CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 23, 1999

• 1920

[English]

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

It's been a most interesting day. On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome everyone here this evening, the citizens of this country. To begin, I'll ask Wendy to bring greetings, as she is the MP for Dartmouth.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to welcome everybody here tonight. I've been able to welcome everybody all day. The heritage committee is sincerely interested in knowing what you think about the health of our culture, the involvement of the federal government in the making of culture, what's working and what's not working, and how we can improve upon it. We've heard some amazing things yesterday and today, and I think it's all accumulating into something that I think is going to be very worthwhile. So your contribution is welcomed and valuable here tonight. Thank you.

So let's go.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much, Wendy. Before we begin, I will ask our head table guests to introduce themselves.

Mr. Gaston Blais (Committee Researcher): Gaston Blais. I'm a researcher for the committee.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I'm Joe Jordan. I'm a Liberal MP from eastern Ontario, Leeds—Grenville. I want to pick up on something Wendy said. I don't think we need to dwell on what's working. I think we're getting a sense of that. I think we should shift it to maybe where it isn't working and where the gaps are. I think you might want to touch on what's working, but don't think you have to stroke me on that. I think we should get into the meat of where the gaps and challenges are. I think that would be much more worthwhile.

Ms. Mern O'Brien (Director, Dalhousie Art Gallery): My name is Mern O'Brien. I'm the director of a public university art gallery here in Halifax, Dalhousie University Art Gallery, and this year we are celebrating our 45th anniversary. The Dalhousie Art Gallery is the very grateful beneficiary of significant levels of federal funding received primarily from the Canada Council for the Arts, but also from the museums assistance program, over the past 20 years. Grants from these very important funding bodies have allowed us to organize important—

• 1925

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Mern, excuse me, if I may, I want everyone to introduce themselves first.

Ms. Mern O'Brien: I'm sorry.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): That's no problem.

Ms. Susan Hanrahan (Executive Director, Nova Scotia Designer Crafts Council): My name is Susan Hanrahan. I'm executive director of the Nova Scotia Designer Crafts Council. I wear a number of other hats as well and they may come into play later in the evening.

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner (Director, Mount St. Vincent Art Gallery): My name is Ingrid Jenkner. I'm director of a publicly funded art gallery, Mount St. Vincent's University Art Gallery in Halifax.

Mr. Andrew Terris (Executive Director, Nova Scotia Cultural Network): My name is Andrew Terris. I'm the executive director of the Nova Scotia Cultural Network, which is a new membership organization that comprises all aspects of the culture sector, everything from heritage and design to cultural industries and the arts.

Mr. Al Chaddock (Member, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting): My name is Al Chaddock, artist and philosopher. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and the Council of Canadians.

Mr. Robert McCosh (First Vice-President, Canadian Symphony Musicians): My name is Rob McCosh. I am first vice-president with the organization of Canadian Symphony Musicians.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Wendy Lill, member of Parliament for Dartmouth.

Ms. Gay Hauser (General Manager, Eastern Front Theatre Company): I'm Gay Hauser, general manager of the Eastern Front Theatre Company, chair of the Nova Scotia Professional Theatre Alliance, and member of the Nova Scotia Arts Council.

Mr. Bernard Riordon (Director and Chief Executive Officer, Art Gallery of Nova Scotia): I'm Bernie Riordon, the director of the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia.

[Translation]

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

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

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): I'm Inky Mark, member of Parliament from Manitoba, and I'll try to chair this meeting.

This afternoon we had some very dynamic discussion and interchange amongst the people here, not only at the table here but also from the audience. I should remind all of us that we're trying to establish a process that is called discussion rather than presentation, so I would suggest to our guests that if you have papers to deliver, you present them to our clerk, or if you wish to briefly discuss them, that's fine as well. Try to keep it under four minutes so that we get a chance to maybe do our thing and then have some discussion on really important questions that come up.

You were all presented with a document about this meeting, basically raising five questions. We're going to reduce them to three. The first one really deals with the range of funding of federal cultural support measures currently in place and what your experience has been with them. The second one deals with three parts: technology changes, their impact on your industry; trade liberalization; and changing demographics. The last one, which is the most important that we're seeking information on, deals with what role the federal government should have in terms of supporting the cultural sector. In other words, these are examples of roles: should they be legislators, regulators, owners, and operators of national institutions? Should others do that? Should the federal government be funding partners, patrons of the arts, or a business developer and promoter? What is your concept of the role the federal government should have in this whole business of heritage and Canadian culture?

Perhaps we can each take our four minutes and go around the table before we get into questions and discussions. We'll also invite the audience in later on, once we get around the table once.

Mern, would you like to start?

Ms. Mern O'Brien: Thank you. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, we've been very successful beneficiaries of the funding from the Canada Council for the Arts and the museums assistance program for the past 20 years. Grants from these bodies have allowed the Dalhousie Art Gallery to, for example, organize important and sometimes groundbreaking exhibitions of work by both historical and contemporary Canadian artists, tour a good number of these exhibitions to centres across the country, publish extensive illustrated catalogues containing primary research and documentation about Canadian artists' work, purchase works by contemporary artists for our permanent collection, and hopefully in the very near future digitize our entire permanent collection so that we can travel curated exhibitions from our collection electronically around the world.

• 1930

In terms of the impact of new technologies on our sector, in August 1996, with money from the Canada Council we launched our web site, which now contains our full calendar of events, a listing of all our publications that are for sale, and occasionally our current illustrated catalogue. This technology has allowed us to reach a huge audience of people who may never actually visit the gallery in person but still order catalogues and e-mail us about our programs.

My point is to say that public art galleries do a great deal to promote, preserve, display, interpret, and make accessible this country's contemporary and historical culture and heritage to large numbers of the public every year, and we do it because we have access to funding primarily from the Canada Council.

In the case of the museums assistance program, I must say that access to funding is quite challenging and often very disappointing. Did you know that the four national museums, those being the National Gallery of Canada, the Museum of Civilization, the Museum of Science and Technology, and the Museum of Nature, receive $100 million in funding every year as compared to the museums assistance program, which is supposed to fund the rest of Canada with a budget of only $9 million?

My final point is that a vital and integral part of any federal cultural policy should be the provision for adequate funding levels for both the Canada Council for the Arts and the museums assistance program.

Thank you.

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

Susan.

Ms. Susan Hanrahan: I'm here as a representative of the Nova Scotia Designer Crafts Council, a charitable, member-based organization that has represented the provincial craft community since 1976, when it was formed.

I'm here primarily tonight to speak to the need for a national crafts organization in Canada. The crafts community in Canada has been suffering because of a lack of a national organization, and this lack is only recent. National organizations in Canada have dated back to the 1900s. In 1974 a number of organizations and associations merged to form the Canadian Crafts Council. This organization was funded federally from 1974 to 1995 from the federal government department responsible for culture. In 1996 all federal funding to this organization was eliminated. This organization managed to survive for the next two years on a volunteer basis and with the minuscule amount of money remaining in the Canadian Crafts Council's coffers.

In 1998 the provincial crafts councils met with the volunteers making up the Canadian Crafts Council, with representatives from the Canadian Conference of the Arts and from federal cultural agencies and departments. It was agreed at this meeting to transform the Canadian Crafts Council into an organization that would primarily operate as a national electronic communications network for crafts, now called the Canadian Crafts Federation or la Fédération canadienne des métiers d'art. The organization operates again on a volunteer basis.

Efforts are underway to identify funding for this organization from crafts councils and individual crafts people from across the country, but the organization is very aware that the crafts community will, by itself, not be able to fund a national organization.

The point I would like to make this evening is that if the federal government is serious about creating a federal cultural policy, it must be prepared to assist with operational funding and for, I would suggest, at least one representative organization for each cultural sector. For crafts, this organization is now the Canadian Crafts Federation.

Thank you very much.

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

Ingrid.

