CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 25, 1999

• 1306

[English]

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

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

[Translation]

I wish to welcome our guests and thank them wholeheartedly for being here with us today. It is an honour for us.

[English]

Our usual practice at the committee 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. We want to have a real dialogue here today.

Our committee is undertaking a study of challenges facing culture on the eve of the next century, with the globalization of trade, the economy, emerging technology, the Internet, and others, and their impact on our culture and our cultural institutions, along with the 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 this committee decided that this work should and must continue.

We wish to examine first the types of support already put in place by the federal government and how these supports, such as the 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.

[Translation]

As I was saying, the three main challenges facing us, at least as far as the needs of our study are concerned, are the arrival of new technologies, the development of the world economy and international trade, and finally the demographic development of our country.

The members of the committee began by trying to become properly informed. A year ago, we held a parliamentary forum on cultural policy, international trade and technologies in the next millennium. At that time, we organized roundtable discussions about various sectors: the arts, heritage, the publishing industry, film and video, as well as broadcasting and sound recording. This forum provided some very good results. It enabled us to identify a few major themes which, I hope, we will have a chance to examine with you today.

[English]

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

In this last phase, through these round tables, we want to cover certain sectors specifically and get input from you as people on the front lines of culture and the cultural industries, to find out how you have managed to survive and what you will require to face the challenges of the next century.

In a format such as this, in a short time, it is impossible to cover a lot of ground, but we want to cover as much ground as possible. At the back of your program there are five questions. You may want to address one of them, a few of them, or all of them, but we are here because we are interested in your views. Hopefully, by the end of this week we will have some answers to questions such as these. What is the role the federal government should play in the future to support the arts and cultural industries? Should the government exercise the role of legislator, regulator, owner, operator of national institutions, a funding partner, a patron of the arts, business developer, or promoter?

• 1310

[Translation]

Naturally, both languages may be used. You may use the one you prefer. We don't expect speeches, but rather brief comments so that we can keep the exchange of opinions going smoothly.

[English]

To start, I would like to ask the participants to introduce themselves to everyone. Give your name and how you're involved in the arts and cultural industries. Then I would like to invite each one of you to speak for two to three minutes. We'd like to have you perhaps intervene on four or five occasions, so we'd ask you to keep your interventions short.

You will notice a microphone at the back. I will come to the audience to get your brief interventions, so hopefully we can address some of the issues we may have missed.

Without further adieu, I'd like to start with Monsieur Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): My name is Mauril Bélanger and I'm the member for Ottawa—Vanier, a riding in the National Capital. I'm also the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and I've been involved from the very beginning, that is, for two years, in this collective effort, which we hope will get us closer to a Canadian cultural policy. I'm very eager to hear your comments today.

[English]

Mr. James Wegg (Executive Director, Canadian Craft Museum): James Wegg. I've been a conductor of orchestras for 17 years, a maker of television, and a writer for some years less. I am currently executive director of the Canadian Craft Museum and in search of a cultural identity.

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Longnus (Director General, Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique): My name is Isabelle Longnus and I'm the director general of the Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique.

Le Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique is an umbrella organization for 13 francophone associations all of which are concerned with cultural dissemination.

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

[English]

Mr. Robert Kerr (Executive Director, Coastal Jazz and Blues Society): My name is Robert Kerr. I am a founding member and the executive director of the Coastal Jazz and Blues Society. We were founded 15 years ago. We have produced the annual du Maurier International Jazz Festival Vancouver, as well as about 30 to 40 concerts and events annually since then. We are very active members of the Vancouver arts community at large. I'm also president of the WESTCAN Jazz Association, which is a national network of jazz festival producers and societies across Canada.

Mr. Nicholas Tuele (Acting Director, Art Gallery of Greater Victoria): I'm Nicholas Tuele from the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria and I'm currently the acting director there. I've been in the museum and gallery field for 20-odd years. I'm a past president of the B.C. Museums Association. I'm very pleased to be here today.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Ted McWhinney. I'm the member for Vancouver Quadra. I'd like to say this is my constituency, but I'm the next door neighbour, about half a kilometre away.

[Translation]

I'm the member from Vancouver Quadra. Like everyone else here, I'm very concerned about Native rights, treaties and similar questions pertaining to the mandate of our committee. Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): This committee is delighted to be here in Vancouver.

Ms. Mirna Zagar (Executive Director, Vancouver Dance Centre Society): My name is Mirna Zagar. I'm executive director of the Vancouver Dance Centre Society, which is a service organization serving 28 professional dance companies and 250 individuals across British Columbia.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): My name is Mark Muise. I'm a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia and I sit on the heritage committee. I'm glad to be in Vancouver and I look forward to hearing all your interventions.

Mr. Brent Cooke (Director, Public Programs, Royal British Columbia Museum): Good afternoon. My name is Brent Cooke. I'm the director of public programs at the Royal British Columbia Museum. I've been at the museum for about 27 years. The museum is completely focused on the natural and human history of British Columbia.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good afternoon. My name is Benoît Sauvageau. I'm the Bloc Québécois deputy for Repentigny, northeast of Montreal Island, and a spokesperson for international trade.

[English]

Ms. Nancy Gobis (President, Burnaby Arts Council): My name is Nancy Gobis and I'm president of the Burnaby Arts Council in Burnaby. It's an organization that's been going on now for 29 years. We have 50 member groups under our umbrella, plus 50 single members. We're very happy to be here today.

• 1315

This is the first vice-president, Rose Farina.

Would you like to say something?

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Welcome to you both.

Ms. Nancy Gobis: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Craig Holzschuh (Administrative Director, Théâtre la Seizième): My name is Craig Holzschuh and I'm the administrative director of Théâtre la Seizième here in Vancouver. We're the only professional French theatre company in British Columbia.

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

Mr. Craig Holzschuh: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Stuart T. McDonald (Director, Friends of the War Museum; Trustee, 15th Field Artillery Regiment Museum): I'm Stu McDonald, director of Friends of the War Museum, and a trustee of the local military museum, 15th Field Artillery Regiment. I live work on the north shore, and I'm a history teacher at a secondary school.

[Translation]

From time to time, I work in Ottawa as a reservist in the Canadian Forces.

[English]

Ms. Lori Baxter (Executive Director, Vancouver Cultural Alliance): I'm Lori Baxter, executive director of the Vancouver Cultural Alliance, an arts service organization that currently has 299 members throughout the lower mainland, primarily community, professional, and cultural industry organizations, and some individual members.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): I'm Eric Lowther, member of Parliament for Calgary Centre. I'm glad to be here, and I'm going to be listening intently.

As I hear all the introductions around the table, I wish we had more time. If you guys could tour us around Vancouver, I'm sure you could show us some pretty interesting sights. We'll have to leave that for another day, I guess.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Tyrell.

Mr. Chris Tyrell (Individual Presentation): I'm Chris Tyrell. I've lived in Vancouver all my life and I've been interested in the arts all my life. I'm listed here as an individual. I don't work for an arts organization. I think it's important sometimes for the government to hear that consumers too have opinion on policies.

In coming here today, then, I have chosen to represent the consumer.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): That's terrific. Another stakeholder. Welcome.

My name is Sarmite Bulte, but everybody calls me Sam. I'm the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, a riding in Toronto. I am also chair of the international trade, trade disputes, and investments subcommittee. As well, in my former life I was chairman of the Canadian Stage Company in Toronto.

Having said that, who would like to begin?

Mr. Tyrell, why don't we hear from you, from the consumer's point of view.

Mr. Chris Tyrell: Oh. Well...

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): No, just take two or three minutes; we'll keep going back and forth. It's just as a way of starting our dialogue.

Mr. Chris Tyrell: Okay.

As I said, I'm from Vancouver. I worked in the arts and found that the natural progression of my career led me, like many people in the arts, to either Toronto, as an anglophone, or the United States. Of course, you want to go as far as you can if you believe in yourself, but I found that my commitment to Vancouver meant as much to me as my commitment to my career.

I am primarily Canadian, however, and the culture I've strived to belong to is Canadian culture, British Columbia culture being a bit more ambivalent to me, and Vancouver culture being even more so.

As a Canadian, I have felt myself reflected internationally by my leaders, so I adopted the philosophy of my teachers—and of my government, I thought—by taking an interest in my culture. I found that to be alive and vibrant in Quebec and sleepy in anglophone Canada.

I'm disappointed in my government's role, and I'm disappointed in the position of the arts in the political agenda. I'm concerned about the influence of American culture through the dominance I see in such issues as Sports Illustrated and other media.

I love the French-Canadian accent. I love so many images and symbols of Canada. All my life, whenever foreign people or delegations have come to Canada, I've seen my leaders, my prime ministers, give them artistic products. Our culture is defined by our images, our cultural images, and yet it has such an extremely low priority in the minds of government. I'm extremely concerned about that, because I get great value from what I was taught.

I know the school system is not a federal concern, but the same thing happens in the school system. As an individual, in seeking out the whys and wherefores of my passion, my belief that art is a way of thinking, without which students are disadvantaged, is constantly reinforced. I frequently read, on issues on the new technology, that many of the brilliant creators in the new technology are brilliant because of the way they think, which comes from their background in art.

