CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 25, 1999

• 1536

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): It is my pleasure to welcome you to the third round table in Montreal in the course of the study undertaken by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the future role of the Canadian government in all matters concerning support to culture and cultural programs.

Thank you for answering our call in such great numbers. We were flattered by the number of requests to appear by stakeholders, in Montreal as well as in other parts of the country we have visited so far. Thank you for coming.

I would like to explain how we will hold our meeting. Since the format of our meeting is a round table, our discussion will be very informal. We will not hear any speeches or presentations. Everyone should feel free to talk, and we hope they will. Rather than listening to speeches, we would like to see a debate, something which will go further than individual presentations: we hope to have an exchange of ideas.

We have been working on this study for about a year and a half. We have heard from many groups and people in Ottawa. Now it is our turn to travel and to explore and assess as much as possible what we have heard until now.

First, we would like to know how you perceive the federal government in terms of its support for culture and cultural programs. Does it provide adequate support, is it satisfactory, or is that support lacking, is it weak?

We would like to view the future by keeping three main challenges in mind. The first is the demographic challenge: the ageing of the population and the changing face of the Canadian population due to sustained levels of immigration for several years now. The second challenge concerns technological change, which is occurring at a mind-boggling pace: how the Internet and the proliferation of media will change the role of government in our organizations. The third challenge is the globalization of world markets. We know what happened with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, we know what is happening with Bill C-55 and what will happen when WTO negotiations resume in the fall.

What, in your opinion, will be the major impact of all these elements together on the area of culture? What can the government basically do in the future to help you face this new situation and to support you as much as possible?

[English]

It's a free discussion. It's a round table, not a hearing as such. So feel very, very free to intervene at any time. I'll recognize you as you signal accordingly. It's going to be a free-wheeling discussion and both languages of course are in order. There's simultaneous translation at all times.

• 1530

I will start by asking you to introduce yourselves and give us a bit of a background.

[Translation]

Give us an overview of what you do, of your area of work; tell us whom you represent, and so on.

However, I would first like to ask my colleague Mr. Inky Mark, who chaired previous meetings in Eastern Canada, to summarize what he heard out there.

[English]

Mr. Mark, please.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I would just make a brief intervention.

The committee had the opportunity to visit the National Film Board studios and found it very enlightening. We were very happy that they're ahead in setting the standards for the next millennium in terms of the delivery of films. So what I'd like to do is propose that our visit be appendixed to the report of this committee.

The Chairman: Sure.

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I think it's vital that we should add an appendix to our report detailing our visit as well as what the National Film Board can offer Canadians.

The Chairman: Fine. I would now ask you to introduce yourselves. Let's begin with

[English]

Mr. Liss. Could you start by introducing yourself.

[Translation]

Mr. David Liss (Director, Saidye Bronfman Centre of Arts): Good morning, my name is David Liss. I am the Director of the Saidye Bronfman Centre of Arts.

[English]

here in Montreal. If you're not familiar with the gallery of the Saidye Bronfman Centre, it is a contemporary art space just outside of the immediate downtown area. Our mandate is to organize and bring to Montreal and to circulate exhibitions on an international level of contemporary visual art. We have in our space currently about eight exhibitions per year. At the moment we have an exhibition of 16 Canadian artists at the Museum of Fine Arts in Kao-hsiung, Taiwan, which has been on for three months. That exhibition is drawing to a close. That's a brief description.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): My name is John Godfrey and I am the Member for the riding of Don Valley West, in Toronto.

Mr. Guy Landry (Director General, Folklore Canada International): My name is Guy Landry and I represent an organization called Folklore Canada International, of which I am the Director. Our organization represents every stakeholder in the area of expressive heritage, expressive heritage being dance, song, music, arts and crafts and traditional know-how which can be found throughout the land.

Therefore, this organization has members both from cultural communities and from the francophone majority in Quebec as well as members of francophone minorities or aboriginal associations. We bring together the whole range of cultural elements in the area of tradition. We have organizations in many provinces. We organize festivals and showcasing activities. It's an organization that truly reaches many people throughout the country.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

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

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Yvan Gauthier (Director, Conseil des métiers d'art): Good afternoon. My name is Yvan Gauthier and I am the Director of the Conseil des métiers d'art. This is an association with a membership of 800 professional artisans in Quebec: jewellers, weavers, cabinet-makers, people from all disciplines in arts and crafts.

As a professional organization, the Conseil des métiers d'art provides services to its members and is recognized by the Professions Tribunal and by the Commission de reconnaissance des associations d'artistes as the representative of all arts and crafts professionals in Quebec.

Moreover, the Conseil des métiers d'art has affiliated corporations, such as the Salon des métiers d'art and the Festival Plein Art Québec, two retail craft shows as well as boutiques and a gallery of contemporary arts and crafts.

Moreover, it also administers an arts and crafts export bureau that is active most notably in the United States and in France.

The Chairman: Nancy Dunton.

Ms. Nancy Dunton (Chief, Programming Universities and Professionals, Canadian Centre for Architecture): Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Dunton and I am the chief of programming for universities and professionals at the Canadian Centre for Architecture.

• 1545

You are undoubtedly all familiar with the Canadian Centre for Architecture which is both a museum and a study centre whose mission is to raise awareness among Montrealers and Canadians of the world of architecture, even that of other countries. I'm responsible for the implementation of public interest programs which deal with all issues concerning heritage construction or architecture. As a volunteer, I'm also a member of the Board of Directors of the Heritage Montreal Foundation.

The Chairman: Mr. Bumbaru.

Mr. Dinu Bumbaru (Programs Director, Heritage Montreal Foundation): Mr. Chairman, my name is Dinu Bumbaru. I am Programs Director of the Heritage Montreal Foundation, an organization created in 1975 following the massive demolition project that unfortunately left many scars in the city of Montreal, which we all know as a great city.

We are a private organization whose primary mandate is to raise public awareness, which is an educational mission. We work to increase the capacity of individuals, citizens, to participate in urban affairs as well as contribute to the improvement and conservation of their community environment.

Another aspect of our activities also leads us to participate in a broader movement. I brought with me a directory of organizations for the members of the committee. We are approximately 60 in the Montreal region that are involved in heritage issues. We are often citizens' associations, which proves the commitment of citizens to their urban environment. We work mainly at that level.

We also get involved in making representations to decision- makers, be they owners or public authorities, in order to get them to improve their attitudes about our heritage, as we consider that we are all, to some extent, trustees of our collective assets.

Let me also mention that I am part of the steering committee of ICOMOS, that is the International Council of Monuments and Sites, an organization that advises UNESCO as a result of its privileged relationship in the context of international conventions. In this capacity, I represented this NGO at the World Conference on Cultural Policies for Development in Stockholm.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Garand.

Mr. Gilles Garand (President, Conseil québécois du patrimoine vivant): My name is Gilles Garand and I am the president of the Conseil québécois du patrimoine vivant. In 1992, during the États généraux du patrimoine vivant, a desire was expressed to create an organization in Quebec whose mission would be to conserve, protect, develop and enhance our living heritage. In 1993, the Conseil québécois was founded right here, at the Université du Québec à Montréal, and since that time has been publishing a newsletter entitled Paroles, Gestes et Mémoire.

Our membership includes over one hundred organizations and individuals from all regions of Quebec who have an interest in the expression of our living heritage. We are proud to participate in this meeting in order to help you develop perspectives about the importance of our living heritage in the development policies of Quebec and Canada. Together with our partners here today, we prepared in order to be able to identify some of these prospects for development.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Ms. Landry.

Ms. Johanne Landry (President, ICOM-Canada): I work for the City of Montreal as an museology advisor for the City of Montreal's scientific institutions, but I am here today in my capacity as representative of ICOM-Canada, the national committee of ICOM, the International Council of Museums.

ICOM-Canada has close links with the Canadian Museum Association. We have both individual and institutional members and our mission is to promote, facilitate and encourage the international dissemination of Canadian museology abroad. We therefore have publications, we participate in symposia and we attempt to work in close co-operation with other organizations, such as ICOMOS, to promote the international dissemination of museology.

The Chairman: Ms. Lelièvre.