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: As I mentioned before, I'm from Mount St. Vincent University Art Gallery. This gallery is very similar in structure to Dalhousie University Art Gallery, and I won't repeat what Mern has said. I'll simply reiterate that the funding mechanisms from the federal government that have worked best for this art gallery are arm's-length funding through peer jury process. I cannot advocate this strongly enough. I do not represent what might be conventionally called the heritage sector. I'm speaking for contemporary art, for the work of living artists, and I have to say that the Canada Council has been extremely effective in forwarding its own mandate in this area. The gallery has been a beneficiary and we are grateful, and I think many others are also.

• 1935

In terms of the impact of technology, I imagine we will be using it more extensively as a distribution mechanism, so we will not only occupy a physical space but also a virtual one. We are well on the road toward that goal.

Addressing the question of what role the government might play in the future—owner, regulator, patron, etc.—I'm not sure about that. All I can say is I feel that direct political control of this area of cultural production is not likely to be productive, and if the government can preserve an arm's-length relationship to the funding agency that is funding this area of production, it would be a wise move.

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

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Terris: I want to start with what I think are some very scary numbers. These are from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the preliminary report of the Working Group on Cultural Policy for the 21st Century. They're quoted in a paper Victor Rabinovitch, who is the former deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, delivered in October 1997 on what percentage of the Canadian cultural marketplace is actually controlled by Canadians.

Here's what we don't control: 70% of the music on Canadian radio stations is foreign; 60% of all English language television programming is foreign; 70% of the Canadian book market is imported. We don't control 83% of the newsstand market for magazines; 84% of the retail sales of sound recordings; 95% of feature films screened in Canadian theatres; 86% of prime time English language drama on Canadian television; and 75% of prime time drama on French language television. This is an occupied country.

If you want to really get down to the meat of what we're talking about here in terms of the federal government's role, these are issues the federal government should be dealing with. These are federal issues because they really address issues right across the country.

There are two issues here. One is Canadian culture itself. We're not seeing ourselves reflected in Canadian mass media in our cultural industries. This means money and jobs are flowing out of the country into foreign markets. If we had even 50% of the market, it would mean much more money and many more jobs would be staying in Canada and used productively in this country.

What we're talking about here is primarily the product of the American cultural industries. The Americans would never accept these kinds of numbers in their market, and I think it's imperative that the government of this country take a very strong stand on these issues. These have implications in terms of funding for culture, the technology, and issues of trade liberalization, globalization, demographics, and the role of the federal government. This is a central issue in terms of cultural policy in this country.

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

Mr. Al Chaddock: Of course, I agree with everything Andrew just said, which you knew.

As an artist and as part of a community of artists, we are always inventing technology, even language technology. Those of us who are writers invent it every time we work. The technology's basic reason for existing is to promote dialogue amongst neighbours. But I'd like you to consider that the country itself, as it is constituted within its social morays, history, and laws in the way it happens, is a technology. So far, because we didn't pre-describe what it would look like in a constitution, like our friends to the south did, we have evolved to be a very humanist society, in spite of ourselves, and are much the toast of the world. I fear having to once again pre-describe who we are, to exclude ourselves from certain trade agreements.

• 1940

This is a dangerous practice. When you put anything down on paper, it's already dead; you've taken the life out of it. This is why the law is perennially an ass, and those of us who make it are forever trying to prove we're not some other part of the ass.

Canada is the technology. It's a way of being that has always found a way to adapt so that our key values of humanism can shine through. We artists are forever inventing ways of bringing this message to our neighbours within Canada.

Our number one challenge is to get those in the business community and the political community to share our understanding of this truth, that we cannot allow Canada to be described, for trade agreements or any other reason.... It's to kill ourselves, to close the windows and the doors.

I almost felt like asking the spirit of Marshall McLuhan to bless our meeting earlier this morning. He spoke much about technology and how it all comes in as tools of humanism in democracy and ends up being tools of oppression and disenfranchisement. Right now, I think many of us are aware of the desperate effort the power elites are exerting to try to get control of the Internet, because it's promoting something horrible for them—democracy, world dialogue, and a real human dimension to what we mean by global village, another McLuhan term, by the way.

I want us to keep thinking about this stuff. The country itself is technology, and we the artists in it are the way it recreates itself, other than the way we do so in the Houses of Parliament. We're a pair; we need each other. Without the intervention of government in Canadian society, we will be left to the laws of the market alone, and that is not a level playing field.

Thank you.

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

Robert.

Mr. Robert McCosh: There are a number of issues with the CBC for Canadian musicians now, with the reduced funding of the CBC. It occurs on both an individual level, in terms of income, and it occurs for the orchestras themselves that also gain income from broadcasts. There is a real impact with the partnerships the CBC has undertaken with the European Broadcasting Union in which remotes have been displaced to European orchestras, which pay at scales lower than those at the CBC.

There is a real problem with the CBC in terms of internal morale. They don't know tomorrow if they're going to have a job or not. There is a real problem, I believe, in terms of the federal government showing a passion for the CBC and showing they believe it is worthwhile.

In terms of the Canada Council, to their credit, when they were cut back the administration took the cuts themselves. They did not pass them on to the orchestras. But some of the programs that have fallen by the wayside or have had to become partnerships are things like the National Youth Orchestra, which was the main training program for young musicians in Canada, and the conductor and composer residencies.

Other issues for Canadian symphony musicians are new technologies in terms of the copyright law and these things called CD writers, MP3 technology, and the ability to protect their products over the Internet.

There is also a real concern about any type of MAI agreement that would circumvent government support of cultural institutions. There's real concern about tax law and how that could be changed to help musicians and artists in Canada with such things as dual tax status, which reflects our own income realities of both employment and self-employed income; 100% charitable donation status for non-profit organizations, such as symphony orchestras; and new and creative ways of creating money for the arts in Canada in terms of different ways of taxing things such as the tobacco industry. Millions of dollars of sponsorship are lost while the government is taking in millions of dollars. It's hypocrisy to say we need to get private sector funding but we can't have tobacco industry funding. They're tying our hands. They need to look at creative ways, such as in Australia, where a tax is levied on cigarettes and that tax funds the arts in Australia.

• 1945

The city of San Francisco has a hotel tax, because the hotels and restaurants gain greatly from arts activities. People come into the city, stay in the hotels, eat in the restaurants, shop, and go to those museums, yet there is no reciprocity.

These are the types of problems that have been impacting on the Canadian symphony musician. Thank you.

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

Gay.

Ms. Gay Hauser: Thank you. I just want to respond to these questions. Federally we've been supported by the Canada Council. It has worked extremely well for us, and the peer jury system has always worked for theatres in this country. The Canada Council, as Rob said, has suffered cutbacks, but it didn't feel like it affected artists. There was obviously a jolt. Everything was frozen there for a couple of years, but not like in some other arts organizations. The Ontario Arts Council has had a major effect in Ontario.

The Canada Council has also, with the increase in funding from the federal government, created many new programs that we in the theatre are benefiting from. We are able to offer exciting new projects.

I've also seen a real increase in communications across the country. Artistic directors are able to travel quite easily to see new work in other parts of the country, and my theatre can bring work from other parts of the country here.

The other level of funding we receive from the federal government is from the Department of Canadian Heritage. This seems to be politically motivated. It's much harder to put your hand on how it is decided that one gets the money. It comes from two levels because you don't know who is reading your application really. Also, when you come to write your application, the criteria are not very clear. I think there could be an improvement in that area of clarification.

The multiculturalism program of Canadian Heritage no longer has a culture program one can apply to, so our theatre company has to work under an educational project and create a project that weaves into the theatre project we're doing. This of course is very exciting, but it's also very complex, and often we're not working with our strengths.

Human resources is also an important factor in how we operate because we gain trainees and short-term interns through Human Resources Canada. Sometimes these are great programs, often through Cultural Human Resources Council. We are able to hire somebody for a year. After a year of training, that person becomes so important to your organization that of course you have to hire them, which is what I think the program is set up for. Other programs have been much shorter—three months or seven months.

• 1950

Although those kinds of programs are great, the time the organization has to put into training only begins to pay off in the last two months, and it's much more difficult to raise the profile of your organization to such a point where you can actually begin to fund these people totally.