• 1320

Lastly, one of my favourite games in the school is to get all the kids in the school to stand up. I challenge them to a game. I try to find how few words I can use to get them all seated. I ask them to sit down if they are attached to the logo names I mention. I start with Adidas, Swatch, Nike, and I can get them all seated pretty quickly. It's my game to see how few names I can use, and I'm getting good. My point is that those names represent huge commercial empires. They're protected in law by design, and design is an artistic function. Yet I don't find that awareness that all of these empires are built on an aesthetic base. You would never know that by the legislation that leads us and in which we have to create. I'm concerned for the future. I hope that will change.

I really appreciate, as a citizen, getting a chance to speak to you as I have. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Mr. Tyrell, for your eloquent intervention.

Ms. Farina.

Ms. Rose Farina (First Vice-President, Burnaby Arts Council): I just want to follow up on what you said because it really touches me. I feel that art in any form is the soul of the person. Whenever Burnaby tries, or anyone tries, to do anything and to get funding for a good cause, especially in promoting art and youth, it's like pulling teeth. You feel like a manipulator. What are they going to buy? How are they going to give money when they should be looking at it as you just pointed out? It is something that is so valuable. How can we get government to really look at the projects that people want to put forward, especially involving youth? How do we get them to cooperate a little more easily and make the funding a little more equitable across the country?

I feel that B.C. is definitely underfunded when it comes to government funding.

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

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: My question comes from comments Mr. Tyrell made. You say you're disappointed with government's involvement with arts and culture, and I would like to follow up on that because I think that's our purpose here. I'm glad to see that we're going in that direction. I would like to hear from you what things we should be doing differently. Sometimes when you just sit around and navel-gaze, you don't see much more than lint. I would like to see a bit more than that.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Tyrell, you can think about that and we'll come back to you. Again, if any other member of the audience wants to pick up on that, I can put you on the speakers list.

Mr. Holzschuh.

[Translation]

Mr. Craig Holzschuh: I hope that Madam Chair will let me take my notes because I'll feel more comfortable if I can consult them.

The members of Théâtre la Seizième think that the federal government has to play a larger role in contemporary Canadian theatre.

At Théâtre la Seizième, we serve three audiences: the Vancouver audience, the British Columbia audience and the Canadian audience. We serve them at three levels: theatre for children, teenagers and adults. Our mandate is unique, but our problems are the same as those experienced by all theatre companies in Canada.

Our grants have been reduced at several levels. We're asked to maintain our standards, and even improve them. We're asked to keep our mandate intact, and even to expand it. We're asked to broaden our projects to reach a broader segment of the population. We cannot get any better without the support of government.

Recently, our theatre put on a Quebec play, which was a great success. We were sold out for the three evenings. We worked very hard to make sure that this show would reach a larger part of the population. Like many other cultural organizations, we recognize the need to develop our audience.

• 1325

Once the production was over, one of the members of our permanent crew told us that he'd worked 144 hours of overtime during the six weeks of preparation for the production. Could we pay him all those hours? No. Could we give him leave for his overtime? No. Would we have liked to? Certainly, but it was impossible. Are we going to be able to take advantage of his generosity another time? I doubt it.

We were able to accomplish a lot with the visit of this play. We managed to meet many of the objectives we're asked to achieve. Are we going to be able to pursue this path? I'm not sure. Obviously, we want to go on developing, to be part of the ongoing development of this country. We're not asking the federal government to be the only agency responsible for maintaining Théâtre la Seizième. We're prepared to do our share, and even more, but we can't do it all.

We'd like to make the following suggestions to the committee in response to the questions that have been asked. First, the federal government must at all times ensure the protection of culture. Culture is the reflection of a people; our culture is a reflection of the Canadian people. At present, our culture is threatened by several forces. It is imperative that, in any national and international negotiations, the government should protect our culture in the midst of developing. If the federal government wants our organizations to develop, it has to develop with us by means of granting agencies. Now that the government seems to have got its financial business in order, it should give back most of what it took away from the granting agencies in order to promote their development and get growth going again.

We want the federal government to make its contributions to culture through the Canada-communities agreement. In the latest federal budget, it was indicated that funding for the official languages support program would be cut. Maintaining our culture and the duality of our society should be of utmost importance for the federal government.

We hope that the federal government will ensure that any business is free to contribute to Canadian cultural events. It's already hard to find funding through private enterprise. We hope that the federal government will not make this job any harder.

Finally, we'd like the federal government to actively encourage the different levels of government to renew their support for cultural organizations. This year, Théâtre la Seizième is celebrating its 25th anniversary but, like many other cultural organizations, we feel that with all the changes in our society, we're going back to square one. I hope that the federal government will help us build on our 25-year foundation and will allow us to develop with the society we are serving. Thank you.

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

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I don't want to get involved in a partisan debate, but just by way of information, I'd like to point out that the latest budget provides for a 30% increase in the official language envelope, which was set at $70 million. It can't be said that cuts are expected when it's just the opposite that will happen. I couldn't say today how this $70 million is going to be allocated among all the official language programs, since the allocation is going to be determined over the next few weeks. But there was an increase of about 30%. Furthermore, it mustn't be forgotten that $25 million, or $125 million over five years, has been restored to the Canada Council budget.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Wegg.

Mr. James Wegg: Thank you very much.

To me, art is very simple. There are two kinds: good and bad. Really, all we have to do is spend the rest of our lives arguing over it and I think we would have a wonderful cultural experience right across the country. Unfortunately, there are other levels and layers in bringing art and culture to the public.

But I'd like to get to the point. I believe government should enable but not operate art or art institutions. We only have to look at the National Arts Centre to see a poor example of government trying to be artists by appointing people to a board who clearly are incapable of running the institution.

For most charities, which arts organizations are, they come from the membership base. They're not appointed. The membership gets together and says, we think we should have a theatre, a ballet, an opera. To do that we're going to get blessed. We're going to get blessed by Revenue Canada and our provincial government. That will allow us to accept donations and sponsorships and issue tax receipts, and hopefully fulfil our mission. And if we don't like what we get as artists from that particular system, we have a way of replacing boards. Ask the National Ballet. They're currently involved in trying to replace a board that they feel has gone amok. But at least there's the opportunity to make change.

• 1330

So if government would enable us, through grants, through promoting us shamelessly through our embassy situation across the world, this would be of some help. If it would continue to give us the tools through changes to the Income Tax Act, which each budget, from my point of view at least, has given us more of, especially in terms of planned-giving vehicles, charitable remainder trusts, and the like. At the same time, let us eagerly encourage the Broadbent commission to have its recommendations implemented, because, of the 72,000 charities out there, some probably aren't very charitable. And when they make the front page, we are all tarnished with the same brush. So we hope we will move there.

Can we keep our sense of humour? I love it when we see these debacles in the paper about how the Canada Council paid for some dumb-blonde jokes. That's pathetic, I agree. But can't we move on? As artists, we need a little bit of money once in awhile to fail. I think failure is a good thing. How else do we do research and development? But oh no, any time we seem to get off the track, that's front-page news. We're told arts groups should be more like business. Okay, let's be like Bre-X. Let's be more like government. Okay, let's design fast ferries. Let's regulate ourselves better. Okay, let's do some bank mergers.

You know, life would be much simpler if we do what we do best. You guys govern, and we'll make you laugh or make you cry.

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

Ms. Longnus and then Mr. Kerr.

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Longnus: I'd like to outline our activities to you and quickly answer the questions you asked.

As I was saying, the Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique is an umbrella organization for 13 associations scattered throughout the province. They are in Campbell River, Kamloops, Courtenay, Comox, Nanaimo, Okanagan, Prince George, Victoria and Vancouver. I emphasize the fact that we are somewhat scattered, because this factor has an effect on our survival and our advancement.

We have already been around for two years. We offer essential services for the dissemination of our cultural products. We produce singing events which are springboards. One of our major goals is obviously to promote the development of francophone culture in the community. We don't think it is necessary to reiterate the importance of culture or even francophone culture in Canada. In British Columbia, there are 60,675 persons whose first official language is French, or 1.64% of the population, and 250,000 people can express themselves in French. I give you these figures because people tend to forget that there's also a vibrant French culture in the West. I agree to some extent with Craig regarding the official languages program. We think that this is an important program that provides the department with a tool for supporting development. We mustn't forget cultural programs, though, which are just as important, if not more important even. Here I'll talk about the Cultural Initiatives Program, which needs support.

Our association organizes several festivals, including the Vancouver summer festival, which is very important and relies on the support of our partners around the table, and the Festival du bois, which will begin very soon. These festivals are very important to the communities of Vancouver and British Columbia. They receive very little money from the Cultural Initiatives Program, which is a great pity. The summer festival, however, had an increase in the grants it receives from the Quebec government, the B.C. Arts Council and the city of Vancouver. Unfortunately, this isn't so for other programs, which have been cut back.

• 1335

I'd also like to talk about the media, which are very important in our community. The media have to be encouraged because, as I have just said, our associations are scattered around the place. Canada is a big country and British Columbia is a big province. For us to reach everyone, the government has to support the print media. We've got just one francophone newspaper in British Columbia. We want the government to continue helping and supporting Radio-Canada, which is a very important partner in our community, through both radio and television. Without the media, we cannot express ourselves, or talk or disseminate. Without them, we don't exist. I think that's equally true for francophones and anglophones. Obviously, for francophones out here, it's their lifeline.