Ms. Francine Lelièvre (President, Société des directeurs des musées montréalais): Good afternoon. My name is Francine Lelièvre and am the Director General of Pointe à Callière, the museum of archeology and history of Montreal, which had the good fortune of being built on the very spot where Montreal was founded.

I appear here in my capacity of President of the Société des directeurs des musées de Montréal, an organization created 13 years ago to bring together 22 Montreal museums. We welcome several million visitors each year.

What is the point of this organization? It helps museums pool their expertise, objectives and resources in order to promote tourism development. Every year, we have a special activity, Museum Day. We have already welcomed over half a million visitors. We created the museum card; thus, visitors to Montreal can buy this card and visit several museums in an economical and focussed way.

• 1550

Essentially, we believe that this association of museums contributes to the development of Montreal, a cultural metropolis. According to our surveys, we have quite a significant impact on education, culture, economics and tourism in Montreal.

We also try to contribute to making Montreal better known internationally and within Quebec.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Victoria Dickenson (Director General, McCord Museum of Canadian History): Victoria Dickenson, Director General of the McCord Museum of Canadian History.

[English]

The McCord Museum of Canadian History has one of the finest collections of historical Canadiana and of Canadian historical materials in the nation. As a museum, it was established in 1921 and was affiliated with McGill University, but it's now an independent institution. The McCord holds the finest collection of costumes in Canada, and it holds a huge archive of photographs and private archival papers related to its collection, as well as having a very important ethnological and archeological collection.

As a member of the Société des directeurs des musées montréalais, ICOM, and the Canadian Museums Association and Musées SNQ, the McCord wants to support the efforts of the museum community. It also sees its own role in a national perspective, as a museum concerned with the teaching of Canadian history and the promotion of an understanding of Canadian history.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: My name is Suzanne Tremblay and I am the Bloc Québécois Member of Parliament for Rimouski—Mitis and my party's critic on Canadian Heritage.

As Mr. Mark explained, in the past three days, we've been to St. John's, Newfoundland, Halifax and Moncton. This is our fourth day of travel.

Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am very pleased to meet with the people around this table here today. Looking at them, I don't think I've ever met a single one of them in Ottawa. I therefore think it's excellent to see that we've met one of our objectives, which was to meet with people who do not regularly attend committee meetings and whose views we don't already know by heart.

If you will allow me another comment, I would say that we have heard a great deal about the problems caused by the lack of funding in the area of culture. We are very familiar with this aspect of the situation.

It may be a good idea for you to take advantage of this opportunity at this first meeting to tell us about possible solutions or avenues for further exploration, while of course referring to your own experience and the difficulties that you have encountered. Since this gentleman seems prepared to discuss development, I would be very pleased if we could look to the future with a somewhat more optimistic perspective, and that we have some solutions to propose. I would find that extremely interesting.

The Chairman: As usual, Ms. Tremblay, your comment is very pertinent.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

The Chairman: I think that this is a very fine suggestion.

Madame Pagé.

Ms. Hélène Pagé (President, Société des musées québécois): Good afternoon. I am the President of the Société des musées québécois, an advocacy association for museums. More than 250 museums in Quebec are members of our association. It includes government museums and the national museums and, obviously, museums in the Montreal region, but it also includes regional museums throughout Quebec. "Museums" means museums, exhibition centres and interpretation centres. We also have 600 individual members, who are museologists.

According to a recent report, more than 14 755 000 visits were made to museum institutions in 1997-98. This gives you an idea of the immense potential of these museum institutions.

Our association provides training for its members and professional training. We are co-operating on networking projects, including a major project... In fact, it is more than a project; it is a reality. We are working on the computerization and cataloguing of collections. This is our field of activity.

Ms. Tremblay has asked that we not speak only about funding, but we will have to speak about it a bit, particularly since the Throne Speech was very silent on the subject of the cultural sector.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You can speak about it, but I can tell you that we are very aware of the problem.

The Chairman: Mr. Perron.

Mr. Michel Perron (Director General, Société des musées québécois): My name is Michel Perron, et I will tell you briefly that I am the Director of the Société des musées québécois. Since the president has presented our organization very well, I suggest that you continue.

The Chairman: That's fine.

Mr. Michel Perron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Dickenson, I didn't know the McCord was no longer... The public belief is that McCord and McGill are the same, but you're saying they're...

• 1555

Ms. Victoria Dickenson: Since 1986, the institutions have been separate. They may be across the street from one another, but they're not connected.

The Chairman: So I'm learning.

Ms. Victoria Dickenson: They just have ties of history.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's fine, let's go ahead.

Mr. Godfrey.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Could we first introduce the...

Mr. John Godfrey: We should introduce Mr. Blais first.

The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Blais is a very valuable asset to this committee.

Mr. Gaston Blais (Committee Researcher): My name is Gaston Blais. I am the researcher for this committee.

The Chairman: He has started working on a draft report, and will be responsible for the team that will put everything on paper.

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

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

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a little question, Mr. Garand. There is talk of the "living heritage". Is it also possible to talk about "dead heritage", or "dying heritage"? What does this mean exactly?

Mr. Gilles Garand: There has to be a very positive definition of what is the living traditional culture. People in Quebec thought that the term "living heritage" was nicer than "non-material heritage".

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes.

Mr. Gilles Garand: It was important to find a living definition to refer to the culture that is expressed on a daily basis in various regions of Quebec whether it be through festivals, music, dance, literature, poetry, songs or through a general way of being, mainly a living expression of a culture that is still active, not passive and that is turned towards the future and the year 2000.

We will be involved in this and our objective is to ensure the development of perspectives and policies based on the UNESCO recommendations, which are very valuable with respect to the development of the non-material and living heritage and which will unable us, in the year 2000, in the context of the globalization of the economy and markets, to maintain cultural identities on the basis of a development plan rooted in the environment.

We believe that Quebec's development "in its living culture" must be carried out in and by the regions, because culture is an economic force. When there is no longer any wood, forests or natural resources, the wealth that remains is human beings, tradition, life, and the expression of culture. Therefore, in this perspective, we are willing to work and to participate in various networks so that Quebec's living culture will be expressed in public so that it becomes a force for economic and cultural development and is integrated in the various Internet networks in a global strategy.

Our organizations and members are working in a number of regions of France, in the United Sates and elsewhere, and are linked to the traditional and folkloric networks around the world.

We think that there is certainly a way to establish a territorial co-operation in Quebec in relation with the other Canadian partners. For example, I am thinking of all the organizations working in the archival field, in Prince-Edward Island, in Moncton, in Sudbury; of traditional songs in the Detroit Region; of the Folk Alliance Festivals in the United States and in Canada. There is an extraordinary convergence. I think that in Quebec, with a Canadian partnership, we will be able to build a global network of the living tradition. Thank you.

The Chairman: Noble thoughts, Mr. Garand.

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: —

The Chairman: This is a good way to start the debate. This morning, some people told us that it was unfortunate that the Department of Canadian Heritage was not called the Department of culture, because we were speaking of culture. So, if I'm hearing you clearly, we would have to call it the Department of Material and Living Heritage.

Mr. Gilles Garand: I think that your name is fine, and that we can use it to make recommendations that may perhaps change your focus.

The Chairman: Let's get on with it. Who wants to start? Mr. Garand has given us a direction. Who wants to continue? Let's not be timid.

Mr. Bumbaru.

Mr. Dinu Bumbaru: I would like to inform you of something that is being done here. You ask questions that often contain the word "industry". I believe that this is a concern, governments are increasingly being placed in situations where they are being asked to create bridges with the economic sector. In the field of heritage, we look at the problem from another angle. We talk of equality and of identity factors that are essentially values.

• 1600

I would simply like to point out that we have made a discovery here, in Quebec, following the consultations that we have had on heritage in the past few years. It is important to note that we have had regular meetings. To illustrate what we have achieved, we could refer to what is happening in the field of religion. On the one hand, we have the Dominicans, and the other the Jesuits or the Franciscans. They had forgotten to integrate their spirituality into a common faith. This is sort of what we are trying to do today.

You raised a question about designation; heritage is a value in itself. Its primary characteristic is that it exists and it develops as we do in time. It reflects the long march through history and what we are experiencing today.