Also, I'd like to say that the CBC has been a tremendous resource for the theatre community in Canada, certainly in this province and definitely in Metro, and the cuts over the past five years to CBC have had a profound effect on theatre artists, musicians, and writers. Also, for us as a theatre company, the CBC did a lot of seeding of projects. They would often seed a small radio play that we as a theatre company could then take up and put on the stage. Things would grow from the CBC, and that has been much more difficult recently.

In terms of technology, all I can say is it's a very competitive world out there. Technology is moving at a rate much faster than we can keep up with, and it would be nice if there was some capital funding there to provide us with the kind of computerization we need in our office, because we don't want to take money from our programming. Our operating funds go to our programming; our fundraising goes to our programming. We want to put on plays; we want to hire playwrights, writers, designers, actors, and technicians. I just hope that at the end of the year I can come up with another $2,000 over, so I can increase my capacity.

Third, you've said here that the federal government acts as a promoter of culture. I would like to see that at every level. In the last budget there was no mention of culture. If there was, it was extremely slim. Everybody watches the budget on television. Everybody in the country pores over the newspapers the next day. There is no mention in the budget, so we're basically invisible yet again.

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

Bernard.

Mr. Bernard Riordon: First of all, thanks very much for this opportunity, Mr. Chair.

The current initiative of the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia is to build a western branch in Yarmouth for all of southwestern Nova Scotia, to appreciate the artists and the great activity in the arts in that area and to hopefully help the economy in that region.

We believe public access is very important and that reaching out to new communities is ever important for the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, and that same spirit should prevail at a national level in terms of the regional galleries being in many ways our national galleries.

I'd like to applaud the current initiatives of the National Gallery of Canada, not only in their touring program but in their spirit of cooperation, which is a spirit of empowerment to art institutions and to artists, in terms of loaning their collections and making their expertise available across the country. I think that collaboration is necessary for very successful cultural development in this country.

What I would hope the federal government could do is bring about a psychological shift, a belief in ourselves that we can all aspire to achieve things in terms of world competition. Because we have world-class artists and world-class institutions, we should think world class, and the government should try to provide the environment for that to be nurtured and encouraged.

In regard to what is currently working well in my sector, art galleries, I would like to applaud again the museum assistance program, the Canadian Conservation Institute, which regularly restores works for institutions around the country, and the Cultural Properties Review Board and that great incentive for donors to donate, with the certificates of cultural property. Please keep that active and try to enlarge upon that.

• 1955

Of course, the Canada Council and the exhibition indemnification program are programs that have proven to be very successful, as well as the museum assistance program, which I mentioned earlier.

In regard to new technologies, from my point of view, the key issue in the sector I represent is the access to collections, not only in terms of providing the public we serve access to our collections, but providing access across Canada to collections and exchanging those collections from institution to institution, from province to province, to help to have a better understanding of the regions and to create a stronger Canadian identity.

On the issue of changing demographics, from where I sit the aging population has a very strong sense of support in terms of planned giving for institutions such as the art gallery. It's something the government could encourage in terms of providing greater financial stability through private donations and patronage of the arts.

In terms of the recent stock option that was provided for special tax incentives for stock options, gifts to not-for-profit have proved to be very valuable to our sector.

Helping to popularize the arts and, of course, encouraging art education in terms of young people is obviously a very important activity.

The other aspect is that we should be proud to create national treasures, whether it be Alex Colville, Maud Lewis, David Askevold, or Al Chaddock. We are proud to have these artists as national treasures and we should recognize our artists as national treasures.

In conclusion, we'd like to see more encouragement of partnerships with corporations and with individuals and the role the government can play in fostering those partnerships that lead to very positive support for the arts.

Thank you.

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

Now we'll hear from our members of Parliament. Who would like to start?

Joe.

Mr. Joe Jordan: These points are on a couple of different tracks, and I'll start both snowballs down the mountain and see where they end up.

The first point is something that was triggered by our waiter this evening when we had dinner, and it was actually a point that had been brought up before. I'll make an analogy to business and try to make my point that way.

One of the problems when you look at entrepreneurship and business failure is that somebody may start out being a very good electrician, but they are not good at the administrative skills necessary to run a business. As their business grows, the thing collapses under its own weight; they don't know how to get credit, and so on.

Is there any application of that analogy to the arts organization? If the days of wine and roses are over, and if on the funding levels the government has pulled out the rug and we're saying you're responsible for a larger portion of your budget, is there an argument that we need to provide training in those areas? How do you manage volunteers? How do you market cultural products and services? How do you go about fundraising? Or is that an excuse for rationalizing the cuts?

I want to ask that first question because that's going to come up.

My second point deals with—Andrew, this is your point—for lack of a better term, the repatriation of the cultural industries in this country. One of the challenges is that the more agreements you sign, the more complicated the web becomes, and for every action there is a reaction. One of the arguments that was used in the agricultural area for not addressing the import of butter, oil, and sugar, which was circumventing the tariff, was that we can't unilaterally do that because we will pay for it in other areas, not through direct repercussion but through the fact that Canada is a country that plays by the rules. I don't know whose rules—the WTO's. So it's not as simple as...we can't just nationalize everything. We have to look at how we get there, how we get from A to B. There are some very hard decisions that are going to have to be made if that's the road we want to go down.

• 2000

The stats are alarming, but I can hear in my mind the rationale for not doing something. It would probably be very similar to the rationale we've heard in other sectors that are bound by international agreements that were either signed without the repercussions being understood or those things weren't important enough to consider at the time. So I would be interested in some of the strategies for resolving that.

One of the other points, and this is all maybe leading to this point, is that we talk about the forces of the market. I think the forces of the market can also be very beneficial, but we have to make sure. I'm also on the environment committee, and I spend a lot of time working on legislation that's trying to force businesses to do things the tax system is encouraging them to do. It seems to me that's a tremendous waste of time, energy, and money. So if we can set the rules, let the market go, because competition and profit are self-policing concepts. But I think tax shift is the answer. I think we have to look at taxing behaviours we want less of and carve out exemptions for behaviours we want more of.

I was very interested in the tobacco tax as an approach to bridging the gap. On one hand we say go raise money, but then we say don't raise money from people who have it. The problem, though, is we also have jurisdictions at different levels of government, and I think taxation on cigarettes is a provincial thing. But I think people are caring less and less about those types of jurisdictional jealousies. So that kind of solution is an interesting one.

I don't know if there's enough there for someone to chew on, but if....

Mr. Robert McCosh: I'd like to respond to that. You had a question about funding training for managers. There is funding for training of managers by the Association of Canadian Orchestras. They have a program in which you go for awhile and work with an orchestra and the senior manager. There is that type of thing. I think the problem is more that they have to live so day to day. They're always behind the eight ball, and there is just never quite enough money, because you don't get all your revenue from ticket sales. It just doesn't happen that way. You use your operating grant to help provide revenue.

I think some things that have been shown to work are art stabilization grants, which have begun in B.C. and Alberta. The one concern we have there is whether we are then going to be subject to artistic blackmail if we don't balance the budget. But it hasn't borne out that way, certainly in those orchestras there. It has helped them regain stability and provide for a long-term vision, which is one of the things that is really a problem in many other orchestras and any not-for-profit organization. So I think if the federal government could look into more of those partnerships, as Bernie mentioned, between the corporations and not-for-profit organizations, that certainly would be a help.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): The chair recognizes Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Terris: As far as the training issue goes, I addressed it in part this afternoon. The Cultural Human Resources Council has identified the kinds of training issues you've mentioned in terms of training for marketing, for exports, for sound management practice, all of that. The problem is there's no money to do it. So even though this has been identified by a national organization, they don't have the resources. We don't have the resources here in Nova Scotia. It's fine to tell us, do a better job of managing your house and get the training to do it, but there aren't the resources. I think there are also, to a certain degree, people who don't want to completely accept the argument that there's less and less federal money, or less and less government money. In point of fact, there was a very interesting piece in The Globe and Mail a few weeks ago that indicated that in fact per capita government expenditure on programs, for all three levels of government, even when you compensate for inflation, really hasn't gone down very much.

• 2005

The government still is spending a huge amount of money on programming. We're being told there's less and less, but I'm not sure that's really true. I think there's a bit of a reluctance to...we sit back and say we're going to get less and less. I think there are some very good arguments for enhanced government investment in arts and culture. Part of the argument is cultural, part of it is social, and part of it is economic. Culture is a good investment, there is no question about it.

