CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 10, 1998

• 0842

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the Canadian Heritage Committee to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) I'd like

[English]

...to open a parliamentary forum on cultural polic, international trade, and technology in the new millennium.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome and offer our sincere thanks to our guests. It's an honour to have you among us this morning and I'd like to welcome you to this seminar.

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

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

Our predecessor committee began this study before the last election and fortunately this committee decided the work would be continued.

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

• 0845

[English]

As I say, the three main challenges facing us as far as this study goes are, first of all, the advent of new technologies, the evolution of the global economy and global trade, and the changing demography of the country.

First of all, as committee members we wanted to inform ourselves thoroughly. We've had briefings from officials of the various departments. We've had briefings from experts on the evolution of technology, on international trade, on demographics. This week, in this phase two, we want, through these round tables, to cover certain sectors specifically and get input from you, as people who practise culture on the front lines, so to speak.

We have divided the round tables into various sectors, this morning the arts, afterwards heritage, institutions, the publishing industry, film and video, and then broadcasting and sound recording. In following weeks we are going to hear from representatives of the various federal cultural institutions, after which, to wind up our work, we're going to travel across Canada with an accent on seeing and hearing from the smaller communities in the land, to find out how they manage to survive in the cultural milieu, how they manage to put together cultural institutions and cultural instruments which can survive, and how they will face the challenges of the next century.

Obviously in a forum such as this, in a short time, it is impossible for people to cover a lot of ground, but we want to cover as much ground as possible. At the back of your programs we have given you five questions we will want to see addressed, but not all of you will want to address the five questions. I would suggest that for our work this morning two questions perhaps will interest you the most for this particular round table, the first one this theme: from the range of federal cultural support measures currently in place or used in the past, which ones worked, according to your estimation, in your own sector or industry, and which did not? Perhaps the second question could be the last one: what role should the federal government perform in the future to support the cultural sector industries? For example, should the federal government exercise the roles following, or others, in this field, and how should it do so, as a legislator, regulator, owner, and operator of national institutions, as funding partner, patron of the arts, business developer, or promoter? Obviously you are free to address any of the others.

Naturally the two languages are in order here, so you can speak in either language, as you choose. We hope we won't get speeches but very brief interventions, so there's an exchange of opinions on a flowing basis.

To start off our work, I would like to ask the participants to introduce themselves very briefly—not a total bio, just your name and what you do at present—starting with Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): I'm the MP for West Nova, in southwestern Nova Scotia.

Mr. Martin Bragg (Managing Director and Producer, The Canadian Stage Company): My name is Martin Bragg. I'm the managing director and producer of The Canadian Stage Company, Toronto.

Mr. Eddy Bayens (Musician): I'm Eddy Bayens, a musician.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw (General Director, Canadian Opera Company): I'm Richard Bradshaw, general director of the Canadian Opera Company.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Michel Sivry (Director of the Quebec Visual Artists Group): My name is Jean-Michel Sivry. I'm Director of the Quebec Visual Artists Group, a professional association with a membership of 1,000 painters, sculptors, artists, video producers, photographers, etc.

• 0850

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): I'm Jim Abbott, member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia. I'm heritage critic for the Reform Party.

Ms. Valerie Wilder (Executive Director, National Ballet of Canada): I'm Valerie Wilder, executive director of the National Ballet of Canada.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I'm Sam Bulte. I'm the member from Parkdale—High Park, former chairman of the board of the Canadian Stage Company and a passionate patron and advocate of the arts in both my private life and my public sector life.

Ms. Myrna Kostash (Chair, Canadian Conference of the Arts): I'm Myrna Kostash, from Edmonton. I'm a full-time writer.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I'm Paul Bonwick, member of Parliament, Simcoe—Grey.

Ms. Carol Shields (Author): Carol Shields, from Winnipeg. I'm a writer and playwright.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): My name is Mauril Bélanger. I am the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[English]

The only poems I've ever written are not for publication. The only play I've ever been in was The Ecstasy of Rita Joe. The only film I've ever produced was in grade nine. It was a half-hour special on the Second World War, on super-eight film. When I've made any attempt to sing, I've been told to keep my day job. But I am an avid reader, I love music—it moves me—a night out on the town without theatre is not complete, and Canadian film is not all that bad.

Thank you.

The Chairman: The floor is yours. Who wants to kick it off?

Ms. Myrna Kostash: I have a prepared statement.

The Chairman: Ms. Kostash.

Ms. Myrna Kostash: As I was walking up the hill this morning, wondering how I was going to open my remarks, I thought I'd start with what is probably the most basic fact about my appearance here: this is unpaid labour.

As a full-time freelance writer, I do not make a salary, clearly. Anyone else in this room who's on a salary is of course continuing to be paid while they're sitting here listening to me. I am not.

This is simply a fact of life. If you're a freelance artist, you are constantly appealed to by members of cultural bureaucracies and political classes and so on to allow your brain to be picked or to engage in colloquies such as this. We invariably accept this, even though it means we are volunteering our time. Not to do so is also sending a message—that we don't care to be communicated with, that we have nothing to say, or that we were too busy.

We are in a sense always being caught in this dilemma of being invited to donate our time. I always ask if I'm going to be paid. The response is always, of course, a giggle: “Ha, ha. You must be joking.”

So I would like to suggest, as my opening comment here, that all those of you who are collecting a salary donate four hours' worth of it to the Canadian Conference of the Arts.

My second point is that I've thought about how I've been able to survive for 28 years as a full-time writer in this country. I'm a beneficiary of a decision made by the Canadian public and by the politicians some generations ago that investment in culture was a public good. If I look at the range of measures that have been put in place over the past 25 or 30 years, I can see that in every instance some decision that was made to make a public investment in a program or whatever is something that directly or indirectly enabled me to continue to work as a writer.

This includes, first, the obvious Canada Council grants; support for readings in communities; the public lending rights program; travel to international conferences; support for writers in residencies at libraries; and money to pay writers at the CBC, the National Film Board, etc.

Frankly, without that kind of investment I simply don't know how someone like me could have happened. If I look at the future of writing in Canada, with the very much reduced cultural budget and cultural investment, I don't know how the next generation of Kostashes is going to arrive. We're kidding ourselves if we think there's going to be a lot of money coming from the private sector. Even when it does come, I suggest that this is extremely problematic, as we're seeing now in the so-called Pepsi-Coke wars at the universities.

Recently at the University of Alberta there was a massive vote in favour of.... I should put it another way. The students, or those who voted, voted in favour of accepting a monopoly of a Coca-Cola franchise on the campus of the University of Alberta in exchange for $5 million spread over the next three years, over 30,000 students, which as somebody pointed out is going to benefit students at about $57 a head in exchange for what in fact is a commercial intrusion into what had been considered public space.

• 0855

Not to monopolize this, just to get it going, I want to end on this note. I'll probably have things to say as we go along.

If I look at what was the framing of the environment in which I began work as a writer in the early 1970s, it was this kind of ideological or ethical, moral, political Zeitgeist, or Weltanschauung or something, which was then called Canadian cultural nationalism. It was a kind of publicly supported world view in which Canadians as a collective and as a civil society said yes to public support for, public investment in, arts and culture as a public good. It's the shedding of the idea of the public, the intervention into the idea of the public space and the public good, the privatization of the notion of public good, which has me so terribly worried about what is going to happen to cultural investment in Canada now. We look to government as one of the sectors to shore up that notion of the public good.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Kostash. That's an excellent and challenging start.

Go ahead, Mr. Bayens.

Mr. Eddy Bayens: Thank you.

I'll take some comfort from the fact that CCA, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, does issue tax-deductible receipts, if you want to make a donation to the CCA, as Myrna just invited you to do. In fact, I will make my contribution out of what I gain from this particular meeting.

To be more specific, someone suggested to Mr. Bélanger that he should not give up his day job the moment he started singing. Well, I've been singing in this country since 1953—“singing” in broader terms, as a musician—yet I continue to answer the question “I know you're a musician, but what do you do for a living?” I thought that after 20 or 30 years of playing I would finally have got beyond that, but I still have to answer that question.

That's a sad commentary. It's a sad commentary from the point of view that the amount of preparation it takes to be a musician is not three or four years, as in law. It's not seven or eight years, as in medicine. It is some fifteen or twenty years of preparation that starts at the age of five and continues until one finally lies down listening to the trumpeter playing “The Last Post”. It is that ongoing. Yet the rewards are rather paltry, to say the least.

Then we are told, as musicians, that we are very important to this culture. I need to remind myself that satisfaction has to come from within, because it does not come from without. I see the institutions that kept me alive, in a sense, so I didn't have to take a day job that differs from music, organizations such as the NFB, the CBC, and the Canada Council, are being reduced financially to the point where they cannot in any way fulfil their mandate, whatever that is.

Then I find myself to be classed as a self-employed individual and I have no access at all to any of the services the government is supplying to other Canadian workers. And I do not consider myself an artist. I consider myself a worker who is looking for fair remuneration.

I used to be able to do a number of recordings for the CBC. The orchestra I play in did regular recordings for the CBC. None of that is available any more, because of the drastic cutbacks some of you have decided to implement, for whatever reason. If we are indeed so important to this society, to this culture, for goodness' sake, why do you cut back the very things that give us an identity as Canadians, for instance the CBC? It's a very good medium to give us that identity.

• 0900

I'm reminded of Churchill, who, when he brought in his war budget in 1939, cut back all contributions to various aspects of government, except for national defence and culture. When he was asked why he did not cut back on culture, because that was seen as somewhat frivolous, his answer was rather interesting. He said “If we are not prepared to protect our culture, why we are fighting this war?”

What gives us an identity as Canadians sitting on top of a similar nation, culturally speaking? We attempt to be different, and I'd like to contribute to the difference. It is our culture; nothing else. That has been demolished by the constant reduction in the ability of those institutions—the National Film Board, the CBC, the organizations that are supposed to protect us, the CRTC, HRDC. All these organizations that are supposed to protect us either misunderstand their purpose or they have been demolished or, as in the case of the CBC, disembowelled. They can simply not fulfil that purpose. That affects me directly—not in an idealistic sense. It affects me personally because I have no more income from those institutions. That should concern you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bragg.

Mr. Martin Bragg: Thank you very much. With respect to my colleagues, I think what I'd like to do is go back to the agenda, if I could. I'd like to address the first, the third, and the fifth questions.

I think we're in a very exciting time in Canada. I'm not going to dwell on cutbacks. I've spent my entire life in this business, starting out as an actor in 1972, and it's never been an easy time in the arts. I think those of us who are involved in the arts recognize this sometimes when we proceed. I wish it were different, but I don't think it's ever going to be different in our lifetime.

I think this committee—and I feel very honoured to have been asked to participate today—is facing a really significant challenge and a very exciting challenge, because Canada does not have at this point a cultural policy. I would encourage this committee, out of these sessions, to really come up with some kind of definition of what we think Canadian cultural policy will be.

We're facing the new millennium. I think the arts in this country.... Looking back to when I started in 1972, Carol wasn't writing; I hadn't heard of Myrna; in theatre there were the Stratford and Shaw festivals; there was the Canadian Opera Company, the National Ballet; there were a handful of arts organizations. When the Canada Council became stronger and had increased funding, you saw a tremendous amount of artist-run groups spring up across this country. There was a program introduced in the late sixties and early seventies called the local initiatives program. We're still feeling the repercussions and the echoes of those programs. I wouldn't be sitting here today if it weren't for the local initiatives program.

I think the government has done something in this country to be able to start cultural organizations and to begin the process of defining what our culture is.

The other thing that is really exciting right now, at least for me in my arts organization, is that I think we're on the edge of becoming a net importer of culture, where we end up.... My organization, for example, has in the past probably imported more plays from the United States or England than we've actually produced on our own. I think over the next three to five years, going into the millennium, our organization is going to be turning that around. We'll be producing far more works by Canadians than we will by foreign artists. I think a way in which the government can be extremely proactive is by promoting the exportation of Canadian product, not only its films but also its writers, its playwrights, because I think we have a tremendous amount of talent and we have a huge amount of investment built up.

On the third point, I think the government actually has a role in all of these points. I think it has a role as a legislator. I think it has a role as an operator of national institutions. I think it has a role as a patron of the arts. I think it has a role as a business developer, and it should look for new and exciting ways of trying to create a network in this country that provides some kind of groundwork for individual contributions from Canadians in their local communities to those arts organizations. I think from my perspective the old days of tons of government money are over, but I think the government can assist us in trying to find new and innovative ways for us to be able to get money out of our communities.

Last but not least, help us promote Canadian culture abroad.

• 0905

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bragg. Ms. Shields.

Ms. Carol Shields: I want to talk to the first question, about the support we enjoy at the moment and have in the past—particularly, the Canada Council often working in conjunction with provincial arts councils.

As you know, in 1957, when the Canada Council was founded, we decided that we could afford our own culture. I think the results of that initiative were enormous.

There's a statistic I'd like to quote to show how this flowering came soon after the founding of the Canada Council. In the year 1960 there were five novels published in Canada. That was considered a bumper crop. A year ago, there were five Canadian novels published in London in one week. This is the distance we've gone. Our writers are now recognized internationally.

That's important, but to me, it's more important that they're recognized at home. To be recognized means to be read, and as Myrna has suggested, to be paid for what they write. That's a big part of it.

Writers may be slightly different from performing artists, but not altogether. This is what writers need. They need, I think, three things. First, they need to feel that the work they do is valued in their community and in their country.

They need something else, which might take some explanation: they need to feel that they are part of their own community, that there are people around them doing what they are doing. In Winnipeg we have a couple of dozen writers, maybe more. It's important to me to feel that sense of my working community around me. My heart goes out to people who are trying to be writers, to live a writing life, in rural parts of this country.

The third thing writers need is someone occasionally to say, “You're doing okay. You can go on doing what you're doing.” As much as I dislike the proliferation of literary prizes—I don't think writing is a competition, or should ever be thought of as that—this is one place where prizes have a role. It's some form of validation, saying, “You're doing okay”.

Sometimes that prize can be in the form of a grant. Grants go to writers so they can buy blocks of time. Sometimes an early grant in a writer's life functions as a sort of permission: Here is the money. This will allow you time. It's our way of saying we believe that what you do is valuable to our culture.

I recently finished a term with the Canada Council. I found the direction.... Of course, some of the things the Canada Council eliminated from their program were done under the siege of cuts. The threat of cuts made it necessary for the Canada Council to cut down in areas that I think are vitally important. One of those is education. What we want to do is develop an audience for the future. Martin would say how important it is to develop a theatre audience. Richard, I'm sure, would talk about an audience for opera. We need an audience for writers, too. This is why we need Canadian books in our curriculum, in our canon. I would like to see, by the year 2000, every child in Canada given a book by a Canadian writer. Children, education—the building of audiences.

• 0910

There's something else, and it has to do with this idea of our need for a community. The Canada Council has recently cut down support for NASOs, as they're called, which means national arts service organizations—for example, the Writers' Union of Canada. That support was withdrawn, so it was no longer possible to bring writers together once a year to be together. In fact, this is vitally important to writers who live outside Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. We are the ones who are out in need of this network that has essentially been taken from us.

So I hope I've expressed the good news and the more worrying news.

There's one thing that writers, and I think everyone in the arts, are reluctant to get into, but I'm going to get into it. That is, to repeat what has been repeated hundreds of times, how much the arts sector contributes, not just to the culture of the country but the economy of the country. There are almost one million cultural workers in Canada. It's a huge sector of the economy. We like to talk about art feeding our soul, but I think sometimes we have to talk about what it does for the economy.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Before recognizing Ms. Bulte and then Ms. Wilder, I just want to.... You expressed an idea about prizes and awards. I think today or tomorrow the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are going to talk about what Canada is going to do for the millennium, and maybe this is the kind of idea we should be discussing here. Should there be prizes and awards in the cultural sector to celebrate the millennium? Maybe these are the ideas that you can push forward, and we will be very pleased to tell Mr. Gray about them, or start writing to him.

