on whether or not the movie is going to be viewed as a Canadian movie. The underlying rights are Canadian. It's set in Don Mills. I'm a Canadian producer. There is a Canadian writer-director and 98% of the cast is going to be Canadian. But ironically, it's not going to be a Canadian property if I choose the larger budget. I think that's extraordinary.

Increasingly, as the borders fall and there is multiplicity of supply and demand, and as all of those layers heat up and create a very active, hot environment in which we have to compete, I find that we end up staring down these rather surprising ironies that are also borne out with the way the tax credits for financing are structured. However, I then look at these American producers who want me to become their service supplier so that they can reap the benefits at a higher financial level for their productions than I can as a Canadian producer, when, for whatever reason, I choose to want to tell the stories I care about and that have something to do with me.

That's a long explanation, but there are a number of very salient points in there. Those are the kinds of choices and difficulties I have.

I will just close by saying that I really, desperately hope the federal government will continue to be a very, very committed partner in the furtherance of Canadian culture and the related industries that are all increasingly tied together.

The Chairman: Ms. Dickens, you are listed to be the next speaker. Maybe you could address what Ms. Lill raised, unless you want Mr. Moore to address it.

Ms. Penny Dickens (Executive Director, Writers' Union of Canada): Wendy Lill addressed the question to Mr. Moore, so I will move out of the way for him.

Mr. Christopher Moore: Thinking about your question, I think a lot of writers I know—and artists in other fields as well—find that adversity is good for us. We have a number of different clients, a number of different funders, a number of different publishers around. That works best for us.

• 1230

I've heard artists described as hunter-gatherers in that sense. It's nice to have a lot of little niches you can pick upon—to have more than one granting agency you can look for, to have more than one publisher you can take your manuscript to, to have more than one network that might be interested in buying the rights or the option to your work, to have more than one program you can look to for support and training.

What I think that comes back to is that we'd like to know they're here. I never go to Los Angeles; I don't know who those people are. I do have some connections with branches of the industry here, not only publishers but people who do radio broadcasting and television films and educational organizations. I just started out as a writer; it's astonishing to me the range of clients I have. I mostly write about Canadian history and Canadian cultural issues, and the phone rings occasionally, but the phone doesn't ring from New York or Los Angeles. It's people in that industry in Toronto or in Montreal or around this country who tend to call me to get some help from me, and I think that's the experience of a lot of our writers.

You raised the question earlier about whether we should be trying to define the nature of culture in Canada or whether we should be talking about cultural industries. I know it sounds like a dull, penny-pinching kind of thing for a writer to say, but it seems to me that, frankly, the artists of Canada will define culture for us if the Government of Canada puts in the penny-pinching institutional regulatory framework that allows us to continue to live and work.

So I must admit that I would encourage you to stick with the dull, uninspiring work, perhaps, rather than with the highfalutin definitions of what Canadian culture is.

I'd like to add just one more point to Wendy Lill's point. The other day I was reading a new book called the The River Midnight, by a Toronto writer called Lilian Nattel. She's a new writer. It's being published internationally. It's set to become, I think, the next of these big Canadian literary bestsellers around the world. In the acknowledgements page at the front of that book, Lilian says that she particularly wanted to thank a mentorship program that was administered by the Writers' Union of Canada, but it was using funds from the Cultural Human Resources Council of Canada. It was a fund by which a writer, through the Writers' Union, could access those federal government funds to in effect hire another more experienced writer to be a mentor, to get some training. An early writer or a mid-stage writer could in fact hire another writer for some mentorship work.

Clearly it paid off in spades for Lilian Nattel, who I hope is going to be one of those persons bringing a lot of money home from foreign markets to spend here in Toronto. It was a very useful program, presumably, for the writer who was hired as her mentor as well.

That program went down the drain a couple of years ago. I'm not quite sure what happened to it, but it doesn't exist any more.