As far as the issue of how we deal with the foreign domination of Canadian cultural markets is concerned, I just find it interesting that in the last while the Canadian Conference of the Arts has raised this as an important issue. In the last couple of days SAGIT, the Sectoral Advisory Groups for International Trade, the one for the cultural industries, is now calling for international agreement that will exempt culture and cultural industries from the terms of trade agreements so that they're not treated like any other industrial commodity.

I'm not an expert in these issues. I don't have the answers to those questions, but I think there are answers, and we have to find them, because the levels of foreign domination in this market are completely and totally unacceptable.

Mr. Al Chaddock: These are good things to think about. I don't know if any of you are aware of the buy-back mechanism in NAFTA. If we fail to protect culture from NAFTA, if we don't develop an entrepreneurial infrastructure in the private sector to take over the government role in nurturing the arts in this country.... This is the other alternative to training the artists to do it themselves—more of an American solution. Under the agreement, if we want to claw back 10% of the movie industry for Canada, if we fail to keep this excluded, we will have to compensate the international players, whoever they are—they could be Sony Corporation, or whoever it is at the time—for what they think they will have lost in five years' further participation at that level in the Canadian market. This is the insanity of this agreement.

We could never possibly afford to buy back any percentage of these areas of our economy for reasons of Canadian national security. That is the key point I'd like to make.

Cultural issues should be thought of as indeed extreme national security issues. We're talking about who the country is, and if we fail to protect that, what are we here for? What's the country about? It's just that simple.

I would suggest to all of you to at least read the part of NAFTA that pertains to how you buy back segments of the Canadian economy if you want to, and also look at how you abrogate the agreement and what penalties are there. It's basically impossible.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Is there any further response? Mern, go ahead.

Ms. Mern O'Brien: You mentioned earlier a little bit about the use of volunteers in the cultural sector, and I always get a little nervous when I hear people talking about volunteers, which we use extensively at the Dalhousie Art Gallery. We love and treasure them. But more and more, it seems, I'm hearing the little murmurs of using volunteers in positions that I would call professional positions within the cultural sector.

In other words, you don't have enough money to hire a full-time director or curator, or registrar, or preparer; have you thought of using volunteers? I just want to urge a little caution here, because we are talking about professionals, people who are highly trained and highly skilled at what they do. It's a little like suggesting to your dentist, why don't you use a volunteer hygienist instead of having to pay for one? That's a pretty scary thought if you're in the chair. And it's a pretty scary thought if you're an artist, or performer, or dancer, and there's a volunteer lighting technician who's up there looking after your performance or whatever.

• 2010

I perhaps made an extreme case here, but I just want to urge caution in relation to the extensive use of volunteers within the cultural sector, because we are talking about highly skilled, trained professionals.

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

Go ahead, Susan, and then Ingrid.

Ms. Susan Hanrahan: I wanted to reinforce what Andrew and Al both had to say on the Americanization of the Canadian cultural scene, as it were. The statistics that Andrew gave were indeed alarming.

I also wanted to point out that there is a problem on the reciprocal side of things, with Canadian culture moving across the border into the U.S., particularly in the field of crafts. Crafts people attempting to do trade in the U.S. and attempting to teach in the U.S. experience a far greater amount of difficulty in crossing the boarder than do their counterparts coming into Canada. I think that is an inequity that needs to be considered, reviewed, and amended.

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

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: I think this is a very provocative set of statements, and it's certainly been successful in getting a response.

I want to respond to the management comments you put forth, or rather I guess it was a proposal of an issue. I increasingly suspect, because I hear it all the time, that there is an assumption that cultural enterprises are mismanaged by virtue of being cultural and not for profit. I think the criticism of the management of cultural organizations needs to be a lot more specific, to say who is not managing well and why.

The government is capable and is using its capability to destabilize the environment in which these organizations try to survive. So jerking the rug out from under them and then telling them they're mismanaged strikes me as really like shooting fish in a barrel.

I have to say that I suspect that the agenda is that cultural organizations are intended to be differently managed, so that what they produce is different fundamentally and moves more into an entrepreneurial model of cultural production. If that is the case, I think it should be stated clearly.

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

Joe.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I just want to qualify that I said that because I wanted the ammunition from you to defend against that argument. I didn't believe that myself. You've obviously heard that through other channels too, based on the reaction.

I don't know if it's mismanagement or that the management requirements have been changed for you, and whether or not they've adapted. I wouldn't give the government that much credit that they have a plan to accomplish anything. I think they're trying to spend less money.

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: Possibly they are, but it's a false economy. And I want to add that it's a power grab too.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. I'm not sure about that.

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: Developments at the Canada Council in recent months would indicate that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes. I'm 18 months into this job, and I don't think I've seen the government demonstrate a capacity to know what to do with it if it had it. I don't think there's a big plan.

I think the poor management argument is a smokescreen for saying “You're not pulling your weight. Why should we be dumping more money there?” I think that's why they do that. I wouldn't give them much credit past that.

I'm just saying that this criticism is there, and unfortunately you'll need to be able to respond to that criticism, as I will be able to now, having heard your responses. I think that's a bit of a false argument. I think it prevents the government from having to make a statement one way or another on whether they think these things have value.

If we can throw you to the market forces and survival of the fittest, what do we end up with? We end up with a hybrid of Bill Gates and Mickey Mouse. I don't know what we end up with.

I think the government is dancing around the fundamental issue, and that is what is it we're trying to accomplish here? What is the thing that has value? What is the strategy for protecting it? Those are the pieces I'm having trouble finding.

• 2015

I would just caution you that I haven't seen any sort of coordinated effort in terms of them trying to do anything in terms of conspiracy. I don't give them that much credit. I really don't. I think it's just mismanagement. I think it's just a disjointed bunch of unconnected regulations that, all put together, don't make sense.

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: But it's also paternalism.

Mr. Andrew Terris: Telling us how to manage.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Oh, I don't doubt that for a second.

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: Exactly. I think there is a paternalistic response to any given problem, which is “We know best, and we'll teach them how to adapt”. Well, what the hell does the government know about cultural management?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm not saying that isn't true, but I'm saying that attitude may not help you get from A to B.

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: Well, it mightn't.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So I don't know where we are with that. You know, you mentioned the need to protect against direct political control, and I'm wondering, what is that? What problem—

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: I think Gay mentioned some difficulties with.... She compared the state of applying for and receiving grants from the Canada Council to the condition of applying to a department.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, okay.

Ms. Ingrid Jenkner: I think she made it quite clear that there were certain bureaucratic obstacles to access and there were certain potential misunderstandings about funding criteria. I think that's your first clue as to what happens in that scenario.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Actually, that statement scared me, because I tried to get money from Heritage Canada for a theatre in my riding and couldn't. So that's a statement about my political....

The other thing is that there's criticism of arm's-length bodies too. Essentially, those that are successful think it's good, and those that aren't think it's bad. I would just question the notion that there's a grand political strategy to undermine or power grab or control. I don't know about that, but I do know that this is an area that needs some attention, some very serious attention.

I get a little worried when I hear those kinds of statements. It just concerns me a little bit. And I think I'm on your side on these issues.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Okay, we'll ask Wendy to intervene, and then Suzanne.

Ms. Wendy Lill: There are two themes that keep coming up over and over again. There's the macro-theme, which is the fact that we're an occupied country and that we are in fact working terribly hard to produce and create what we think is Canadian, but at the same time it's just being washed over, and more so all the time, by American cultural products.

Andrew Terris seems to be saying that the role he wants for the federal government is to wrest back control of our culture to a much greater extent. And Jim Lorimer was sitting over there saying Bertelsmann has just taken over another huge chunk of the publishing industry. The Canadian publishing industry is almost gone.

So what is the role of the federal government? Well, certainly there has to be a role, because who else is going to do it, if they're not going to get the Competition Act strengthened so we can somehow stop the flow of these big conglomerations of publishers taking over?