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to jump in on what Ms. Shields was saying about the importance of developing your audience. I want to talk about concrete examples.

Canada Book Day is coming up April 23. I happen to have an interest in that. I got a correspondence about that, promoting Canadian writers and Canadian books for children. How do we get that message across to government officials, members of Parliament, to play a role in that?

I think it's a wonderful idea, and I believe it was the Writers' Union that put out a little brochure about that: give a book to all the children who are born in your riding that day; go to the schools and really encourage. How do we do that? What other concrete things are there we can do? Again, I think if you're talking about developing your audiences or education, it starts at those early ages where we show how important things are.

There have been articles in Time, as well, with respect to music and the arts, that children who take music score much higher on their science aptitude tests and their mathematical aptitude tests. Also, there was an article in the Globe and Mail at the beginning of December. They're finding that arts, not computers, make kids creative.

So again, in addition to those things that have worked, how do we focus that? It's almost like doing a whole paradigm shift when we look at Fraser Mustard's research on early childhood development, how nurturing from zero to three years of age is very important.

How do we combine all those things we're learning right now to get to the children, and basically for government to say we should be spending more money in educating, having children concentrate in the various sectors of the arts, rather than just on learning how to use computer software or hardware?

I open it up to everybody, to build on what you said there.

With respect to the national arts services organizations, I think that's very relevant, because I know the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, PACT, also brought people together once a year, where I attended on the board side to bring not just the artists together, but the boards across Canada together with the artists. I think that plays a very valuable role, because it also brings the private sector to show what the needs of the artists are, again, not just in the big cities but in the small towns. I too think it's important that those kinds of resources are available.

The Chairman: Maybe in the course of the discussion somebody will pick up your question.

Ms. Wilder.

Ms. Valerie Wilder: I was going to say something else, but maybe I will pick up on—

The Chairman: You can pick up on that, and say something else as well.

Ms. Valerie Wilder: Okay.

• 0915

Absolutely. We in the arts perhaps haven't made...as aware as we need to some of the studies that are coming out, showing the importance of studies in the arts, as opposed to studying a computer, in indicating later and current scholastic aptitude and success. I know Bill Gates has in his mind an idea of spending millions of dollars to put a computer on every child's desk. I would argue maybe we would be better off, according to the studies, to put an artist on every child's desk. Of course, with my dancers it would bring a whole new meaning to dancing on tables.

I think we have to look at that. It's not as it appears.

To go back, I was very heartened by the charge the minister, the Honourable Sheila Copps, made to this committee, highlighting the importance of safeguarding our capacity to tell stories. As a sector, the arts are working in the trenches, trying to preserve and promote the ability to write, dance, sing, compose, and draw stories about who and what we are as Canadians.

We are functioning in a bit of a no man's land. We have neither the subsidy nor the respect of some of our colleagues in Europe, nor the history of entrepreneurial private support which has been developed over the years south of the border. I think Marty is right that we're at an exciting point where we have to develop a Canadian model, a sustainable, ongoing Canadian model, which can build on successes of the past and can help promote and create the unique voice we need for our country. I think without a partnership with government we absolutely will be overwhelmed by a tidal wave of popular culture.

This morning I heard on television that ESPN is spending $100 million this week in launching a new sports magazine. I know for a fact that in one day in the heavy promotion period of The Lion King on Broadway $750,000 was spent for print advertising just in the New York Times.

There's a huge wave out there. We need to find a unique Canadian voice, and it's only in partnership with government and with all of us pulling together that we're going to do that.

For dance, which is a relatively young art form, and I suspect for many in the performing arts, the Canada Council has been the single most effective support measure we've enjoyed. I think that's because arts policy through the council has been developed in collaboration and in consultation with artists and art professionals, those of us out there making a living in this world. It hasn't been just a static funding body. It has adjusted and responded to us as we changed and grew, which indeed we did, as Carol pointed out, certainly in dance.

In the beginning there were just the National Ballet, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, and a couple of smaller modern dance companies. Now there's a proliferation of co-ops, independent artists, diverse art forms, within our milieu. They have just mushroomed. They are taking the international world by storm as well. We have grown a lot, and it makes no sense to have made this kind of an investment and not find some way to sustain it.

The other mechanism which has been very good for dance has been the touring support possible through Foreign Affairs, which has given our artists the opportunity to be seen, be judged, almost always extremely favourably, outside Canada. I think we are able to promote national objectives as well as or better than any trade mission. I think that whole area needs to be revisited and looked at again, and policies and guidelines need to be developed in that area.

• 0920

The Chairman: Mr. Bradshaw, did I see you ask for the floor? I think so. All right, go ahead.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: I applaud what my colleague, Martin Bragg, had to say.

I was a little worried, though, Marty, that you said the days of real government funding are over. If that's so, we should be here discussing what we're putting in place. If we're going to an American model—God forbid, but if that's what we're going to, and certainly in the province of Ontario that's what they're looking to go to—then obviously we need substantial tax change. But it's not just a matter of tax change; it's a generation of education. So even if that were the move, we have a generation of education before we can catch up.

I can give you a lot of good news about what is happening in my company in terms of the subscriptions we're selling. It's 40% up over three years in development, a complete change-around financially, but we're still behind, because over the last three years we've lost $1.6 million in government funds. The increase in development and the increase in subscriptions and the increase in single ticket sales is merely helping us to stand still. We're still $1.6 million behind, and we're funding a deficit at the moment. So if government funding is indeed over, then we should be talking about something else today.

The Canada Council on the whole does a pretty good job. They have impossibly meagre funds to do it. We have a big issue at the moment in the funding of training of Canadian artists. Again, speaking for my company, we have an ensemble studio program, which has trained a generation of Canadian singers, from Ben Heppner through. I'm sad to tell you—and I can line up the singers—that 100% of those singers are working nearly totally in other countries, not because they don't want to work in Canada, but because there's a pathetic shortage of work for Canadian singers in Canada.

We do six productions a year. Winnipeg does three. Some other companies do two. That's not a living. Ben Heppner is perhaps eligible for one of those every two years, so what does he do? He goes elsewhere. And every other Canadian artist who we train, if they're going to make a living, has to go and earn it somewhere else. I find that deeply depressing, because this is a great country with a tremendous cornucopia of talent, and not just in singers—look at directors such as Lepage, Girard, and Atom Egoyan—but they're all working largely elsewhere. That's something we should wake up to.

We're not talking about a fault largely in the structure. The Canada Council was admirable recently. The government gave them another $25 million and it was immediately disbursed to major companies around and to individual artists, but they had $25 million to get rid of.

An arts analyst recently said that $100 million, which must be a small bone in Paul Martin's budget, would at least temporarily sort out the problems of the arts in Canada. It wouldn't make it healthy. Most of the companies that I work with abroad in co-productions have a budget in that company alone that is bigger than the whole funding for the arts in Canada.

So we're not really, in the end, talking about structural problems; we're talking about vulgar money. And until we look realistically at what it takes to fund the arts, then to some extent we're in cloud cuckooland.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bradshaw.

Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I just want to ask a couple of questions to clear up some things I've been hearing from Mr. Bradshaw.

The effort that was made by your company and other organizations across the country to diversify their sources of revenues and their ongoing support, would it have been as intense or would it have happened at all had it not been for a general reduction in the government support? Are there ways governments can encourage or facilitate that diversification, and if so, what are those?

Second, Madam Wilder, you talked about a tidal wave that's just out there that could sweep us away, and you referred to creating our own little wave in Canada and protecting ourselves from the tidal wave. Am I to take it that you're referring to the American tidal wave? I sense that you equated popular culture with the tidal wave and then equated both to the United States, and I want to make sure that is, or isn't, what you were trying to say.

• 0925

Ms. Valerie Wilder: I think much of the popular culture does happen to originate in the U.S., and many of the dollars being spent in it. It wouldn't necessarily have to be, but because they're our neighbours, it becomes more of a closer tidal wave.

I bring that out as a validation, really, of perhaps past decisions that have always made it clear that our culture—and it may not even be in terms of protection—is something worth supporting, and making sure it happens.

There are certain art forms, such as ballet and opera, that basically do not exist anywhere in the world without some form of subsidy.

If you're thinking of quitting your day job anytime soon—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Hopefully not, but it's not up to me.

Ms. Valerie Wilder: —you may be interested to know that I sell for approximately 48¢ a product that costs me $1 to create. That's never going to change. So I have to find that extra 52¢, whether it be through government subsidy or a generation of education to change our whole country around in terms of private enterprise.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have no debate with that. I support that. I have no qualms about it. I just want to pursue the popular culture notion.

What is popular culture? Is it a function of masses or of money? What indeed is popular culture? What do you categorize as being that? What do you put in that bag?

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): If I could add to that, do any of you folks here think you're involved in the production of popular culture?

A voice: Oh, yes. Sure.

The Chairman: Hold it a minute. I'd like Mr. Bragg to briefly address what Mr. Bradshaw said. Mr. Bayens and Mr. Sivry have also asked to speak.

So if you could, Mr. Bradshaw, be brief when you address Mr. Bélanger's question.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: I'm in a difficult position, because I'm in an art form that is economically.... It's politically incorrect to spend so much money on any one night's work. But I think I can only address it this way. When we fight about whether the money's going to big institutions or whether it's going to individual artists, on any one night Valerie or I will employ hundreds of individual artists. Whether or not the Government of Canada gives money to the arts, Ben Heppner and Robert Lepage—and, for that matter, Richard Bradshaw—will do fine. But if you want those hundreds of artists who depend on the production of opera or ballet to survive—and I'm talking about every form of technician, including wig maker—then there has to be a subsidy to those apparently elephantine eaters of money.

There is no quick way around it. There's no way, finally, of saying the government can help a bit here or help a bit there. The government does marvellously, for example, in helping with a bit of training. I'm bothered, as I said before, that, having trained the people, there's something for them to do.

I don't know if that answers the question, but it's what I wanted to say.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's fine.

The Chairman: Mr. Bayens.

Mr. Eddy Bayens: I had difficulty when I came here when I saw the word “culture”. That in itself deserves a week of discussion rather than just the two hours we have here.

Mr. Godfrey raised the question of what indeed is popular culture, and whether anyone here contributes to that. Well, I have to reduce all this to...and that's the reason I'm here. I could be here under other guises. I'm the working musician who works for a paycheque, hopefully. It doesn't matter to me whether I crank out a recording for a country and western band or whether I work in the pit for the opera. I do all of that. My question is, simply, please pay me what, in some people's eyes, it's worth.

For that I look to some protection from government agencies. We talk about culture and the Canada Council. We talk about all these organizations. But I look to Human Resources Development Canada, for instance, for some protection so that when someone comes into this country, the question asked is, does he replace a Canadian worker? It's something as simple as that.

Now, I see in the recent summary report on immigration not just numbers to document this but also a proposal that companies operating in Canada with 20 or more employees do not need employment validation any more. That is affecting me as a worker. This has nothing to do with so-called culture, but it affects me.

• 0930

It also said:

Our report also recommends exemption from the requirement to obtain employment authorization where a person seeks to enter Canada for 30 days or less...

That includes all the American musicians who come here to play a gig in some bar for a week—that's only seven days, less than 30 days—and it replaces my employment possibility. There doesn't seem to be the protection of my scant working opportunities. I'm talking here about a working musician rather than culture as such. It is all part of our culture. We are all part of this nation's culture.

Revenue Canada is also.... It is time, as with the fishermen in the maritime provinces, that musicians and artists in general have their own classification as far as Revenue Canada is concerned.

I don't even want to talk about the tobacco legislation when we talk in terms of having to look to the corporate sector for funding, not to the government. Then you make it impossible for us to find those sponsors, because there's no tax advantage, nor is there.... There's an ideological difference with getting tobacco sponsorship. That is going to affect all the jazz festivals right across this nation. Now, I agree with the Department of Health—and I cough, too, and I don't even smoke—but the fact is that we depend on that for the survival of all those festivals. You make a decision here on the basis of health, but it affects me as a working musician. Please think about those things when you make those decisions.

This is as brief as I can be.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, our first speaker will be Mr. Sivry.

[English]

It's getting interesting, Mr. Sivry, so take your time. You've been very silent and very patient all this time. Take your time. After that, I'll ask people who have spoken already to be brief.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Michel Sivry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take up more time than necessary. I'd like to speak on this subject of popular culture. I'd like to propose a makeshift definition of popular culture from the standpoint of the visual arts, namely the culture that produces objects for the entertainment and pleasure of the general public.

In the field of visual arts, however, we are faced with far more complex objects reflecting our collective spirit. It is important to understand that the more we extend the limits of this complexity, the greater the effort of comprehension required and the greater the difficulties, the farther we are removed from the economic market. It is quite striking to note that the present visual arts sector seems to be going against the current of economic laws.

Politicians must realize that most artists today do not work for the sake of financial profitability: very often their works are not even intended to be marketed and are not even up for sale. We have only to think of in situ installations, for example, or of various kinds of interventions or works where the presence of the artist is required and an inherent part of the work. These are events and ephemeral works of art that do not allow for any economic profitability.

All this leads us to the conclusion, as far as Canada's long term policy orientation in this respect is concerned, that artistic creation must be supported for itself without any particular criteria of profitability or efficiency coming into play. We must realize that behind this notion of financial profitability there is another even more critical one, namely cultural profitability that defines us as a society and that allows Canada to have an impact beyond its borders and to promote the development of ideas.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sivry.

[English]

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just before I make a comment, I'd like to reveal that I have a very personal interest in the arts from the point of view that my son-in-law is a musician and composer—

Mr. Eddy Bayens: I feel sorry for him.

Mr. Jim Abbott: —so my daughter and wonderful grandchildren are supported in this way. So I have very much a personal and emotional interest in this thing.

• 0935

That having been said, though, it strikes me as being a rather interesting concept to create a one-way wall around Canada. My son-in-law manages to get gigs and do his composing and so on, and to gain audience, and it just strikes me that if we are to grapple with the concept of exporting our art, exporting our culture, we must be very, very careful we do not wish for a wall. If we have a wall, indeed, Ben Heppner will have a problem, and so will other artists of much less distinction than Ben Heppner.

The question I would like to put out, though, is it strikes me that a common element right from Ms. Shields to Mr. Bradshaw has been that of audience; the discussion about how we can create audience. I may suggest Mr. Bradshaw was even aggressively bemoaning the fact that there was no audience...or not no audience but that, for example for Mr. Heppner, perhaps there should be a larger Canadian audience.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: There is no work for them.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, it's the same thing—

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: A sold-out audience or a sold-out season is dependent on so much money to put that season on. I'm merely saying we should be doing twelve operas a year; we're doing six. If we were doing twelve, all the artists I've talked about.... Valerie can talk about line-ups in Europe. They are totally Canadian trained, but they are there because there is insufficient work here.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But if you put on a show, does it mean people are going to turn up? Is there not a limit—

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I question that. In other words, I'm suggesting that with a population as broadly dispersed as we have in Canada, only 30 million people and really only three or four pockets, it's much the same problem as we were discussing with ESPN, where, for example with the NHL, you have the Edmonton Oilers, the Quebec Nordiques, perhaps the Ottawa Senators, who knows, forced to go to a larger audience. Just putting on more shows, in my judgment, does not mean you are going to get more audience.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: You're hitting right on the argument. This is the exact point. Valerie said earlier—what was your statistic—for every 48¢—

Ms. Valerie Wilder: A dollar.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: A dollar.