We are aware that a network of stakeholders is coming together and recognizing that it is more important than its individual elements: museums and archives, plus architects and urban planners as well as people who are working in traditional crafts.

There is a dimension that it would be interesting to point out. In effect, there are centrifugal forces and centripetal forces involved in the challenges that you have raised, namely the demographic challenge, the technological challenge and the challenge of globalization. There are phenomenons that will tend to create areas of specialization, whereas we are taking about a broader value.

We, who are part of the equation, feel that the real challenge lies therein. Heritage is a commodity that can disappear all at once; buildings can be lost all at once; works of art, archives, when they go up in flames, are lost all at once. We are, therefore, forgetting something. And yet collective memory is very important.

And I'm not talking simply about Quebec. Throughout the world, we are coming to the realization that we are forgetting more and more.

How do we integrate all of this when, because of the demographic situation, we must meet the challenge of acquiring an identity in a world where things are evolving? Technological advances lead us to believe that from now on, it's the short term that is going to count. At a time where people are obsessed with rapid consumption, we are trying, through our discourse in economic terms, to introduce culture into these new cycles. However, culture is a great civilizing force, something that we may also be forgetting.

This is, more or less, our opinion in abstract terms. If you were to ask us how to improve the role of the federal government, I would say that it should show greater consistency with respect to these principles. The federal government is responsible for managing this vast heritage found at the core of our lives, at the core of our towns, and we don't really have a clear idea of how it's being managed.

Here, in Montreal, we have had some rather deplorable cases of property disposal. These situations concern us greatly because these are entire slices of history that have been sold off like so many old socks. What I would recommend to the committee, would be to integrate the importance of value, not value with respect to a transaction, but the value of goods that can be accumulated collectively, through individual or institutional gestures.

The Chairman: Mr. Bumbaru, I think that you have made a very important observation in your remarks; the Canada Council, which appeared before this committee, in Ottawa, has already indicated that this was the path to follow. The Council said that our report should perhaps be about values, about a system of values rather than about specific points. However, we do not want to disregard...

Mr. Dinu Bumbaru: ...real situations.

The Chairman: ...realities that we are experiencing. Regardless of what we do, if tomorrow morning the WTO were to become more powerful and begin having some control over everything we did here, in Canada, what would our position be? We saw what happened with the multilateral investment project. This morning, someone said that if this had been the case, we would not even be able to protect our film industry, for instance, because this sector would have had to be completely open.

Consequently, we did not want to disregard realities that governments have to face, whether they like it or not. However, I do think that you touched upon a very important point: do we begin with values, etc.? Perhaps this is the right track.

Ms. Lelièvre.

• 1605

Ms. Francine Lelièvre: I'd like to follow in the same vein as Mr. Bumbaru. As Ms. Tremblay pointed out, the big issue of resources is topical. However, it is when resources are tight that we have to be particularly careful when establishing priorities or making choices. It seems to me that right now it would be important to give priority to conserving or preserving heritage, although it may mean that future generations will have to come up with the resources required for showcasing them. This does not mean that we should put all our eggs into one basket, but I do think that these are values that should underlie cultural or heritage policy.

Secondly, through programs or actions, we should promote people who work together, who try to help each other out. Indeed, we are from Montreal, from Quebec, from Canada, which is, in international terms, still quite small. It is by working together that we have an opportunity to do more. The museums of Montreal are already working together, but we want to go further.

We feel that the archives are just as important as the museums, as our heritage buildings. In fact, we have undertaken certain joint initiatives with Héritage Montréal and many other participants. Let's use the ice storm crisis, which took place just about this time last year, as an example. As far as heritage was concerned, we were at a bit of a disadvantage; we weren't necessarily prepared collectively to deal with this situation. If all of the others had been able to quickly respond to the one group that had a problem... This is one example and, since then, we have been working towards implementing emergency measures.

This is one case, but we can think of others like it. If we knew that our values coincided with that of the government, we could work towards the same goal and, I think, the spin-offs would be much greater.

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

Who would like to continue? Mr. Landry.

Mr. Guy Landry: I would like to go back to some comments that were made previously. Mr. Bumbaru mentioned that one group had focused on the heritage situation in Quebec. UNESCO has, moreover, given some thought to this particular issue.

We are increasingly trying to better integrate the various aspects of heritage. We used to separate tangible and intangible heritage. We had all kinds of subdivisions, such as heritage that dealt with nature, for instance. We cannot simply preserve buildings for the sake of doing so. There are buildings that simply no longer mean anything to anyone, because over the course of time, their history has been lost, because they are no longer connected to the existing customs, traditions or knowledge.

It is, therefore, necessary to integrate all aspects of this heritage phenomenon. This is currently an important trend, one which exists internationally and one which is being developed.

In this respect, I think that the Canadian government can play an important role by helping us obtain the required information. We do manage to secure this information, when some of our private organizations position themselves internationally. However, this is really the job of the government.

Let's take, for example, the recommendation with respect to preserving traditional culture. This recommendation was adopted by the Canadian government and by all countries participating in the Canadian UNESCO conference. Canada has, therefore, an international leadership role to fulfil, to ensure that the organizations and participants follow-up on this recommendation.

Heritage is important and there is this issue of globalization, which I would like to go back to because we also gave some thought to this matter in terms of identity. We know that Canada is looking for an identity; we say that it has one, but that it is looking for one, as is each province or each town. To find an identity, you have to turn to the traditions, the traditional cultures, the buildings, the know-how of the people, of which the government is well aware. If the government does not properly recognize these aspects, it is denying itself the identity and the history that belong to it. Consequently, identity is part and parcel of this whole heritage issue.

• 1610

Ms. Lelièvre talked about the whole issue of conservation and preservation. UNESCO says that, yes, conservation and preservation are important, but so are transmission and ownership. Simply conserving things so that they bear witness to the past would mean that, as Canadians, as Québécois, we haven't kept our values, we are not passing them on and we consider them to be somewhat like museum pieces. We have to go further. We must explain their significance, take ownership of them, disseminate and enhance them. Often, we have no means of enhancing these things.

Yesterday again, awards were given to singers. What is done in the area of heritage? How do we reward those people who accomplish things? By doing this, we demonstrate that society holds what they do to be important. if we don't do this, we demonstrate disregard for them.

The federal government therefore has a very important role to play, that of leader, of coordinator. Canadian heritage is the heritage of each province and each community. Every government level has a role to play in the area of heritage. The federal government must play the role of a coordinator. It must also provide support. We've already talked about the financial aspects.

Heritage can be designated by different names; it can be "living heritage" or again "heritage of expression", an expression we use for all of Canada in order to avoid certain situations alluded to by the gentleman. But all of these terms come back to the same thing: "non-material heritage", "intangible", "cultural heritage" etc. are all different names for designating peoples' heritage of expression.

This area constitutes a problem for governments, particularly the governments of industrialized countries. They really don't know how to deal with it. We must be clear: Japan is where we find living national treasures. It's in Asia. You don't find any living national treasures here in our Canadian or American societies. For instance, we now acknowledge intangible heritage sites in the world. Canada and the industrialized countries don't really know what to do about these intangible heritage sites.

As far as our governments are concerned, individuals don't have the same value as they may have in other cultures. How do we go about supporting and showcasing such things? By developing them. I noticed that the Canadian government has begun to broadcast some short historical vignettes on TV. This is very positive, in my opinion. These are ways to enhance the value of these things.

I believe that is a role for the Canadian government to play in the area of heritage, particularly in the area of heritage of expression.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Garand.

Mr. Gilles Garand: Further to what Mr. Landry said, we indicated, in our presentation, some of the roles which we felt should be given priority. For instance, as the owner of historic buildings, we feel that when the federal government disposes of such buildings, it should maintain, in some cases, the obligation for the new owners to continue using the building for heritage purposes, for the development of the living heritage. These buildings could become heritage houses, etc., if we were to group the organizations together.

We have about six specific recommendations dealing with these roles. The federal government should undertake a study with the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. As for UNESCO's recommendations on heritage, there should be a committee that will examine how the Canadian government goes about implementing the recommendations. Moreover, this recommendation is contained in our brief.