I think that's the kind of nuts and bolts thing. If there are more programs, more grants, more diversity of publishers, more diversity of radio, television, educational organizations, etc., if we can put in the conditions that enable those organizations to continue to be there, then we can find our audiences.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Dickens.

Ms. Penny Dickens: Perhaps I can add to that. I think Christopher Moore is right. Let the creators define culture. Let's find ways to support them.

We've talked about removing boxes. I'd like to see the committee seriously consider removing the box from Canadian heritage and culture. Our cultural policy should permeate every aspect of government. Chris mentioned the program that disappeared, but the reason it disappeared was that Human Resources stopped funding it. We have Foreign Affairs, for which culture is supposed to be the third pillar. Well, the wish is there, but the will doesn't appear to be. It seems to me what we need is a cultural policy that speaks to every aspect of what the government is doing. We have Industry Canada, which is working in direct opposition to the reinforcement of Canadian culture. If the committee could come up with a policy that is driven by Canadian Heritage but permeates every section, I think then we would be addressing the war that we are in.

• 1235

I agree with Jack Stoddart wholeheartedly: we are in a war and we are losing. If we want to win, we have to change the government's way of looking at culture as just an industry, as just a portion of the economy, and not as something that is as vital as keeping this country alive.

The Standing Committee on Finance supported the suggestion that creators and artists should have some tax breaks, like income averaging or something for people whose incomes fluctuate widely. Yes, in regard to Lilian Nattel, the amount of money invested by the federal government in her mentorship was $2,500. Her advance on the manuscript that came from that mentorship was over $200,000, so we're talking about a tiny amount of seed money here.

For whatever cultural policy we come up with, it is absolutely vital that international global trade agreements are subservient to that policy. When we talk about copyrights it is fundamental, and yet we are looking at a situation where the WTO is looking to take over the WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization. This will be disastrous for us because the forces that are pushing WTO are in almost direct opposition to the forces that WIPO is trying to protect.

So I would ask the committee to look at culture as an item that is much bigger on the agenda than just a matter for Canadian heritage: it is a matter for Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I have Ms. Limbertie, Mr. Blackadar, Mr. Mark, Mrs. McDonald, and Mr. Stoddart.

Welcome, Mr. .Templeman.

Mrs. Limbertie.

Ms. Ineke de Klerk-Limbertie: Thank you.

I can only applaud what you were saying just now, Ms. Dickens, because it's so very true.

I did also want to address a comment made earlier and then perhaps bring together a lot of what we've been saying today. Before I became director of the Community Folk Art Council, I had the great privilege—and I do consider it as such—of working for the Department of External Affairs for ten years as public affairs officer in the Netherlands. I helped put together the first Canadian publishers trade mission to the Netherlands in the 1980s. It was my job to sell Canadian culture abroad, and indeed I first had to discover what it was. I had a very great learning experience in my time in the field.

One of the reasons I left was that it seemed to me that certain people, certain ministries—my bosses—were not speaking to one another. Three years ago I came back to Toronto and, quite frankly, I was horrified by the level of Americanization, of plasticization, of Disney-fication, that I discovered in the city. That is why I took on my position with the Community Folk Art Council: I believed we had to go back to basics. We had to work on a foundation for our society. We had to look at our people.

I think this is a big issue that you, as the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, have to deal with. What is our society? What sort of society do we want? Indeed, it cannot be looked at in isolation. It cannot be just broadcasting or just publishing; it is the sort of people we are wanting to develop in our society, for our children and for their children.

I think it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who said the 20th century belongs to Canada. No. I think he made a mistake. It's the 21st century that belongs to Canada, because now we have the opportunity to win this war and then together...indeed, please, all of you in Parliament and in all the ministries should speak to one another so that we can work well in the field.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Limbertie.

I'm not very good at math, but there are 20 minutes left and I have a list of six speakers, and I'm sure there will be others. Can we be concise so that everyone gets a chance before we close? We can go past one o'clock for a little while, but we have another session at two o'clock, and I think most of us like to eat from time to time.