Let's take a precise example. We just did Turandot. It sold out to the walls. If we could have done more performances we would have, and we would have sold them. The scalpers were scalping $250 a ticket. So we're sold out completely. We budgeted it economically. How much do you think we lose on a sold-out Turandot? After government grants are in, after everything is in, we lost just over $400,000. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is as good as it gets. If you want to put on an opera, you're losing even if you sell it out.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Then you're not charging enough for your tickets. It's a case of supply and demand.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: Our tickets are already obscene; $115 per top ticket is obscene.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yet they will pay $250 to a scalper.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: Yes, but what about the poor people who would like to come in but who can no longer come in if the only way we can justify doing anything is if you can pay, you can get in?

The argument is not just in Canada. It's across the world. Are you saying somebody who has a third of the subsidy of another country has to charge three times as much for tickets? Is that a civilized way to run it?

The Chairman: I think Mr. Abbott has raised a very interesting point.

But also, Mr. Abbott, you might think that popular productions run almost for a whole year, Show Boat and all this, even for a year or two years, and they find people to come all the time. So it's an interesting thing to discuss.

Mr. Eddy Bayens: Mr. Abbott, I'm not saying there should be a wall around Canada. I'm saying the wall should be porous in both directions. If I go to Australia, I need to sign a document on my visa that I will not look for work. I want that same protection to be in Canada. I want to have access to the United States in the same way as Americans have access to Canada.

I'm not saying we should build a wall around ourselves. Let there be a level playing field. That is what I'm suggesting. And this document suggests the contrary.

• 0940

The Chairman: I don't want you to fight for space here, so excuse me, Ms. Bulte, Ms. Kostash has been asking for—

Ms. Myrna Kostash: Sarmite had her hand up before me.

The Chairman: All right.

Ms. Myrna Kostash: And she's quite agitated.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: And more so than usual, only with you, Jim, on this. I'm going to convince you yet. That's my goal in life before I leave here.

When we're talking about populist theatre and audiences, there's a question that Mauril asked to Richard earlier, I think with respect to getting other investors, aside from the government, as a partner.

My fear again is that government alone cannot do this job, or the private sector cannot, because the private sector alone, in the sense of funding, also brings with it censorship. They will only sponsor what isn't offensive to their client base. If you have a play like Oleanna, which talks about sexual harassment, did it or did it not happen, you cannot get an insurance company or bank to touch that, because it will offend their client base. So that's one thing. We can't just leave it to the private sector.

Then we as a government have to find ways to find those American tax ways to make those things work. But when we talk about popular culture and audiences, one of the things that theatres or people are accused of many times is that we're too populist.

There was an article that appeared in the New York Times Magazine about two weeks ago—and I apologize that it's not also in French—on the artist or audience as a result of focus groups. What has happened is we spend too much time on focus groups, people who don't know anything about the visual arts. It starts off by saying that if you ask a person “Do you like this?”, it turns out to be the paint-by-number set. They don't know anything about what they're talking about, but it's aesthetically pleasing to them or to the masses, so then we produce it and that's what becomes populist. We're doing it to build audiences for people who don't really know what art is. In all forms, be it writing, be it theatre, be it dance, we're relying too much on focus groups.

When I speak to someone at the CBC, they laugh at me and say it won't go by unless it has been tested, audience-tested. If it's not audience-tested, it's not going to go.

I think we have to find as a government a role to play so that we're not creating art as a result of a focus group but we are allowing artists, the creative people, to create art, not the audiences teaching us what art is but the artist being allowed to show what art is, and the development of original Canadian artistic product, no matter what form it is—visual, dance, theatre, written. I think that's important.

So I think we have to be careful when we start talking about audiences that the audiences don't dictate art. Again, I would urge you all to read this New York Times Magazine article—I have copies—that we're spending too much time on what our audience wants and not enough on the creator and the artist.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Kostash.

Ms. Myrna Kostash: I can't believe we've been asked to come here and participate in the discussion and be invited to debate whether or not we're going to support a production of the Canadian Opera Company, as opposed to The Lion King, or that these two things are being put on the table as equal things. Surely the committee on heritage is not concerned about the well-being of Broadway-based musicals that are making billions of dollars, or whatever. That is not the issue here, surely.

I repeat again that somewhere historically, a couple of generations ago, the Canadian public together with politicians made a commitment to public investment in the arts. I can't believe that is being...well, maybe it is; maybe that's what's being questioned or problematized. But I'm here on the assumption that it was a commitment that was made, and now we have all kinds of issues around it but that one is basic.

Specifically, some interesting things have come out. On this thing about audience and about export and so on, back in the days of the debate around the original free trade agreement, Canadian artists were being seduced, or the hope was that we were being seduced, by the argument that opening up our borders to international trade, or whatever, was going to be good for us because we were going to be able to sell our work to the United States.

• 0945

There are indeed, as Carol pointed out, wonderful successes in this regard in the American market and abroad, but there will always be a kind of Canadian writing that will never impress the Americans, and that's the writing that's about us, especially non-fiction. I'm a non-fiction writer and I know this. As a non-fiction writer, with the Canadian society as my subject, I haven't a hope in hell of impressing an American publisher. My last book, which was in fact about eastern Europe in the 1980s, did not make it past a New York publisher because it was too Canadian. What was Canadian about eastern Europe? The fact that a Ukrainian Canadian was writing about it.

There are going to be those kinds of cultural products or activities that will never impress the Americans, so inviting us as artists to support a multilateral agreement on investment or a NAFTA or something has very limited appeal.

Second, the point the artists made in response to that seduction was, “It's all very well to have a hit in New York, but first of all give us our own audiences”, to repeat what Carol was saying so eloquently. Nothing can happen for us as artists until we have a Canadian community or a Canadian audience. That's the first. That's the sine qua non of everything else: that initial relationship between me and my reader in my own community as part of a historical community and so on.

I also want to pick up on something that's been repeated here, and I will underline it as well: What have the budgets done to the Canada Council in terms of support for the artists' service organizations? Carol referred to the vital importance of that annual general meeting of the Writers' Union of Canada and other such annual general meetings as places where we reconstitute ourselves as a literary community once a year. The costs are minimal—they are extremely modest—but when you cut them out, you do a devastation.

It's been pointed out that Mr. Martin won't even notice that these funds are gone—they're such a blip—but boy, do they make a difference to writers when you can no longer go to your annual general meeting or you can no longer provide this or that service that these organizations so admirably fulfil.

Finally, here's a new topic, this question of ownership. Those of us who are working with the Canadian Conference of the Arts are now being invited to think about and consider issues of ownership. Is this where the emphasis should be in helping evolve and articulate a cultural policy?

A generation or two ago it was. As a Canadian cultural nationalist from the 1970s, Canadian-owned is the only way to go. Well, this is now being problematized or refigured: perhaps the issue is outcomes and not ownership. I would invite you to engage with us in this exceedingly interesting, important, and crucial question about whether it's important that Canadians own the cultural infrastructure or its instruments.

I used to think that this was the case, until of course I saw what happened when Chapters came to town. When Chapters was organized—and I don't know whether Carol would agree with me on this or not—there was a certain sense of relief that we were going to have Chapters and we weren't going to have Barnes & Noble. Well, guess what? Chapters comes to town and acts like it's a Barnes & Noble in very many respects. Not completely—they've been very good in terms of programming with local writers and bringing in reading clubs and all this. They're very user-friendly, I'll give them that, but they drive out independent bookstores. There's always this danger.

In other words, does it matter that they are Canadian-owned if at that scale of operation they have a tremendous impact on Canadian publishers' accounts in terms of returns and blah, blah, blah? Have we served ourselves well by going this route of Canadian ownership of a book chain? I just leave that up in the air for the ongoing discussions you'll have.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thanks very much.

I have a lot of requests: Mr. Muise, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Bonwick, Mr. O'Brien, Mrs. Shields, and Monsieur Bélanger. We'll start with Mark Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 0950

This is an observation and a comment that I would put out, and I'd like a response if I could. In listening to the comments this morning, what I'm sensing is that we're discussing culture and the arts, but what it boils down to is dollars and cents, because without that it doesn't happen. We seem to be going after a certain audience and we need that to make that function from a financial point of view, but I think we only have a limited audience to go towards.

I guess what I'm leading to here is when we think of certain foods or certain drinks, there are some of those that are acquired tastes. Not everyone appreciates certain aspects of the arts because they haven't been exposed to them or they haven't had the opportunity to experience them and get the feel for what that is all about. Maybe what we should be doing is going to the root or to where the people start experiencing these things earlier on in life—in school, where they can really see art and experience it and recognize that it's something that gives them pleasure and has something more than just a nice picture, or a book or music that gives them pleasure and that they get a chance to see.

I remember as a young boy I couldn't appreciate what classical music was all about. No one ever sat down with me and showed me the value. As I grew older I began to like it, and the more I listened to it, the more I appreciated it. Now it's something that's very important to me.

I guess what I'm seeing is that if we want the audiences, which gives us the dollars, we have to give the young people the chance to really start appreciating it. We're going to create an audience that will be there down the road to benefit from that. I don't know if that makes sense. I'd just like comments.

The Chairman: We could comment as we go along. Mr. Bragg.

Mr. Martin Bragg: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I've listened to what Myrna's had to say, and I have just one little point on the Canada Council. I think we have to be a little bit careful. I agree with you that the funding cut by the Canada Council to a specific program is affecting all of us. On the other hand, I don't think we can have it both ways. The Canada Council is an arm's-length agency. We not sitting here addressing Donna Scott and the Canada Council; we're sitting here at the heritage committee. I think it's important, and this group may know how important that is, but I think it's the wrong forum. I think we should go as a delegation. I'd be happy to go, the three of us, and make that point to Donna Scott.

Now I would go back to something Mr. Godfrey said earlier about what is popular culture. If we went around this room, I think everybody would have a different opinion of that. But I do think—and this is where I start to sound a bit nationalistic.... I would love it if at some point Canadians start to become.... Maybe it's back to what Mark said about some kind of education earlier on, and that we be proud about the culture we have and proud about writers like Carol Shields or Wendy Lill and we actually go to those writers first and we're proud. So when somebody comes into our community we say we have world-class writers here; you don't have to go and see The Lion King, because we have Carol Shields or we have Wendy Lill or we have Leslie Arden's The House of Martin Guerre.

I think those are the things I would like to strive for as a producer, as an artist, as an operator of a large cultural institution. I want to take this somewhere so that we don't actually have to go to New York to get some kind of stamp of approval by Canadians that our work is really good.

I also think that at whatever level.... And I'll respond to something Richard said earlier. Richard and I agree and we disagree. I do feel very strongly that there is a place for government funding and government support in the arts. I am unpopular with my colleagues, in that I think that we are in a different time. Valerie said it earlier: we have look and be open to try to find new models in which we can partner with government. Maybe it is shifting, and maybe it is more money from government, but also maybe it's a huge shift so that we actually start to find ways in which we can actually get a better level of support from other sources.

Going after an audience I think is something we will always strive to go after. I think there has to be a level of pride set up in Canadians that we're proud of the cultural institutions, proud of our artists, proud of our writers, proud of our performers and we want to go and see them. I think that's back to starting the next millennium with a huge education program. I agree with Mark a hundred percent.

• 0955

The Chairman: Before I pass to Mr. Bonwick, I should welcome Wendy Lill, one of our colleagues, the NDP critic for heritage.

Two weeks ago Wendy introduced her play, The Glace Bay Miners' Museum, to Ottawa. I had the pleasure of going to see it. There was a full audience, and I'm sure there were audiences all the way along. It was extremely successful. I recommended it to friends, who went. So I'm sure that it has gone very well. It was wonderful.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

The Chairman: It sold out for two weeks, I hear.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Good.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll turn to Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I too want to congratulate Ms. Lill. You received a lot of notice in the papers and what not over the last few weeks. Congratulations.

Before I start I just want to clarify a couple of comments, and specifically those made by Mr. Abbott, because it raised the level of excitement in the committee for a few moments and I don't want it to be misconstrued either by the audience or the witnesses that in fact that's perhaps the popular belief at the table.

There were comments made about creating a wall and we want to promote abroad but we want to restrict within. I didn't hear anybody say that. I leave that up to Mr. Abbott's interpretation, in a very unique way sometimes.

He made a statement with respect to “if you have a show, will they come?” He doesn't necessarily believe that to be true. So if you expand the marketplace, there's not necessarily a need in the marketplace, if I understood that properly. If you take six operas and turn it into twelve, there may not be a marketable need.

All these statements seem to me to fly in the face of the very objectives of this committee. I want to make sure for the record and for the witnesses and the observers that this is certainly not the popular belief of the members of this committee as a whole.

One of the messages that in my interpretation has come through, or a common thread that has come through all the witnesses that have brought forward statements or presentations to us, boils down to something this simple: where's the government prepared to prioritize culture? It's that simple and it's that complicated.

I'll lead into my questions and get a response from whomever. Should there be a more significant or a very significant cultural component or representation on the trade missions that we seem to have a fairly decent success with? If we say yes, then I think that is something the committee—

Ms. Myrna Kostash: It's called the third pillar. Whatever happened to that?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I think that's perhaps something for clarification and we should be putting it forward to the government.

One of the things, and I don't know if I've seen it, is have we done an analysis on culture versus GDP in Canada versus U.S. versus European countries versus Britain to see where we stack up?

Ms. Myrna Kostash: These are available. These statistics are quite well known. Figures per capita, the expenditure per capita in arts and culture, you mean?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: No, I'm not coming from just the private sector, what the investments are, but what the government's commitment is to percentage of GDP to their culture. Now, I hope we don't get tied up in that, because if we're dealing with a GDP that is ten times greater than ours, can we afford to do the same percentage increase? For example, a $25 million increase would equate to a $250 million increase in the U.S. I would like information on that.

We've got the answer on the cultural component. It's a fairly clear message that yes, we should have strong representation there.

Ms. Myrna Kostash: There hasn't been any kind of follow-up or beefing it up or anything.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: One other point was made by Mr. Bayens, and I think this is something we should have in our report as well. If I understood him clearly, he said that if we're going to be dealing with legislation that impacts culture, we should identify what those impacts are going to be and offer solutions to make up any deficiencies that are created out of the said legislation, whether it be tax law or whether it be restriction in any type of industry that is going to have an impact. Maybe for the record I will ask for comments.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bonwick. Good points.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, my apologies for joining the group a little bit late. The arrival of winter in Ottawa caught me unawares.

• 1000

I have a couple of comments and then a question. Having heard my colleague, Ms. Bulte, and agreeing with much of what she said in terms of popular art and so on, I still ask the question rhetorically, is art not in the eye of the beholder? That leads me to a question.

In a former life, as a city councillor in London, Ontario, I served on the Theatre London board with an interesting chap, Larry Lillo, who was director of that theatre company for a few years. We were trying to take on the challenge of creating a wider audience. There was a very real sense in our city that the arts were for elitists—you know, there was a certain sector of the city they didn't appeal to.

Larry was trying to tell people they could come to plays in their jeans. He was trying to do some things that were innovative—in London, anyway—to try to address this charge that the arts were for a certain elite in a snobby part of town, if you will, and not for others. I don't think that's unique to London, Ontario. I think that's a challenge those in the arts face in this country.

This leads me to my question to whomever, Mr. Chairman, as the discussion unfolds. How do we convince the public at large to support funding of the arts? I think it's wrong to assume that this funding will continue, certainly at whatever levels. I know we can say Paul Martin won't miss this much money, but to me, that's not really the point.