In addition, we think that the federal government should negotiate, in partnership with the provinces, a grants fund to be managed by the provinces for their own development. This should be a 10-year fund for the purpose of preserving and developing living heritage. This fund should include money for research, promotion and dissemination. In this manner, we would have a comprehensive vision.

• 1615

The federal government also supports Canadian francophone communities. We feel that it is very important that there be interprovincial exchanges for the Canadian francophonie. There could be exchanges through annual seminars dealing with Canadian francophonie or exchanges of carriers of tradition for the purpose of training, a bit like the recommendation on living treasures in Japan and on the art masters in France. We would therefore be creating programs that would unable masters to pass on their knowledge to students.

As part of its strategy, the Canadian government should develop its job programs so as to ensure that there are specific jobs pertaining to the development of heritage throughout the various regions of Quebec and Canada. By this, we mean creating jobs in the area of research and dissemination, to name only those. We have to put people to work. In Quebec, we have hundreds of anthropologists and independent researchers who need to work. The government of Quebec has developed a social economy job strategy whereby jobs are created to enable those people who live below the poverty line to work and to acquire skills.

The Canadian government certainly has money: everyday we're told that there is money now and the budget is balanced, although the purse strings are still tight. You should develop job programs to enhance, develop and disseminate heritage. Many young people could work on such programs during the summer. There are competent people who don't have employment and who could further their skills.

A whole type of development ecosystem could be integrated into the regional museums. We could build some synergy. Through today's round table, where we find ourselves sitting beside representatives from museums, we can certainly develop a long-term strategy.

Obviously, money is of the essence, but this money must not be invested willy-nilly. The money must be invested in programs, in the future and in jobs. Within 10 years, I believe that people will be able to build a very strong and interesting strategy to develop a national culture, depending on where you stand, which will ensure that exchanges are carried out in every direction at the same time. As I was saying earlier, we could build a collective heritage as part of a development strategy on the information highway, for instance. Through an employment strategy, we could put all of this on the network and build an international network of living heritage in conjunction with organizations and individuals.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm very tempted to categorize the witnesses. This is very unkind of me, but I'm trying to understand you all from two perspectives. The first pertains to the preservation of the past and the present, the living heritage. For instance, I see that the McCord Museum looks after the past whereas Mr. Bumbaru deals more with heritage.

The second perspective deals with the notion of what is popular and professional. For example, there are those artists who are representated in the three museums. When I read the word "architecture", in conjunction with heritage expression, I wonder whether we're talking about popular architecture or professional architecture. I'm saying this to get a reaction from you. I want you to correct this quite arbitrary categorization that everyone makes.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey has a gift for stirring things up. That's fine, because it always generates good discussions.

Let's begin by hearing from Ms. Landry and then Ms. Dickenson. I have quite a list of witnesses who have expressed their wish to speak afterwards.

Ms. Johanne Landry: Mr. Godfrey, perhaps we should put the question another way. What is culture? Indeed, it all boils down to that; it is neither the past nor the present. When it comes to culture, we cannot make a precise separation.

In 1995, the World Commission on Culture and Development published a report that dealt specifically with this issue. The report stated that, traditionally, our vision of culture consisted of talking about heritage and art. Science was often excluded from all of that. The report went on to say that the vision that was starting to emerge was one where culture corresponded more closely to our way of living together in our everyday life. You cannot separate past and present.

• 1620

So we're back to what Dinu said about values. We have to know which values we want to foster and promote. Whether we are from Montreal, Quebec or Canada, what values do we want to disseminate when we go abroad? That's a fundamental issue. Does our society value tolerance, equality or freedom? At some point, we have to identify those words. When we go abroad, we're often asked about our differences, but we often realize that it's more interesting to talk about our similarities. When we go to Asia or Africa, for example, there are so many differences that it never ends. Sometimes it is important to concentrate on the values that bring us closer together, whether it's respect, tolerance, etc.. It is then easier to talk to one another.

One of the values that Canada has been promoting for many years now is sustainable development. If we want to ensure the sustainable development of a culture, it must be integrated into everyday life. I could raise many other points, but I would like to give the floor to the next speaker.

The Chairman: It's a very interesting debate.

Ms. Dickenson.

Ms. Victoria Dickenson: I'd like to get back to the notion of leadership that Mr. Landry referred to.

[English]

I think the government does have a leadership role, and it's based on its own assessment of value—and we go back to the idea of values. One thing that's happened to the federal government over the last generation—I go back twenty years—is a change from the notion of public good to user pay. It is a major change in the way in which institutions are seen by the federal government.

When a government that has a leadership role in determining the values of a society sees itself as being allied with the business sector, with the notion that users must pay to obtain the value to society—access to heritage and history—that's very different from seeing these institutions as being for the public good, as something that must be supported by the citizenship at large.

I think this is a fundamental notion in the nature of governments. The more we neglect the notion of what are the goods in our society that are supported by the public, the more danger we are in of ceasing to have these institutions to uphold our public notions of value—our citizenship values—and the more in danger we are of losing a sense of our culture. We cannot let business determine culture, because if not we'll all be in Disneyland.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The clerk pointed out to me that Mr. Gauthier was one of the first to raise his hand, so I will now give him the floor. People seem very interested in participating in this discussion.

Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Yvan Gauthier: First of all, I would like to thank members of the committee for coming to Montreal as part of their tour. We know that this is a demanding trip for you and we appreciate the fact that you have come to hear the views of Quebec organizations, who may not always have the time to go to Ottawa to express them. It's not because this isn't important, but the logistics are sometimes complex.

You have stated that as part of your examination of federal cultural policy, this committee wants to hear organizations from the cultural community. I think that that is the very heart of federal cultural policy. I must say that we are also trying to define this federal cultural policy. I believe that up until now it's been said that to establish a cultural policy, you first have to define your values. That is the basis of any policy. We have to determine what values we want to promote. One important view was heard here: identity is a fundamental value.

We recognize ourselves in our culture. We recognize peoples and civilizations because they have an identity. Culture is the first facet of a cultural identity. It is difficult today to know whether federal cultural policy truly encourages the development of an identity for Canadian citizens.

• 1625

On the one hand, I believe that what's been said up until now is very basic, namely that an identity is founded on our understanding of our own past and our own heritage. If we do not value what we have been, we have an enormous problem in accepting our identity. It is a high priority for any government to preserve and maintain what our ancestors did, created and developed, since our identity is primarily based on our heritage. I'm not necessarily answering Mr. Godfrey's question, but perhaps I'm simplifying the issues.

On the other hand, in order to recognize an identity, other than through the past, we have to support what is being done now and what is being created in today's culture, whether it's performing arts, visual arts or cultural practices as a whole. Here again, it is difficult to understand the policy being pursued by the federal government and to know what kind of support it would be prepared to provide today for artistic creation.

I would now like to discuss my sector more specifically, that of arts and crafts. On what basis do we recognize a civilization? We look at the pottery, jewellery, clothing and furniture that people had in a given period. The first signs of a civilization come from the very objects that people of that time passed on to history. I must say that in Canada, we don't necessarily pay a great deal of attention to the objects that were important in our country.

But there is worse still: Canada pays no attention to the objects created now, whether they be fashion jewellery or fine jewellery, glassware or ceramics. The federal government has no program to support initiatives in the area of art objects, nor does it spend one cent to support creators nor has it dedicated any museum to art objects. It has not established a single program to promote interprovincial co-operation or initiatives or exports for the cultural sector in the creation of objects. There is not a single one.

Our concerns are similar since in order to develop an identity, we must both preserve our heritage and develop tomorrow's heritage, that is the object that we create today. We're tackling a fundamental value here which is the discovery of identity and the maintenance of that identity.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Gauthier. You have touched on a fundamental issue.

Ms. Lelièvre.

Ms. Francine Lelièvre: I would simply like to open a parenthesis here and make a comment about what Mr. Landry said. I'm not concerned only with conservation, far from it—I believe that dissemination and appropriation are very important. In fact, how could we conserve if citizens were ignorant or unaware of the value of their heritage? Thus, at some point a decision has to be made in order for conservation to begin at some point.