Mr. Blackadar.

Mr. Hal Blackadar: Thank you.

The Chairman: I recognize the name, but did I pronounce it right?

Mr. Hal Blackadar: That's fine. That's as good as I've heard it pronounced, sir.

• 1240

I'm certainly not here to defend the policy or policies where we sit today, sir. I'm not at all convinced that the entire industry is broken. Whether it's been a patchwork quilt or whatever, we got to this point by having these kinds of discussions and using the framework and some of the regulatory body that we've had.

I came here today wanting to talk about something else, but I am intrigued by the comments I'm hearing. Quite apart from some of the different views, I'm hearing the same sort of message. Mr. Moore, Mr. Jamison, Mr. Miller, Ms. McDonald, and Bev Oda all referred to it, and that is in fact that it is the content that is so important as part of the definition of a new Canadian cultural policy.

For most of my life as a transplanted maritimer, I happened to make a living running radio stations. I think I understand a little bit about what it means to be local. That's how radio has been successful: it remains local, with local content, regardless of all the other technology and stuff coming at us. I think I understand a little bit about what it means to have content. I happen to sit on the board of FACTOR, where I get to see a lot of applications from artists across the country, some of whom we call garage bands—and that's where they'll play all their lives—and others who have gone on to greater things. I'm encouraged to hear that there's a stream of concern about how we get content and keep it going forward.

I'm not a believer, however, as Ms. Lill referred to earlier, in setting targets and quotas. I think it's that detail that has caused us some problems in the past. I'm concerned about that moment when you start to set quotas. Coming back to Mr. Miller's earlier comment, we're not all the same and we can't all operate out of the same box. We'll never be able to operate out of the same box in going forward.

Your committee's challenge, sir, is going to be to try to define what that policy is in issues that are broad enough to make it work for us and yet to try to make it specific enough so that each part of us can go forward.

I tell you, sir, that I believe you have to find some way to encourage this, whether it is through your government or in other ways, and to find incentives so that writers and producers, performers and managers of groups—and not just music groups, but all these various groups that you have—are able to go forward in an environment where content gets to the Canadian public. Because we live next door to 360 million people, we unfortunately do of course sometimes have a crisis in self-confidence.

But we have to be careful that we don't regulate to the point—as I find in my own business—where you can put in quotas and say, “You must do that.” Unfortunately, all those things happen after the fact, when you're looking in the rear-view mirror.

I would encourage you, sir, to look forward and try to find some broad policies that at least get us down the road—realizing that we are competing in a global environment. As long as we have that content that remains local, we will define what Canada is and we will define all of our various aspects of it. But we should be careful in going forward so that the policy is more than just regulation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We're here precisely to hear your concerns and get your advice in terms of what needs to be done based on those five questions that were given to you.

The first question looks at the past funding programs and asks for some feedback in terms of what you consider to be positive or negative. We've heard a variety of opinions from many people—from artists and from organizations—and the response has been very diverse from one end of the spectrum to the other. Even the Newfoundlanders...to them, culture is the soul of their identity. That's how they see it: the soul of their society. It's very different, perhaps, from how people in Toronto see culture; maybe they see it from more of a multicultural perspective.

• 1245

We heard from one artist—he was very successful—who told us that he considered culture to be wealth generation. As far as he was concerned, the less government the better; get out of his way. At the same time, he felt government should concentrate on development, perhaps in the public education system, to promote creativity and give people opportunities to develop skills.

We've also debated the issue of the business model. The business model doesn't always fit culture, and we all understand that. We understand that the country needs government support to make sure people have opportunity to develop their skills.

In Montreal, yesterday, Pierre-Marc Johnson said to us perhaps culture needs to take more of an offensive approach rather than a defensive one. Of course, that's another position.