We see these trade agreements as though they came down with Moses. I mean, let's face it, they're all 15 years old or less. There are other countries in the world that are very militant, much more so than we are, really, who are now saying enough is enough and they want to revisit the trade agreements. You know, we talk about being team players in this country. We play by the rules. All of these rules are very new rules.

I do believe that the artists in the country have the good ideas. And if this is the kind of thing we're hearing from the artists, let's listen to them and let's talk about this at a very serious level.

I think the Minister of Finance made a promise that he was going to eliminate the deficit, and he did that, didn't he. I mean, hundreds of thousands of poor children later, the deficit is gone. But we set targets. That's what he did, he set targets. Why don't we set targets? Why don't we say that 50% of the film industry will be ours within a ten-year period, and 50% of the publishing industry? This could be our goal.

We have to have goals. All of those American basketball ads talk about it: “You've got to have a dream, kid”. So where's our dream? Culture is about self-esteem; it's about what it is we are proud of. On the macro-level, we have to do a lot better than sort of fitting ourselves into this little 10% of the space left to put our creativity. That's sort of the macro stuff.

• 2020

On the whole issue of culling out federal funding, Susan, it happens all the time. Money is pulled out of arts organizations. I've had my own experience with a playwrights union. But I've also had that experience from all the little museums all over the place. They all got fired up and started up in the seventies and they've really done an amazing job of chronicling our heritage across the country. Then the money just dried up. Now there's one little museum that is kind of partnered with a swimming pool. They show their little displays of stuff while the kids are going by into the pool. I don't think that's a good partnership. If we're driving our heritage museums into partnering with swimming pools, bowling alleys, and all this stuff, then we're wacky. That's just not on.

You have to keep on funding things if you value them. We value our heritage and our artifacts. These things last forever, right? We want them to last forever. We can't just put them in wet warehouses. We have to maintain them. It's a life-long commitment.

That's just in terms of heritage funding, but certainly in terms of federal funding, it's very hard on arts organizations to suddenly have their budgets shrunk down by a half. Then, if they are accused of mismanagement, I think that is entirely irresponsible. I see that's happened certainly with the National Arts Centre. I mean, we can't forget the fact that they got chopped by one-third, and all sorts of problems that then visited that place certainly have a lot to do with the fact that this happened.

Those are my comments on that.

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

Suzanne, a brief comment and then we'll go to the audience. I'm sure they're excited to jump into this debate.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Well, I wish we could go on with that a little bit.

[Translation]

The funding of culture is, in a certain way, much more complex than one can imagine. Ms. Copps' department has a budget of some $2 billion which is allocated as follows: $800 million for the CBC; some $200 million for the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and for the museums; $450 million for the official languages programs; $40 million for the Governor General and the lieutenant governors; maybe $500,000 for an official visit by a member of the royal family; and funds for parks and publishing.

Once we have taken all of that away, what is left for culture? Only peanuts. It was announced this week that over the next three years, $30 billion will be cut from health care, education and social assistance. Sick people want to be treated. The number of poor is increasing. It is becoming more expensive to listen to an orchestra, see a play, or even a movie.

I remember all of the complaints that we heard in Quebec City, when the municipality had a monument erected. People were saying: Since we have no money, why invest in culture? That's also part of the problem. That's another dimension of the problem that we must face.

Those who defend culture seem to be having a harder time—Andrew gave us figures to support that a little earlier—convincing the decision-makers that culture is an industry of utmost importance for the future of our country. There is no future if there is no culture. So this is an important matter.

When the Subcommittee on Sport held its hearings, they had no problem in concluding that more money had to be spent on amateur sport. It was unanimously recognized. For some time now, athletes have been able to spread out their earnings over a number of years,

• 2025

I have been a Member of Parliament since 1993. Every year, we ask the Minister of Finance to allow artists, writers, film producers and other people working in culture to do the same thing. They should be able to spread out the occasional higher income over a number of years. At present, they might have a good year, and for the next eight or ten years, they are forced to live off welfare.

I would ask you to seriously think about arguments that will convince people that we must invest in culture and that it is a good investment. What answer do you have for us? We need good answers; that is what we need.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Al, go ahead.

Mr. Al Chaddock: My greatest regret as a Canadian is that the best damn French Canadian prime minister we never had was René Lévesque. If he could have spoken to Washington the way he spoke to Ottawa, and if all Canadians for just one marvellous year could speak French, we would see that we are not Americans. The problem is we speak the same language, almost, and this blinds us—it especially blinds them—to the fact that we are not Americans. It's a terrible situation.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Don't be a pessimist; be an optimist. It's a good answer.

Mr. Al Chaddock: We're speaking of management. To manage you need to have an inventory. The number one thing we have in our tool box as a group of professionals, as artists, is imagination—creativity. It can't be measured. Now and then it can be glimpsed and ascertained.

If you're in the business of creating wealth.... I'll give you an example. I'm about to spend about $50,000 to create what will amount to be, probably within two years, $8 million worth of wealth in the community of Nova Scotia. When you know you have this capability, you tend not to have a bean counter's mentality. You tend not to see it in terms of normal management paradigms. We're not hunter-gatherers, we're not farmers, and we're not accountants. We create wealth. People might argue that of all the wealth of this country, the only wealth that's really created here is our cultural wealth. Indeed it's who we are.

It is to the impairment of civil democratic society that our experiment fails. If this experiment fails, as we see it failing terribly south of the border in spite of their marvellous constitution, the wisdom of Alexis de Tocqueville is looking like it absolutely was written in gold letters. You cannot put the spirit of a civil democratic society in the same cage as laissez-faire capitalism and expect one of them or both of them to come out unscarred, or even alive.

When the great Canadian and Nova Scotian Joe Howe looked at the British North America Act, which was being proposed for our new constitution in this country, he looked at the American example and realized we were about to lose our greatest wealth: our autonomy. We were going to take a lower status within the British Commonwealth, that of a colony instead of a sister of Britain, as were Wales and Scotland. That was Maritime Canada's number one desire, not to become reduced to a colony. We lost the battle, obviously. It was his wanting to point out what we were going to lose in terms of cultural resources that caused him to risk imprisonment and take the powers that be to court and win the right for freedom of the press.

You asked me to speak shortly and I will. I find it very difficult, though, to forever be told to speak shortly on something that is the passion of my life, and I think a passion shared by all of us here. We cannot assess culture and what's necessary to nurture it with any known convenient tools of assessment. You must learn to speak the language of wealth creation. It seems to be a dying language in this country.

• 2030

Therefore, I would like us to think for a moment about what we have to do differently within our formal education system, where we create this self-image and the world view that predetermines what we all do as adults later on, including what we're doing here. The federal government has no real role here except to redirect wealth to the provinces and trust that the provinces will keep humanism alive within its school systems.

I can tell you that isn't happening, as I mentioned earlier. At the government level they look as if they want to nurture our industry, the cultural industry, as important as it is, but they're systematically pulling the rug out from under it all the time.

I have always wished there was a federal role to play in making the provinces toe the line and promote creativity, imagination, individualism, and humanism on a daily basis, on a moment-to-moment basis, during those very critical years of the formal creation of our newest citizens. If the systemic values we experience as young citizens remain as they have been, those of a totalitarian, industrial-age factory and of Fascism, which is what it is, all of what we wish to say will be lost. Indeed, to try to express these concerns and thoughts to children today—as I was doing yesterday at a private school—is a mind-numbing experience. It's as if we don't even speak the same language any more.

There is very little going on now in the way of art in our schools, creativity is not rewarded in any area of the schools, and what little budget is left is being used for computerization, even though MIT recently released a study showing a direct parallel between a decline in creativity, imagination, and productivity and computerization in the workplace. We're computerizing our country and wondering where the answers are going to come from for the problems we're wrestling with today.

I'd like us to think more about the future in terms of our children's education as it happens to them at this moment.

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

At this time I would like to welcome some interventions from the audience. We have two microphones set up. Please come to the mike and identify yourself.

Mr. Bill Forbes (Individual Presentation): Hi. My name is Bill Forbes. I would identify myself as an individual artist and I would like to address the committee in that capacity.