I support funding of the arts. Let me put that up front. But the bigger question is, to what extent does the Canadian public support subsidization of the arts in this country? I think it's a very important question. It's a challenge for the artistic community and for the governments that believe in it to convince the people to do it.

Using my own microscopic example of London, Ontario, there was a hell of a fight every year about how many thousands of dollars, literally, city council would vote to the Theatre London board, to Orchestra London, or to other similar organizations.

With the deficit being eliminated, and with us looking now at targeted spending of surpluses, the arts is going to have to compete with every other group. That's how I see it. I wouldn't assume any particular level of continued funding, although I hope with our government there's an assumption there will be some.

How do you convince more of the Canadian public to support subsidization of the arts so that people around here who are elected to office can more readily provide that funding and hopefully increase it? I put that question to you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Ms. Shields.

Ms. Carol Shields: I think you should go to the people of London, Ontario, and explain to them what we have been trying to explain, that if they don't want to go to the play, that's one thing, but the arts are enriching their community economically. This is a tough message to get across, but I think eventually it can be done.

Just a word to you, Mr. Abbott, about raising theatre prices. There's a direct cause-and-effect link here that you might not have considered. If you produce plays with $100 tickets, you will have an expense-account audience. You will not have school teachers going to the theatre. Then you will have playwrights writing for an expense-account audience. We'll have a whole different kind of theatre. We'll be edging into that popular theatre we're so frightened of. Maybe we shouldn't be, but I think we are.

What can the government do besides give us lots and lots of money? They can create an atmosphere in which the arts are valued. For one thing, taxation on books is an obscenity. To remove that—and I wouldn't want to wait until 2000 if it can be done this year—is an indication of where the government stands.

If every child has a profound aesthetic response before the age of, say, 16, then you have that person forever, I would say. It just takes one or two of those kinds of experiences.

• 1005

I have just one more comment. It's about this business of living under the threat of cuts, putting artists in an adversarial position, which is wasteful and terribly demanding of their energy. It's hard enough to create art without becoming minor politicians, begging.

There's a curious relationship here with art and scaling back. Funding to the arts has been, for the last 10 to 15 years, constantly scaled back, but artists do not scale back. Never. Artists do not write a less good book because their livelihood is threatened. They don't thin their paints if they're creating visual art. They don't cut their cast from eight to three just because they're under the gun. Art is always going to push for excellence at the same time the funding is going to be cut back, and here is a serious debating point.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I think the response was to my question—and I appreciate it and I hope there will be more—but quite frankly, it's not enough to point to anyone and say, “Go and tell London, Ontario, of the economic benefit of the arts”. It has to be done in a more comprehensive way. There has to be some thinking it through, which I don't think has been done yet, with all due respect.

While I appreciate everything that's just been said, the reality is there's a percentage of the Canadian public who aren't convinced we should subsidize the arts. There's going to have to be an aggressive, comprehensive, and orchestrated approach to educate them. I submit if that isn't undertaken by somebody—and don't look to the government to do it, realistically—then I think the funding is at risk.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Bélanger and then Mr. Bayens.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've been listening to your comments with interest. Some claims have been made here this morning that I think we should take the trouble to check.

It was said that in the 1950s, a generation or two ago, there was a desire in Canada to support the arts and appropriate instruments were created. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that some research be done on this to find out the amount of government support for the arts since the 1950s in constant dollars in relation to the population and the gross national product. We may find out that there has been a negative trend and there has been in fact a decline in the amount of public support paid by Canadian taxpayers, but I think that this information is necessary. I am by no means convinced and I'd like this matter to be clarified.

So I think we should find out what the government support for the arts was in 1998 and in the 1950s, in constant dollars, in relation to the population and the gross domestic product. Let's find out how this government's contribution has evolved over time because otherwise claims can be made without us knowing the facts. I'd like this research to be done either by the Department of Finance or the Parliamentary Library. I think that this kind of data would be very useful at the present time.

I personally do not think that the public support of the federal government is at risk. For some time there has been an effort to rebalance and to put the public finances in order. Overall, this effort has been successful for the federal government. I think it's a mistake to say that there is no desire on the part of the government party, the Liberal Party of which I am a member, to maintain this contribution and even to provide for increased spending on the arts. Such a desire does exist and I feel quite comfortable in saying publicly that for as long as this government is in power, there will be a desire to invest in the arts. I cannot speak on behalf of other parties. Thank you.

The Chairman: We have about 20 minutes left.

[English]

We have 20 minutes left and I have a huge number of requests to intervene. I will start with Mr. Bayens. Can all of you keep it brief so everybody has a chance? Mr. Bayens, Mr. Godfrey, and Mrs. Lill to start with.

Mr. Eddy Bayens: I'll make a few comments on the things that have been said.

• 1010

Mr. O'Brien, I agree with you: it is difficult to go to the general population and say they must support the arts when they don't identify with it. But an orchestra could be encouraged to play park concerts. An orchestra could be encouraged to play in the schools so that the kids come home and say “We heard something terrific today”. An orchestra in a town teaches the children of the town. Those are the things you do to get community support.

Having said that, I don't know whether we go to the community to ask whether we should subsidize industries, which the government does, and to a far greater extent. For a moment let's not talk about culture; let's talk about it as part of the Canadian economy. By UNESCO's measurement standards, some 900,000 people in Canada are somehow involved in the economics of the arts, the economics of culture, in many different ways. If you look at the GDP—you raised that question of the amount of money spent on culture vis-à-vis GDP—don't just look in the United States. Look at some of the European models and see what is spent there on the arts.

When you talk about foreign trade, do not just talk about trying to sell cultural products abroad. Use culture as a way to sell Canada abroad—that was one of the pillars of foreign trade—as many nations do if they want to enhance their image abroad. Send an orchestra, send a ballet company, send a country band, send whatever will sell Canada. Use that, and then it makes it a bit easier to subsidize these organizations that could provide this type of PR to you.

I agree with what Mark said about schools indeed, but we have this strange patchwork of jurisdictions here. Schools are not a federal jurisdiction. But I take the point that was made earlier: teaching art and teaching music enhances the ability of a child to absorb many other things. It conditions the mind in a way that is still very mysterious to us, but it is a matter of fact that people who study art and music at a very young age do well academically subsequently.

So when we talk about excellence as a nation, don't consider the arts as a frill; don't consider music as a frill. It is a necessity as far as I'm concerned.

We have not talked about technology at all, the new technology. I speak solely as a musician here at the moment. New technology is of no concern to us. New technology was part of us when we quit banging bones together. We have evolved subsequently, but what we need in the new technology from the legislators and the regulators is the protection of our product.

It is now possible on the Internet to access any recording of any orchestra. You just dial it and then you pay for that service. But what about the performer? Where is his slice of that revenue? That needs to be protected in performers' rights, in neighbouring rights, in copyright, and also in digital retrieval rights and the reproduction of that. I would ask you to very carefully consider that type so that you stay up to date, legislatively speaking, with the development of technology. We need to address that at some time in the future.

The Chairman: Just for your information, Mr. Bayens, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is looking at phase three of copyright legislation, which will touch on the new technologies.

Mr. Eddy Bayens: Yes. The problem is that it took some 30 years, and 30 years is a millennium in the—

The Chairman: Mr. Bayens, what is gone is gone. What we are trying to do now is look at the future.

Mr. Eddy Bayens: I appreciate that.

The Chairman: But we take your point.

Mr. Eddy Bayens: There's one final point I would like to make quickly.

The Chairman: Please.

Mr. Eddy Bayens: I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I came a long way and I was greeted by this wonderful weather here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Eddy Bayens: I hear it said that times are changing and so on. I don't believe that the times are changing unless we agree to it. The terms change only when we allow them to change as far as government funding is concerned. So I'm not that easily convinced that we should surrender to the fact that there is less government involvement. It only happens when we allow it to happen. That's my only comment on that.

The Chairman: Well, keep putting the pressure on. Keep banging your instrument loudly.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have one observation, and perhaps it will lead to a question to the authors.

One of the difficulties of aggregating the arts community in one room.... And this is if there might be such a thing as a unified cultural policy. Other than giving more money, I can't think what it is, because each is part of a system and is in a different state right now. In other words, I would say the state of Canadian writing, if you just judge by such popular measures as best-seller lists of hardcovers, fiction or non-fiction, is doing extraordinarily well. There are challenges, on the other hand, for the theatre community, specifically your company right now. There are all sorts of difficult problems.

• 1015

So the idea that we could have an overarching theory other than money is going to be problematic. The only way we're going to be able to come up with a cultural policy that makes any sense is to disaggregate and see what the needs are, whether it's the visual arts, who have totally different needs and problems from opera....

The second observation, which flows from the first, is that.... I want to pick up on the example of Chapters, and indeed we'll call it Barnes & Noble. Here's the test for the authors. If the end point you would like to achieve is a greater generalized audience for Canadian writing and the creation of an institution like Chapters or Barnes & Noble can be proved to create, over time, a greater audience than would have been the case with a bunch of mom-and-pop bookstores, what would you think about the utility of Chapters from an author's point of view and from an audience point of view?

The Chairman: Mrs. Wendy Lill, Mrs. Wilder, Mr. Bragg.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'd like to apologize for being late. I just flew in from Nova Scotia.

I don't like using the words “product” and “consumer” in the arts, but I would just like to make a comment about the consumer and this concept of whether or not Canadians want to support funding for the arts. I believe they do. We are deluged with surveys that poll people on the question “Do you want arts, or do you want police, or do you want a bed in a hospital?” The arts are dropped off the list because we think, well, of course we have to have these things to save our lives, that type of thing. I think it's really a very false kind of research that's being done.

In fact, if you say to people, do you want strong communities in which there is community control, where people are able to read books that are able to rise up from those communities, the voices and the experiences of those communities, I'm sure they would say yes. As parents, we know that in schools we are very happy when local writers come into the schools and we're not simply being deluged by scholastic newsprint-type material.

We have work to do on the consumers. We have work to do on our communities. Our communities are in great danger of rolling over to Home Improvement, American sitcoms. I see it happening in my own home.

I'd say the patient is in danger, and that has to be kept in mind. I raise that flag. I just throw that into the mix.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Wilder.

Ms. Valerie Wilder: I'd just like to address something that's come up twice about educating our young people about the arts. I think it also relates to one of the questions, which is the changing demographic. There is no question that our audience is changing and we need to adjust, connect with them, and be meaningful in this changing environment. There's been a feeling that those of us in dance, music, and the visual arts in a sense are well placed to do that, because we have, we believe, a sort of universal language that goes beyond the written word. But I think in a way we have been deluding ourselves. I think it is still a language. The appreciation for the arts is a language and a skill and has certain aspects that need to be communicated early in a child's life. I think many of us are working very hard in that regard, to make sure that happens within our communities, in interacting with our communities. We have huge non-profit...if we're non-profit in other respects, in those respects we're really non-profit. We actually spend money to make sure those things happen, but they are key.

Just to address some of our earlier discussions about popular culture, let's not forget that we in the arts are very entertaining. We bring great joy to people. As it happens, though, our primary focus—and I guess Mr. Sivry had the best definition: we don't create it only to entertain. We may entertain, but we may have other objectives. That's what differentiates us, and that's why we need to communicate what that difference is to our young people and to our communities, so they will know why they're supporting us, and they will support us.

• 1020

The Chairman: Mr. Bragg and Mr. Bradshaw.

Mr. Martin Bragg: Thank you very much. I would make four points, and I know I'm kind of alone on this.

I do think there is a role for government in supporting the arts, and I think it should be a cornerstone of Canada's cultural policy. But I am not prepared to sit here in 1998 and pretend that my head is in the sand and it's back to 1972.

My organization in 1972 had 80% of its earned revenue coming from three levels of government. Today that level has shrunk to 18%. And do you know what? In spite of what John says, we're actually probably one of the most successful companies in Canada. So something is going on there.

Back to Mr. O'Brien's comment, I also had the opportunity to work with Larry Lillo at the Vancouver Playhouse. He was an amazing artist, and it's too bad he's no longer with us.

I had a lot of conversations with Larry, but one of the things that Larry and I started, which Sam and I continued at the Canadian Stage Company, is that we don't like to use the G-word any more, and I think maybe that should also be a part of the cultural policy. We like to use the I-word. We don't like to talk about grants any more; we like to talk about investment. I think that's what the government can do most, invest in the arts. We're investing in artists, and we're also investing in the future of the country.

While I would agree with Valerie that we don't always set out to entertain, I think we do always set out to provide our audiences with a unique experience that they cannot acquire anywhere else. From my perspective, if we can provide that experience from a uniquely Canadian perspective, then we're moving our Canadian cultural policy forward by leaps and bounds.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bradshaw.

Mr. Richard Bradshaw: I would say two things, briefly, Mr. Chairman.

First, I agree with Mr. O'Brien. I think we have a deep need to be practical and face reality.

When I first went to the Canadian Opera Company, I found out that the audience was basically over 55 years of age and well-heeled. We've spent 10 years trying to change that with programs where people between 18 to 29 years of age can buy five tickets for $40 for the season, and so on.

But it's no good putting our head in the sand and saying it's a good thing, therefore it should be supported. I think we have to be practical.

On the other side of the fence, I think Mr. Bayens rightly said we should look at other models. If we're going to be realistic about changing things in this country, we have to see that Germany spends the equivalent of $15 billion Canadian a year on the arts. People say yes, they have the tradition. We're creating a tradition, and we can't do it with the meagre budget we have at the moment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Sivry.

Mr. Jean-Michel Sivry: I would also like to briefly confirm the need to convince the public that it is appropriate to fund the arts and express my agreement with Mr. O'Brien and the opinions exchanged with Ms. Shields. I might also add that one of the preconceived ideas that we must fight against is the assumption that grants to the arts are mainly or even exclusively to the advantage of artists and cultural organizations. I think it is very important to point out that the first beneficiary of this funding is the public. I'd like to quote an excerpt from a report that was just published by the Canadian Conference of the Arts.

[English]

I will quote it in English:

No reasonable Canadian believes that the purpose of our health care system is to employ doctors. No one complains that our legal system exists only to pay judges, or that we have universities and colleges for the sole purpose of providing jobs to teachers and administrators. We value our health care, legal, and educational systems because of the fundamental benefits they make available to all Canadians who want or need them, whether or not specific individuals ever go to a hospital, take a case to court, or study at a post-secondary institution.

[Translation]

I think it would be a very important starting point for us to realize that so far we have failed to get across this argument as far as culture is concerned. I would strongly recommend you read this report entitled The Arts Project in Transition, it is very much relevant to the discussion being held here; the report is made available by the Canadian Conference of the Arts.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Kostash, you'll have the last word.

• 1025

Ms. Myrna Kostash: Thank you. I would like to talk about the next generation. I have a couple of anecdotes.

At the end of October I was giving a talk about Canadian cultural sovereignty in a small town in southern Serbia. I was there for a number of other reasons as well, but that's what I was doing in this small town in southern Serbia called Vranje. I had a totally rapt audience. They understood me completely because, as I pointed out to them, they and we have the same problem.

As I went walking through their charming old Turkish cobblestoned street that evening, I came across a poster for Men in Black. This is popular culture. It certainly doesn't have any problem spreading itself.

The difference between my southern Serbian audience and my Canadian audience is that the southern Serbs know exactly who they are, and they've been there a very long time.

A related anecdote: In the course of researching a new book, which I'm calling The Next Canada, I am talking to Canadians between 25 and 35 years of age who I think are doing and thinking things interesting and may give us some idea of the shape Canada is taking in their generation. Frankly, from my generation's point of view, I expected to encounter a group of people who were completely emptied of any kind of specifically Canadian identity, so washed over were they, I assumed, by mass media and American mass culture.