My question is, what is the balance? As a country that is very young, I think we know we can't totally dispel the economic realities of our neighbours to the south of us when we're compared to other nations in the world. In fact, one suggestion is that perhaps we shouldn't even deal with international markets until we look after the domestic ones. Maybe we should concentrate on the domestic markets first. But if some people believe in an open-door policy and want access to other people's markets, obviously we need to be open-door with our own market.

So I'm looking for the recommendations that you would propose in order to give us some balance, and so that we're all a little bit happy, not totally unhappy.

The Chairman: So, Ms. McDonald, what makes us happy, and what is the balance?

Ms. Elizabeth McDonald: I think your comment about whether we should have an offensive or defensive policy was very interesting. I think there are some important elements in this idea.

For some reason, I think if you stopped the average Canadian, he or she would believe this is a very closed market. It's not. It's very open. The closed market is south of the border, and it's closed by its own parochialism and fear of different accents and different looks, etc.

While there have been some inroads made, particularly in our sector in the cable TV area, it's been tough because that U.S. market is closed. Every time I see something come out of USTR, I wonder about the Canadians reading about it. I wonder if average Canadians understand quite clearly that this is an open market. The market that is at war—as Jack said—with us is not open by its own definition. Not only is it not an open market, it's very voracious in that it wants to eat up all the other markets in the world. Canada is just the place where they're going to test it all out.

If there's one thing we have to do, it's to develop a better relationship with the Europeans. That should be encouraged. I think there is a real need for more interdepartmental cooperation there, not just when we're going to the WTO. I think the Department of Canadian Heritage is taking a tremendous lead under a very brave minister, but we need to build those interdepartmental links. The industry also needs to be there to educate, to understand, and to make sure we're all marching to the drummer. I think that will help us a great deal, as will probably more investment and exchange with our European counterparts.

As a sidebar, I was at a U.K. meeting and was discussing something with a U.K. public servant about how they didn't need protection because the U.K. doesn't have a problem with this sort of thing. I asked him if it would be better to have a British discovery service instead of the U.S. discovery service. He said they'd have both. I told him they must be from another planet.

They're learning now. There's a lot that we can bring to the table, but for some reason we have a humility about what we can bring to the table in terms of dealing with our neighbours to the south. We have to find those markets that will join with us.

• 1250

So we do need Canadian Heritage and the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Finance, and Industry to work together, but specifically to ensure that the same opportunity is there for Canada. It has to be ongoing. It can't be crisis management, and I think that's very important. It's something concrete we can do.

While I understand the concern by radio and television broadcasters about quotas, etc., we have to have to some shelf space for Canadian product, and I am sure the people in the magazine industry know that. We have to ensure this not only for the producers and for the broadcasters, because that's the only thing that's going to make the licences unique... It doesn't have to be just national shelf space; it has to be local, it has to be regional, and it has to be national shelf space. But we must find a way to ensure that our broadcasting system, for example, is predominantly Canadian. I understand their concern with quotas, but we have to find a dialogue to get through some of this, rather than always being at war with each other trying to define it, because we'll lose. We're relatively small and we'll end up in television with what we have in Canadian features, which is only 2% of the market.

The Chairman: Can you conclude your remarks?

Ms. Elizabeth McDonald: Yes.

Finally, the issue of mentorship was brought up, and we need to start training people. Every time I turn around you can get a mentorship program if you can figure out that you're doing youth at risk, adults in transition, or whatever, but you have to know where you are year by year. It's not that we shouldn't have young people being trained and in mentorship programs. We're about to announce a fairly significant program in partnership with the Department of Human Resources Development. We also have the adults in transition. We need to also start being coherent about some of those policies so that some of the things that create the riders we were speaking of don't come up one year and go the next so we only get one rider out of it. We should really celebrate what is there and get those people working appropriately.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I have three speakers on my list. Mr. Kerr-Wilson hasn't had a chance before. I'll recognize Mr. Stoddart, briefly, then Mr. Kerr-Wilson, and then Mr. Miller.