We'd also like the government to look at record production. I know money has just been allocated to the Canada Council and that a multilateral agreement has been signed. We think that's great, and we're delighted. This has to continue; we have to continue supporting artists and giving training to our artists and our disseminators.

As the gentleman said, failures have to encouraged. Sometimes, when it doesn't work, it doesn't matter. When it's not part of the industry, it doesn't matter, especially when we know the industries from one end of the country to the other are very diverse. In Quebec, the situation is definitely not the same as in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada.

These are the major points that the government should really take into account. We have to be invited to take part in advisory committees; we want to be there. It's important that francophones outside Quebec be present to talk about their situation. Their presence should be increased around these tables and on these juries, including the Canada Council, Musique Action and FACTOR, to make sure that the money is distributed equally throughout Canada.

Maybe we should also create inter-regional envelopes to fund overlapping projects that may affect several regions. We could try to mix the programs a bit so that everyone gets involved to some extent.

As for us, we could also point out that the Conseil culturel et artistique de la Colombie-Britannique still does not have any basic funding and that it has to live off its projects. Perhaps funding for programming should be restored in the light of the current trend we are experiencing. When our projects are complete, we have to begin all over again, and we're getting tired. We still have to rely on volunteers since we don't have money to pay these people who come to help us. Overall envelopes will have to be distributed in the light of the priorities of the cultural and artistic sectors.

From 1994 to 1998, cultural organizations have had their grants cut by 10 to 20%, even if new funding has been granted to the Canada Council. Distribution does not take place as well as we might think.

The government must help artists by contributing to their training and development. It must also help the festivals to develop more and more. We could also talk about sponsors that can help us promote culture, but I'm going to hand the floor over to the next speaker. Thank you.

[English]

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

I have a question for you. For a point of clarification, when you spoke about the cultural initiatives program. Is that a program under the Official Languages Act, or is it the old cultural initiatives program that was in place?

Ms. Isabelle Longnus: I think it was the old one.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): The old one—the capital one.

Ms. Isabelle Longnus: The capital one.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you. We've heard a lot about that and I wanted to make sure it was the same...because that is a theme that has come from Thunder Bay all the way to Vancouver. So thank you very much.

I'll just go back to Mr. Holzschuh. Since we talked about the international agreements, and that we must be careful of what we do in the future, I just want to point out to you, and to all members of the committee and the audience, that on February 17 the Cultural Industries Sectoral Advisory Group for International Trade—the Cultural Industries SAGIT, as they're called—released a report called Canadian Culture in a Global World: New Strategies for Culture and Trade, which deals with exactly those concerns that have arisen, which Mr. Tyrell spoke of as well, and how Canada can take a proactive approach when dealing with arts and culture.

• 1340

If you haven't seen the report, I would strongly suggest that you look at it. I believe this report will also be tabled before the international trade committee or the heritage committee. I can give you the Web page afterwards.

Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Robert Kerr: Thank you.

I think the federal government has a very important role to play in supporting culture and in enabling culture, but I think it's at risk of becoming irrelevant for two primary reasons: one, due to the decreasing level of funding; and two, due to the failure to address the growing contemporary needs in terms of the diverse fields of art forms and also the diversity of cultures within Canada.

Over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a systematic reduction in funding at the federal level for the Canada Council, the Department of Canadian Heritage, and the Department of Communications. The cultural initiatives program is important both for capital funding and for festivals. There's an extremely important component in that for festivals, which has been cut back and cut back and cut back. Of course, we can't forget the CBC. They're a linchpin to culture in Canada, and they certainly have been under siege.

The program that is important from my perspective is the cultural initiatives program, particularly as a presenter, a producer, who doesn't have a resident company or facility. Presenters, I think, have become increasingly important in the country over the last 10 to 15 years, especially producers of festivals. In many ways festivals are like the cauldron where a lot of new stuff comes up from various communities that are both ethnically and artistically diverse.

Up until last year we had been all but excluded from funding by the Canada Council. There has been virtually no funding available for presenting organizations. There have been some limited funds available through the touring program, but for presenters there have been very few options. There's a minuscule festival program that the Canada Council was able to implement last year due to the fact that they did receive $25 million in additional funding for five years. That was a really bold move and a great move, and I think the government needs to be commended for reinstating that funding. I sure hope it continues past the five-year mandate it currently has.

Beyond that, I was really disappointed in the way the Canada Council has looked at its programs in terms of what to do with that new money. There is a lot of talk about the need to address all the emerging communities. There are many different approaches to art that weren't around or weren't considered to be part of the mainstream 50 years ago, which have come forward and are attracting audiences and many artists across the country. Funding needs to be put into programs to support those art forms.

I'm not suggesting that we cannibalize existing funding for institutions such as the ballets, the symphonies, the operas, and the museums. They deserve funding, but the new organizations and the new art forms deserve funding as well. They deserve to be funded on levels that are consistent with the classical forms, which are serving a purpose, but that purpose is much more historical than it is contemporary.

If Canadian culture is to advance, the new material needs to be supported. We need to support emerging artists and emerging art forms and the diverse cultures. We need to support not only anglophone and francophone culture but also the many different ethnic groups that weave the fabric of Canada. I think that's something that's seriously lacking right now in terms of the various distribution systems that are in place for culture through the Canadian government, which from my perspective are primarily the cultural initiatives program and the Canada Council. The Department of Western Economic Diversification is an important one as well.

• 1345

I think there needs to be a strategic process that takes a look at where the trends in the country are going from a social and cultural perspective and what government can do to facilitate that growth. It's all about building a stronger country and a stronger culture. I think those go hand in hand. We're not asking the government to bankroll us, but we are asking for the government to support us, to be a partner.

As jazz festival producers, we realized pretty early on in the game that government wasn't going to be playing a very significant role in what we were doing because the money just wasn't there. It was already spoken for and it was declining. So we worked really hard to gain corporate sponsorship. I think everyone has to be really cognizant of the role that plays and the role legislation plays.

Certainly, I've been through the mill with regard to the tobacco legislation and the impact of that on supporting the arts across Canada. I don't want to revisit that debate here because I don't think this is the forum for it. However, I think government has to think really clearly about what the impacts are. When legislation such as the tobacco legislation is put into effect, that removes a very significant private sector funding partner from the equation. That has consequences. As producers, we cannot simply go out and open one other door to replace the funding that has come from such a significant historical source.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Mr. Kerr.

Mr. McDonald, you had your hand up.

Mr. Stuart McDonald: I'd like to reinforce some points and elaborate on a couple of them. Mr. Kerr mentioned that one of the federal government's roles must be that of a partner, and I emphasize “roles”, because there's not just one role. Another role—and Mr. Wegg certainly reinforced this—is as an enabler.

I want to speak for a few minutes about the role as an enabler and, to some degree, as a partner. I see the government's role as being manifold, one part of which is to provide the statutory requirement that provides, for example, for the Canadian War Museum to be a corporation of the Government of Canada. As private individuals or as a private museum, that organization cannot accomplish this on their own.

Direct funding is another area where the federal government obviously has a clear and historic responsibility, and not just direct funding in the strictest sense of the word but matching grants provided to organizations represented in this room and elsewhere who are able to generate significant funds of their own and require topping up or matching grants from the federal government in order to make the project or the performance happen.

Another area where we need enabling legislation from the government is in protecting heritage within Canada. I'm going to speak in a moment about the basic differences I see between art and heritage.

Another area is tax incentives that encourage Canadian citizens to contribute to culture in Canada and to the heritage of Canada. A good example of this in recent memory would be the medals belonging to John McCrae, the author of In Flanders Fields. They were purchased by a Canadian with no assistance from the Government of Canada. Some donors offered assistance, but this was gratefully declined by the individual who bought them. I strongly believe one of the reasons the Canadian War Museum has been able to build its collection certainly in the last 10 years has been as a result of the government's willingness through Revenue Canada to provide tax incentives to those who donate significant artifacts and heritage items to that museum.

So some of those things can only be done by the federal government, by Parliament. It's beyond the power of any other authority or group of citizens in Canada to accomplish those things.

I think it's very important, too, that in the era we're living in now of trade liberalization, globalization of economies, and privatization, along with reducing the deficit and the debt, we don't lose sight of the government's inherent responsibility to continue to contribute funds, energy, direction, and resources to the heritage and art of Canada. As I say, in this climate of liberalization, globalization, privatization, and downloading, it's very easy for government to divest itself of its historic and ethical responsibility to protect and encourage Canadian culture. By Canadian culture I mean both the arts, performing and other, and the heritage of Canada.

I thank you for coming to Vancouver to hear our views.

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

Ms. Baxter.

• 1350

Ms. Lori Baxter: Thank you.

I'd like to take up a couple of things that have already been presented. I too feel the federal government has a very important role to play in investing in itself, and therefore in the arts and cultural industry in Canada. That investment needs to be made in many different ways, as I think has been articulated very well at the table so far. It also needs to be equitable across the country, so that we do have active participation in all regions of the country.