Au contraire, mes collègues. I'm here to say that we have in fact a generation coming up behind mine that is intensely Canadian and patriotic. But my question is, how do you know this? How do you know you're a Canadian? I know how I know I'm a Canadian, thanks to the sixties and the seventies and all that. How do you know that?

Well, this young man in Vancouver, who was responsible for organizing a union at a Starbucks local, said “I know I'm a Canadian because in Canada money is not the bottom line and we take care of each other”. I said “That's wonderful, that's inspiring”. But the question I go out from here with this morning is for how long is it going to be possible for him to say that? Right now, at age 25, he can still say “I am a Canadian because Canadians aren't like Americans”, or that was the implication. We care about each other communally; money isn't the bottom line of our life together. How much longer are we going to be able to give him the means to say that about himself as a Canadian?

The Chairman: Thank you. That was very well said.

I guess we've reached the end of our time. I think it's been an extremely fruitful session. I know a lot of ideas have been thrown around, and sometimes in that maelstrom of discussion you wonder how you can piece together something that will give us a sense of direction. But I think all you've said, added together, certainly gives us a sense of what you're about.

If I heard right today, I think we're not here to promote The Lion King, as Ms. Kostash said, and I think none of us has this idea at all. But it reinforces for us that what you're about is to say that those aspects of the arts and culture in our communities and our country that identify us, that bond us together and that require independent backing and support—the public good versus the private good—these are the aspects we should look into and seek continuing and increased support for.

That support, if I heard you right, should be in the form of convincing our government and the public at large that it's a good investment for us, because not only does it provide an economic benefit for our common good, provide jobs and help our economy, but it also makes us better citizens, better Canadians. It reinforces our communities. It uplifts our national life.

I was struck by what Mr. Sivry said in his last statement.

[Translation]

He pointed out that these grants were not for the benefit of artists but for the public. They have an impact on the general economy and produce all sorts of spinoffs that enable our country to have a better understanding of itself and to improve its quality of life in all areas.

• 1030

[English]

I think we got the very strong message from you, and it came from different poles of discussion, Mr. Bragg putting it differently from Mr. Bradshaw, maybe; and at the same time the thrust was there that the government must continue to be involved. But we must find out what the form of involvement should be in what Mrs. Kostash rightly called “the next Canada” and how we should most judiciously distribute that public good effort. How should we set the priorities so that the sectors that need what you call an investment will best benefit?

I think we also retained from Mr. Bonwick, Monsieur Bélanger, Mr. Bradshaw, and Mr. Bayens that we should start looking at and comparing what we do in regard to other countries, Germany, France, and the United States and others. How much do we spend per capita and in relation to our GDP? Our researchers will do that work. The statistics are already there, but we certainly will gather them.

Finally, the thought that I retained—and perhaps Mr. O'Brien was very valuable in putting that thought forward for discussion—was how must we and how should we all together convince the public at large that we must make that special effort and bring in a larger audience. So I think this starting round table was extremely valuable for us as parliamentarians.

I would like to thank you very much for making the effort to come here in spite of the weather, in spite of the distance. We really appreciate your participation.

[Translation]

We thank you for coming here and hope to see you again.

[English]

Thank you. We'll keep in touch.

• 1032

• 1049

[Translation]

The Chairman: We shall begin a second round table of the Canadian Heritage Committee in its study of culture in Canada and the role played by the federal government in this area on the eve of the 21st century and the next millennium.

First of all I'd like to extend a warm welcome to all the participants and to our distinguished guests who have joined us for this sitting.

• 1050

Since you have been able to observe our procedure for the round table, I do not need to go into the details.

As you know, we are undertaking a study and we'll be writing a report for the Minister of Heritage on the direction the committee would like to see for our cultural policy in relation to the challenges of the next century. That includes

[English]

the advent of new technologies, the evolution of the global economy and global trade, and the changing demographic nature of our country.

So these round tables are the second phase of the culture study. We have met with a lot of officials and experts to give us a basic background of information. We are going to have this mix of round tables from different sectors of the cultural community, following which, later on in the year, we hope to travel across Canada and meet our cultural community, so to speak, in the field. You represent a very important cross-section of opinion for us, because we want to hear from people who practise culture in their everyday life.

We have a couple of hours. You know the format. It's a free-wheeling discussion.

Before we start, I'd like to ask you, starting with Mrs. Lill, to introduce yourselves briefly and tell us what sector you come from. Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm Wendy Lill. I'm the member of Parliament for Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I'm the critic for culture as well as persons with disabilities for the New Democratic Party. I come from a writer's background myself. I'm—I think—a member in good standing of the Writers' Union and the Playwrights' Union and the Nova Scotia Writers' Federation. I think I've paid dues to all of these organizations and I think I'm still an upstanding member. I'm very interested in hearing what you have to say today.

Ms. Candace Stevenson (Executive Director, Nova Scotia Museum): I'm Candace Stevenson, executive director of the Nova Scotia Museum, which is the 25 provincial museums in Nova Scotia.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): My name is Suzanne Tremblay and I am the Member for Rimouski—Mitis and spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois on Canadian heritage.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Diane Charland (Manager, Documents and Archives, City of Montreal; President, Canadian Council of Archives): Good morning, my name is Diane Charland, I am the Chief Archivist of the City of Montreal and I am here as President of the Canadian Council of Archives.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Charland.

[English]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): I'm Deepak Obhrai, member of Parliament for Calgary East and deputy Canadian heritage critic for the Reform Party.

Mr. Bob Janes (President and Chief Executive Officer, Glenbow Museum): I'm Bob Janes—with an “n”, not an “m”—and I'm the president of the Glenbow Museum, Art Gallery, Library, and Archives in Calgary.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Jacques Saada, Member for Brossard—La Prairie in Quebec.

[English]

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Pat O'Brien, MP, London—Fanshawe; vice-chair, Ontario Liberal caucus; president, Canada-Ireland interparliamentary friendship group.

[Translation]

Mr. François Lachapelle (Director General, Corporation du Musée régional de Rimouski): François Lachapelle, Director of the Rimouski regional museum.

[English]

Mr. William Barkley (Chief Executive Officer, Royal British Columbia Museum): Bill Barkley. I'm the chief executive officer of the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, British Columbia.

[Translation]

Ms. Jeanne Mance Cormier (Conservator, Acadian Museum of the University of Moncton; President, Association of New Brunswick Museums): Good morning, my name is Jeanne Mance Cormier and I am Conservator of the Acadian Museum of the University of Moncton and President of the Association of New Brunswick Museums.

[English]

Mr. Clyde McNeil (Director, Caribbean Cultural Workshop): I'm Clyde McNeil. I'm director and program coordinator for the Caribbean Cultural Workshop in Toronto.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Paul Bonwick, member of Parliament for Simcoe—Grey.

Mr. Bernard Riordon (Director, Art Gallery of Nova Scotia): I'm Bernie Riordon, the director of the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia in Halifax.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mauril Bélanger, Member for Ottawa— Vanier.

The Chairman: The floor is now open for discussion.

[English]

Who wants to start? Mr. Janes.

Mr. Robert Janes: Mr. Chairman, listening to the earlier discussion about the economic value of the arts, I think we're in a position to give you a few empirical facts about the economic impact of museums in this country, just to set the stage.

The current statistics indicate 55 million visitors a year to Canada's roughly 2,000 museums. There are 24,000 people employed. There are 55,000 volunteers working in those museums. Apparently 56% of Canadians visit museums annually, which is more than all professional sporting events combined. Museums in Canada also contribute $1 billion annually to the gross domestic product. That includes 35,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, as well as $650 million in labour income.

• 1055

I thought that might be useful just to set the stage. I hope the whole argument won't be marketplace today, but I think it's important to realize some of those facts at the beginning.

The Chairman: Marketplace is an important prop when we have to convince people who deal with money.

Thank you. A good point.

[Translation]

Mr. Lachapelle.

Mr. François Lachapelle: On arriving in Ottawa I gave some thought to the message that I wanted to convey to this group. My message is quite a simple one, it contains three parts.

First, in working in our field, we realize that though Canada is a relatively young country, it still has a very rich heritage which our museums, archives and libraries are responsible for preserving in the form of its material traces and increasingly in its virtual forms.

Canada is also a country that has made significant investments in the past two generations in educating its technicians and professionals to be able to organize quality activities such as those that we are able to see in the field of museology. Canadian museums and particularly Quebec museums that I am more familiar with are often called upon by other countries for their expertise in making our heritage known whether it be through exhibitions, cultural activities or education. Canadian museums have acquired acknowledged expertise with highly trained and qualified staff members.

Although museums have been extremely popular over the past 15 years with huge increases in attendance in Canada and in Quebec, they have received very little assistance from the federal government. I will not go into all the programs but it can be observed that they are receiving less and less assistance, particularly since the beginning of budget cutbacks. Consequently, museums are starting to run out of steam.

The museum community is very proud of the figures Robert gave to you. But the museums are running out of resources and an entire generation of professionals and young people whose education you have invested in along with the provinces ask for nothing more than to improve the museums' ability to present our heritage, both past and present, to Canadians and others.

As far as museums are concerned, the most important objective is to find a way for Canada to set up legislation, foundations and aid programs to give a dynamic impetus to the relationship of Canadians with their heritage. That is the main issue, as far as I am concerned.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Lachapelle. Ms. Stevenson.

[English]

Ms. Candace Stephenson: Thank you.

I believe we're here to discuss whether we need an overarching policy for culture in Canada. In fact there is already a museum policy, which I believe dates back to about 1972. So I really think the question is about money. We have a museum policy, and I think it's fair to say that when it was initiated in 1972 the federal government was a leader across the country. They put out programs and many things happened within the museums, but basically what happened was our standards were raised. A museum that you go into today, anywhere in the country, is going to be better than the one you went into in 1972. That was because of the leadership of the federal government across Canada.

If we're now going to get into an overarching cultural policy—and I have no objections to museums in particular being involved with the cultural sector as a whole, because I believe we are part of one sector—it's no point doing this unless there's going to be money attached to it and unless the federal government is going to say we want to take a leadership role. I believe we're really at a crossroads right now as to whether the federal government wants to be involved in a leadership role or whether it wants to watch the kind of thing Mr. Lachapelle was talking about: to watch us get in a survival mode, to watch us begin to decline from the heights we have reached.

• 1100

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm the critic responsible for museums. We have very distinguished guests here from all over the country, and I would like to have their views on something I need some information on.

I would start by saying that you have identified federal governments cuts as one of the primary concerns you have. Where are these cuts impacting? Where are you failing? Where are the cuts in the museums? Which programs and what things were you doing that you cannot do because of these cuts? Where is the decay? I would like you to give me an overall picture on that.

Secondly, what are your future projections? Forget the money. Where do you want to go? For the year 2000, where are we going? What's your plan? How are you going to get museums moving ahead and fulfilling the needs of Canadians for the year 2000? Where do you see you are going? I don't want to get the picture to say that because we have cuts in the year 2000 we're not.... I just want to know an overall picture from you people as to the future for museums.

The Chairman: Mr. McNeil, Mrs. Lill, and Mr. Barkley. Maybe, Mr. Barkley, you will address what Mr. Obhrai said as you speak, but we'll start with Mr. McNeil.

Mr. Clyde McNeil: Major concerns in terms of an overarching policy for arts, culture, and heritage have to be in two areas. One is in the area of money cuts and the ripple effect that cuts have. The second major concern is the whole concern of access and equity. For my community in Toronto, access and equity to what we call the larger institutions is somewhat of a problem. We'd like to see the government take the lead role in selling the idea that arts, culture, and heritage is an integral part of life and society, so that the public and the other players in this whole gambit must understand that it's a good fit.

Cultural heritage is a self-definition. You make the place where you are what you are, and you do that with love, passion, appetite, and all those other good things. But if you don't have the money to do it and you don't have the access and equity to the services that are there, it makes life somewhat difficult.

I want to take the opportunity, because I'm among a lot of the administrators, to make a point that just happened recently with the Caribbean community in Toronto. Coming out of the Caribbean we had an exhibition called Caribbean Visions. It is the most significant visual exhibition ever to come out of the Caribbean. Museums and art galleries in the United States were falling over each other, including the Smithsonian, to get this exhibition.

We attempted to bring it to Toronto and we did not have the access. We went the extra mile and said we raised the $50,000 U.S. as the fee. We went and raised the transport, the insurance, and everything. I don't have to point fingers—you all know who they are—but none of the major institutions in Toronto saw fit to deal with the most significant exhibition to come out of the Caribbean ever. It talked about from Columbus right down to Castro. And we could not get that. In the year 1998, 500 years since Columbus first came to the Caribbean, and in particular discovered Trinidad, we were not able to sell this exhibition.

• 1105

So access and equity, combined with the cuts, is what makes life somewhat difficult for our community.

The Chairman: Did the exhibition go to the States, or what happened?

Mr. Clyde McNeil: Yes, it made the rounds of every major museum and art gallery in the United States. Right now, it's at the Smithsonian Institution.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would say that's a sad story.

The Chairman: A very sad story.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would like to make a couple of comments from my own experience where I am now in Dartmouth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, someone here, but it's my understanding that our federal assistance to museums has dropped from $14 million to $7.4 million.

A voice: To $6.5 million.

Ms. Wendy Lill: It has gone from $14 million down to $6.5 million, which is an unbelievable drop. So the question is, where is that showing up? I think some things don't show up right away, because basically it's infrastructure stuff. It literally is the underpinnings that in fact look okay for a little while. They can even kind of look okay for five years or so. They can even look okay as long as a term of a government.

Then we begin to see that in fact the centre cannot hold, because the displays have not been kept up for a length of time, and ventilation, and all of the various things that make a museum a place that can protect and house things that are old and a little bit fragile. There are lots of things that are not showing up.

Also, I think it's important to realize—I was thinking about this in the earlier forum—the concept of supporting things that are small, the importance of actually nurturing small things so they can be protected and can grow into bigger things.

In regard to community museums, the need for professionals to go out, do outreach, be recorders, I think of Helen Creighton from Nova Scotia, people who in fact go out and collect the culture in the native communities, in the black communities. We need people who are going to be the professionals to work with communities. I would say all of this kind of outreach work is part of the stuff that has just gone by the boards because of the cuts.

I think we are in a survival mode in terms of our museums. That's a very sad story. I would like to throw that out and see if I'm reading the situation correctly.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Barkley.

Mr. William Barkley: Thank you very much.

Following up on what you've just said, the museums are in a survival mode. One of the positive things that has come out of the downsizing and the cuts is we've had to really examine ourselves in terms of what we're doing and how we're doing it, and we've had to talk to our public about what they think about what we're doing. I think that in itself has been positive, but you can only go so far with that.

In response to the question of what the decline in federal funding has done, I think the major thing it has done to institutions such as my own is it has created a sense of isolation. I think we do wonderful programming in British Columbia, but we have no funding to get it outside of the province.

To give you an example, when the federal funding through the museums assistance program was at $14 million, we had twenty travelling exhibitions. We had most of them circulating in British Columbia, but we always had four or five circulating across Canada, and we had three or four from across Canada circulating in British Columbia in our circuit. Today we have one, and we're closing it off at the end of November, so we will have zero, and we have none in a cross-Canada circuit.

What that does is fly absolutely contrary to what Canada needs today. If you're trying to bind this country together, there are connections between us and Nova Scotia.