I think my main concern is the point on the questionnaire about whether we wish to be considered a patron or a business. As an individual artist, I do a lot of things that I would say relate to my business. I'm the regional councillor for the Canadian Actors' Equity Association, the association for stage performers, and I'm a councillor for ACTRA, the association for film and television. I do my own books. I go around pounding on doors. I send out resumés. About three-quarters of my time is spent running a business, and I get no thrill out of doing any of it. It is all a necessity. If I'm lucky, a quarter of my time is spent producing art.

I turned 40 in January. I haven't made my first million before I'm forty, and that's very disappointing to me. I don't think I will ever make my first million. I would like to break the poverty barrier. That would be the extreme pleasure for me, to finish a year and not be poor.

In some ways I do want to be considered a business, because it seems that the alternative to my being a business is that I am a hobbyist. I am creating an art because it's something I have fun doing, and as soon as I get tired of it, I'll go and get a real job. No. In that sense my art is a business.

Perhaps we could replace the word “business” with the term “life calling”, although that may sound frivolous and artsy. But I am an artist, so I suppose I can even throw a hissy fit if I want.

• 2035

I would like to have the full attributes of status-of-the-artist legislation.

When I sit down to do my taxes, I don't want to have to weed through the various forms and say, oh, do I have to fill out a form saying what acreage my product covers or how much tonnage I have produced this year? Does that apply to me, or do I have to hunt down what things apply to me as an artist?

I would like to know that funding is coming through. We talk about the development of the arts, and my worry is that the word “development” has hijacked us slightly. I think everyone agrees that development of the arts is an important thing, but one thing that seems to have gone wrong is that we have forgotten that part of the development of the arts is sustaining the arts. We are willing to create artists and put funds towards that, but as soon as that has been done, they're told, thank you very much, there's the door, close it on the way out. Theatre companies we look to for our work are being told on the one hand, here's funding to develop more artists, but down the line we're not going to give you money to sustain them.

The theatre companies are being told—and I'm sure this parallels what's being said to other arts groups—to train people to manage their money better. So we need to bring in a couple more accountants and a few more managers over here and maybe a couple of marketing people over here so that our business runs better. Then they'll say, aha, now we can afford to put on a one-man show, whereas a theatre company that didn't have to focus so much of their energy on running a business could put on a 20-person show or at least a 10-person or five-person show. That's where my frustration comes in.

If this is run as a business to that point, we are creating a business, not art. The artists who survive know how to dot the i's and cross the t's and and how to fill out forms and write a good proposal. You are going to develop the best bookkeepers in the country, but you are going to lose probably most of the best artists.

It's frustrating as well to be part of a region and realize how jealously we guard whatever money we can get and how jealously we guard our regions and say, we are Atlantic Canada, let's keep our money here, and let's develop here as tightly as possible. We are in a country that is torn apart politically every couple of years. If we could share the culture, the singers, the writers, the painters, the cross-references that are not so totally dependent upon language, I think we could circumvent a lot of that political anguish we go through.

The last thing I would just like to end on is something that has stuck in my craw since the last federal election and the debates that were going on, and I have still not totally recovered from it. During the debates on millennium funding, one of the candidates made the statement that if artists truly loved the country, they would give their work, just like bankers, just like the dentist, just like everybody else. That upset me, but it additionally upset me because none of the fellow debaters made any mention that this was an outrageous statement.

That is what I'd like to say. Thank you.

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

Are there other interventions from the audience, comments or questions? We would certainly welcome them.

Mr. Mike Laleune (Individual Presentation): My name is Mike Laleune. I'm an impresario. I work in the field of performing arts, particularly music.

There are a couple of perhaps unrelated comments I'd like to make. First of all, there was a note from the Cultural Network on the statement made by the Minister of Finance in his new budget about investing in something called cultural industries. Yet I didn't see anything in this budget whatsoever that dealt with cultural industries that was new funding or was progressive in any way. That disturbs me a lot. I don't see a great deal of thought going into the cultural sector from the federal government. It's very disjointed.

• 2040

I am pleased to see Gaston Blais here, whom I know from many years ago.

The issue of developing a federal cultural policy I believe is absolutely essential if we are going to make any progress in Canada in a sector where there is at the moment an enormous void. That void being there, we will never make progress with budgets, with our legislation, with our tax policies, with an ability to invest in the sector, without some clear set of objectives and policies. I would like to see something created that is at least a step—it may be off a little to one direction or the other, but at least take a step; do something. We've been talking about cultural policy for 25 years in Canada and it's time to do something about it.

I am particularly concerned about the issue of investment in cultural infrastructure. As a businessman in this field, it is particularly difficult to raise funds, whether those are private or public dollars, and I think as a policy issue it must be addressed. If the federal government is no longer going to be the patron of the arts or the patron of culture, it must create the environment in which it can both give national direction in terms of things like policy, but it can also provide an infrastructure for other partners to come to the table.

I don't see that happening. We have in this city a severe lack of performance facilities. It's something I've been quite concerned with for many years. We have great performers here, and many of them are in the music field, and we have nowhere for these people to be showcased in front of their own public. We also have no place in this community where we can bring other cultures and other parts of our country to our region, and I think that is a problem.

While that is a practical issue, what is a greater problem is that at the federal level there is no direction to address this. This is not just here in Halifax. This is the same problem many of my colleagues run into in central Canada, in the prairies, in Victoria. There is no funding for this kind of thing.

I'm talking about physical capital investment in infrastructure. It doesn't only involve buildings; it involves film distribution, it involves the recording industry. Anybody can make a recording, and this happens a lot in our country now that the technology has become easier to use.

Where are the Canadian publishing companies, not only for books but for music? Where are the Canadian record distribution companies? Where are the Canadian film distribution companies? There is no infrastructure that allows our own culture and our own industries to be distributed horizontally across Canada. It is relatively easy to go north-south, but that's not Canadian, that's North American.

I'm very concerned that whatever is created in terms of a federal policy addresses these kinds of issues, allowing for the funding and the operation of a business industry and the kind of investment that's needed. There is very little incentive in this sector for a private business person to invest and to get enough benefit out of doing that, and that's a federal issue.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Alan Andrews (individual presentation): My name is Alan Andrews and I am the director of the theatre department at Dalhousie University. Since I think in English, it is very difficult for me to express myself in French. I apologize.

• 2045

[English]

When I compare myself to other chairpersons at Dalhousie University, and when I look at the resources that are available to them and their colleagues via federal government funding, I'm struck by the fact that there are research granting councils that contribute substantial sums of money into scientific research, into medical research, into social science research, and into humanities research. But insofar as supporting the activity of the arts in universities through federal government funding is concerned, there is no agency that provides the same kind of support—and I might say that the existing support doesn't simply fund the activity of research, but often the release time for the researchers so that new teachers can be brought into the operation and so on.

It does seem to me that if we want to make an argument for culture, at least within the university sector or the arts within the university sector, some argument for a parallel funding exercise for the arts in universities would be appropriate. Let me therefore suggest a way in which I think that can be applied, which would also be beneficial to the education of young artists in the university context. I might say, by the way, that the theatre department has enjoyed the largest enrolment growth of any department in the university this year, which tells you something.

There are ways in which federal government funding could be used here to support the arts, as much as the arts in universities. In the 1970s, under the aegis of the Canada Council, there was a program that provided for artist residencies in universities. Writer residencies were a part of this program as well. I've never understood why it was thought desirable as a policy matter to discontinue this program. It may well have been desirable to discontinue this program for financial reasons. It may well have been felt that other needs were higher up the Canada Council's list of priorities than this. It may have been felt that the universities themselves would come to the rescue of these exercises if the federal government removed itself from them.

I can tell you that in the case of Dalhousie University, at least, this has not been the case, generally speaking, although we do occasionally hire professional artists to direct plays, for example. My observation here is that it seems to me to be worth considering whether or not it would make sense for the federal government to reinstate a program that strengthens the links between practising artists and the programs in the arts in the universities.