One of the things we have seen during the ten to fifteen years during which we have been facing cuts and have been finding new ways of working is that we've still survived. We're producing and we're growing, and that sometimes is a contradictory statement. The reality is that we are a very endurable and enduring sector. We are passionate about what we do, we are committed to what we do, and we are very inventive about finding ways in which to do it. What we have seen, however, is a change in the ability to fail, as Mr. Wegg mentioned. We have seen artists and large institutions become safer. To fail now often means that you might not be in existence tomorrow, so we are seeing smaller productions and we are seeing safer, more entertainment-oriented productions and activities.

All of this is interconnected. We are a sector that is interconnected in every aspect of Canadian life. When I say we have become safer and we have seen more entertainment, entertainment is extraordinarily important. We need the entertainment. We also need the arts, and we need the challenges that the arts and cultural industries make us face as a country and as citizens.

I'd like to pick up on specific instances in your questions with regard to the CIP, which you have mentioned, going from a policy directly to a program. The CIP has been extremely important in the management and development of organizations in the history of arts and culture in Canada. The management assistance portion allows the arts and cultural community to access hardware and software that otherwise would not be available to us. It deals with special marketing. It deals with audience development. It deals with management practices that are vital to our sector. That section of the CIP is currently still on the books, but without any funding in place. It is effectively not available to the arts and cultural community at this point, so I'd like to just put the word in that it is an extremely important program.

I'd like to endorse the report that you brought up, Canadian Culture in a Global World, and the new instrument that is recommended in it. I think finding a new way to look at arts and culture internationally is very important, as is having it protected not only in our country but in other countries as well.

Thank you.

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

What I think Lori brought up is that the sector is very connected. One of the things we've heard across Canada—and you may wish to comment—is that part of the problem with developing a cultural policy is the interdepartmental links with culture, with Revenue Canada, with the orchestras—like the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra that we learned about—with Human Resources Development, with Finance. It affects every department.

As with any kind of policy we look at, when different departments were looking to undertake programs, they would also have to look at how it would affect cultural policy, be it official languages, aboriginal affairs, whatever. It's very much a cross-over of departments. How do you deal with that? One of the things that was brought up—I believe it was in Saskatoon—was that it's a great idea, but that we shouldn't just give it to someone to do, because the departments will talk to one another but nothing will ever happen. Someone has to actually implement it.

That was just a comment.

I'll go back to you right now, Mr. Tyrell, to see if you have a response to Mr. Muise's or any other comments.

Mr. Chris Tyrell: Well, to pick up on that interdepartmental thing, what I found the last time was that the most horrible experience of my life was speaking up over the bill on tobacco sponsorship.

• 1355

My first thought was of Bob Kerr and the impact the legislation was going to have. So I got very involved in trying to get the government to recognize what the impact of that legislation was going to be on the cultural sector, and packaged with the health initiative, a compensatory package to lessen the secondary impact of that legislation.

I wound up getting spit on and yelled at as though I was pro-smoking and anti-health. I wasn't; I was pro-culture. But the government put me, like Daniel in the lion's den, fighting over that legislation.

Interestingly enough, that made me reflect on where our money came from. Lotteries were the other thing. We're right in there with all these sins for the revenue that goes to the arts.

As I recall, the lotteries were introduced as beneficial for us, to help us out. Simplistically stated, the federal government lost out to the power of the provincial governments, who I think implemented lottery legislation across Canada, all with the best of intentions, and very quickly turned it around and took it into general revenue.

We're handy, but we're not recognized at the other times. It's incredibly inconsistent. Sitting here, these things affect me. So do government cutbacks, which have been mentioned. But that's just cutbacks. Inflation eats at the money we have available here.

Regarding the cutbacks to the CBC, how do I become Canadian? How am I exposed to what's Canadian if I don't live in Ottawa or Toronto or Montreal?

All those combined on this theme of separate agencies, coupled with the lack of legislation to provide corporations with an incentive to take the place of government, have a dreadful impact on me. My government told me to look to the corporate sector and then did nothing to encourage them.

Another thing—and forgive me, but this gets me in hot water too, like tobacco—is the evolving change socially, like the religious right's influence on decisions in the United States, which I suspect is heading our way. An artist, by nature, explores the questions of a culture, and the religious right is threatening to me in that regard.

Also, in an effort to do good and do well, we want, as many people have said here, to see our resources shared with non-Caucasian communities, but when we do that, we cut up the pie; we reduce our money to mainstream culture. Not that this is good or right, but the multicultural department didn't open themselves up to me.

So the pie keeps shrinking, the money for art-making, and as we do good, when we want to do good and meet all those cultures, the money has to come up. We speak the words, but we don't pay the buck, and the combination of all that has a heavy impact in the regions.

I think the CRTC is awesome, without which we wouldn't have Canadians winning scores of Grammys. I love that. I love Granville Island, which comes from CMHC, a unique and novel way of contributing to my culture here and making me see French, other than at the airport, or having to drive to look at signs to feel like I belong to Canada.

I'm concerned about the non-regulations around cable companies, which can arbitrarily chop a French channel and replace it with a shopping network. That meant something to me; even if it was pop music, it was French, and it spoke to me of a different community than Radio-Canada.

As for national institutions, yes, the NAC sucks, but the National Gallery is important, and that's an equivalent side. On the visual arts side, the museums are one of the major ways I've become Canadian.

On the visual arts side, we have a real problem in Canada because artists and government can't decide what's professional. They can't make a definition of what constitutes those we should support. In performing arts, there are unions and clear classifications of who's professional. On the visual arts side, it's very ambiguous, and that very important sector in Canada is underdeveloped.

Thanks.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Very good.

Who would like to take off on some of these comments and go on further?

Ms. Gobis, please.

Ms. Nancy Gobis: I would like to focus in on our youth. Being the president of the Burnaby Arts Council, in my experience we've had quite a few lovely programs going, and it's hard to take it when we hear that through the Canadian jobs strategy cuts, we've had to cut out our children's summer theatre. I'd like to focus on that.

• 1400

Through Challenge, the summer employment program, there were eight positions allowed each year for us to employ university students—in our case, that's Simon Fraser University in Burnaby—who are studying theatre and drama. And we encouraged them—they were paid, actually, through the government—to write a script, to direct, produce, stage-manage, and all the rest for a children's summer theatre. And it was so successful. It was such a wonderful idea and it went so well. It covered topics such as the environment, racism, segregation, keeping Canada whole, and this sort of thing. They chose different topics like that for their plays. They were usually done outside. We were given vans by the Wolfe Chevrolet Olds people, and we took the young people around, with their props and everything, all over the lower mainland.

It was very much enjoyed by a massive number of young children. They loved it because it stirred the imagination. It was made very colourful for them in order to create an impact on them.

That has been cut right out. We were only allowed one person, and that is not enough for us to put on a successful summer theatre. So we feel very bad about that.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Just for a point of clarification, when did that money...was it just this year, or last year?

Ms. Nancy Gobis: Cutbacks over the last—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): But what is the timing? Have you just been notified about this or was it—

Ms. Nancy Gobis: No, no. We've been cut back for three years, I think it is now, so we haven't been able to have these eight people the way we did before. It seems a shame, doesn't it, because this is work experience for university students. I mean, they loved it. They enjoyed it thoroughly, and this was their summer project. It was a summer school, that's what it was, of a type.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Do you have any plans at all to—

Ms. Nancy Gobis: Well, we don't know how to go about getting this renewed. It was such a good program, but what should we do about it? That's one of the reasons I'm here today. What should we do about this?

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I'll speak to you later.

Yes, Mr. Tuele.

Mr. Nicholas Tuele: Well, I'd like to follow on these remarks, because it has occurred in our institution as well. We're a community art museum that has existed and been meeting the needs of our community, challenging them when we could, for just over half a century. Certainly when we look back at more halcyon days, and receiving funds from Canada Council and the museum assistance program, as one of Canada's class A institutions, we were eligible for funding on an annual basis—funding that went directly into the bricks and mortar of the institution.

Over the last 10 or 15 years or so, with the continuing changes made to CC and MAP and what is now virtually a project-by-project situation, we for many years continued to do as I think our colleagues have done in all the other disciplines, and that is to do more with less. We've come to a point now where it is crisis. This is a crisis mode.

We've heard about the loss now of the program for children. I can tell you of exactly the same thing in our institution. One of our most successful programs, in terms of its use by our community, was a studio program for children that allowed young budding artists to come into the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria and, through work with specially trained teachers and our docents, actually use the permanent collection of our institution in a very special kind of visual arts training that they could not get anywhere else. Last year we received a reduction in funding from the provincial government, and it was the final straw that broke the camel's back. Those children's programs have been discontinued.

• 1405

To this day—now, this is six months after the programs were announced as discontinued—we still get phone calls from parents wondering when they're going to start again and if they can get their kids in. There are always lineups to get the children into these programs. There is no funding any longer that will allow us to do these kinds of programs.

When I think even further back—and this will tell you something about how long I've been in the game—the buzzwords “democratization” and “decentralization” surrounded a very valuable program that has been long gone, but the principle and philosophy of the program and the funding that went with it were commendable.