Having said that, I would like to get back to the questions that you asked. I feel like taking the first question which was addressed to us and answering it on behalf of the museum I represent. In our opinion, what are the good things that the government of Canada has done in the past few years? There are many. I would like to point out the major effort deployed in order to computerize our collections. We greatly appreciate these efforts since our collections will now be accessible not only in Canada but also abroad.

Of course, there was also the insurance program for exhibits, which no longer exists, and which may be about to be reinstated. If that's the case, I'm not familiar with the form it will take because I haven't seen it yet. So I have some questions about this new bill. My colleague may know more about it.

• 1630

I would like to pay a tribute to Parks Canada which has done a colossal job in the past 20 years. This agency has truly developed museology in Quebec and in Canada and has given us a certain degree of expertise that is recognized abroad. They're not the only ones, but because of the full range of sites and resources they had, they've developed things that are greatly appreciated and trained people who remain with us today.

I wish that the government of Canada would provide more support to Canadians, that is Canadian artists, their works, their heritage and so on. I would like to see more emphasis placed on the support, enhancement and promotion of what is produced in Canada, rather than seeing us seek out works abroad to present them here. If you allow me to discuss one exhibit in particular, I would refer to the National Gallery of Canada which inaugurated its great museum with a Degas exhibit. I love Degas and I have nothing against his work, on the contrary, but it seems to me that we should have promoted Canadian artists at such an important and noteworthy event. We have a strong tendency to favour and support the borrowing of works from abroad. It's very important for Canadians to have access to other culture, but I think that the government of Canada should promote Canadians and Canadian products first.

It is also my hope that we won't mix politics with culture and heritage too much. I believe that within our own fields, we are very professional people and I hope the issues will be quality and excellence rather than imposing constraints according to which we have to present XYZ in three provinces, in three regions, etc. When we look at the Museum Assistance Program, we are very sceptical, or at least we have serious questions about the new criteria and new priorities that are stated therein.

Simply from the point of view of feasibility and requirements, with the exception of a Web site, the new technologies are often very difficult to use. It's very difficult to make them accessible in many places because they are often designed specifically for one particular site.

The cultural infrastructure assistance program continues to exist in theory, although I'm always told the envelope is empty. There may be a few cents left, but there is certainly not a few dollars. I'm back to the financial aspect here.

Why have we lost ground in this sector of cultural and heritage development?

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Lelièvre.

Ms. Pagé.

Ms. Hélène Pagé: I would agree with my colleague and her comments about the good things the government has done and the problems. One of our major worries is that as the budget envelope dedicated to museum and programs shrinks away, the requirements become greater and greater and more constraining. In addition, there is a political connotation to all this.

We talked a great deal about values earlier. Indeed, one of the roles of the State is to recognize the values of a society and not to decree them. That is something that worries us.

To get back to the good things that were done, the computerization of collections is an excellent achievement. But we must not forget the whole sector of museography. These days, we must keep up with the latest developments and the new technologies require enormous financial investments, but there is a void; we have no support and our systems quickly become obsolete. The disappearance of the envelope for the cultural infrastructure assistance program is quite tragic for us.

Various cultural fields have unequal access to these programs. The envelope for the Canada Council was increased and we're very happy about that. The art museums and exhibit centres have benefited from this increase in budgets. However, museums of history, archeology and science did not benefit from these increases, and the gap is widening between these different types of museums.

• 1635

With regard to enriching collections, thanks to the Canada Council, a small number of contemporary art works were acquired in the framework of one envelope, but if we want to acquire objects for our collections in other sectors, nothing exists for that. Therefore, there is unequal treatment.

We talked about travelling exhibits. The museum sector is delighted with the fact that a bill will be tabled soon to compensate them for travelling exhibits.

However, we have seen the draft bill and it is quite worrisome because there does not seem to be an understanding of what a travelling exhibit is. There are two conditions. The travelling exhibit must contain more foreign objects than Canadian objects, whereas we know that an exhibit that comes from abroad does not include any Canadian objects, or else it must travel in two provinces. The great international exhibits are presented once on the European continent, once in the United State and in one Canadian province. They don't go to two provinces.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The bill that was tabled is identical to the draft bill.

An Hon. Member: There is a problem.

Ms. Hélène Pagé: Yes, there is a big problem.

Secondly, the regulations are worrisome because here again, it is somewhat coloured by politics. A regulation will decree what makes an exhibit have educational value and interest for Canadians. I don't understand that this can be done by regulation. There is no trust in the museum professionals. Who will decree that this exhibit interests Canadians or not; that the Monet exhibit in Montreal is not really interesting for Canadians? There is truly a problem there, and a connotation of political intervention in a bill for which we had high hopes.

Another thing is worrisome. We have learned that it would only apply to exhibits of a value of $5,000 and up. Only the large national museums are able to present that kind of exhibit. The others only present that kind of exhibit on an exceptional basis. If a small museum in Newfoundland or Quebec presented an exhibit worth between $90,000 and $200,000 and an unfortunate fire occurred, it would be a total catastrophe. The museum would not be compensated. Therefore, this is a bill that will be useful to the big museums but not the small ones. Right now, throughout the country, the smaller museums are experiencing a great deal of difficulty.

I would like to get back to one of the roles of the State. It's often been said that the State should help those who help themselves. There are organizations. We talk about networking, exchanges and support. This is very important. We don't want the State to do everything for us, but we want it to help us do things together.

We feel a big void when we turn to the Museum Assistance Program. The trend is that Canadians talk to other Canadians, but Canadians must also talk to the rest of the world and the rest of the world must talk to us. Therefore, there has to be this opening and it has to translate into measures and programs.

There is the Canada-France agreement that the museum community has benefited from and which had extraordinary results. It allowed for constructive exchange projects. Co-productions resulted from all this. Why shouldn't there be a Canada—Latin America agreement? Canada—Eastern Europe or Canada—Asia? We must really open up to other markets because museology in this country is very highly regarded and of good quality. We have remarkable institutions which are also recognized, but we need help in being present and continuing this tradition of excellence.

There are approximately 15 million visitors to Quebec. Imagine the number of visitors in all the rest of Canada. That's an incredible force. There is a passion for museums. The public is interested in the content and the places that museums preserve and disseminate. Museums are not only curators; they are producers of knowledge and of education. This is an incredible potential on which we can count. Museums are a winning formula. We have to help them go further.

The Chairman: This is a very lively and enriching discussion for us. I see that our researcher is writing very quickly. It's now 4:40 and we must finish at 5:30. In order for everyone to have time to speak, I would ask you to be brief.

• 1640

Several people have asked for the floor. Ms. Dunton, we will start with you. Then it will be Mr. Mark, Mr. Bumbaru, Ms. Dickenson et Ms. Tremblay.

[English]

Ms. Dunton.

Ms. Nancy Dunton: I want to pull together some threads that have effectively come up in a number of different discussions when one talks about values and priorities. Monsieur Gauthier was talking about the notion of policy. I think in many ways, particularly in the part of the world I am most familiar with, the idea of built heritage is lacking at the moment. We may all be able to identify the values, and we may or may not be able to identify the priorities, but we are lacking a policy, something that really says that the most visible and tangible evidence of culture is our cities.

To respond to your question, Mr. Godfrey, it's not a question of dividing between this architecture or that architecture. It's like a very peculiar notion of antiquity—something that's more than a hundred years old. It's not that at all. Really now the accepted understanding of what is our urban heritage is the landscape as a whole. In other words, it's all the elements, including the buildings, the museums, the great cultural institutions, the roads, the laneways, and the parks. Here in Montreal it includes Mount Royal, which is one of our singularly most important heritage elements.

The problem we're having in terms of the built heritage is there is a singular lack of both policy on the part of the federal government toward built heritage and leadership on the federal government's part in respect of that in which it has a particular say. Via its various instruments that remain of crown corporations—and one thinks of Parks Canada—the federal government is still either owner of or primary interested party in many terribly significant heritage properties and sites throughout Canada.

Here in Montreal, the properties are terribly significant ones. One thinks, of course, of the Lachine Canal and a number of properties owned by the Department of National Defence, for example. The federal government has a tremendous leadership role to play, if only in respect of the properties it either owns or has classified. One thinks of Windsor Station, for example. It's really time the federal government became a proponent and became proactive with respect to the urban landscape and the culture of cities that way. The way in which we present ourselves to ourselves as Canadians and to other people from outside the country is via our cities. Our cities are that tangible symbol of our culture and who we are.