I mentioned a moment ago that we have in fact hired directors. Typically the kinds of people we have hired to help us in the department and to bring our students into more direct contact with working professionals have been people who have been young, who are at the beginning of their careers, who are indeed in need of some additional support in terms of the work they do. My suggestion to this group, for whatever that suggestion may be worth, is that one of the things the federal government could indeed do, but is not doing at the moment, would be to reinstate programs of artist in residence or writer in residence at universities. This would be beneficial to arts education in the universities. Indeed, it could also be extended into the school system. I myself would personally very strongly support that idea. Doing so would both benefit the educational activity and provide a means of strengthening the livelihood of artists.

Thank you.

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

I believe there is another person who would like to speak, so go ahead, sir.

Mr. Geoff McBride (Individual Presentation): Good evening. My name is Geoff McBride. I'm wearing a number of hats tonight. I'm a self-employed actor, a producer and a writer, and I work as a stage technician. I serve on the council of the Canadian Actors' Equity Association. I also serve on the NSPTA and a number of subcommittees there.

I'd like to comment on a couple of things I've heard tonight and try to come up with some answers to some of the questions.

In terms of new technology, I think Mr. Chaddock put it very well. The best technologies I have are my mind, my hands, and my imagination. I need to keep my mind strong and my body strong in order to be able to do my work.

• 2050

We're often asked about the old technologies. I'd love to get my hands on some old technologies before I get some new ones. I work with a small, artist-run theatre company. We have a very limited budget that we manage within an inch of its life. That said, if you're not using these speakers afterwards, I'd certainly like to take them.

In terms of resources, and particularly the human resource, again, I was at the theatre conference out in Saskatoon. We had a number of break-out discussion groups on things. One of the things we discovered was that the human resource is a great thing. Again, though, there was another point that was brought up, and that was that we have to be aware that we are taxing our volunteers very highly. I get paid for a certain amount of work that I do at a theatre company, but I also have to do it in order to maintain the theatre company. Again, it hurts this, and it hurts the strength that I have to do it.

There's another thing my comrade at Equity didn't bring up. When organizations are asked to do less, that's when cuts start being made. At Equity, there's a governing booklet called “Canadian Theatre Agreement”. It sets out standards by which professional theatres are supposed to operate. Often, we are asked by theatres within the region—and this happens throughout the country—to make concessions to that agreement. Those concessions can be on such simple things as how much an artist is paid, to rehearsal time, to whatever. Those are the areas in which those cuts really affect you.

When you don't have four weeks to rehearse a play because money is an issue, you may be left with only two weeks to rehearse a play. Because you only have two weeks to rehearse the play, you have to find a cheaper rehearsal space. That is not necessarily in the best interests of everyone's health and safety. It must be the same for visual artists. If you're working with dangerous materials and you can't afford a ventilation system, you continue to damage your health. These are considerations that I hope will be taken into account when things are looked at.

As a final point, I wanted to respond to the question of the business analogy. Is it a rationalization for cuts? Yes, I think it is. I think we've seen the effects. We take this business model and we apply it to other institutions. We've seen the effects that such an approach has had on institutions like the military. We've seen the effects it has had on institutions like health care. We then come to something like arts and culture, which is not a square or a triangle, but this really odd shape. You start cutting things off to make it fit.

We don't make a profit because we're not a business. For some reason, though, because we're not making a profit, people say it must be mismanagement. There isn't enough money for us to mismanage. Give me the funds to appropriate.

That's all I wanted to say. I also wanted to thank everyone at the table tonight, because it was very nice to sit in the audience and hear my concerns echoed and spoken, and to know they will be in the minutes of this committee.

Thank you.

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

Are there any more interventions?

Ms. Jane Condon (Individual Presentation): Hello. I'm Jane Condon. I guess I'd describe myself as a retiring arts bureaucrat or administrator. I'm getting a little long in the tooth, and I've been wondering all evening if I wanted to say anything at all. I've intervened at I don't know how many standing committee meetings over the years, but never one in Halifax, so it's really nice to see you here.

I guess I'm here for two reasons. You asked for specifics. I scribbled some down, but not because they're original. I picked them up as other people were speaking, and I just thought I would maybe try to summarize. I guess the other is more of a comment, not to the committee members but to everybody else.

Standing committees have done more good for this sector at the federal level than any bureaucrat or any minister I can name. They have been solid and consistent and have pushed for good things to happen. If you as committee members can stick to it, the rest of us can probably bank on something positive happening. You've done it in tax—not you individually. Your predecessors did it for status of the artists, for income tax, and for copyright. Those are the ones that come to mind. They also did it for museum policy, and I forget what else is on my bookcase.

• 2055

It's a long list. You've got a good track record, and Madame Tremblay, bless you, stick to it. Keep pushing. I'm sorry, I'm on a rant. I apologize.

Ingrid, no. They're not organized enough for it to be a conspiracy. It is indifference. It is incompetence. It is not a conspiracy. My fear with the push toward the business model and this comment on the ability of the not-for-profit sector, the cultural industries, the arts heritage to manage ourselves is that Canada is the only one of the G-7 or western industrialized nations to have no productivity increases over the last half decade.

Who is telling us we can't manage? We're doing really well. We've got increased numbers in sound recording, increased numbers in publishing. You can see Canadian plays on Canadian stages, listen to Canadian musicians in Canadian venues. We didn't have that 20 years ago, but we had industrial productivity. Well guess what? We're the only ones who are growing at the moment.

These are scribbles, I'm sorry, I have no pattern here whatsoever.

We know that we as a sector contribute to better mental and physical health, that children who work, practice, and learn in the arts also do better in math, history, science, and you name it. This goes back to your point about imagination, creativity.

We're moving into this supposed knowledge-based economy. We're teaching kids how to—what's the new word for typing?—keyboard, and how to do programs for computers. We're not teaching them how to put a sentence together well. We're not teaching them how to do a logical paragraph, let alone explain anything complex. They're going to have technical skills and no content. We were trying to make this point to Francis Fox in 1980. I'm getting old.

In addition, we're environmentally friendly in an age when this world can take little more pollution from the other natural resources. We've got a natural resource that is constantly renewable, constantly reinforceable. And we've decided not to support it? I'm missing something, okay. There's a disconnect here.

What can the federal government do? Mr. Martin can take another look at his budget and he can come in with income averaging for a sector that has incomes that go like this and are not at all helped by the fact that the rug has been pulled out. We can have tax incentives to improve individual, personal donations to the charitable portions of our sector. We can have some better mechanism put in place to make capital available to the small businesses and entrepreneurs who want to grow.

We also need tax incentives for corporations. The corporations are being asked—although not directly by government; we are having to do the asking—to take on part or all of the role that government performed in support of the arts.

They're being given very little incentive. And this is in the context of international agreements that mean more and more of our economy, of our larger businesses, is not Canadian owned. So we're going to those businesses and saying, you should support Canadian culture because it's terribly important to you? Not likely.

• 2100

The other thing the federal government could do is to be consistent. Everybody else is asked—in fact this sector is increasingly asked to do business plans. Business plans are done for a year, ideally for two, and with some sort of a projection for five. How the blazes has anybody in this sector been able to do that kind of projection for the last eight years? Impossible, absolutely impossible.

This is the irony. Business types forget when they're on an arts board. We praise the capitalist sector. The government tells us we're going to follow business models. They put people on boards because they're good at their jobs. They're good at running their companies. Maybe they get caught up in the sexiness of it all. I don't know what happens, but they forget all too often. What they would normally do to sensibly run their own business is not the principle they apply once they're on the board of the local theatre or the symphony or the art gallery. They don't apply the same principles despite the fact that they have been asked to sit. This is not an across-the-board statement. Generalizations are full of holes, right? But it happens way, way too often, and then those who appointed them wonder why things aren't working well.

I've run some of these not-for-profit organizations, folks, and I've also worked in the private sector. In my opinion, the not-for-profits were far tighter ships, and not just because there wasn't enough money, but because people cared terribly about what they were doing and they were going to make the best use of every penny available. If more pennies become available, you put them to your first priority: production. It's a different mindset, and it doesn't matter how big the pot is. People use it to achieve the primary goal, which is what the arts are all about, which is communication.

Copyright. Status of the artist would be really good. And yes, the federal government does have one role that should be self-evident, and that is helping us to see ourselves. That means support for touring and support for travelling exhibitions. I'm glad we've got the insurance indemnification or whatever is happening now to tour works of art and heritage. That's good. It should never have been cut out the last time. But that brings me back to consistency. We get it, we lose it, we get it, we lose it, we get it, we lose it. And we're supposed to plan?