Mr. Jack Stoddart: I'd like to come back to Wendy Lill's question for a moment, because I think it has to do with national will. You asked basically what can be done or what should be considered.

After the current copyright legislation was passed, we were talking to someone at a very senior level at Industry Canada—I don't want to quote him specifically—and I asked, when is part three? He said, not on my watch. This is something we don't want. That's four or five years. If we don't get a proper copyright bill through, all the new technology that we all say can be negative and positive is going to be lost on us, because we don't have digital copyright protection. We don't have a modern act. We have something that came into place and really addressed questions from 20 years ago. It's not a bad bill—I'm not saying it is—but everybody recognizes it hasn't gone the next step.

Why is copyright under Industry and not under the Heritage ministry? Why is it put together with patents? There may be a very good reason, but at the end of the day intellectual property is a very key component of the next century, and our livelihoods and our protection of that, and if we don't get it right in Canada we are not going to get it right anywhere.

We have to have the forum to make sure the discussion on the evolving technology is there from the cultural side. It can destroy us, but it can also be hugely advantageous too, and if we learn how to use that... It's not as an industry as much as us as a country and using our government to make sure we take a leadership role in the use of technology for developing our things.

Tax issues. I found it very interesting in the latest budget—and I haven't read the 2,000 other pages but in the basic announcement, and I've listened to Mr. Martin in two or three political speeches saying how important culture was, yet I found a great lack of anything in that budget having to do with culture and employment in the cultural industries. I saw two or three letters recently from him saying why he couldn't do this in book publishing, why he couldn't do it for writers, why he couldn't do it in other things, and I found it a contradiction that the public position he's taking on the importance of culture in our society is totally ignored in the budget process. These weren't big budget things. I think the Writers' Union in particular made a very good proposal on stretching out the time, etc. The rejection of that was ludicrous.

So we have to be able to address those things, and employment and taxation are a key part of it. I don't honestly think the answers are that difficult. I think if we can get the Ottawa machine working in the right direction it can be done.

• 1255

We're doing a book, which will be out in about a month's time, by Matthew Fraser, on basically death stars and the Internet and all kinds of different issues like this. I was reading it on a beach in St. Martin of all places. It was really interesting that while he didn't ever say it, what came through after a while... He was going through the history of all this and he started talking about the deputy ministers of communication and culture, and later heritage, and names like André Bureau came up, Joel Bell, Victor Rabinovitch, Bernie Ostry, and Pierre Juneau. I was thinking about that. These are all men who have taken great leadership roles, not just in administration but in culture. The last two deputy ministers have been very good administrators, but I don't see the leadership for cultural policy coming from the deputy minister level.

I think as long as this government, in not just that portfolio but in others, has deputy ministers who are more gatekeepers than they are creators...if the creative process is going to stop at the ministers and advisers, then we will never get a cultural policy that makes any sense. We won't get the tax department and the industry department, and all the other departments that have to work together, coming together.

There's a new clerk of the Privy Council. I suspect there will be a changing of the guard among some of the deputy ministers. It's a question that this committee, and others perhaps, should look at: what's the role of a deputy minister? Is it creative or is it as a gatekeeper? Perhaps in that answer maybe there could be some answers as to how we get some of these other technical things accomplished in the next period of time.

The Chairman: Mr. Kerr-Wilson.

Mr. Jay Kerr-Wilson: I would like to, first of all, echo some of the comments that were made before in regard to the need to take a look at the big picture. The problem is that we spend so much time discussing and debating among ourselves how we use the tools, and what tools we use, that we never get down and ask ourselves what is the situation we're facing and how do we, as a country, come to fundamental solutions that are going to let us maintain a sense of identity, a sense of culture? We have a neighbour to the south that would be more than happy to fill all of our entertainment needs. They would provide us with more than enough television programming, radio programming, magazines, and movies. There wouldn't be a whit of Canadian content in it. Canadians would watch it and advertisers would buy space on it. But is that what we want? Is that a vision for the future?