We who have worked for a long time in this whole field of built heritage are looking to the federal government to establish a policy from which everything else can emanate—particular actions, particular responses, particular responsibilities—and assume the leadership to take those actions to help, in some cases, protect and conserve properties and whole sites.

It's not a question of waiting for the other guy to do it. There are many instances where you can have a property where all the levels of government are involved. I don't think any one level of government should stand there and say it's the other guy's job. The federal government has a terribly significant role to play in terms of protecting and promoting built heritage.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Dunton.

[Translation]

Mr. Dinu Bumbaru.

Mr. Dinu Bumbaru: I would like to remind you that the theme that we brought to the Stockholm conference was sense of place. This was a great challenge because in Stockholm, there was a kind of race going on. In Montreal, we know this as Blue Bonnets, that is horse racing. Everyone goes to the races. The artists had their lobby as did the others. Everyone arrived at the races and we said: Civilisation needs to work on this notion of a sense of place. That includes what is built, but the meaning cannot be carried only by matter. It is carried by people. It is important that a cultural policy recognize the role of citizens disseminating, enhancing and enriching culture. In addition, this policy must include the current definitions of heritage.

• 1645

Sir, your provocative questions tend to bring us into a world where we say that heritage is something else. It's like the dodo bird. It's a phenomenon external to ourselves that does not belong to us. Right now, the definitions are more similar to a spectre than to a collage. We're going from a notion of knowledge to one of territory. The notion of landscape has become a highly integrating one. The UNESCO World Heritage Convention is evolving toward that and knowledge is being recognized, even at the international level, as made up of elements that have a significance. A definition like that is necessary, together with the differentiated treatments that underlie that.

I mean by that that the mission with respect to heritage is not clear. What is the State's mission where heritage is concerned? Should it be merely to stand by and encourage a flurry of initiatives here and there? Since we are archivists in a way, we consider ourselves partners in this conservation network. I am not talking about conservation in the sense of keeping things under refrigeration. To speak is to conserve one's language. To read is to conserve one's ideas, one's mind. To learn is to conserve.

I would like to come back to aspects that may affect us more in the area of the built environment, but which are extremely relevant. First, there is taxation. We need to recognize the role of citizens in heritage conservation. Under the tax system, people are taxed more heavily when they repair their dwelling than when they let it become dilapidated. There are ridiculous things like that being done, but maybe some progress is being made. Would it be possible to have a coherent cultural policy that would extend to other parts of government? At a number of international conferences at which Canada has played a vital role, we have been told that culture was not a silo next to other silos, but that it cut across sectors horizontally. If we could make progress in moving in that direction, it would already be a good start.

I also want to mention that non-quantifiable leadership role played by Canada. I have brought with me the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, which Canada has signed. The government should perhaps read it through. Articles 4 and 5 are very interesting. They deal with the State's obligations regarding policies and development. It deals with physical heritage, but I think that a lot of inspiration can be drawn from it. The convention was drafted by Canadians. We have infiltrated just about everywhere. The concept of authenticity was reassessed at Nara a few years ago. All the discussion about the meaning of heritage at the international level started in Canada. It is not Canada that has played that role, but rather Canadians, and I think it is important to point that out.

We were talking about helping those who are contributing to progress. We are a funny lot here, and I have to tell you that around the world we are appreciated because we are neither Americans nor Europeans, but rather world citizens though we come from one small part of the world. That helps a lot. It is very important, and I will end my remarks about sense of place by giving an example of something that happened which I considered a bit sad.

I could give you many sad examples, but the intent is to help you smile afterwards. The example I want to give is that of the Habitat Conference. The last great United Nations Habitat Conference was the one in Istanbul, two years ago, I believe. Before that, there was Habitat in Vancouver. It was not insignificant. Who said that Habitat had no meaning, that it was just about housing? It was the federal government. All sorts of representations were made to have the notion of city culture integrated, not just sewers and things like that, but the sense of place as being a fundamental motivation that distinguishes us from ants. We do not live in ant hills, but in places that mean something. That should be dealt with in a policy, and such a policy could be an extremely important contribution. The government would recognize that its actions must help Canadians enrich the sense of place where they live, develop, raise their children and pass on to the next generation. I know that is a little bit theoretical, but taxation, general policies and the fulfilment of our international commitments can be brought together in a subsequent action plan.

The Chairman: It is theoretical, of course, but it is important.

[English]

Mr. Mark.

• 1650

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just make two short interventions.

The first one is in response to Madam Pagé about the bill—on travelling exhibitions. I'm sure the members here would welcome your recommendations, as it is just beginning. It hasn't been tabled in the House yet, so we more than welcome your recommendations.

My second one is in reference to user pay. When we were in Newfoundland, we were told that their definition of culture is that culture is the self-esteem of a society. We also discussed the issue of limitations to the business model. We can't apply a business model to culture or cultural events or cultural organizations all the time, because most people have a problem with raising funds. What should the feeling be when it comes to fundraising? To be totally self-sustaining may be an impossibility. I think we need to recognize that.

I would like to ask this group about question number one, which is about the dissemination of funds that currently exist in the heritage programs. At one meeting the committee was also told that we should take the politics out of this whole idea of the granting process. I'd like to ask this group about it. What kind of process does occur? Is it open? Is it transparent? Are you asked for advice, or are these decisions made in isolation from your organization?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Perhaps you could address these issues when we discuss...

[English]

Mrs. Dickenson, maybe when you speak you could address some of these things—and others as well.

Ms. Victoria Dickenson: Actually, I want to return to the questions, as Francine did.

I want to start by saying first that although the museums have appreciated the museum assistance programs, which were founded back in 1972, I believe, by Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Trudeau, really, as the cornerstone of disseminating the culture of Canada—it was 1972 when the museum policy went out—we've lost sight of that notion that these programs are here to assist. One of the issues is that you have to leave it... In a sense, the museums are also expressions of people. They aren't just—as I think Mr. Godfrey thinks—places where you keep the past. In fact, most of our—

Mr. John Godfrey: I was teasing you.

Ms. Victoria Dickenson: I know you were. I just want to make sure we all realize that.

In fact, most of our visitors are coming to museums to get a sense of their own past. A recent study in the U.S. suggests that what is most trusted for understanding the past is the museum—followed by your parents and grandparents. I think it's very important that we understand the role of the heritage-preserving agencies.

As well, I think when we're receiving grants we really want to have a sense of our own clientele, of our own audiences and of what is truly good. That's always a value-laden assumption, but the notion that we can be told we must do something and if it doesn't meet these criteria it's not acceptable... We must be supported, because the museums are in fact this outgrowth of people's sense of the past, and they are, for the most part, responsible to boards, which represent the public.

I want to also look at question number two. This is very important, given the new kind of clientele we have, the young people whose chief base de recherche is the web and the Internet. We've alluded to the cost of digitizing material for the World Wide Web.

I want to emphasize that 90% of the content on the web at the moment is American. Don't worry about English or French; worry about American, because it isn't Canadian. Do you want to find yourself or do you want your children and grandchildren to find themselves on the Internet? You're not there. They're not there. The only people who can make this happen and who have a reliable source of information are those in the archives, the libraries, and the museums, and they are starved for funding of this nature. When funding comes from programs, and even from some very good programs like the Industry Canada programs and SchoolNet, there is no funding to maintain sites and no funding to assure content.

If we want to see Canada reflected in this new international réseau, we have to see it through supporting the agencies that are maintaining content and that have a responsibility to provide content. The issue of Canadian content, which has been spoken about since the Massey commission, is still very much alive for this new technology.

If we do not respond to this, if we do not understand the paucity of Canadian content that's available at the moment, and if the federal government doesn't show a leadership role in making it happen, as France and America have done, I might add... If you want to look at the Library of Congress site or the government site on France, you will see that they have put resources into the preservation of culture in an electronic medium that beggar description in this country. I leave it at that.

• 1655

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I am trying to summarize in a few words what we have heard since Monday and some words that Mr. Landry used. On Monday morning, I left with four words; I now have ten on my list. So my knowledge has increased considerably over the week. The four words that I started with correspond to four steps: creation, production, promotion and dissemination.