I wish you as a committee very well. Thanks for coming. You've got a tough row to hoe, but stick to it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you very much for that good advice.

We started late, so perhaps we could extend it for another five minutes. Is there anyone else who'd like to come up to the mike?

Ms. Jan Marontate (Individual Presentation): I'm a professor. I work in sociology of the arts. I have taught art history, and I'm at Acadia University.

Just briefly, you seem to keep looking for arguments, and I wanted to point you in the direction of three programs that could perhaps provide you with some interesting fuel for your arguments, since I believe you're all committed or at least interested in finding interesting solutions.

Of course you're aware of the new deal argument that if we could pay artists plumbers' wages then they could create some of the best art in the world, and how well that worked with the rise in great success in postwar America of artists who had been subsidized during the Depression years. You're probably aware that was based on the Mexican example of the muralist movement and the enlightened guidance of the minister of education at the time of the inception of the project, who was José Vasconcelos.

I would recommend you look at his arguments, which were quite interesting, but they were more ideologically oriented. They had to do with bringing art to the people in open air schools and all sorts of interesting programs that talked about identity.

• 2105

In the United States, of course, the symbolic and the material combined very concretely, not only in the success of the art sector but in the success of everything it touched. I won't go on about it, but at the moment in Holland there's an interesting project called the second Delta Plan for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage, which doesn't really do a lot for living artists but has an interesting set of arguments that you might want to investigate further when looking for them.

Thanks.

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

We'll close the meeting with some brief comments from our members of Parliament. First Joe and Suzanne, and then Wendy you can have the last word.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I want to make a couple of points. I plan on borrowing the line “We don't have enough money to mismanage” because I think it's a good way of putting the thing into perspective.

During the intervention before the last one, a lot of heads were nodding and I sensed a frustration associated with arguing solid logic to deaf ears. I think the political instrument in this thing needs to be taken into consideration, and part of this is that.... First of all, in defence of the budget, one of the things the government has learned is that rather than do a little for a lot, it's better politically to do a lot for a little.

So we had an education budget. I don't think we thought it through. I think we should have national consultations before we throw that kind of money at it, but we did it. We had a health care budget. We're looking at other potential areas like the environment, like zero to six investing in children. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that political decisions are political. I think the finance minister was down Maslow's hierarchy a little bit, for a very good reason. I think these were things that have been neglected. Hopefully we're going up.

But there is a perception that we are in the minority. I don't know whether we are or not, but there's that perception. If I stood in caucus and talked about these kinds of things, people would say, boy, I'm going to invite him to my next party, but that's where it would end. If you're expecting your politicians to lead, think that through. How often does that happen? I think it's a combination of things.

Yesterday we got a very good definition of culture, and not to put it in a box, but the woman said culture is the self-esteem of a society, and if we know ourselves and understand ourselves, then it's a survival skill for us. But it's much more than that too. The people who understand that, who believe that...if they're a small minority or are perceived to be a small minority, then where's the political will to do it?

I'm on a number of committees, and this is a very interesting committee because I think everybody who actually stays on it is very committed to the cause. And it's the most non-partisan committee I'm on. Just to make that point, we have a Reformer in the chair and Madame Tremblay waxes eloquently about the need to protect Canadian culture. So I think this is a good committee that way.

We will try to fight the fight, but we also need to think about we raise the level of value in terms of Canadians recognizing the value of this, because if you want to see something happen in a hurry, that's the area we need to take a look at. We certainly don't have time to explore it now because it's a downward spiral. We don't value it. We don't protect it. We don't have it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. We don't need it.

If the status quo is losing, were losing, because it's easy for them to throw up the barriers. So we have to figure out how we reconnect with people and show them that culture is the self-esteem of their society. I think we will grow old waiting for the political instruments, and I don't mean just the elected politicians but also the bureaucracy.

• 2110

We have a generation of bureaucrats who were promoted based on their ability to cut and hide and shift costs. So that's there. Let's realize that's there and let's start looking at how we can connect right with the people. I mean, Al, some of the things you said need to be said; they need to be heard. So I think collectively—unfortunately, funding levels are so low that we've pitted organization against organization, and it's pathetic.

We heard yesterday that in St. John's they were trying to put together an exhibit on the Vikings coming to North America, and the Canadian museum was charging them for the artifacts and the one from Finland wasn't.

So there's a lot to do. There's enough work to go around, but I think we've got to start looking at creating the demand a little bit. I'm going to tread carefully into my business analogies, but we need to take a look at how we might do that.

I have just one last point. Mike Harris banned the spring bear hunt in Ontario. For people who aren't from Ontario, that was a 180-degree move that was made in probably six hours. What the World Wildlife Fund did was they put together a video about bears being shot as they came to eat—it's like shooting at a zoo; you train them to come and eat out of a pail and then one day you shoot them—and the fact that cubs are being orphaned. They put together a video, and it was certainly one-sided, and they dropped these 5,000 video cassettes in the six closest ridings he had. That decision—I think with this government, with these parties, you have a latent understanding of the value of culture. In Mike Harris you had no understanding about banning the spring bear hunt. That was purely political and it was done very quickly.

I don't know whether that is not a strategy we should look at or whether it is, but I'm saying because of the frustration you feel when you say things that make sense over and over and over again and they keep being ignored over and over and over again—you have to start looking at how decisions are made. Rather than, “Please, serve more pudding”, I think you can get more aggressive, and I think we can help you with that.

I just throw that out there. Unfortunately, it's 9.15 p.m. Maybe that's an issue I can bring up at another forum and see where it goes. I'd be interested in any response, if anybody wants to put something down on paper and give it to me.

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

We'll move on to Suzanne, and then Wendy will wrap up.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: First I want to ask the persons who went to the microphone if they could give us notes of what they have said. I would appreciate that. I'm asking you if you can put down what you have said and give it to us eventually. I would appreciate it. It was interesting, and the last lady too, and all those who came to the microphone.

I'm speaking in English because many people don't have translation, so I hope I will be clear, even if I'm a little bit tired. I cannot go away without saying that I always feel a little bit sorry about the attack we have on the schools. The schools are what they are. We are making them. Children are not responsible for what is going on in the schools. We have to take our responsibility. If we're not happy with the schools, we have to ask the minister of education to change the curriculum.

I know that in Quebec for about the last 20 years, in each single school we have it is compulsory that all children take at least two arts programs. They have the choice among four: dance, drama, music, and visual arts. They have extracurricular activities outside class hours. They have theatre. They have visits to museums. They have all sorts of things.

• 2115

They also have the connection to the Internet, which brings them all over the world: they can go to museums that most of them will never have an opportunity to visit. I know that many kids in Quebec have visited the Louvre through the Internet. We must think that it is important for them to live in their time. We cannot live without the Internet now. We have to live with it. But we have to make the best of it. That's what is important.

I spent 35 years of my life before I came into politics training teachers in preschool and primary education. I always said to my students, “Don't be afraid. You're going to have a hard time, but remember that the teacher in the classroom has a big challenge: we must be better than what the kids see on television.”

They must illustrate, in geography, in arts, with blackboard, with chalk. They don't have these nice things in three dimensions. They need to use video, they need to show films, they need to use television. We must think that these are the tools of today.

I think that if we go in schools, we are going to see that kids, because they are in communication with children in different parts of the country or in different parts of the world, need to learn how to write. It is our responsibility to teach them. I hope we will get together to do that.

Thank you.

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

Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I want to thank everyone for being here. I want to thank you for inviting us into your house. This is your place. We have heard what you had to say, and we will hopefully add this to a growing body of information. Many things are coming up that are essential to this task. I appreciate your input. Thank you. Good night.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): On behalf of the committee, we want to thank you for being here and for your contribution. As some of you know, we had three sessions today, and they were all very dynamic and very different. It certainly made an impact on all of us as members of the heritage committee. We will certainly take your message very seriously and take it back to Ottawa. You made my job very easy this evening. Thank you very much.

The committee is now adjourned.