We've just done an exhibit on whales. We borrowed artifacts from Nova Scotia and from the eastern seaboard of the United States in order to do the exhibition, but there was no funding to put that exhibition on the road. It was an exhibition on whaling, it was an exhibition on first nations' views of whales and their mystical connections, and it was an exhibition on the biology of whales. It would have received a lot of play across the country and it would have helped bind this country together. I think that's what's missing.

• 1110

As for what we need to do or what our plans are for the next millennium, I think it's an important question. Just to go back to this business of the cuts in our budgets and the downsizing that's gone on, I now have a five-year plan. I live by my annual business plan, which I have to submit and get approved every year through my board, and when we look to the future, we realize that one of the things that various media in this country need is content. We have the content. I have 10 million objects in my collection. I have an enormous data base, and mine is just one of many museums in this country. We can provide the information that's necessary for SchoolNet. We can provide the information that's necessary for the media.

As for the history channel on television, which tends to just repeat World War II ad nauseam, we could add something so film makers could bring out stories of Canadians, of Canadian heroes we don't deal with.

Similarly, when you explore the Internet and get into some of these Internet sites, you find there's no content in there. And we have the content. We just need the facility to get it out, and some funds would help that. The federal government, as was stated by Candace, in 1972 built the capacity. We have the capacity to do that. Now we're stumped in that we can't get beyond that. We've built this very professional infrastructure, but it's not being used by the country. It's being isolated in our provincial settings.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Charland.

Ms. Diane Charland: Let me take advantage of this opportunity to draw to your attention the neglected status of archives in the heritage community. Around this table there are a great deal of representatives of museums but I'm the only one to speak on behalf of archives.

Our presence is certainly very useful in sensitizing the federal government to the importance of archives for our community. Archives are the memory of the community. Each museum has its own archives. There are also archives in government departments and in all organizations.

Everywhere information is assembled and conserved for transmission to future generations. I think the importance of archives should not be minimized.

We were told about the huge number of visitors to museums. This is never the case for archives. We have a stable clientele made up of researchers. I should however note that their numbers are increasing. The more we make our archival collections known, the greater our impact on individuals interested in their heritage and their roots. We also provide service to schools and universities and, to some extent, all segments of the population.

Because our impact is less visible than that of the museums, we are short of money. This is something I'm sure you will be hearing quite frequently but it is particularly true in our case. Because the spinoffs are not visible, it sometimes happens that we are neglected even by our own organizations.

It should be noted that since the creation of the Canadian Council of Archives in 1985 and its presence throughout Canada, the various archival services we represent have made great progress in describing their archives and making them available, that is the dissemination of information.

So I shall attempt to answer indirectly the question of my colleague. We obviously require funding like the museums in order to continue processing our archives, that is removing from our vaults all the very relevant and interesting information we have, once it is made known, and also to be able to meet the challenge of the year 2000.

The arrival of Internet technology has proven to be an extraordinary means for us to disseminate information. It is merely a matter of getting organized in setting up our networks so that individual archives are able to enter their information on the network but this of course will require assistance. Each archival service will not be able to do this individually.

• 1115

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Charland. Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. I noted that the common thread of all the presentations was that the federal government should play a sponsorship role. I do not mean to challenge your claims. It is not my purpose to argue this point but simply to note that it is indeed a common thread which seems fundamental.

I have three short questions and I may come back later to more basic issues.

My first question is for Mr. Lachapelle. You referred to the development of our museum presence abroad. Do you see any role for the federal government in promoting this expertise to facilitate this kind of work abroad?

The second question relates to a comment of Mr. Barkley

[English]

that in times of financial constraints and restraints, obviously we try to compensate with imagination. Is each organization or institution left alone or is there any way of putting this imagination together so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel all the time?

[Translation]

My last question will be for Mr. McNeil.

[English]

You have stated something that I find very shocking: the fact that you have not been able to have your exhibition in Canada. But you have been very elegantly discreet about the reasons why it was impossible.

The Chairman: Before we go any further, I think it might be interesting

[Translation]

for our speakers to answer the questions and to start up the discussion. I think the first question was for Mr. Lachapelle, wasn't it?

Mr. François Lachapelle: I think my answer will go somewhat beyond your remark. Yes, the museum community does expect the federal government to act as a sponsor or patron. It hopes the federal government will provide grants for specific actions aimed at what I would describe as creating a more dynamic relationship between Canadians and their heritage.

But there are many other kinds of actions that the federal government could undertake. To answer your question about the role of the federal government in enhancing the performance of Canadian museums outside the country, I would say that there are three kinds of actions that could be developed.

The first that comes to mind, one that was announced in this year's budget and which should be significantly expanded is the compensation program for exhibition insurance costs. I don't think anyone has an idea of the exorbitant price of insurance for exhibitions, even very small ones.

Exhibiting a treasure of Canadian heritage in different provinces or countries results in very high insurance costs because of the value of the object and the risks involved in transport. For this reason insurance companies charge a very high premium. For this reason, the program I refer to is a very important one for allowing exhibitions to be shown outside Canada.

Interinstitutional exchanges have been attempted through exchange funds between Canada and France. A treaty was signed by Canada and France to allow for greater cultural exchanges under the Department of Canadian Heritage. It's the Canada-France Fund. This fund has proven to be very efficient and made it possible to intensify the relations between several French and Canadian institutions, mainly in Quebec but not exclusively so.

We must also take advantage of our professional expertise because, I repeat, Canada and the provinces have invested in the education of our technicians and professionals with their high levels of skills. Museums and archives have developed a great deal of expertise in data classification systems.

French Canada has an outstanding international reputation. The same is true for a lot of small professions, and foreign museums and even foreign departments of culture often call upon the services of Canadians. When Korea decided to build three national museums, it asked Canadians to draw up the architectural program for these museums.

• 1120

Canadians helped Koreans organize the cultural program for these three national museums.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Was this done directly?

Mr. François Lachapelle: Yes, it was through professional contacts that Canadians were recommended.

I think that this is a good example and I could cite a number of others. Canadians were also called upon as consultants for the Museum of Man or the Anthropology Museum in Paris, a French national museum, to rearrange the organizational structure and the architecture of the building of the Paris Museum of Folk Arts and Traditions.

As part of the Team Canada groups and any international delegations, Canada should provide an appropriate representation of its professional services. Commercially speaking, the Cirque du Soleil is not the only potential asset, there is a whole other segment of culture that is not necessarily as commercial. Consideration should also be given to other kinds of cultural businesses or organizations in choosing the members of Team Canada on commercial missions abroad. I think that the strengths of Canadian museology are part of this.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I pass on to Madame Cormier, Mr. Barkley, would you like to address briefly the question put by Mr. Saada?

Mr. William Barkley: Certainly. If I understand the question correctly, the value of imagination in what we do is extremely important, and how we connect it together. I attended a meeting here in Ottawa on February 6 of a group of museum people from across the country, and we heard stories about the kinds of programs that are being run in institutions across the country. I think there's no shortage of imagination.

The federal government, if it were to raise its level of funding, should not be asked to do what it did in the past, because as we indicated, there has been capacity-building in our institutions. But what the funding could provide for is to link those imaginations together into consortia and to allow groups of these wonderful Canadian specialists that François has just talked about, with great imaginations, to work together to create something that does end up on the national stage and is exposed to people from different regions of the country.

So I think there are opportunities there. But because of what I've indicated, that we are heads down trying to keep our institutions surviving, we don't have the luxury of our people travelling across the country. As an example, I just did a little calculation here. I have 110 staff members. I have $320 per staff member for travel on an annual basis. So if we were to try to connect these imaginations together—my air flight here was $2,500—that would take up a large portion of my budget.

So we need to find ways of facilitating that process, to get these groups of people together to share the wonderful knowledge that we have of the culture of Canada and to develop that imagination.

The Chairman: Ms. Cormier.

[Translation]

Ms. Jeanne-Mance Cormier: I'd like to answer Mr. Herb Gray. You asked whether the cutbacks had an impact on museums. Many of our ideas have been limited by these cutbacks. We've often had to change our original plans for an exhibition and sometimes have been unable to carry them out because of funding problems. A conservator should not be put in a position of hesitating about whether to repair a national heritage object because of money problems.

At the same time, we have acquired a certain amount of expertise in Canadian museums and it is important for us to continue, to keep training our young people. We must keep attracting young people to our museums.

• 1125

The Chairman: Ms. Cormier, before I give the floor to Mr. Godfrey, could you answer a question about the Acadian Museum of the University of Moncton? I suppose that one of your objectives is to make the Acadian heritage and the history of Acadians known to the other provinces of Canada. Is Mr. Barkley's question relevant for you, since you no longer have the funding necessary for travelling exhibitions? Have you undergone the same kinds of reductions?

Ms. Jeanne Mance Cormier: Our history is more recent. This year for the first time, we set up a travelling exhibition to be shown throughout Canada. It's our first experience with a team of three people. Evangeline's Odyssey was a large exhibition that literally exhausted us.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey, followed by Mr. Bélanger and then Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. John Godfrey: I guess the first is really a structural question, which can perhaps be asked of the group collectively. I think it would be very useful, and we had some hints of it, just to get some sense from the museum association or some similar body of how the museum situation has changed from say 1967 to 1997, specifically with regard to the number of institutions now in place, the growth of budgets, the growth of attendance, the growth perhaps of travelling shows, and then to be able to almost graph that so we can have some sense, graphically, of how the budget cuts have affected various sectors or whether the budgets have gone down but the attendance has gone up. I think that kind of background information would give us a very useful overview of how things have changed.

The second observation is simply to perhaps set out some markers, Mr. Chairman, for themes that we might begin to reflect on as a committee. The theme is, I suppose principally, one of mobility. It also applies to the earlier arts groups we heard this morning.

Just to set out a thesis, one of the functions of the national government is to assist mobility, to help the travelling shows get across the country, to reduce the isolation, to assist in the creation of consortia. That seems to me to be an eminently primary function for a national government, whether it's to do with museums or touring opera or theatre or whatever else. Getting it across the country should be our job.

As an ancillary point, it's also true that we should then have to reflect on the necessity, where appropriate, of the international component. I think it's also important that we take up the theme, in the particular area of museums and galleries, of indemnification. The insurance issue is huge. We tried to deal with it in the eighties. It's time we actually put it in our report.

The third theme, which also has to do with mobility of a different sort—technology—is the theme of mobility through the Internet and SchoolNet. I think that's an appropriate function for major assistance by the federal government to get the word across the country, and indeed outside the country, because of the nature of the mobility of the Internet itself.

The fourth theme would be national training facilities, whether it's for conservation, for a national theatre school, for opera, for whatever else. That's a role for the federal government.

I think those are some of the themes we would explore. My only question to those I'm putting this to is, if we're not giving you the base grants, if you're not getting the base money, would those be your priorities, or would you say don't bother with that stuff until you've upped the ante on basic money?

The Chairman: Thanks for raising the question. I imagine people will pick up your questions as they go along.

Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Bonwick, Mr. Riordon.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'd like to come back to the point made by my colleague Godfrey. Our recurring theme this morning has been that of the isolation created by the cutbacks in financial support. It was also mentioned that Internet may prove to be a solution to make up for this lack.

• 1130

I'd like to put a practical question to you. Can Internet be seen as a possible source of income for archives or museums? If so, what must be put into place to obtain this result? There is always the question of copyright and electronics. It is the third phase of this study.

My second comment, Mr. Chairman, is that I perceive a certain contradiction in what I've been hearing. On one hand, Mr. James mentioned that museums have never been more popular and that attendance is at an all-time high, but on the other hand, Mr. Lachapelle said that we are "running out of steam". Ms. Stevenson tells us to "come with money". Mr. McNeil also talked about money. Mr. Barkley said:

[English]

You can only go so far with that.

[Translation]

The "that" he's referring to is certainly diversification. We have to know whether things are going well or not but it would appear that things are going both well and badly at the same time.

I'd like a bit of help because we're talking about survival when things are supposedly going well. It strikes me that there is an inherent contradiction here and I'd like some enlightenment. Is it because we're reaching the end of the century? Are we out of breath because we're running so fast to arrive at the year 2000? I hope that isn't the only explanation.

I'd also like to ask a question that I hope is a legitimate one. We shall see. Where does the heritage function fit into Canadian cultural policy? The most relevant comment I heard this morning on this subject comes from Mr. Lachapelle who asked how we can create a more dynamic relationship between museums and Canadians or between Canadians and their museums.

Mr. François Lachapelle: And their heritage.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And their heritage. If there were a heritage function as part of Canadian cultural policy, I think that that would be a step in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Janes, before we move on, would you like to pick up that question? You were the one who sort of identified the positive side. Maybe you could respond. The others have made it clear they want more money for sure.

Mr. Robert Janes: I want more money too.

It's a bit of a paradoxical situation, Mr. Chairman, in the sense that our popularity is growing, but there are a number of challenges behind the scenes that the public and perhaps the government aren't aware of. That has to do with what makes museums unique, and that is the collection of objects.

In our work we have a 500-year timeframe. We're told that these objects are important to society and they have to be here forever. I think most museums plan anywhere from 200 to 500 years out. It's interesting to contrast that with the private sector, where the average corporate life now in the northern hemisphere is less than 20 years.

So although we have to retain a bottom line kind of mentality and balance the books, we also have this enormous responsibility to take care of these collections. This commitment to taking care of the collections is a very expensive one. We have a small collection. We only have about 1.2 million objects, but we spend close to $3.5 million a year just taking care of those objects.

The point is no matter how entrepreneurial you become, taking care of collections is not a glamorous subject. It's not really marketable. We've tried it. The Nova Corporation in Calgary does not want to give us $200,000 to make sure we have a proper level of shelving for our objects.

Behind the scenes is this enormous expenditure of fixed costs, and increasing costs, to take care of these objects, which in the face of decreasing public funding means that more of the money we could use to develop public products is now being used to take care of the collection. I think we're coming to the conclusion that these collections are really a public resource. They're like a forest, an ocean, a river system. They belong to everybody and it's a collective responsibility. I think one major role for government is to assume that collective responsibility on behalf of all citizens so that we, with our meagre resources, can get on to developing education and meaning for our visiting public.

I hope that helps to explain part of the paradox. It's both a good news and a bad news story.

The Chairman: Just to interject briefly, perhaps you could explain this to us. I imagine any museum has to augment its collection to be up to date with evolution. And the more you augment your collection and can't give away what you already have, you need more space and more shelving, and also more capital structures in the way of buildings and stuff. Is that also a real problem for you?

• 1135

Mr. Robert Janes: Yes. You've hit on a very sensitive issue within the museum world. By their very nature museums are a growth business, because people keep producing objects of historical significance.

But I think back to something Bill Barkley said. The reduction in public funding has caused museums to cast a very serious eye over that notion of keeping everything forever, and various museums in North America are now engaging in what's called “de-accessioning”, taking objects out of your collection—objects that are redundant, of low value, with no documentation—in order to get rid of the poor material so you can make room for more important material.

But you're right, I think. In this day and age, every museum has to have a very disciplined and selective collecting policy because, as you say, the space and the care are very expensive.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Briefly, Mr. Lachapelle.

Mr. François Lachapelle: I'd like to give you a figure on this particular point. I made a calculation two years ago in another context. At the present time Canadian museums acquire only 0.4% of the total professional visual arts production in order to conserve it for a possible public. This gives you an idea of what we are conserving for future generations. About 30 years ago, the percentage was much more interesting.

You can go take a look at these figures. I won't venture a figure for 30 years ago but I know that at the time the museums had a greater capacity for collecting and preserving our heritage. At the present time this capacity is almost non-existent. If my memory serves me right, the average museum budget is $4,000. This figure should be checked.

The Chairman: That is a very important point.

[English]

Mr. Barkley, very briefly. I have a long list.