Today you talked about development. I put that with promotion. I'm going to try to develop things by promoting them. You also talked about transmission, which can be tied in with dissemination. As for appropriation, people will need some time to appropriate things and assimilate them. It will take many diversified approaches because we do not all appropriate things in the same way. You also talked about coordination. We have heard a lot about conservation because we have met with many people involved in archives and museums. You also talked about leadership.

There are few resources to go along with these words. The budget for the whole Department of Canadian Heritage is just over $2 billion. A good part of that goes to official languages and much of it to the CBC. For so-called cultural activities there must be only $600 or $700 million left—I am not sure that it would be as high as $1 billion—for everything across Canada, including agencies such as Telefilm, the National Film Board and the Canada Council for the Arts.

Where do you see the federal government's leadership? Where should the priorities be, in your opinion, for the little money available?

The Chairman: That is a good challenge. We will start with Mr. Garand. What are your priorities?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I may have left something off my list.

Mr. Gilles Garand: No, that's fine. I would like to start, though, by answering a question asked by Mr. Godfrey. I will refer to a 1992 UNESCO report which defines cultural heritage. We talk about built heritage and living heritage, but we must also talk about cultural heritage. Everything that is being discussed here can be called cultural heritage. This is how the report defines cultural heritage:

The cultural heritage of a people extends to the works of its artists, architects, musicians, writers and scholars, and to anonymous creations originating in the popular mind and to all values that give meaning to life. It includes tangible and intangible works expressing of the creativity of this people.

What could be given priority? A certain amount of funding is given to museums, Telefilm, the CBC, which all develop culture. As you will understand, we feel that living heritage is an urgent matter because the resources presently put into this area are minimal and artists have difficulty getting access to funding. There is also the notion of professionals and tradition bearers. The accessibility criteria are very difficult for tradition bearers.

The situation is urgent. This year is the International Year of Older Persons. What might priorities be for Heritage Canada? For example, there are the immigrants of the Second World War era. This is a whole generation of people that will disappear over the next five to ten years.

• 1700

We therefore feel that priority should be given to the essential task of building a large national collection, as Barbeau did in 1920, by seeking out these people. A living culture is one that must be captured while it exists. Those people will be dying. So we think that we need to work quickly to adopt a new approach to work in the field: we need to collect cultures, rural and urban heritage.

In Quebec City, we undertook to study the urban heritage. It seems to me that this extensive site provides us with raw material for reviving memory and ensuring that this heritage is used in museums, in interpretive activities, in heritage displays, to promote our visibility in the year 2000. In the parks managed by Parks Canada, interpretive activity can be designed around culture.

We feel that one of the roles of the Canadian government would be to ensure follow-up to the present meetings, which I find very fruitful. I find it very worthwhile to have brought us here together, since people are making contact. There could be a national consultative group representing all organizations working in heritage. Such a group could promote coordinated discussions at the national level through a sharing of visions, since we are talking about identity.

Let us look at the issues themselves. We are pleased that there are many programs dealing with culture, museums, cultural communities and multiculturalism. There are many positive programs. On the other hand, where living heritage is concerned, there is little access or funding.

With respect to the information highway, we are in favour of developing it, but we believe that it will bring difficulties, especially in the area of protecting creative rights, copyright, etc.. There is a lot of thinking that needs to be done on that.

At the same time, what kind of culture do we mean when we talk about the information highway? Will we be invaded with American or with world culture? How will the information highway help us to build an identity or to maintain it?

When we talk about developing living heritage, we do not mean nostalgia; we're talking about an existing culture that is there to stay and blossom.

The whole issue of standardizing culture, in connection with Americanization and national identity, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, is important in our eyes.

The same is true for the whole issue of recording people's life stories, of studying culture and doing research in the field with people still living. We feel that there should be priority given to the role of the Canadian government in assuming its responsibility for implementing the UNESCO recommendations by developing programs.

We are therefore prepared to work with you on all these issues through national consultations.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Garand. We will keep that in mind.

I have quite a long list of speakers. First, Ms. Landry, followed by Ms. Lelièvre, Mr. Gauthier and Ms. Pagé. Since we have only a half hour left, I will ask you to be brief.

Ms. Landry.

Ms. Johanne Landry: I would like to respond mainly to two questions; both deal with new technologies. I fully support Ms. Dickenson's comments about Web sites and all that. It is a tool, a simple vehicle in which to put content. It is as simple as that.

There is another sector of new technologies that is much broader and much costlier: virtual museology. I will give you a very concrete example.

At the Biodome, Heritage Canada has asked us to develop a pilot project in virtual museology on beluga whales. We took on the project, thinking that it would not be a problem. But actually carrying it out was another thing altogether. We have the expertise, in particular in Montreal, to produce a show using virtual images. You saw the pavilion in Lisbon called Oceania. It is a phenomenal success. But museums will not any time soon have the budgets they would need to do this sort of thing.

I therefore feel, where new technologies are concerned, that we already have problems putting content on the Internet and having the staff we need to maintain these sites. Virtual museology, therefore, is not for tomorrow. It will really need to be developed by private companies, since museums do not have the funding to do it.

Then there is the issue of globalization. It can be seen from two perspectives, that of trade and that of co-operation.

Let us deal first with trade. As Ms. Pagé was saying, Canadian expertise is highly regarded at the international level. We have experts, and not just in designing and carrying out projects, and our museological know-how is seen as being one of the best in the world. However, we need to be able to export this, and support is therefore needed. We need to have access to programs of departments such as Industry Canada and CIDA, since the other departments do not consider culture to be a tradeable economic product. So there is a lot of work to do. For example, CIDA is used to promoting companies that build bridges and roads, but building museums is something different. We can always try to convince them, but there is still a long way to go.

• 1705

On the trade issue, the OECD carried out a study on international distribution of all cultural products in education, science, etc., which showed that other countries invested considerably more than Canada did in this area. You can always look at other studies, but France comes out on top with 0.23% of all public spending, followed by the United Kingdom with 0.21%, Japan with 0.18% and us with 0.03%. That was in 1990. You can therefore imagine that our percentage today is even lower. To export cultural products abroad, there have to be Canadians working abroad. In embassies, there are always scientific and economic attaches. But try to find a cultural counsellor!

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Where did you find these last figures?

Ms. Johanne Landry: They are from a report submitted by John Ralston Sawl in 1994-95. It dealt with foreign cultural policy and showed that culture came third in terms of priorities.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

Ms. Johanne Landry: All those figures are from the report. You should have them because I did provide them.

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: ...the House of Commons.

Ms. Johanne Landry: Meetings on culture and the exporting of culture were then held in Ottawa. We have already told you all that. We published reports on that topic, but nothing really changed. Instead of acting to improve the situation, the government has cut budgets. During those meetings, we made many very specific recommendations. The information is there—maybe not on the Internet—and it is just a matter of finding it.

I will go to the second aspect, that of co-operation. ICOM- Canada asked CIDA to set up a program of reciprocal exchanges to help those countries that are the least developed from the point of view of museology. Sweden has an agency that plays the same role CIDA does here. That agency provides some $300,000 a year for a similar program, while we invest nothing. We have made efforts to change this, but the amount is still zero. Funding has to be made available if such projects are to be carried out.

Canada plays an active role in international co-operation as peacekeepers. We support that, but Canada signed the Hague Convention in 1954 and took until last December to ratify it. This is 1999, 45 years later. It is still not really official.

It is the same thing with UNIDROIT. We still have not signed the agreement on the illicit exporting of cultural goods. What are we waiting for? Specific recommendations. There are many similar cases. I therefore feel that there is much to be done at the international level in particular.

Let me address the issue of globalization. As Dinu said, culture is more than a hit song. There's a whole industry involving external relations and lots of other things. What we need are programs with the people in charge talking to each other to facilitate coordination. There are already people in place but they are going about their work without the help of the federal government. The federal level can certainly play a role.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Landry. The issues you have raised are certainly worth emphasizing. There are some astonishing oversights.

Ms. Lelièvre.