The fact of the matter is that Americans produce some great entertainment. Canadians want to watch it—people around the world want to watch it—and we do. We let them. We give them space. There's great British culture that we import; we watch it. But there's only one country in the world that produces any Canadian culture, and that's Canada. If we don't maintain a little bit of a space... What's culture? Art is a person sitting down and writing a book, painting a painting, writing a screenplay. Culture is the communication of that art, and without art there's no culture. Without culture there's no communication; there's no society.

So I ask the committee to remember that this isn't a commodity, this isn't cars, this isn't widgets; this is identity, this is culture, this is a feeling of self-worth. And it doesn't have to be exclusive. It doesn't have to be just Canadian stories. We want to hear the best in the world. We want to share ours with the world. But the Canadian has to be there first, on the airwaves, in the books, in the magazine stores. If that's not what a government should do to play that sort of protective role, I'm not sure what we're all doing here.

That would be my comment. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kerr-Wilson.

I have two requests, and we'll close with it because it's already 1 p.m.

Mr. Miller and Ms. Stock.

Mr. Peter Miller: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three brief comments.

First, I have an announcement that I hope is some good news. Our company has made the business decision to launch two specialty services this fall, Canadian Learning Television and Star-TV. These are services we've had the licence for, for three years, but haven't been able to get any guarantees for carriage. We've made this decision to proceed, notwithstanding the uncertain environment, and certainly CLT, we hope, will contribute to lifelong learning and media literacy. We hope very much that Star-TV will be part of a response to what has been recognized as a major problem with the promotion of feature films and the entertainment sectors in Canada. Hopefully, combined with our other initiatives in feature film, they will help address some of the issues that were highlighted in the feature film advisory report.

• 1300

A second comment deals with Mr. Mark's question as to how we go forward. Certainly from our perspective, cultural policy has to combine elements of both the industrial and the cultural sides. On the industrial side, we need a climate that rewards entrepreneurship and risk-taking, whether that's Robin's decision to stay in Canada and accept projects that are only Canadian or our decision to launch these services. As a consequence of that, we've got to recognize the economic implications of what we do. While I agree with Jack on a lot of things, I would not agree that the copyright policy should be merely in the Department of Canadian Heritage. At the moment it is a split jurisdiction between Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage, and they bring different perspectives to bear that I think are vital.

But culture is different, and where I do agree with Jack wholeheartedly is on the need that we have, all of us together, to assert our rights there. If we could all do something together to support Bill C-55, I think that would serve us all well. I know our industry association, CAB, has made a point of indicating its support for C-55.

To close, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for this opportunity, not only to have us give our thoughts, but to bring us together. Too often we speak either across the table with a difference of view or even not at all. If there's one recommendation you could make, define forums for the cultural industries to get together more. CCA I think plays an active role in that.

One of the other divisions, quite frankly, that we face is at Canadian Heritage, where we have a broadcasting policy branch under one director general and a cultural industries branch under another. And even at that level, still within Canadian Heritage, there isn't enough cross-fertilization. So anything we can do, I think, to improve that would be very beneficial.

Ms. Bette Stock: I'd just like to say something hopeful. It seems all of our policies are toward protecting us against the big American competitor. Well, for 10 years I created special supplements for specialized literary and trade and professional journals in the United States. I was asked to do so because it was driven by their readers' interests, I have to say.

To me, the United States is not homogeneous; it's regional, and there are many levels of humanity there. I would just say let's also encourage the opportunity side, whether it's new exporters across the board or what have you, whether it's for the small performing arts company or the small publisher trying to export something there. I do know the opportunities exist. In fact, my best American ambassador is really a friend in New York City who competes with me to say he's read more Canadian books over the past year than I have, and he craves Canadian content on national public radio.