Mr. William Barkley: Just to give you an example of a collection increase, we have a very restrictive collection policy at our museum, which is 114 years old. Based on our history, with that restrictive policy our collections double every 20 years. Ours is a natural history and human history museum and that's the kind of pressure we face.

The Chairman: It doubles every 20 years.

Mr. William Barkley: And that's a very restrictive policy. We have a collections plan. We don't just clean out everybody's attics and take what they give us. We have specific things out there that we have to collect. If we are going to have things in 100 years that people would have expected us to have saved, we have to do that now.

The Chairman: I'm grateful to Mr. Bélanger for raising this question and starting a discussion on this issue, because it is something that is obviously of great importance and mightn't have surfaced.

I will now recognize Mr. Bonwick, and then Mr. Riordon.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to follow along the lines Mr. Godfrey did, and I think Mr. Lachapelle helped me—and maybe the committee—make the first step, which is perhaps realizing our responsibilities as a government. I didn't get his exact wording, but it's our responsibility to maintain a historical record of who we are and what we have done. And maybe as the committee puts forward its report to the minister, we can identify that we have responsibilities to provide opportunity for access to health care and education and to the examination and education of ourselves as to what we are and how we became the way we are. And perhaps we can assess it in that fashion in the report.

More specifically—and any one of the witnesses may respond—are there ways in which the government can assist in increasing your overall revenues other than the obvious one of direct funding? Certainly that's one of the issues the committee will deal with, but are there other ways—ways that show some ingenuity—in which the government can become involved?

I was just thinking as I was going along—it's food for thought perhaps—about providing more incentives for donating money, whether we increase the taxation ceiling or charitable donation receipts, and making it much more lucrative for both personal and corporate Canada to donate. That's just one suggestion. I challenge you to come up with others where we could play a proactive role without actually signing a cheque.

The Chairman: Mr. Riordon, maybe you can pick up some of these threads.

• 1140

Mr. Bernard Riordon: Mr. Chairman, just on that last issue, one of the points I was going to raise was the issue of the new demographics, the aging population, and the money that is available to not-for-profits through the private sector. I know the government has a great role in providing favourable tax incentives to allow for the development of private endowments in not-for-profits, and I think that's an area in which we need the government support to make this happen.

First of all, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in our briefing notes we were to address certain issues as to what went well with federal funding. I want to congratulate the federal government for the initiatives that were taken with the museum assistance program and the Canadian Conservation Institute, the Canadian Heritage Information Network, and the Cultural Property Export Review Board. These, in my view, are all success stories that have helped the museum community throughout Canada realize some really important goals over the past 20 years.

The failings or the problems and the cutbacks with the museum assistance program are very critical to all of us. If the government can see its way to replenish that fund to the critical mass it had years ago, to $14 million, 15 million, I think you'd see a greater sense of Canadian identity and you'd see the museums developing much stronger in this country.

For a small museum to get a grant, for example, of $20,000, it's very important to their overall programming and how they can relate to their community.

The dissemination of exhibitions across Canada, as indicated by my colleagues, I think is essential. In our case, the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia circulated an exhibition with, by the way, what may be called obscene profits of the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Maud Lewis exhibition has been seen by over a quarter of a million people across Canada—30,000 people recently in Toronto. Here is an artist who was outside of the mainstream, who was physically challenged, who lived without any modern amenities in a tiny house. We're able to develop this program of a travelling exhibition, of the development of the restoration of her house, of engaging the community, of developing new audiences, and of creating a national hero.

I think we have to develop more national heros and national icons, which are very important to this country and to the museum community, and to show that great sense of pride in Canada. I feel that if we have federal support to travel exhibitions nationally, we can make our regional heros into our national heros and create this great sense of pride.

If I may, I will make a second point on the issue of collections. Our key activity is collecting our visual heritage. If the federal government can assist in the dissemination of those collections, it can help in the greater understanding of our heritage. It holds great opportunities for future understanding in Canada. Please help us disseminate and build strong collections, because our regional collections are our national collections, in my view. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thanks for your statement. I really appreciate your intervention about the exhibition, which has made a regional hero into a national figure. It's extremely interesting.

Mr. McNeil, we were very touched by your story, and I think Mr. Saada said, when he referred to it, how discreet you'd been. We don't want to presume on your discretion and get you into fields you may not want to touch, but from the point of view of finding out why there was no access, why there was no equity, would the government have made a difference, did it play its part, was it involved at all in this directly or indirectly? Where did it go wrong when the exhibition is now at the Smithsonian and, according to your testimony, has gone from place to place in the United States? It couldn't be seen here, especially in places like Toronto, with such a huge population of people of Caribbean origin. It would be really interesting, but I leave it up to you to decide for your own reasons what you must do.

• 1145

Mr. Clyde McNeil: I wanted to couch that and put it in the backdrop of the economic impact of culture in Toronto specifically. In the cultural field 123,000 direct jobs are created; 9.7% of the budget of the city of Toronto's workforce is generated through cultural activities. It's a contribution of $7.1 billion to the Canadian gross domestic product.

This shows that culture has an impact in Toronto. When we have an exhibition—and I don't have to lecture people around the table here about that—we're concerned about fees, we're concerned about insurance, and we're concerned about the impact the exhibition will have on society. We raise the fees, we raise the insurance money. The impact is obvious because, of the 2.2 million people in Toronto, there are approximately 391,000 black people. So the impact is there, and then when we look at the trickle-down effect, it's phenomenal.

Therefore, what we have to think now.... If the federal government in some way were acting in a facilitating role, we thought this might have been possible. Therefore, with regard to how we look at the role the federal government should play in areas of heritage such as the museums and the art galleries, it's a whole area, not only in just writing the cheques but in facilitating things so that it reflects the complexity and the complexion of the society we live in.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I think you said at the start, Mrs. Stevenson—and this was a very important statement, really—that if we have a cultural policy for the country, if it comes without money, then don't have it. That was a very powerful statement. I don't know if I heard you right. Maybe you could tell me what you feel about this.

Ms. Candace Stevenson: Oh, I think you heard me right. That's simple.

There are so many questions on the floor that I can't possibly answer them all, but Mr. Godfrey raised a few of them earlier.

In general terms, attendance is up since 1967 at museums. In general terms, government spending went up and then took a dive, so it's down since 1967. In general terms, the number of institutions is up. A lot of museums were built in this country as a result of centennial year in 1967. But you can certainly get those statistics from either Statistics Canada or the Canadian Museums Association—and they're obviously more than just trends; you can get the real numbers.

But I think it leads to a problem that we have. Many of our buildings are 25 to 30 years old, and many of our buildings themselves are heritage buildings. Many of our museums are in historic houses, historic mills, historic barns, etc. These buildings themselves need to be preserved.

Something we haven't talked about here today, something that makes us different from many of the other groups you will be talking about, is this custodial mandate that we have, not only for the collections, which have been mentioned a few times, but also often for the buildings in which they are housed. They're getting worn out. The more people who cross the threshold, the more worn out the building. So I think there will be some real problems for us in the next decade, as our roofs begin to leak and as our floors begin to give way, and that's a major problem for us.

The Chairman: Especially given, I take it, that the construction of these buildings has to be perfect in the way of air-conditioning, climate control, and all the aspects of protection of the collections.

Ms. Candace Stevenson: Very much so, because as you say, we're housing not only people—and people are extremely important—but we're housing the collections themselves, and they deteriorate in bad situations.

• 1150

As Bob Janes mentioned earlier, we're trying to keep things for 500 years. Just think of the things you preserve within your own family that you consider heirlooms. You see them deteriorating because they are not in the best kind of storage conditions.

There's a reason for all this custodial mandate, and I think that's important to remember as well. We have these things so that we can provide content, whether it's an exhibition, whether it's a school class, whether it's a public program, or as somebody mentioned earlier, the Internet.

Since I seem to be saying all negative things, I want to say a positive thing about a program, a federal program, from perhaps a surprising source, from Industry Canada. The SchoolNet Digital Collections Program has been an excellent program for museums. It is allowing museums to get their collections onto the net.

I understand that program is only a three-year program. It's in the second of its three years, and I think it's something that should be looked at to be continued, because here's a chance for Canada to get out onto the net the information that's stored in its vast number of heritage institutions.

I also understand that at this point Canada leads France in the amount of French material on the net. We're going to lose that position unless we put some money into that, and there are many institutions that would be delighted to be able to translate their material and get it on the net in this way. So I think that's an extremely important thing as well.

Since time is going, the other thing I just want to mention again is the isolation theme that keeps coming up among some of my colleagues. If we feel isolated as museum professionals, I think you have to say tenfold or a thousandfold this must be how Canadians feel, and if we don't feel that we can, with our own relatively narrow profession, know what's happening in the rest of the country, I can't imagine that Canadians can.

It seems to me that the kinds of things we're dealing with in Canada right now are all about culture. While we're calling it everything else, the real debate in Canada right now is about culture. I think this committee you are heading up is one of the most important and most fundamental that is taking place in Canada right now, and heritage institutions have an extremely large role to play in that.

For some reason, we don't seem to be quite on the radar screen with some of the other parts of culture, but I would say that heritage institutions are an extremely important part of the cultural fabric of this country and that the cultural fabric of this country is really what's going to either make or break our future.

The Chairman: Ms. Charland.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Charland: I guess I'm the black sheep at this round table.

The Chairman: Not at all, Ms. Charland. You aren't the black sheep at all, quite the contrary. Take your time, explain your case to us, and please relax. On the contrary, you are welcome here, and I don't think you should feel like you are the black sheep.

Ms. Diane Charland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't complaining, I was trying to point out to you that in the final analysis, people are not familiar with the problems that archives are experiencing.

I think I will take advantage of the fact that the museum people are here to promote archives. All the exhibitions that people talk about are documented, and the documents are to be found somewhere, namely in the museum archives. If someone wants to discuss the exhibition 100 years from now, he will be able to do so because archivists have done their work and kept records of the activities that have been held.

I will use the museums as an example, because we are surrounded by museums, but I would point out to you that records of Canadian activities and institutions are systematically kept in archives. Consequently, a Canadian identity is to be found there. I think we have to talk about that. This identity is to be found within the records that are selected and that are representative of each stage of society.

We too would like to use our archives for exhibition. Indeed, exhibitions of archival material are not always boring. Unfortunately, we are always swimming upstream to some extent. We have the impression that people always think that archives are boring. Let me assure you that's far from being the case.

• 1155

Archives contain all kinds of wonderful material, and if you put it to good use, these treasures deserve to be sent from province to province, even if it is just to expand people's knowledge of each other.

We have the same problems as the museums do. A few moments ago, someone was talking about keeping archives for 500 years. We are dealing with the same timeframe. In the final analysis, people can consult the archives of antiquity even now, in the present, because someone stored them somewhere. So, the role of archivists is to store this heritage properly.

Our role has changed with the arrival of new technology. We no longer just store paper; we store information, no matter what medium it is on. This poses a particular problem for archivists. What will we do in a few years to consult records that were created electronically? This is a problem that archivists have to deal with.

As for the growth in the amount of information, people say that records are computerized now and that we don't need a lot of space anymore to store them, but that's not entirely so. We have to select records properly, store them properly and increase our storage facilities. The museums have a very similar problem.

I do hope that I have convinced you, because I think that being an archivist is somewhat like being a missionary. In life, you always have to swim against the current to make any progress.

Mr. Bélanger asked how we can strengthen the links between Canadians and their heritage. I think that a very good way of doing this would be to enable archivists to put their records and collections to better use.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I was just asking a question.

Ms. Diane Charland: I think it was Mr. Lachapelle who brought up that question. I sense that he is well aware of his museum's archives. That comes through in his remarks.

So, we have to make sure that these archives are used. As I was saying when I started, the money doesn't come from that side, and funding is needed to organize interesting exhibits and projects.

I will conclude by making a link with the Internet. The Canadian archives community is currently working on a project to set up an archives information network, and I think it will be an excellent way of putting records from very interesting sources on the Internet.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That could become a source of income.

Ms. Diane Charland: I admit that I was expecting that question. and wondered whether I should answer it. At present, archivists are in somewhat of an awkward position, because they give things back to citizens that already belong to them. The museums have the same problem. Should we have to pay to consult records? I wouldn't dare take a position on the issue right now, but I think we have to ask the question.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Charland, before I give the floor to someone else, I would like to ask you a question. I don't know whether you've thought about this, and perhaps the people from the museums could also reply.

Last year, I visited a museum in France that commemorated the Second World War. It was partly a museum and partly archives. It contained things that belonged far more in archives than in a traditional museum collection. I had a very interesting visit, and I thought that people could get a much better explanation by looking at an item in the collection and then looking at the archives, for example, letters and so on.

Do you think that there is enough co-operation between archivists and museum specialists? Should there be a lot more co- operation? And would that help both of you?

Ms. Diane Charland: I haven't though about that problem a lot, but I think that is the case, indeed. As I listened to the remarks made today, I realized that we probably could develop wonderful links between archival information and records on the one hand and museum pieces on the other.

• 1200

As you saw from the exhibit in France, such links can create something very dynamic, something even closer to our Canadian roots.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Janes.

Mr. Robert Janes: In response to that notion of linking archives and museums, it's a critically important point. Glenbow is actually a four-part institution, and we operate the largest non-government archives in Canada. We have about a million historical images and about four shelf kilometres of papers relating to the history of western Canada. In fact you can't do western Canadian history without coming to our organization. Our archives service about 15,000 researchers per year.

I just wanted to support my colleague and emphasize how important archival material is, especially when you consider what a rich resource it is. For example, the Canadian writer Grant MacEwan, who writes about western Canada, uses our archives on a very regular basis for his research. He's only one person through the door of our archives, yet every book he writes is read by 50,000 Canadians. He couldn't be writing that sort of book without those kinds of historical materials. That's just to put a very strong emphasis on the importance of archives and their interlinkage with museums.

Also, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I want to respond to Mr. Bonwick with just three practical ideas about—

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick had to leave, but anyway, yes?

Mr. Robert Janes: —three practical ideas that wouldn't cost the federal government any hard cash. I throw these three out for consideration.

The first one would be a 100% deduction for donations to cultural organizations, in the same way as is given for political parties.

Second, tax relief for volunteer hours, and if not volunteer hours, at least their expenses. At our organization we have a minimum of $300,000 worth of volunteer work done per year, and we simply couldn't be where we are without volunteers. It's very easy to track the exact contribution. We use touch-screen computer technology, so our volunteers log in. And the Department of Canadian Heritage has actually gone across the country and put a dollar value on a volunteer hour. I think in Alberta it's something like $14.50 an hour. So it's very easy to compute the economic contribution of volunteers. We would suggest that they be given tax relief either for the time they've contributed or, minimally, their expenses, because they always pay for their own parking, their own lunch, and that sort of thing.

Third, we would suggest that you make museum memberships tax-deductible. Museum members are increasingly important because they're the sort of people who are willing to spend $40 a year to affiliate with an organization, and in fact they are our most loyal long-term supporters. Just the notion of allowing them to deduct their membership would go a long way towards fostering an increase in membership.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Janes.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you very much.

Actually, I'm really impressed with the questions and the answers I got. I've come to learn quite a lot about the problems the museums are facing. We'll address those as we go further with the committee. However, with apologies to all the other museum directors who are here, I would like to address my remarks to Mr. McNeil.

Let me say this, Mr. McNeil. I'm pretty impressed with your coming here today to bring the problems you are facing as a cultural organization of a multicultural nature—coming into the main committee, presenting your problems, and fighting for your rights in the main committee, and not going to the portion of multicultural on the side and fighting your battles there. For doing that I commend you very much, and I hope all other organizations would do the same: come in front and fight the battles in the mainstream Canadian and forget this thing. I commend you for that, and I'm sorry to hear about that.