I remember, as a young person not long out of university, I had an opportunity to take a van with exhibitions from the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria out into the remote communities of British Columbia. We used to set up these exhibitions in school gyms, shopping centres, or wherever we could do it. And with a couple of dollars for advertising, there was no shortage of people in the communities who wanted to come to see what amounts to the British Columbia permanent collection of visual arts.

There are now small community art galleries in Campbell River, Prince George, Dawson Creek, and so on, but there's no money to get the exhibitions to their institutions. So on the one hand, there has been some funding to develop the bricks and mortar, but there is no money for the programming.

Another concern I have as a curator is that I don't see young people coming into our museums and galleries thinking that there's a career path as the keepers of our cultural heritage that resides in our museum and gallery collections. That's very worrisome indeed, because when the curators who are there now come to the end of their tenure, where are the young ones to hand the torch to?

All of this somehow resides as a responsibility of federal government.

I would also like to add to Mr. Tyrell's comments that I do think the federal government has a role as an operator of national institutions. Those national institutions will aspire to have the kinds of international reputations they should have. If they don't, they have their work cut out for them.

Thank you.

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

On a point of clarification, you said there was no money left for the children's programming. Where did that money come from? Did that come from the museum assistance program or through, as Ms. Gobis said, the youth employment money?

Mr. Nicholas Tuele: It was a combination of things.

One of the real challenges we face in Victoria is that although we are the capital city of the province, there are no corporate headquarters. There is no corporate headquarters of any description in Victoria. So fundraising in the corporate sector in Victoria is a virtual impossibility, because we are over here in Vancouver or Toronto competing with our colleagues who live in Toronto and Vancouver.

Secondly, as everyone knows, the provincial government funds the cultural sector to a level that is behind Newfoundland. So we don't have any leverage when it comes time to go to the federal sector, through the Canada Council or MAP, to be able to demonstrate that we have an appropriate level of municipal, provincial, or corporate support. We don't have that. We're living in a have-not province.

The funding for the program I described came from a creative use of the funds. If we got project funds from the Canada Council, we would try to incorporate some funding for interpretation programs, for example. There are ways to have that a part of the program.

But as that project-by-project funding again has become increasingly competitive and a smaller piece of the pie every year, something finally had to give. The areas where we are now trimming... There's no fat left to trim. We're now cutting away skin and bone. And some of it has to be the programs that are the most painful to cut.

Because you have to hire these special teachers for the children's programs, if the money isn't there to pay the teachers, the program is cancelled.

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

Mr. Cooke.

Mr. Brent Cooke: Thank you. I would like to follow up on Mr. Tuele's comments and certainly those of others such as Mr. Tyrell. I certainly sympathize with the Americanization of content in Canada.

• 1410

Much like what Mr. Tuele has been indicating, one of the issues for the Royal British Columbia Museum is being so far down in the southwest corner of British Columbia, out of the mainstream. Believe me, Victoria does suffer by not being in the centre of metropolitan Canada.

I visited a conference for the CMA in November in Ottawa, and the discussion around the table was about something the Honourable Minister Copps had said about needing to get more Canadian exhibits travelling across this country. Besides buying a bundle of flags, it was how we could possibly get some of these travelling exhibits moving around more. When the two days ended, my frustration level was at an all-time high as a producer of travelling exhibits. The only body that has any mandate to move exhibitions across this country is the federal government. The federal government was standing at that table saying it was up to us guys. At the end, though, the number one recommendation out of this two-day conference was that we would meet again same time next year. It was kind of a horrible thing.

We are looking to the federal government as an enabler—I think that was a great comment that somebody made here at the table—to assist in a partnership role with museums, not a leadership role, to produce exhibits of Canadian content for the country. The make-up of the country is changing drastically. Certainly within British Columbia, the demographics of reaching communities that are non-Caucasian are increasing daily. We need to find ways to promote the Canadian culture to those groups that are increasing to such a high level. That money is going to have to come, I believe, from the federal government in some form in support of museums.

As everybody has said, the MAP funding has been declining over the last ten years, to the point where it is non-existent. Somebody said another $2 million has been added to the pot this year. It remains to be seen how that will be accessed by anybody.

Last year, it was requested that we put applications in for funding by February. Again, it was on a project-by-project basis, which doesn't allow you any multi-year funding whatsoever. Many organizations put in place plans that they have to begin when the season begins for them. They make a commitment to do that program in absence of any information coming through the federal government.

This past year, the federal government announced that it was no longer in the project in September. Well, many of these organizations had spent money all the way through the year leading up to September, expecting that they would be part of the role when it came time. At that point, they were told no. What did they end up doing? They cut programs that were basic to their organization in order to get the money they had paid out for programs through the summer while thinking they would be covered.

I think this is just an abysmal situation for the federal government. There needs to be support from the federal government, but it doesn't appear to be there. Provincial governments are backing away from the table. The federal government is backing away from the table. Corporations are going to pull up to the table. When corporations move up to the table, Mr. Tyrell will probably only have to come up with one name to have the whole class sit down. I think this is a horrible thing to be heading towards, so I would like to discuss with anybody any way we can garner more federal government support for culture.

Thank you.

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

I have a speakers list consisting of Mr. Wegg, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Tuele and Mr. Kerr. At this point, though, I'd like to change things a little and go to our audience in order to see if there's anyone who'd like to make an intervention.

Please state your name and who you represent or what organization you're associated with.

Ms. Mia Weinberg (Individual Presentation): Hi, my name's Mia Weinberg. I'm the B.C. representative on the national council of CARFAC, Canadian Artists Representation/Front des artistes canadiens. We have submitted a written brief, so I'm going to mention a few other things here both as a representative of CARFAC and as an individual visual artist.

As an art service organization, one of our major concerns is the reduction in money for art service organizations. In this time of cuts, artists need the support of people who can help them access funding, access the market. They need support to find out about all sorts of things artists need to know, like documenting their art, all sorts of bits of information that we can help our members with.

• 1415

Our funding has been cut in recent years, and in B.C. we're totally voluntary. In Saskatchewan they have a couple of offices with paid employees because their membership is higher. As a national organization, our national council can afford to meet only once a year. We communicate via telephone conferencing. It's not enough. In order to really support artists, we need money not just for projects but for sustaining the arts service organizations. That's one point.

Artist-run centres, which I believe in very strongly, also need support, particularly for emerging artists. That's something I'm concerned about, because I'm in the early stages of my career and I've been helped by artist-run centres that are located mainly on the other side of the country. Somehow it's easier to get shows in Toronto and Montreal than in Vancouver. But those centres are really important for getting artists started in their careers and giving them encouragement and support.

I know the Canada Council got this extra $25 million, but I don't know how much went toward grants for emerging artists. From what I understand, it wasn't very much. When I looked at the resumés of my teachers from art school, I saw that many of them had received a half dozen Canada Council grants year after year. Nowadays it's really hard for artists to get one, let alone more than one, and that's something that really helps artists in the early stages. I think it's all well and good to give money to our established artists who are known across the country, but they had to start somewhere, and that's the time when artists really need the money, when you're starting out and you can't prove that what you're doing is particularly valuable and important, because you need the chance to actually start somewhere.

That is something I feel very strongly about. We need to support emerging artists both through education in the schools and once people get out of school, because those first few years are really hard.

The CBC has already been mentioned. Before the cuts were made at the CBC in recent years, the main arts program I listened to in order to know what was going on in the arts across the country was an hour long. It's now half that length of time. It doesn't give me nearly the depth of knowledge of what's going on in this country in the arts. I think that is a tragedy, because that's how we find out what's going on across the country. The other thing that was mentioned earlier is knowledge and the CBC. I've been a Canadian for three years now. When I went for my citizenship test, my knowledge of Canada came from having listened to the CBC. That's how I knew about this country. I knew way more than what I needed in order to pass that test because I'd listened to CBC radio.

Another item is the intangibles. Art is very intangible. You can't put a concrete value on art. You can't say we've made so many widgets, and the number of people attending a show isn't necessarily a sign it's a good show. It can have a very important effect on very few people, but it still is important. I think we need to realize that the things you can get from art, such as confidence, problem solving, passion in life, and quality of life, are very hard to put figures on, but they are very important in our lives. That's where I see a major part of the value of culture.

That's all I'm going to say.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much. I think there's time for one more brief statement, if anyone else in the audience would like to come to the mike.

Mr. Fitch Cady (Individual Presentation): Hi. I'm Fitch Cady. I'm a motion picture producer in British Columbia. I hesitate to interject our concerns into the delicate fabric of Canadian culture, but since Heritage has a report on the issue of the foreign productions service tax credit, I felt we couldn't pass up the opportunity to speak to you about it while you're in town.

There is a $400 million industry in British Columbia that employs 11,000 technicians and actors. The proposal, which is heavily backed by Atlantis and Alliance in central Canada, directly threatens the tax credits we've been beneficiaries of. This is just to say that Heritage is headed toward a national brawl over this. We're not going to stand by and let it happen. I just wanted to get up and speak to that while you're here.

Thank you.

• 1420

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much. Your comments are duly noted.