So there are all kinds of Americans, and I guess that's what disturbs me. I'm not their advocate. I'm saying there's opportunity, so let's not block that out. I think when we talk about competition, we're thinking about the big entertainment companies like Time Warner. We're not talking about the erudite publisher in Washington or the performing arts type of supporters in New York or Boston who actually enjoy what we have to offer. So I say there is opportunity.

Finally, Mr. Mark's question was whether we are really ready to export or whether we should really concentrate on that. Well, the interest is there. I'd say we have to have an open mind. We have to have a balance. That's really just based on my own experience.

Once again, thank you very much for including me.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Stock.

[Translation]

The last word will go to Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say first of all that I am very pleased to have had an opportunity to listen to your comments. Without wanting to get into politics, I must say very honestly that I feel a little as though I am in a foreign land here.

• 1305

I would like to come back to the issue of Bill C-32. When we discussed the bill and studied it in committee—I believe you were there, Mr. Lincoln—we had a very hard time, because we felt there was a huge battle in Cabinet between Ms. Copps and Mr. Manley. Now the bill has been passed and the Copyright Board is totally inefficient, apparently because Mr. Manley wants revenge for losing the first round.

The judge who chaired the Board resigned in 1994, and he still has not been replaced. That was five years ago. However, it had been known for a long time that Mr. Hétu's term was ending on January 31, 1999. The only two individuals appointed to the Board by Mr. Manley are people who worked on his election campaign and who know nothing about copyright. One of them cannot sit on the Board at the moment because she is the spouse of the main anti- copyright lobbyist. There is a real problem in having copyright under two people, or two departments, which disagree on such a fundamental issue.

We learned a number of things during our trip this week. One of them is that preparations are underway in Newfoundland for an exhibition to celebrate the 1,000th anniversary of the arrival of the Vikings. The national museum is making the people there pay for the artifacts, while Sweden is lending its artifacts free of charge. We also heard yesterday that opera singers could no longer perform in the United States; the market has been closed down. The U.S. has issued an order to no longer hire Canadian singers. A number of Canadians were thinking of going to the U.S. to start their career. That is a thing of the past; they will no longer be hired and the market is closed to them. When the Cirque du Soleil wanted to go to Orlando, the condition imposed by Disney was that Mickey Mouse had to be part of the show. The response from the people at the Cirque du Soleil was: "No way; we won't be coming".

These are some fairly revealing examples of the type of problems we're seeing in the cultural area at the moment. Until we understand that culture comes at a price, as does democracy, and as long as we have to deal with Mr. Manley's attitude, which is that any cultural activity must be cost-effective and that this is simply a matter of balancing certain things—we will not get anywhere. You will be swallowed up before we are, because we are protected by language. However, we don't want that to happen to you, because we know we will be next to go.

One of our witnesses spoke about establishing ties with Europe. I think we have to find allies throughout the world. We have to fight back. The Americans lost the first round of the MAI; they will win the second if we do not stand our ground.

We are prepared to help you out. We supported Bill C-55, even though it does not affect us personally. Mr. Stoddart knows that we cooperated to try to defend Ginn Publishing Canada Inc.. We lost that battle. We're going to have to stop losing battles, because as someone said, we will soon be losing the war, and without its culture, there will be no reason for Canada to exist as a country. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Tremblay.

[English]

I think it's time to close the proceedings. I would like to extend my very warm thanks to each one of you for the time. I know what it is to just take a morning off to come here for a discussion that sometimes makes us feel as though it's not getting anywhere because there's such a diversity of views. Yet when we collate all of this, some threads are common to what we hear in Toronto, or in Montreal, or somewhere else. I think eventually we find our way. We hope that among us we'll have enough wisdom, especially with the help of very smart research people, to put something together that will make sense.

• 1310

I really appreciate your presence, your time, and your wisdom. Thank you very much for coming, and all the very best.

The meeting is adjourned.