Ms. Francine Lelièvre: When a program is slashed, it's because it isn't considered important. When little is given to a department, it is because it is considered less important or far less important than industry, trade, or what have you.

I'd like to make a few comments in response to Ms. Tremblay.

• 1710

I think that the Department of Canadian Heritage should become an important one. How can this come about? First of all, it must show some leadership because it is, to a large extent, responsible for Canadian identity. This value transcends the Department of Canadian Heritage as such, and that should convince the other departments. It is in these other departments that the money is to be found. They are the ones that can help you carry out this responsibility to Canada.

There are economic missions that travel abroad. When do they include a representative from heritage or from culture? Very seldom. Yet that is precisely where we should be present promoting this value. You have a responsibility for promoting Canadian identity with Canadian artists and people working in various fields.

I'll limit myself to one more comment since I'd like to give other people a chance to speak. Some important organizations come under the Department of Canadian Heritage: the CBC, the Canada Council, the film and audiovisual sector. With the exception of the historic sites it owns, where plaques may be installed, and Parks Canada that it manages, what exactly is the Department of Canadian Heritage doing to increase awareness of our history and heritage? Along with arts, film and video, this is an important element of Canadian Heritage's responsibility. There is a gap to be filled concerning history and heritage and they're both directly related to the Canadian identity.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I don't think there's any problem with history because we don't know when it begins and we don't have the same.

Ms. Francine Lelièvre: No, that is a question of semantics.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Really?

Ms. Francine Lelièvre: It's an easy pretext to say that we won't touch history because it could raise problems or disagreements. That's an easy pretext to do nothing. But what exactly are we today? Did we materialize out of thin air? We do have roots somewhere.

The Chairman: In order to divide the time fairly, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Gauthier, then Ms. Pagé and Mr. Bumbaru. Is there anyone else, including those in the room, who would like to say something? If so, you may make your point concisely so that everyone does have a chance to speak.

Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Yvan Gauthier: I would like to respond to Ms. Tremblay's question. There is a lot of talk nowadays about the importance of supporting institutions. But what exactly is being done at the political level and with the money we have left?

Basically, I think it is the citizens who are the most important. They are the ones who decide what heritage they want. First and foremost, it is very important for the citizens to preserve their own heritage. This is something we seem to have lost sight of and we fail to look after our own past as a family, our family and artistic heritage. So the citizens are responsible for ensuring this value that we have as a people. The State cannot decide what the culture of a people is to be, that is a decision to be made by the citizens. Citizens must be given help in preserving their heritage. If they are capable of looking after and appreciating their heritage, then they will also be able to recognize the heritage of other peoples.

At the same time, citizens also buy works of art and go to see performances they identify with. It's important to speak of the role of institutions but it is the support given by citizens that is fundamental for a society since the citizen is the one who decides what his heritage will be and the type of creation he wishes to encourage.

I think it is important to mention this because we may sometimes forget that everything we do is for the citizen. We must also realize that he has a fundamental and major role to play with respect to heritage in maintaining traditions and encouraging creation. That is how the society of tomorrow will be formed.

• 1715

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gauthier. Ms. Pagé.

Ms. Hélène Pagé: A great deal has been said about the reduction in financial resources, but when we ask what the priority of the Department should be, I would say its first priority is to take a very public stand in demonstrating the importance of culture in this country. Yes, there is a lot less money available, but at the same time, we have had a surplus that was redistributed and nothing was given to culture. Why is this the case? We must draw public attention to this situation and defend the importance of spending on culture because without money, we are not able to accomplish much.

As Francine Lelièvre noted, the Department of Canadian Heritage must work in conjunction with other departments. Let us examine possible tax measures and increase our collaboration with the Cultural Property Commission which has an important role to play. Let us attempt to be active on many fronts.

Reference was made to values and I'd like to come back to this. The role of the Department of Canadian Heritage is also to recognize that cultural institutions generate knowledge and have an important educational mission. It is up to the State to provide them with assistance in passing on their knowledge.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Pagé. Mr. Bumbaru.

Mr. Dinu Bumbaru: Thank you. Our concern is to have a policy that ensures a greater degree of consistency. There was no budget attached to the 10 commandments, but they do hold civilisation together. We are talking about conventions that are to be found among people and what may be seen as an essential element in an undertaking such as yours.

Let me come back to the mission of the State in relation to heritage. In our view, the first duty is to avoid impoverishing the heritage. At the very least I'd suggest considering the American practice where section 116 or 106 of the American government handbook indicates that any money invested by the federal government is to respect ethical principles applicable to heritage. Therefore, we must make known and we must clarify this mission of the State to avoid impoverishing the heritage so that we do not build expressways in a pristine landscape, for example, or subsidize industries that engage in the destruction of our heritage. So it is necessary to have a certain ethics and the success of a Canadian policy will be measured by the existence and the application of this ethics.

Such an approach should not be applied only to Canada. It was mentioned that Canada does have embassies but may occupy buildings with a significant local or national importance and that under international conventions no restriction is placed on our ability to alter their nature completely. It is important that our action abroad also respect this ethics, particularly in the case of development aid programs. When we subsidize investment programs abroad whose effect is to destroy the local culture, then we are also destroying our culture. We should perhaps establish as a principle that any given culture belongs to everyone. In such a case, the same would apply to heritage.

We must therefore set out as a basic principle that the State does not contribute to the impoverishment but rather to the enrichment of cultural heritage.

The Chairman: Thank you. I think it would be interesting to ask members of our audience who have been very patient and attentive whether they have anything to say or whether they have questions for our panellists...

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

...our study.

Ms. Roberta Anne Capelovitch (individual presentation): Good afternoon. My name is Roberta Capelovitch. I am a student. Museology is not my field but I'd like to join with the speaker who asked for a significant increase in the resources made available to exhibitions devoted to Canadian history. Although they may be controversial in some quarters, I think that is all the more reason to organize such exhibitions. There are exhibitions on American history, on the atomic bomb or on Freud and they may give rise to controversy. In my view, I think we need a lot more of these exhibitions along with Internet sites. There's a big difference between reading a book or seeing a movie and going to a museum where you can see how soldiers lived or how things really took place; I think it's very important.

• 1720

The Chairman: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak before we conclude this meeting?

Yes, Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'd like to comment briefly on what we have heard. I'd like to thank all of those who have taken part in this round table this afternoon.

This exchange has brought to my attention certain avenues I've not yet had an opportunity to reflect on. I think that the content of this meeting has been very rich and I would like to say how sad I am about the experience of people in Newfoundland organizing an exhibition on Vikings to commemorate the Millennium of their arrival in Labrador and on requesting artifacts from our national museum and the museum in Sweden, they were offered these objects free from Sweden but our national museum made them pay.

Those of you are responsible for the museum association perhaps might find a way of ensuring that we do not have a user pay policy for artifacts that have been acquired with taxpayers' money. Mr. Mark was the chair of the committee and Mr. Blais as well as our committee clerk were present at that meeting. I must say it was a shock for us. I hope you'll be able to do something about it. You may have more power than we do in that field.

A voice: No, not at all.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Sometimes lobbies are more successful. We did take good note of this and we'll attempt to do something through our chairman. We may also write to Ms. Copps to make her aware of this kind of practice. It's rather humiliating to see that Sweden will lend these objects free of charge when Canada make people of Newfoundland or elsewhere in the country pay.

The Chairman: Before concluding this meeting, I'd like to echo Ms. Tremblay's remarks. I found this afternoon's discussion very stimulating. It was an excellent round table for us. It gave us all sorts of new ideas. This afternoon discussion focused less on concrete daily problems, that have often been discussed, than on the whole question of quality, fundamental values, vision for the future etc., in other words all the values related to promoting culture and conservation in general.

I'd like to come back to what Ms. Lelièvre said. When we conserve something, we also transmit it, the two go together.

It think it has been a very interesting meeting for us and it has given us all sort of leads. Mr. Blais has filled several pages. He has been writing a blue streak. He'll have to decipher all that later. Of course we also have a transcript of the proceedings and we'll be able to consult it as well.

We'd like to thank you for taking the trouble to come and enlighten us with your views. Thanks to all of you.

[English]

Thank you very much to all of you.

[Translation]

The meeting is adjourned.