We'll return to our speakers list. Again, please don't hesitate to put your hand up and jump in at any time. On my list is Mr. Wegg, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Tuele, and Mr. Kerr.

Mr. James Wegg: Thank you very much.

My colleague from CARFAC touched on a very important point. We hear so much around the table about the grants, the funding, the dollars. How do we measure the value? It's easy to do it with money, because you either have it or you don't. How often do we hear, how is the Toronto Symphony doing? Well, they balanced the budget this year. But did the Mahler move me? Was Fall Fair played for the 500th time because Godfrey Ridout, God bless him, wrote a piece that has a tune and that we can call Canadian content?

We have to find a way of evaluating art as we do health care. We've heard from the chair quite rightly that many ministries are involved in the arts, but I didn't hear health care mentioned, and of course it is involved, because if we have good art, we feel better. That has a huge implication. We value health care, but we don't yet value art. Yet our health care costs will go down if more of us can find the value of art.

My colleague from the Vancouver Cultural Alliance said there were some survivors who got through the cuts, but it was at great cost. I stopped conducting symphony orchestras because I loved my art so much that I didn't want to do the theme from Gilligan's Island in order to fill the hall.

Maybe there's time for one facetious solution. We've heard about lottery funding. Why don't we have grants by lottery and take all the administration costs of the cultural organizations—I'm going to be run out of the room by some of them here—put them in the same pot and pull a number and say take your dough?

Thank you.

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

When you speak about having to measure the value, there's a recent report of the Toronto Arts Council where they tried to actually put a value on it, not just the esthetic value or the wonderful value you get from any type of art, but a monetary guide to show just how important art is. About a year and a half ago McKinsey & Company did a study of the value of all forms of art in New York. It was called You Gotta Have Art. The return for every dollar invested in the arts in New York State—and you can use this information, if you wish—was seven to one. So I think your point is well taken. We can also look beyond the direct or indirect economic benefits to see what are the other non-monetary benefits.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Mr. McDonald.

Mr. Stuart McDonald: I'm both inspired and disheartened by Mr. Cooke's comment about the CMA meeting. I'm inspired by the fact that there are large numbers of museum organizations across Canada that, although they are facing diminishing resources in most cases, are doing their utmost to preserve Canada's heritage, to publicize it and to teach it and to remember those Canadians who have gone before us in so many walks of life. But I'm also disheartened by the federal government's reaction of “over to you”. I think there's an abrogation of responsibility, which I find incredible in this era of Canada's history.

I think back to 32 years ago when I and probably a lot of others in this room visited the Canadian Confederation train, a national institution containing national artifacts, memorabilia, and visual arts, which, in conjunction with local performing artists across Canada, reminded Canadians of the importance of their heritage. I'm wondering why, in the millennium era we're in now as we look forward to the year 2000, the Government of Canada and the citizens of Canada are not planning a similar kind of activity as a means of welcoming the millennium, as a way to bring Canadian heritage and culture to as many Canadians as possible. I know it's expensive. Can we afford to do this? Can we afford not to do it? That's the question.

• 1425

I also think of the other national institution, of which I'm a member and supporter, the Canadian War Museum, right next door to the excellent National Art Gallery of Canada. I too contrast it with the performance at the National Arts Centre, in a very poor light in that sense. Next door to the National Art Gallery is probably the second largest collection of Canadian art in Canada, and that collection of Canadian art rarely sees the light of day or a gallery. It's been on tour. I think the last time was 10 or 12 years ago in Ontario. I know Dr. Jack Granatstein, current CEO of the War Museum, would like to get this on the road again. That collection of visual art includes Molly Bobak, a B.C. artist, Lawren Harris, A.Y. Jackson, E.J. Hughes, and Alex Colville. All of these works remain in a warehouse, unseen by the Canadian public, and I don't think that's acceptable.

So as we look towards the next millennium, I think we should be looking at getting those national institutions, where the federal government does have a responsibility and a mandate, to move outside of the central Canada area, outside of Ottawa in particular, and into the hearts and minds of Canadians across the country.

We're one of the few nations in the world that lives next door to a superpower, a cultural and media superpower, whose people speak the same language as most Canadians do—one of the things I treasure is the fact that we as Canadians speak not only English—but we are dominated by United States culture and media. One of the ways we can reduce that impact—and I think we have to, as Canadians—is to exercise all of our abilities, talents, energies, and dollars towards preserving Canadian culture, art, and heritage. The Government of Canada has a role in this that it cannot avoid.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Tuele.

Mr. Nicholas Tuele: I want to add to the points made this morning, but I have something for clarification. My understanding is that the recent budget had no new money for the Canada Council, no new money for the museum assistance program, and yet $50 million was added to a scientific research and development fund. It went from $250 million to $300 million. Many of those millions of dollars are the same millions of dollars that have underwritten research and development for a company like Bombardier, which is competitive internationally. I understand too, just in the last week or so, that there has been a challenge in the courts about the legitimacy of the federal government's role in spending money that way, enabling a company to compete internationally.

I put it to you, in the whole budget there is reference to “museum” once, I think. Maybe the word “culture” showed up once. No new money is put into some of the major instruments by which the government exercises its responsibility in Canadian culture. I wonder, if $50 million had somehow gotten into the hands of Canada's creators, both emerging and senior, what kind of impact that would have on Canada's culture. Wonderful.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Bélanger, would you like to speak?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I get the gist of this, and I would have to agree with that. The fact that there was no mention of the MAP in the budget does not alter the announcement that as of April 1 there will be an extra $2 million in the program for fiscal 1999-2000. For the Canada Council, the announcement was for five years. And yes, I for one would be extremely disappointed and would fight a decision to go back to where it was once that five years is over. I can't see that happening. It was not in this year's budget, correct, but those increases nonetheless remain and are valid.

But I have to...well, I'll keep my comments for the end on the suggestion itself.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Mr. Tuele, just on a point of clarification, it's the World Trade Organization that I believe you're speaking of, the decision for which Canada took Brazil to the WTO. We felt their product subsidy was contrary to... In turn, Brazil took Canada on the technology partnership, and there's been an interim ruling. It's not quite quotas; it's again one of those international agreements we've made that we're trying to deal with.

Mr. Kerr.

• 1430

Mr. Robert Kerr: Thank you.

I'd like to speak for a moment about the globalization of culture. I believe very strongly in a strong and really exciting and dynamic Canadian culture. But I'm not afraid of American culture. I'm not afraid of European, Asian, African, American, or global culture. I think it's ridiculous to even consider that, because we live on planet earth. We're here in a global community that is becoming closer and closer and more connected all the time. One of the greatest threats to Canadian culture, or to us as a country, would be to take a protectionist attitude towards culture, to really circle the wagons and say, okay, we have to do this because it's the only way we're going to preserve Canadian culture.

My opinion is that we need to make Canadian art, artists, and culture by Canadians strong by investing in it. If we have great support systems, really strong support mechanisms for fostering Canadian artists, they'll be great on a global scale.

One of the things we do with our organization is really try to encourage exchanges between Canadian and international artists, between Vancouver and Dutch and Japanese and African artists. There are incredible things that happen as a result. Canadian artists get work in Europe. They get more work in Europe sometimes than they do in Canada as a result of that, and they forge relationships. That happens because we put people together. Canadian artists want to talk to artists from around the world and work with artists from other places around the world. For the most part, they do. And I think we need to encourage it.

The Dutch have a really inspiring example. They're putting more money now into their cultural support programs, I believe, than they ever have. It's remarkable. The cultural exports that are coming out of the Netherlands, a very tiny country surrounded by dominant European cultures... They're producing remarkable works. Canada could learn from that kind of an example.

Then it leads to the whole issue of emerging technologies and the Internet. It's here, it's a fact, it's a reality. You can't shut it out. More and more people are going to be dialing in and logging on. They can go anywhere. Just because they're Canadian doesn't mean they're going to check out Canadian culture. If it's bad, if it's boring, if it's not interesting, they won't go there. You can't make them.

We have this incredible creative wealth in this country. There's a lot of potential. We've just barely scratched the surface of the potential in this country, and it needs to be fostered and pushed and moved forward. That's how we'll maintain a Canadian identity.

I have a couple of small practical things to throw out in terms of helping the dollar sources. One of the things, of course, is that in the States there's no government funding and the national arts endowment has been cut, but the one great thing that has happened in the States historically is the foundation. There are incredibly strong private foundations that support the arts. If the Minister of Finance and some of the minds in the country got together around the issue of incenting corporations to contribute to foundations, that could be a very significant source of funds in the long term in Canada. I think we need to look at that.

The other thing we need to remember is the fact that the arts industry across Canada is the seventh largest job creator in the country. Getting back to that valuation issue, people work in the arts. My father never believed it was possible, but we do.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Kerr, on the idea of the foundations, two years ago, through the efforts of the Canadian Council for the Arts, the Minister of Finance removed the 50% capital gains on gifts of publicly traded companies to charity. I know there has been a push again, spearheaded by Don Johnston, to try to lift the other 50%.