In conclusion, I have to go. Thank you very much. It was indeed a pleasure hearing you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Do I have any other interveners? Mr. Barkley.

Mr. William Barkley: Our colleague from the archives raised the point of working together. There are many other sections of the cultural industry that could be working together, and we need to look at those links.

• 1205

That comes back to the question that was asked about what the federal government could do. There are possibilities in working with the CBC, for example, in terms of the kind of content in programming and so on, and that could support museums and support the CBC. And there are other ways.

As an example, 72% of my collection is natural history. I have PhD biologists doing research, but museum biology researchers are not eligible for grants through the federal government, through the NSERC program. I have to go through a baroque process of getting my researchers appointed to the university as cross-appointments. Then they can apply through the university and the funding comes through the university in order to support the research. It's quite an unnecessary process. These people qualify as researchers, they're in a bona fide institution and they should be eligible to apply, but that restriction has been in place for many years. I think there are ways we can develop that.

One of the questions relates to the comments that were just made in relation to the presentation on this Caribbean exhibition. I went to a very touching ceremony a few weeks ago in which my daughter-in-law became a Canadian citizen. I think every Canadian should have to attend one of those ceremonies. I'd never been to one of those ceremonies before, but I sat in a room with 80 people and I listened. The RCMP officer, in red serge, came in—and she was quite a striking figure, this female officer. I thought that was wonderful as well. We heard some comments from the judge about Canada and it was a wonderful feeling.

And in that room, of the 80 people there, 72 were of Asian descent. I don't think our institutions are getting ready for the demographic change that's going on in this country. It is enormous. Just speaking about my own institution, we're not dealing with that situation. An interesting statistic came out on the news recently in British Columbia: in the municipality of Surrey, 64% of the students in the school system are Asian. But our institutions are not changing to reflect that kind of activity. And it's going on across this country, not just in that area.

And the federal government obviously has responsibility because the federal government is responsible for the immigration policies of the country. I think it would add a richness to our culture if we put some priority on dealing with those issues in the cultural milieu, in our institutions, our art galleries, our museums, our archives, etc.

The Chairman: I think you address a very key point, which is of course one of the three main parts of our study.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, just in regard to the point that was made about credit for volunteers, I very much support that idea. That point was raised with me just very recently by a constituent who is about to retire and says he'd like to stay active but would like some credit for what he does. I think that's an excellent idea that I can assure you I will pursue in the Liberal caucus, and I'm sure others among my colleagues will support it. To what extent it's achievable or practical, I don't know, but I really think it's an excellent idea. Just in my own community of London, Ontario, there are literally millions and millions of person-hours donated to a whole variety of volunteer efforts. So I very much support that concept.

Mr. Chairman, for our further study—and this figure may be available right now, or we should have this, I think.... I'm a teacher in another life. I'd like to know how many visits to our museums in Canada are visits from school students. I'd like to see the breakdown of what age levels, what students are represented on those visits.

Why do I want that? Because I think there's a very important link between the teaching of history in this country—or the lack of the teaching of history in this country—and our museums. It seems we're talking a little about paradoxes today. My friend and colleague, Mr. Bélanger, referred to that earlier and Mr. Janes addressed it.

If I'm hearing correctly, visits to museums are up, and that's good news. Yet at the same time I'm not at all comfortable about the level of knowledge among students in this country, in whatever province, with respect to Canadian history.

• 1210

Reference was made to citizenship courts. I've had the pleasure of attending several as an MP and have been very impressed as well. I'm here to tell you that a lot of those new Canadians have to pass a basic test on Canadian history that unfortunately many of our other citizens might have difficulty with. It's simply because—I can only speak to Ontario—in Ontario a student in high school is asked to study one measly little credit, about four months of some Canadian history, and that's it. They never again have to study anything about Canadian studies.

Well, I guess if you include geography, which obviously you would, then they have to do two credits in total in their whole five years of high school in Ontario. I find that just shocks me, and I'm very concerned about the level of...I guess the right word is “ignorance”. It may not be the poetic word but the right word. The level of ignorance of many Canadians about our own country, our own history, and our own culture concerns me very gravely.

I wonder if somebody could address this: If museum visits are up, that's great; then if we taught more Canadian history and there were a better appreciation of it, I think they could be up even more. I don't know why people go and visit a place that houses their history when quite frankly there's quite a level of ignorance about that history. Maybe I'm touching a sensitive point. I don't know, Mr. Chairman.

Given the nature of new immigrants to Canada, that just amplifies the need, as far as I'm concerned, to continue to increase the level of the teaching of history in this country.

With all those comments, I guess there's a request for some breakdown of museum visits. Also there's a question: Is there another paradox here, that museum visits are up, and if my thesis is correct, the level of knowledge of Canadian history is not up? So what's the answer?

The Chairman: We're going to obtain the figures for you, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. François Lachapelle: I would like to take the opportunity to add a few more comments in response to Mr. O'Brien's remarks and to answer some questions or concerns that other committee members raised. In short, although the number of museum visits may be up, there may also be a perception that people do not know Canadian history very well. I think that one can easily say that Canada and the museum community, on the one part, and school boards and universities, on the other, have not done very well at all in comparison with efforts in other countries.

The number of museum visits will increase, even though the links between schools and museums are very weak. You must understand that museums are not just a place where we collect things. Museums have evolved enormously over the past 30 years. They are not just collections and exhibits. As the Toronto philosopher Ursula Franklin said so well, in a virtual world, one of the greatest potentials and one of the finest qualities of a museum is that it can be a café. A museum is a place to transmit ideas. Let me go back to the theme of communication and creating stronger links between tourists, citizens, Canadians and their heritage.

I would like to make an additional comment in response to the problem that Mr. McNeil experienced. Museums are starting to run out of steam because of financial problems. These problems are starting to affect a museum's capacity to live within its city, since a museum must also live in a mobile world, be it through the Internet or by means of travelling exhibitions. But if a museum also wants to be active within society, it must also live within a community and with this community.

That is why I go back to my favourite theme of creating stronger links between museums and the heritage of Canadians in general. When I say "their heritage," I'm not just talking about the heritage of the local people, but also about everything that is considered the heritage of the past and of today in a particular community.

• 1215

In my view, the government certainly should take a number of steps, be it in terms of education, the problems of multiculturalism, demographic changes or freer trade. These incentives, which could be financial or legal in nature, or could take other forms, would create these stronger links and ensure that museums develop a relationship with the community that is much more reflective of today's heritage, of today's Canadian culture.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Riordon.

Mr. Bernard Riordon: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to perhaps change the focus a bit and look at the federal government's role in promoting our culture internationally.

I would encourage the federal government to take a leadership role in making the world aware of our artists and of our important visual heritage. This is something that can have great impact on the country in terms of a sense of pride but also in terms of our economy. I would certainly suggest that the federal government may wish to designate a category of national treasure for our important artists.

I know we have an artist at this table, and we're very proud to have Wendy Lill in our region of the country. I would expect that 500 years from now she'll be known as a playwright, not a parliamentarian.

The Chairman: Are you saying she might be a national treasure as well, or she is?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bernard Riordon: I was getting there.

It's very important that our grassroots culture be recognized. Our regional culture is our national culture, and our national culture is world-class. I hope we can do more to promote our culture internationally.

Also, it's very important that we talk about the new millennium and how we can create a greater awareness of this sense of pride in Canada by establishing and supporting regional aspects of art, such as with biennials that bring a dimension of artists from around the world to Canada and focus attention on our local and national culture.

I would hope that the federal government would continue dialogue in collaboration with the Canadian Museums Association on important aspects of the deliberations here today.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Riordon.

I have Mr. Godfrey and Mrs. Stevenson.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a couple of observations.

First, on the tax issue, I don't think I've heard, unless I was asleep at the switch, reference to the fact that we did change the Income Tax Act in last year's budget to give greater incentives for people to contribute works of art and indeed stocks in publicly held companies to institutions such as museums. We placed a slight restriction on it in this year's budget in terms of how long you have to hold the art, but it should be recognized that we have made some effort in that regard.

In terms of the tax deductibility of memberships, I suspect there's probably a very technical answer to this, but I'm wondering why you can't simply convert that into a donation and say “As one of the aspects of donation, we give you certain kinds of privileges”, and thereby get it qualified. You all can offer tax deductions. There's probably some very simple, technical reason for not doing that.

My third comment is on the case study that my friend Mr. McNeil has raised. I suspect there are two questions going through the minds of those who run museums. First of all, was there enough time available, knowing about scheduling, that would have allowed that to happen? That's probably a question that may have occurred to some of you.

The other is, I suspect there might be a degree of nervousness. On the one hand, you would like us to offer incentives to have shows like that, but I doubt very much that you'd like us to tell you to have shows like that. Perhaps I'm voicing something that may have run through your minds.

The Chairman: Mr. Riordon, I think you wanted to respond.

Mr. Bernard Riordon: Yes. I wanted to congratulate Mr. Godfrey on the issue of the stock option, because at our institution, within 30 days of that change, we've had several people donate bank stocks to the gallery, and it's been very beneficial to us in our capital campaign.

• 1220

Secondly, our auditors tell us we can give a receipt for a gift of services if we monitor the expenditures that a volunteer incurs in carrying out that volunteer work, if it's monitored, and it is my understanding we're eligible to give a tax receipt.

The Chairman: That's a good point.

Ms. Stevenson.

Ms. Candace Stevenson: I want to pick up mostly on the issue of schools that was mentioned earlier, and two other little points.

Museums are centres of informal learning, so while they're not a part of the school system or the educational system, they're more involved in lifelong learning. On the other hand, we very much work closely with schools, but schools—which I realize is beyond the purview of this committee—are themselves going through major problems now, some of which are certainly having an effect on museums. When schools don't have enough money to pay for buses to bring their children to the museum, they don't see the museum story, and that sort of thing is certainly going on in schools right now.

I think it does link to a point that was made earlier. In museums we can celebrate over the lifetime of a person, not just when they're in the formal school system, the heroes and the stories that are truly Canadian, whether they're regional stories or national stories, but they're our own stories. So I don't think we want to lose that link with the school system, and I don't think we want to forget that we can, again, provide information and content to the school system through the work we do, through the collections we have.

Secondly, somebody mentioned recently the business of international things. I would just like to say that the federal government, a couple of years ago now, probably about four years ago, talked about culture being the third pillar of Canada's foreign policy. I must say we in the community greeted that with great interest and joy, but there's no sense within the community that it has really translated certainly into anything that museums do—maybe in other parts of the cultural community, but certainly not in our part.

Finally, I would like to point out that in Mr. Martin's recent budget speech there was mention of the indemnification program. We're extremely pleased with that. We know there are details to be worked out, and we're happy to work out those details with you, but that was a tremendous boost for many institutions in this country.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We are reaching the end of our time. I think we're going to close here.

If I heard properly and if I could summarize a few of the main thoughts that seem to strike a chord here, first of all we started on a sort of money theme. Ms. Stevenson gave the start to that by saying very clearly that if our policy involves just words and no money, then we have no policy. So I think the message seems to come very clearly from round table to round table that money is extremely important as a support system for an independent instrument, which is government, to back the cultural sector.

I think the reason you say that—and we're not judging whether there's enough money or there should be more at this point, we're here to hear and to learn—certainly the theme that came very strongly through, was that cultural institutions and heritage and the identity of who we are are things that are closely interlinked. We can't separate them and divide them. So if we want a strong heritage to continue, if we want an identity to be preserved and promoted and fortified, then obviously we have to cherish our heritage institutions, our cultural instruments.

I was struck, Mr. Lachapelle,

[Translation]

by what you said. Unless I'm mistaken, you said that the percentage of heritage material that we collect for museum collections has dropped to .4 percent of what we could collect.

• 1225

Mr. François Lachapelle: Particularly in the area of visual arts. At present, what is being collected for future generations represents .4 percent of professional production.

The Chairman: I think that is very significant. I believe that all stakeholders, including the committee members, have pointed out the importance of our cultural heritage as well as the reasons why it must be preserved and strengthened.

[English]

There's one issue that also permeated the discussion, I think. It's a question of the mobility of that knowledge, of that historic collection of information and heritage. If we keep it to ourselves, each one of us in our own community, the others around us never know about it. Either we bring them there, which is almost impossible, or we take the heritage component and transfer it so that others can know it and see it and enjoy it. How do we do this if we don't have the wherewithal of being able to do it?

I was struck, Mr. Barkley, by your testimony that at one point you had several travelling exhibitions and now you will be down to zero. That's a tragic comment. I recall that when I visited Mr. Lachapelle's museum I think he had a travelling exhibition all the way to Japan, which was remarkable for a small community like Rimouski. This is what we should be encouraging. It's very sad if we are to lose that benefit as Canadians.

[Translation]

What do we do?

[English]

What do we do? What do you tell us to do? There are a few messages that you gave very clearly: there should be more interaction, more consortia, more interaction among the various institutions. For example, the thought came out that maybe

[Translation]

archivists and museums experts should try to work together in a much more active and proactive way. Ms. Lill pointed out that

[English]

the whole program of outreach has now been reduced. We don't communicate enough with ourselves. We don't find out what store of wonderful heritage the aboriginal people have, or the black community, or the other communities of Canada have. I think the story of Mr. McNeil touched us all, because it seems so amazing in a country as rich as Canada that we couldn't provide the wherewithal, whoever was at fault, for an exhibition that was obviously very valuable and that people would want to see, to let it go out to places where people in Canada couldn't reach it.

[Translation]

We also touched on an issue that is rather crucial to the entire discussion, namely, what should we do with museum collections that represent an enormous heritage that must be built upon, because we are evolving. How are we to preserve this heritage in aging buildings whose shortcomings are becoming more and more apparent, at a time when there is less funding to hand out? That too is a problem that underpins the entire matter we are looking at.

What are the solutions when there's only a limited amount of money to be allocated? We have heard a very clear message, which is that we must be far more creative,

[English]

not only us the government, but certainly yourselves,

[Translation]

and we must work together to define innovative policies in terms of our tax system and in terms of a larger system for public donations.

[English]

For instance, every time I speak of the environment and other fields of public good, I'm struck by how much the Americans have fostered the idea of foundations, which are part of their huge foundation institution, whereas our foundations pale in insignificance because we have never nurtured that system.

• 1230

So I think we retain your suggestions very strongly that we should look at the various incentive programs that are possible. Maybe you could help us there with suggestions along the way.

[Translation]

This round-table is just a beginning. If you have any practical ideas to pass on to us, please don't hesitate to do so.

[English]

I also retain the idea that the Internet was viewed by you not as a threat over there, but certainly as a very positive function for the future, an instrument for the future that could be extremely positive in making our knowledge and the heritage that we share more available to one another. We certainly retain that and the fact that we should try to improve our access to it. By helping you we help ourselves as an overall community.

Finally, I think the idea was summed up pretty well by certainly Mr. Riordon, and I think Mrs. Stevenson also alluded to it, that we have local heroes or local people who certainly taught us so many lessons and they are known within our own bailiwicks. Let's make them into national heroes, I think you said, Mr. Riordon. And the way to do this is to diffuse that community of knowledge that we all share.

I think different threads of direction came out of this round table. I think it was extremely useful to us. Please keep in touch. If you have any ideas that you want to put on paper, if you have not already done so, please do, and send it to our clerk. We'll be sure to take it into consideration very seriously.

Thank you very, very much for coming. We appreciate your time, your input, and your travelling here to see us. Thank you. Merci.

The meeting is adjourned.