• 1435

But just before the budget, there were a number of editorials in the papers, and one of the criticisms—and maybe you can help me here when we talk about it afterwards—in one of those editorials was that by doing so, you're basically having the rich decide what charities are important. It said that those gifts are really a benefit to the rich. That's hard to argue sometimes. Anyway, I don't want an immediate answer, but I know there was a first step made two years ago, and it's there for five years.

Mr. Robert Kerr: Maybe part of the way to address that is to come up with guidelines for foundations to follow in terms of the distribution of their dollars. Have a board of governors that's drawn from the community at large so that it doesn't just become something at the behest of a particular individual who is controlling the distribution to his very narrow constituency.

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

Mr. Holzschuh.

[Translation]

Mr. Craig Holzschuh: I'd like to come back to the comments made by Mr. Tuele, Ms. Gobis and Mr. Tyrell. We too, at Théâtre la Seizième, think that education is very important. We recently visited some grade one students to discuss what they'd like to see in a play, what they were interested in and what they want to see on the stage. Nearly all the students told us they'd like to see Nintendo and TV characters on the stage. We found this sad because these are the young people who are going to grow up and take over from us. They are the ones who will look for our culture; they are tomorrow's culture. They judge theatre, and certainly all the other visual and stage arts according to American television and American products they encounter. I'm afraid of what's going to happen in 30 years, when these young people take over, as Mr. Tuele said so well. Thank you.

[English]

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

[Translation]

Ms. Longnus.

Ms. Isabelle Longnus: Thank you. I'd just like to add a little bit about the significant effects of artists and the cultural sector on the economy. We're worried about the 7th art, the cinema, and what's happening there is very important.

There's also talk about artists and we see that, in general, the good Canadian actors leave Canada. We wonder where our artists are. Why don't they stay here? We tell ourselves that such and such a singer has left, or such and such a film producer. It's really sad, what's happening.

For Canada to be a major cultural institution and for its museums, artists and films to be recognized around the world, well, they have to be encouraged. The government has to take the risk with artists because they have some criteria that do not correspond to the artists' situation. Some of them say to themselves that there's not enough money for them here and they decide to go elsewhere.

There's a lot of talk about the U.S., where the government doesn't help artists. Private companies help them and, very often, that works a lot better. We're told here that there are some artists who manage very well without grants and that we should do likewise. But our situation is different; we live in another economy and in another country, I hope. That's why we really have to do what there is to be done here and take chances with artists. They mustn't be allowed to leave; or there won't be any more.

We talked about youth. If children don't have any models here, if they only have foreign models, obviously there will be no succession, because there won't be any outcome or outlet for their work. How do we tell a young student to go into theatre, to go and see a play or a Canadian film? They're going to say:

[English]

“Ah, it's boring.”

[Translation]

Unfortunately, it's because there's no effervescence, because we haven't taken any chances. We always tend to stick to the tried and true, and that becomes very plain when we travel to Europe or the U.S. Canadians don't take enough chances because they're not allowed to take chances. That's what I find a bit sad. Thank you.

[English]

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

Mr. Wegg.

Mr. James Wegg: I'll say two quick things. The first is about the foundations and the tax benefits, the capital gain reductions and your comment that it benefits the rich. I think it's a matter of degree. I think what it does for the rich is ease the pain of doing the right thing. A number of like-minded—

• 1440

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I'll quote you on that.

Mr. James Wegg: Oh, please. Speak to my agent, though.

Like-minded or smaller-budgeted individuals will actually give more, and this is certainly proved. In terms of donation, the best giver in the country is the $20 individual who has passion.

A quick word about corporate sponsorship and how this will solve the problem. In my experience, corporate sponsorship is very beneficial to the corporation and slightly beneficial to the charity in that they get bargain-rate prices of advertising that they would normally pay quite a bit more for using Young and Rubicon in Toronto. For us to get the cachet of saying “Presented by XYZ, a wonderful corporation, therefore we must have good art”, we sell ourselves out.

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

Okay, Mr. McDonald, Madame Longnus, and Mr. Tyrell.

Mr. Stuart McDonald: To respond to Mr. Kerr's comment about protection, I too share his concern about attempting to protect Canadian art, culture and heritage. Although that appears to be the simple solution, and in some respects it is an act of Parliament, legislation, etc., it's certainly the quick and dirty solution, because although it is quick, it's going to attract the attention of the World Trade Organization and others. I think we should be far more inclined than we are now to invest in those things, to support those things, to encourage those things, rather than taking the negative approach of protecting them. You're right, by encouraging them and supporting them and sustaining them, we will attract more and more Canadians to the work that people around this table are doing and inspire others to do the same thing.

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

Madame Longnus.

[Translation]

Ms. Isabelle Longnus: I'd like to make a little comment. When we go to Europe, we often see Saint-Exupéry's Little Prince on the French 50 franc bills. I haven't got anything against loonies or little birds. I know these are symbols of Canada. But maybe it's time to honour our artists and the heritage we have here, in Canada, by putting something besides a little duck on our bills and our stamps. Thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We do so regularly.

Ms. Isabelle Longnus: On stamps, yes, I agree.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Tyrell.

Mr. Chris Tyrell: Further to the foundation and the rich, that doesn't bother me at all. The rich have often made very good decisions, and the Medici family were a good example. Frankly, the government could be giving money to the stupid because—no offence, no offence—as government becomes more and more by the polls, decision-making comes closer and closer to the centre of the bell curve; and those people have never been leaders—never. So the association of rich and decision-making is not adverse, to me.

I wanted to mention a couple of other things. In terms of giving more money, everybody says we want more money, but how some of that money might come in the performing arts is important to me.

In my past, when the seal hunt was huge, I was able to work with people to bring the mummers from Newfoundland, with a show called They Club Seals, Don't They?, to here, the heart of Greenpeace country. It changed minds. I was totally of this coast, but that changed minds. A Canadian story of international implications changed my mind. I didn't want to go out and club seals, but I knew that industry was connected to my fellow Canadians who needed to eat food at the end of the day. That had never occurred to me.

Also, the first time I ever heard of separatism as a political movement, I was able to bring Lise Payette and Louis Laberge—people I'd never heard of but I chose by reputation, by significance—out here in a public speaking series. Again, I believe my mind and other minds were changed—that was incredible to me—actually changed.

Of course the confrontation of separatists in anglophone Canada or seal slaughterers in the heart of Greenpeace country made fabulous press and sold a million tickets. Everything was working.

What I'm saying is that when I live in Vancouver, where it's cheaper to go to London than Toronto, it's cheaper for me to be international than Canadian. That's why the CBC and the NFB are terribly, terribly important to me.

• 1445

Whereas Americans all seem to remember where they were when Kennedy died, I remember where I was when Barbara Frum died, and I couldn't believe how that fact had an impact on all my friends. We lost a national treasure as far as I was concerned. I have never seen anything like that since Terry Fox. It was good for me to see that a sports figure could do that, and very gratifying to see that a journalist could do that for me too.

So in Vancouver the CBC and these travel funds, whether it's for an exhibit or a show, are terribly important. Your company recently gave me a chance to see Jean-Louis Millette, and I thought I was going to go to a French play, but it was in English. It was the most wonderful experience. It was about a French Canadian man who lost his ability to speak French. It was so great to see here. That's really what gives me my sense of being Canadian.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Ms. Farina.

Ms. Rose Farina: In listening to everyone speak, I think if the government just paid more attention to not necessarily saying we just don't have the money, but to being fair and having balanced thinking... What would happen if at the end of the meeting the government has... When they go home, they say, “Oh God, what a day!” and they go to the theatre to relax. When they go home, what is the first thing they do? They either put on music or they pick up a book or something. If each one just thought about how much art touches their lives each day, or if at the beginning of the meeting they thought, “What did you do yesterday? How many times has art touched your life?”, maybe then they would be fairer in their thinking, not necessarily just saying we don't have the money.

It's always sad, I think, to say give me, give me, give me, but to say “We'll help you try to find it, we'll be the enabler”, as has been stated before...

Anyway, I'm just saying let's hope they can look at how art has affected their lives and be fair and not forget B.C.

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

Ms. Baxter.

Ms. Lori Baxter: I've been listening to a lot of talk about money and about more money and what we can do to increase the investment and that type of thing. I think that's all very important, but I also think we really need to look at the way we are using the dollars we currently have. It's not always about more money but about what we're doing with what we have currently.

I go back to your comment about the fact that everything is so interconnected and you're dealing with so many different ministries. I would like to put forward that you take that as a real opportunity and challenge to look at all areas of government and look at all policies as they impact on the arts and cultural sector, so that we don't have contradictory policies from one ministry to another ministry. For instance, in Thunder Bay one arm of the government is investing in a symphony there, and another arm of the government is coming in and saying they don't fit the self-employed category and therefore they're going to take pretty much all the money that has already been invested in them back to the federal government. That's just one very small instance of areas where we could really look at the overall government and how we implement policies and how they could benefit.

Someone once described it as taking a look at all ministries and all policies and putting a cultural lens towards it, looking at it through that cultural lens and determining whether or not it was having a positive or negative impact. Because the arts and cultural sectors are so interconnected in absolutely everything we do in this country, I think having that kind of lens would be very powerful. It's done on an individual basis, and sometimes it's easier to look at it when it's in a smaller situation.

• 1450

The Vancouver Cultural Alliance is working with our local chapter of Human Resources Development Canada, and we've implemented a program for cultural workers looking at their ability to increase their earned revenue from their art. It just doesn't fit HRDC's rules.

We're not breaking them, but we're challenging existing practices. We're trying to put some square pegs in some round holes. The local people here are being very supportive of that, and we're finding ways in which we can assist by using a program that in the past has not been seen as one that can really fit the arts and cultural sector. I challenge you to do that on a government-wide basis, not just as one isolated incident in one city working with one division of government.

I'd also like to pick up on whether we protect or don't protect. I think it's extremely important that, no matter what you do, you protect our ability to support. That's vital, because it has been challenged in some of the agreements put forward. If we don't protect our ability to support our arts and cultural sectors, we will be much the poorer.

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

Mr. Tuele.

Mr. Nicholas Tuele: That's part of the point that I was trying to make with regard to the challenge that's being made right now in another sector altogether. Just perhaps to broaden the perspective for a brief moment, the loss of some of our very best artists to a better environment for them in the United States and elsewhere is being traced in a very alarming fashion here in British Columbia, as we spend the amount of money that we do training people in the technology information sector and so on. They then immediately head off to the United States. They're not even out of graduate school before they're being hired in Seattle and California. I therefore think the federal government has another big problem on their hands, and it has to do with the broader question of taxation of our citizenry.

One of the most valuable programs for the museum community—or at least for those members of the museum community who are in a position to take advantage of it—is the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board. There, donors who give to a museum a collection of works of art, museum artifacts, and so on, that are deemed to be of national significance, receive a very generous tax benefit. It's the only way institutions across the land have been able to develop their permanent collections. I commend the federal government for that program, but I certainly would urge that the program be made more accessible and that perhaps some other kinds of programs along that line be looked at.

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

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I think we're sort of coming to the end of this. If I may, I'm not going to get into any debate. I just want to thank a few people for suggestions.

Mr. Tyrell, thanks for reminding us once again. Doing what we do, we keep forgetting that progress and change usually come from the margins. In this application of trying to define or get to a Canadian cultural policy, one shouldn't forget that.

Mr. McDonald, I don't know why we need to wait for a marker such as 1967 or 2000 to do things such as the train. That could be a regular occurrence with a different theme. Perhaps we ought to kick that one around in terms of also employing students in the summertime. It need not be all that horrendously expensive.

If I may, because I sensed here in this room a great deal of support for things artistic, cultural and heritage, I would also remind you that governments, members of Parliament—both in the government or the opposition—are assailed every day basically from any number of directions for a slice of the pie. We're sought out perhaps to try to cut that pie up differently.

What I'm trying to say here is that you ought not to relent in terms of applying pressure that is the equivalent to what we might be getting from other sectors and other areas. We've heard in every single session we've had thus far—and I also happen to believe it—that people have equated culture with our soul, the country's soul. I think you owe it to yourselves to keep the pressure up, as much pressure as the Medical Research Council applied two years ago—and it did so wonderfully well. I think the artistic groups in this country ought to figure out how to lobby more effectively than they currently do.

• 1455

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

Ms. Zagar, we haven't heard from you. I don't want you to sit at the table and feel you didn't have an opportunity to say something. Please, could we hear what your concerns are?

Ms. Mirna Zagar: Well, I've been part of the dance community here for a very short time. I'm relatively new to Canada, so apart from trying to represent my community here, this is also a learning experience.

Much has been said that is also representative for the dance community in British Columbia, but multifold. We are a relatively small community that's hardly visible in the arts scene, and I think that is unjustified. There's a lot of talent, but hardly any resources to support the development of that talent. There is hardly any infrastructure in place. To the best of my knowledge from speaking to my colleagues, we have witnessed over the years a decrease in the number of companies. They're now mostly by name only. They cannot afford to sustain companies as we would foresee them. Dancers cannot afford to pay for classes because they're mostly on welfare; the average income is shamefully low, so I will not mention it. Touring has stopped.

Having been present on the international presenters market, I know there is a huge interest in Canadian culture and a huge interest in regional cultures. I know the foreign presenters mostly get their information through individual contacts. Hardly anything is available through Canadian embassies. It's very difficult to obtain that information, especially information on regional development.

So if I may say it, one could expect the federal government to be more aware of regional development and to support them, especially the ones here in British Columbia, where we witness hardly any support for our talents. And yes, we are survivors, but the dance art is the one that has the shortest lifespan.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Thank you very much, Ms. Zagar.

I can go to three more people, and then we have to close. Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Before our witnesses leave us, I definitely want to tell them that I have found them very interesting. As Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Muise and other members indicated at the beginning of this roundtable discussion, we were here to listen to you. We didn't say a lot, but we listened to you carefully, and I hope we have understood you well. I wish to congratulate you all on the work you have done in order to keep your various areas of activity alive.

I think I have understood that, yes, you are asking for more money for some programs, but that you are looking above all for consistency, logic and fairness. These are the elements that seem to emerge from your remarks. Money, there may be some, but it is poorly distributed and poorly administered. My neighbour said to me: We're rather far away and they often forget about us.

I especially wish to congratulate the lady who works for the francophone community groups here and the gentleman for his efforts in the theatre.

In closing, I'd like to say to Mr. Tuele that we'll still be interested in accepting his invitation to come and talk with you about sovereignty.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: About our heritage and history.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I have one more speaker from the audience, Mr. Justin McGrail.

Mr. McGrail, we're almost out of time.

Mr. Justin McGrail (Individual Presentation): My name's Justin McGrail. I'm a Vancouver poet and a member of cooperative radio.

I would simply like to add that as the Department of Canadian Heritage has visited different cities, I'm sure every city has fielded a round table with expertise and advice similar to that of this table. Thus, I think a Canadian cultural policy should focus on moving Canadian arts and artists among the rich cultural communities. Each community in Canada certainly hosts a large cultural community that is strong, and I think a national policy should focus on those connections between them. Thus, I would add that perhaps funding could come out of the ministry of highways.

Thank you.

• 1500

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): The Department of Transport. Bravo! Thank you very much. The Department of Transport, I have to say, did not even cross my mind.

Ms. Baxter.

Ms. Lori Baxter: Thank you. I'd like to pick up on something that Mr. Bélanger mentioned.

In terms of our effectiveness to advocate and lobby, I thoroughly agree with you. We have real challenges in that regard, even though we are the seventh largest employer in the country. We are independent contractors; we operate in very small organizations. Our largest employer, in most sectors, would be considered a small to medium-sized organization. Those are challenges that face us.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: —

Ms. Lori Baxter: Thank you. I agree with you and I take your challenge. I would also like to say, however, that I would challenge you to go back to Revenue Canada and get the rules for charities changed so we don't risk losing our charitable status by doing the very lobbying activities you've encouraged us to do. I'll take the challenge you gave us, if you'll take mine.

If I may, I would also like to take this opportunity, since it's the last time I'll speak, to really thank you very much for coming to Vancouver to listen to us and take it back, and for being interested in a national cultural policy. We hope we'll see you again very soon.

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

We have come to the end, unfortunately. We could sit here for hours and hours and discuss this. As I said at the beginning, we can't cover everything, but we have covered a great deal of ground.

You would think that as we come to the end of our tour we would start to get tired, but I have to tell you this is probably the most animated, exciting discussion we've had. So you may be last, but you're certainly not least, and you've certainly inspired us again.

One of the things we've found, travelling across Canada, is the passion and commitment of the people in the arts and cultural industry, and I wonder how we could bottle that and market it. Again, I'm not saying that arts and culture are products and services. But the drive within people who work in the arts and cultural industry is something I wish we could market. Maybe that's part of our Canadian culture. That's who we are.

You've echoed a number of concerns that have been echoed all across Canada. The word seems to be “enabler”. If I've heard one thing today, that was it: enabler. Another is why you people have been asking for funding. People have been talking in terms of partnerships. You're not asking for money because you're the poor cousins of everything and you need it...

I don't know how to thank you, on behalf of all of us in the committee. I'd like to thank members of the audience for coming and participating. While we may be here as a committee to study cultural policy, please look at this meeting as the beginning of a new partnership with the members of the committee that you've met. Again, we welcome all of you to make written submissions and file them with the clerk by the end of March. My invitation goes out to members of the audience and to others you know who might be interested in addressing either one, some, or all of those questions.

I would really appreciate it if you would see the clerk afterward, and I see a few of my colleagues want something very quick. Thank you again from the bottom of our hearts for coming out and taking the time from your busy schedules. I will give Mr. Muise one quick, final comment.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you. I will be quick.

I want to echo what Mr. Bélanger said earlier. We're here to listen, but I think we are, as a committee, very sympathetic to your cause, so you're somewhat preaching to the converted. But we also have to try, with your help, to convince other departments of government to make those things happen. So it's with the increased or continued pressure from your end that we can continue to do our job.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'd like to invite the witnesses who so wish to remain in the room to attend the next roundtable discussion, which will begin in one hour.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Yes, as Mr. Sauvageau has pointed out, within an hour we will be convening another round table session. So I encourage the audience and the other participants to stay.

Thank you again. The meeting is adjourned.